[Publius Valerius]

They were never intended or meant to allow people to simply take the legal property of others under the guise and color of law.

That was exactly the purpose of it. The purpose of the law is to ensure that a scare resource--land--is actually used for a beneficial purpose. Here, the owners sat on their thumbs for twenty years while someone else used the land. Guess they shouldn't have waited twenty years to build.

[Minuteman23]

All of you who have been talking about the Kirlins sitting on their thumbs for 20 years, did you read Joanie's reply #115 (apparently backed up by many of their neighbors--a fact that spunkets doesn't include in his excerpts from court proceedings, and he says that he only cited relevant portions)??????????

They apparently DID NOT sit on their thumbs for 20 years, and claims that they did are bogus.

[cva66snipe]

That was exactly the purpose of it. The purpose of the law is to ensure that a scare resource--land--is actually used for a beneficial purpose. Here, the owners sat on their thumbs for twenty years while someone else used the land. Guess they shouldn't have waited twenty years to build.

Oh Good Grief. My parents are middle class and they owned their land for over 20 years they currently live on before building a home. Yea people used the land. They used it to walk the creek bank and fish and some hunted on it as well. Finally their monetary situation allowed them to build a home now worth about $200,000 or $30,000 back in 1968.

Who are you to tell anyone how soon they should build? The land I live on was owned and untouched for ten years before I finally got the funds to build on. Lucky for me it's land that no scumbag would likely take as it is a steep ridge side. But then again there is greedy trash among us these days who would love to grab anyone elses property they didn't pay for by any means possible. Such trash as that usually preys on the elderly as well. They call themselves caretakers of the land wink wink.

[Jeff Head]

This whole episode is Bravo Sierra from my perspective, plain and simple. Certified.

The legal purchasers and owners were keeping this land against the day when older that they could build on it. The theives were using it, tresspassing without permission and are now invoking this law so they can not only take the land for themselves, but keep these people who paid for the land, and who maintained their taxes on it for all those years (which, from the government's perspective should be construed and considered as productive...much more production for that land than what they have not gotten from the other party), from building on it.

These interlopers have not used it productively from a societal standpoint in the least and everyone knows it...they have tresspassed for their own purposes and interests and now a colleague is rewarding that tresspass with ownership, taking abject advantage of good people who were simply naive and unknowledgable about this law...something officers of the court by creed and ethical code are not supposed to do. (As if that mattered a whit these days...shameful)

It is a foul thing, it is an immoral thing, and it has nothing to do whatsoever with the public good or the productive use of land.

The people who bought it and were saving it for their retirement and ultimate home are the ones who have exhibited not only much more responsibility for that land, but have also done so in a wholly legal and upright manner...irespective of their being taken advantage of. To somehow paint their efforts and interest in this land as the "wrong" is simply turning the entire episode and affair completely upside down.

All legaleze aside, this is a plain, simple, straightforward wrong and "taking" as in theft to anyone applying common sense and conventional moral foundation to the episode rather than legaleze which would color outright theft as legal.

I will continue to contact anyone I can to try and help these people and right this wrong.