Skip to comments.Government of, by and for the Privileged
Posted on 11/25/2007 6:31:07 PM PST by joanie-f
click here to read article
1. An agreement to perform together an illegal, wrongful, or subversive act.
2. A group of conspirators.
3. Law An agreement between two or more persons to commit a crime or accomplish a legal purpose through illegal action.
4. A joining or acting together, as if by sinister design:
a conspiracy of wind and tide that devastated coastal areas.
I would think that with public sentiment riding so high against McLean/Stevens, the best they can do to save their tattered reputations and avoid criminal charges is to give back the land to Don and Susie. Instead Stevens wants an additional 9 inches. What unmitigated gall. They would steal the whole plat if they could get away with it. After all, they are confident, who is going to stop them. If Hillary becomes President they may try to steal the whole neighborhood.
The U.S. Attorney for Colorado is Troy Eid, and he's a Republican.
You forgot to mention that, in order to add more injury to the insult that was added to the injury, they have asked for another ruling from the presiding judge that the costs of their entire lawsuit be paid for by the Kirlins, something in the 6 figures.
They are probably waiting for that ruling to be issued, because they need the $$ to fund their next lawsuit, which will likely be against the Kirlin's remaining lot, the one next to the lot just split up. They're probably coaching their impartial, reliable, credible, independent witnesses (their daughter, etc) to testify that a newly appearing path on the other lot is actually Spot's path (they already used "Edie's Path" and "Dick's Path"), and that many parties thrown for the elite set of the Boulder County Democratic Party were located there for 25 years now. Like before, they won't be able to locate a single photo of those parties, either. But what difference does it make, when the sitting judge is sure to be another crony of yours, and is going to toe the line if he ever wants to someday follow the same path as ex-judge Maclean and ex-judge Marsha Yeager and grab large chunks of neighbor's property.
I didn't know things were that bad in N. Carolina. Usually all of the very worst new ideas touted by the Left start in California and move eastwards. Hopefully this gigantic legal mess in NC that John "Pretty Boy" Edwards did so much to create, will only move eastwards as well.
There is no criminal conspiracy when the action is legal and all the players are part of the due process of law.
"The U.S. Attorney for Colorado is Troy Eid, and he's a Republican."
There's nothing he can do.
"I would think that with public sentiment riding so high against McLean/Stevens, the best they can do to save their tattered reputations and avoid criminal charges is to give back the land to Don and Susie."
There is no criminal charge possible. Neither the judge, nor the other judge committed any crime.
"I doubt that b*st*rd would have paid Don $1.00 in "rent" even if he asked. Don tried to be reasonable in offering 5 feet of his property to him and even that wasn't good enough. At that point the agenda and plot to steal was pretty obvious.
The offer of 5ft of property was made, because Kirlin knew he had no case. See, you don't offer a thief stuff when they have no power over you. That's not a reasonable thing to do at all. In this case, Kirlin was stuck with his pants down for ~20yrs, and an incompetent atty. Since it was reported the value of the lot was around $1M and Kirlin's atty got ~100K, I think the incompetent atty that took 10% is a thief also.
The rent part was a caution for anyone reading the post. Kirlin should have given McLean and Stevens a cease and desist order, then had them arrested for trespassing. Oh, I see, they couldn't do that, because CO law allows folks to trespass for the very reason McLean claimed. So, the Kirlin's couldn't object, but they would have generated police reports which would have prevented this nonsense. ...just thinking out loud.
It was reasonable for Kirlin to assume that his title was good and the State of CO would honor it. I think when Kirlin obtained the land from the developer, he had a survey and obtained title insurance on it. The only warning an ordinary reasonable man receives regarding the purchase and maintenance of property, are lead paint and noxious weed brochures. It is generally common knowledge that one is responsible to keep the property free from nuisances, but adverse possession is not common knowledge at all. It is pretty much restricted to real estate folks, some rural folks and the legal community. CO law holds that all are given sufficient notice of the law once it's published, however that refers to criminal law, not real estate law.
The fact that the Kirlin had hired an atty to handle the original buy and that most folks do, indicates that to the avg person, this law is over their heads. Since most folks consider ownership of simple plots, to be built on later a valid use and legally it is. Judge Klein erred in deciding McLean's and Steven's use was exclusive.
I doubt the Kirlin's present atty has the capacity to mount a successful appeal. The law as it stands does nothing to promote safety and welfare and does in fact stand in stack opposition to the justification of all law that it promotes good moral order. There is nothing moral about the State blessing covetousness and theft.
Then the correct decision would have been to decide the case in favor of the Kirlins, right?
I doubt the Kirlin's present atty has the capacity to mount a successful appeal.
Do you think a good attorney would get Klein's errant ruling overturned on appeal?
The Kirlins paid their property taxes on both lots each year.
The Kirlins walked by the property weekly.
The Kirlins paid their HOA assessments on the lots when due.
The Kirlins did weed control on the lots when required.
The Kirlins maintained the fences at the back (North) end of each lot when the HOA required it.
But the lawyers on FR would have us believe that in spite of all this, the Kirlins just "sat on their hands for 20 years".
Apparently because neither of them had bothered to get a law degree, which would have given them detailed arcane knowledge about 15th century laws that have never been abolished, knowledge that would have protected them from any predatory lawyers who happened to be next door neighbors.
BOTTOM LINE: The Kirlins got what they deserved, by choosing other career paths, while their neighbors chose law.
Legal definition of Conspiracy
Conspiracy. A combination or confederacy between two or more persons formed for the purpose of committing, by their joint efforts, some unlawful or criminal act, or some act which is lawful in itself, but becomes unlawful when done by the concerted action of the conspirators, or for the purpose of using criminal or unlawful means to the commission of an act not in itself unlawful.
Seems Judge Klein woke up from his crony-and-corruption-induced coma.
No word yet on whether the Kirlins are still liable for their legal fees.
Does that mean Judge Klein erred in deciding the case against the Kirlins?
If so, then why wouldn't it be overturned on appeal?
If not, would you explain why Judge Klein made the correct decision, despite the errant ruling on exclusive use?
Not from what I've read, no. It seems that the previous owners didn't use the land and never even inspected it during the period of time during which McLean claimed possession. I think it was an important admission when the previous owners testified that they never walked the property.
And why should they be expected to walk every square inch of their property? They strolled right by it on the sidewalk at least once a week, on their way to the open space trail just beyond. While walking past it, they could see most of the lot, except for areas obstructed by vegetation on the lot (or hanging over onto the lot from predatory neighbors' trees). And this is somehow supposed to amount to negligence? Gimme a break!
When they did occasionally step off the sidewalk, it was to visit their other lot, the adjoining one to the west. That was the lot they planned to build their dream home on, with the sale of the other (judicially butchered) lot to finance the construction. And they weren't walking on it to "inspect" it either. Rather, they were envisioning how their future home would look on the lot.
What were they supposed to worry about? That their lot would rust away, being left in the open? That its transmission was in danger if oil didn't get changed? They thought by faithfully paying all taxes and HOA dues, and obeying all laws and HOA rules about lot maintenance - eg weed control and fence repairs - that they were doing every single thing correctly to protect their lot. And anyone watching them would have thought so too.
Or at least, any pair of eyes watching them from a location other than from underneath a rock.
They did nothing that would be obviously wrong or even remotely suspiciously wrong, in the eyes of any average (non-lawyer) homeowner.
I think the obvious lesson to be learned from this travesty is the following:
Most localities now have a variety of laws aimed at protecting homeowners. For instance, they must be informed if they're in a floodplain, or on an earthquake fault, or on radon-saturated soil, and they must be warned if a sexual predator moves into the neighborhood, thus posing a grave danger to their children.
Obviously this needs to be expanded. Homeowners should be warned if a lawyer moves into the neighborhood, thus posing a grave danger to their property.
PS: The landgrabber.org owners need to start a website honoring the Judge Klines of this world as well. I propose www.judicialbutchers.org
Given what happened here, is this a serious question?
I think the obvious lesson to be learned from this travesty is the following:
"be a good steward of your land." If the previous owners had done so, this mess would have been avoided.
The average homeowner, including myself and virtually every single neighbor I know, consider it good manners and neighborliness to wave and smile and say how do you do when they see neighbors crossing over a corner of, or down the edge of, their lot. They would never dream that that neighbor poses a threat to the ownership of their property,
But like I say, I am only talking about the average human being who happens to be a homeowner.
You are deluding yourself if you think "average human being" and "average lawyer" are equatable.
I guess the real problem here is that the public as a whole is miserably failing to appreciate the ever increasing danger that the privileged members of the Legal Elite Caste pose to Americans, both collectively and individually.
First of all, these owners would not had to have known anything about the law if they simply would have been better stewards of their property and actually walked it one time in the twenty years they owned it.
Second, I don't know that I would call property law that pre-dates the American Revolution to be a "hidden loophole." I agree that there are probably a whole lot of people that are woefully ignorant, not just of this law, but lots of others, too. But we don't legislate to the lowest common denominator. It's bad policy.
With land ownership comes responsibility. One of those responsibilities is being knowledgeable of the law that governs your land.
I know it's not kosher to reply to yourself, but re-reading that line reminds me of a great little news blurb I read long ago.
The reporter discovered that research scientists have been increasingly replacing laboratory rats with lawyers in their experiments. The main reasons for doing this are as follows:
They did step on the land occasionally. And that's a moot point anyway, because Kleine Judge quoted precedents in his ruling that the trespassing didn't have to be continuous, and could be occasionally interrupted by the owners coming to visit.
They were "good stewards" of their property, as evidence by the many actions we've been repeating to you endlessly but you still fail to grasp.
Purely and simply, they got the shaft because the pair of lawyer-vultures perched in the trees next door knew how to creatively apply arcane laws in ways they were never originally meant to be applied.
I don't know that I would call property law that pre-dates the American Revolution to be a "hidden loophole."
It's an arcane law from the 15 c or 16th c. It's effective "hidden" because nobody other than lawyers (and now Boulder residents who bother to read the local paper) would reasonably know about this mostly forgotten law. And like tons of other centuries old laws, such as it being legal to drive a herd of sheep down the main street of your city between certain hours of the day, it just has never gotten repealed.
But unlike other obsolete laws which haven't been exercised in centuries, this obsolete law is far too useful as a bludgeon in the hands of the Legal Elite Class to prey on their neighbors, and so they will never give it up.
No doubt the Kirlin's thought they were just being "good neighbors" by not acting like asinine jerks towards anyone coming near their lot, and by trying to let it blend in with the Boulder Open Space adjacent to it. What they didn't know is that it can be fatal to be nice to a pair of vulture neighbors.
It is totally reprehensible for you to label them as "ignorant" and irresponsible and "lowest common denominator". You've sunk as low as the lawyers on this thread, from what I see.
That depends. If you classify the legal class as the "lowest common denominator" (as in "bottom feeders" perhaps?), then yes, the powers-that-be DO "legislate to them," by filling the lawbooks amply with all kinds of weapons and tools intended for use only by lawyers to stock their arsenal with, once they have selected a nice fat juicy prey to go after.
" Does that mean Judge Klein erred in deciding the case against the Kirlins?
Klein's err amounts to denying the validity of holding title to land for investment and future building purposes. It's the triers of fact, judges, that are to determine things, and there's prior case law behind his ruling. The important part that needs to be determined is to what extent concurrent use effects the main consideration that is the physical use of the land by the adverse possessor and the requiremnt that they be open and notorious in their use and that remains unchallenged. Simply acknowledging concurrent use here does nothing to change the fact that adverse use occurred and remained unchallenged, because the 2 uses do not occur in a fashion that would cause conflicting use. Kirlin acted as the traditional absentee landlord.
"Do you think a good attorney would get Klein's errant ruling overturned on appeal?"
Kirlin has a problem with the fact that he allowed Klein to use the land for ~25 years. Kirlin appears in a flick where the camera scans the plot. In addition to the trails, it shows use along the border of the plots. Kirlin ignored those signs in testimony to the court, where he said he relied on the legal description and didn't know where the boundry was on the real property. That's a no no. The camera work also conspicuously avoided pointing out and elaborating on those areas.
I think a successful appeal must focus on contradictory elements of CO law and how some particular elements are repugnant to the CO Constitution and the moral ends of the whole body of law itself. The particulars of this case are only relevant to how they fit in to the above analysis and how petty use such as Klien's overrides the common, widespread and significant use contained in the investment and building real estate markets.
" The Kirlins paid their property taxes on both lots each year. The Kirlins walked by the property weekly. The Kirlins paid their HOA assessments on the lots when due. The Kirlins did weed control on the lots when required. The Kirlins maintained the fences at the back (North) end of each lot when the HOA required it.
All irrelevant. The Kirlins had a duty to know where their property lines were in fact, and to enforce them. They failed to do that.
"Apparently because neither of them had bothered to get a law degree"
"which would have given them detailed arcane knowledge about 15th century laws that have never been abolished"
"BOTTOM LINE: The Kirlins got what they deserved, by choosing other career paths, while their neighbors chose law."
Ridiculous. WHat does it take to look at the survey and note where the boundaries are when they bought the plot. How does he know, that he didn't but the middle of the street, or that what he bought didn't already have a house on it? Besides that, it would have taken what, 15 mins to quiz McLane about the encroachments and tell him to remedy the sit and cease and desist.
Klein should have been McLean in that post where appropriate.
Just for fun, I ran a Westlaw search for "adverse possession" in cases decided the last ten years. I got 3754 hits. It hasn't been exercised in centuries?
It is totally reprehensible for you to label them as "ignorant" and irresponsible
It's an apt description. They were ignorant of the law. I really just fail to see how you can describe them any other way. Irresponsible is a closer question, but I would contend that owning a piece of property and not having walked it in 20 years of ownership is pretty close to irresponsible.
Those are separate issues that probably scares the hell out of those defending their 'letter of the law' actions. Please--no one is buying that--certainly not a jury of commoners like you and me.
I look forward to the rule of law prevailing--in criminal court.
No, we got your point the first time, and we agree --- the two crony judges are interchangeable. Good point.
No. That's not what my post said. I said that this obsolete law is different than those other obsolete laws - most of which haven't been applied in centuries. I speculated that unlike the other obsolete laws, this one will NOT be allowed to "Rest In Peace" because it is too useful a weapon for predator lawyers. And as we have seen twice in Boulder already this year, two retired judges (read "lawyers") - Marsha Yeagar and Dick McNotSoClean - have both preyed on innocent neighbors.
Or perhaps I should change "innocent" to "ignorant"? - the apparently preferred term that lawyers reserve for their nonlawyer victims who have blatantly, egregiously, willfully failed to obtain even the most minimal law degree, or even a simple degree in surveying, and are therefore Getting What They Deserve.
Your post is an excellent firsthand example of what the "lawyer class" is doing to America, in every aspect of our society. I wish all Americans could read it and be forced to write a 1,000 word essay on what they think the long term results of these kinds of illogical lawsuits are.
Thanks for putting it all down in black and white for at least those of us here to read.