If you would like to add a comment to any of the threads here on AADB, registration with blogspot.com is not required. Simply click on the ‘comments’ link at the bottom of an essay, and either enter a nickname under ‘choose an identity’ or post your comment anonymously. Serious comments are always welcome.

REQUIEM

Below are the two final essays to be posted on Allegiance and Duty Betrayed. The first one is written by a friend -- screen name 'Euro-American Scum' -- who, over the past four years, has been the most faithful essayist here. He has written about everything from his pilgrimage to Normandy in 2004 to take part in the 60th–year commemoration of the invasion, to his memories of his tour in Vietnam. His dedication to America’s founding principles ... and those who have sacrificed to preserve them over the past 200+ years ... is unequaled. Thank you, E-A-S. It has been a privilege to include your writing here, and it is a privilege to call you my friend.

The second essay is my own farewell. And with it I thank all of the many regular visitors, and those who may have only dropped in occasionally, for coming here. I hope you learned something. I hope a seed or two was planted. But, even if not, I thank you for stopping by ... 25 March, 2010

11/23/2007

Government of, by, and for the Privileged

don_kirlin.jpg
Don Kirlin of Boulder, Colorado

The whisper of revolution has been in the air for quite some time now, and it's becoming more audible, at least among the ever-shrinking minority known as 'informed Americans'.

It’s not only local, state and federal governments that are stealing our land from us, under the (completely convoluted from its original intent) right of ‘eminent domain’. The so-called legal/justice system is using all manner of wicked precedent to commit major, obscene private land grabs as well … all such crimes tracing back to a desire for more wealth and power on the part of those who already wield more than you or I.

Before inserting the precious words ‘life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness’ into the Declaration, our Founders seriously considered using the wording ‘life, liberty and property’ (as originated by John Locke). I believe the latter to be a more powerful representation of our inalienable rights, but apparently the modern American government/judicial system vehemently disagrees with either expression.

Not sure whether you’re yet familiar with the plight of the Kirlin family of Boulder, Colorado. If not, get ready to spit nails.

Don and Susie Kirlin own a lucrative business in which they acquire foreign fighter jets from around the world to sell to wealthy aviation enthusiasts and to help train U.S. Navy pilots. Wired magazine ran a 2005 profile of Don Kirlin entitled, 'Building Your Own Air Force, One Mig at a Time'. Kirlin enjoys a reputation among aviators, both private and military, because of his collection of foreign fighter jets, which he often uses in training missions in co-operation with the U.S. Navy.

Don and his wife, Susie, own a vacant lot, worth roughly a million dollars in today’s market, on the outskirts of Boulder, Colorado. They purchased it about twenty years ago with the idea of eventually building their retirement home there. It is located just down the road from their current home, they walk by the land regularly, and have been paying taxes on it faithfully for the past two decades.

Unfortunately for the Kirlins the couple that owns a home adjacent to their lot consists of a county judge, Richard McLean, and his wife, Edith Stevens, who is also an attorney. It seems that this ambitious couple has been using a portion of the Kirlins’ land to occasionally hold their own private parties, and, in doing so, they have also created worn pathways through portions of that land.

As a result, McLean and Stevens have invoked the doctrine of ‘adverse possession’, which allows a citizen to claim another’s property simply by virtue of using it for a specified period of time, in order to declare one third of the Kirlins’ land as their own.

When the Kirlins attempted to build a fence on a portion of their vacant land before beginning construction on it, McLean and Stevens had a restraining order issued against them, stating that, since they had been using the land themselves for some time, they had become ‘attached’ to it. The restraining order was issued within a few hours of their request for it. Apparently the wheels of justice move at lighting speed, if the person requesting the moving has the right connections.

As if the preceding weren’t evidence in itself of unmitigated chutzpah, McLean and Stevens are not only claiming to ‘own’ a large portion of the land in question (without ever having paid a penny for it, or any of the taxes incumbent in its ownership), they are also asking the court to rule that the Kirlins must pay any legal fees that they incur in order to achieve this particular theft.

Thus, as is becoming increasingly common in Amerika 2007, two people in power have decided to use a corrupt system to steal from someone else of lesser political stature -- in this case, out in the open, and without conscience or remorse.

Needless to say, the Kirlins are appealing the ruling (and amassing large, and no doubt growing, legal fees in the process). But I wouldn’t be taking any bets on their success. ‘Fighting city hall’ is fast becoming an empty phrase anymore, because the concepts of government of, by and for the people -- originally made possible by public servants who value individual rights more than government power -- is fast heading for extinction, as corruption, greed, and lust for power achieve a momentum that has become virtually relentless and unstoppable. Not to mention the fact that both the eighth (re: coveting) and tenth (re: stealing) of the Ten Commandments have essentially been declared null and void.

This case vividly portrays the battle between the average American citizen and our modern American 'ruling elite'.

That elite is gaining an increasingly strong foothold in the fabric of our society, and robbing you and me of our individual liberties (among them, the Constitutionally-guaranteed right to private property) daily.

But too many of us are more interested in the comfort of our couches, and the proximity of our remote controls, than we are in the plight of the likes of the Kirlins -- victims of a system gone awry.

How many of us who have read this account have done anything at all to see that justice is done -- even if our action only involves forwarding our own synopsis of it to as many people as we know?

I don't know the answer to that, but I do know that, unless we start giving a damn about the abuses that our neighbors suffer under tyrannical government dictates, those abuses will someday affect us, and there will be nobody left who can turn the tragedy around.

The only difference between appeasement and surrender is the passage of time.

Contact information for Boulder, and Colorado state, officials (thanks to John Cooper) can be found here.

~ joanie

91 comments:

marcus aurelius said...

Sickening, disgusting.....and becoming more and more common.

Anonymous said...

‘Fighting city hall’ is fast becoming an empty phrase anymore, because the concepts of government of, by and for the people -- originally made possible by public servants who value individual rights more than government power -- is fast heading for extinction, as corruption, greed, and lust for power achieve a momentum that has become virtually relentless and unstoppable. Not to mention the fact that both the eighth (re: coveting) and tenth (re: stealing) of the Ten Commandments have essentially been declared null and void.

You can say that again.

johnsteever said...

The Kelo vs. New London decision made national headlines. But these kinds of land grabs are happening every day all across the country, and they are more and more out in the open every day. The Founders must be crying.

Anonymous said...

Government of, by and for the wealthy will soon perish from the earth.

Max Shapiro said...

The arrogance of government knows no bounds.

John Cooper said...

Around these parts, the McLean's house would mysteriously burn down one night.

daveburkett said...

Around these parts, the McLean's house would mysteriously burn down one night.

You must live in a rural part of a red state. I envy you.

Spot on essay Joanie, and I like your take on the two commandments.

danthemangottschall said...

Well said C.W.

trustbutverify said...

Arrogant greedy bastards.

All_good_men said...

First we had eminent domain as a way to steal land. Now we have adverse
possession. What next-outright land grabbing at the barrel of a gun? Its the same thing.

john galt said...

I wonder how the McLeans spent yesterday - giving thanks or plotting their next crime. Human slime doesn't tend to recognize their blessings but is always looking for ways to get more.

John Cooper said...

daveburkett:

Plenty of lots for sale here in West Carolina. I'd be glad to have you as a neighbor. Here where I live, neither I nor my neighbors bother to lock their houses - it's not been necessary (so far).

My friend "M" says that the law is essentially a peace treaty, which makes sense to me. Good laws, honestly enforced, make vigilante justice unnecessary.

These days, though, citizen justice may be coming back into vogue out of necessity.

kathymlynczak said...

http://www.dailycamera.com/news/2007/nov/21/kirlins-ethical-complaint-rejected/

The Colorado Supreme Court's Attorney Regulation Counsel has rejected a south Boulder couple's request that the state investigate their neighbors — a former judge and attorney — for ethical misconduct in a land dispute.

(It looks like the Kirlins aren’t having much success.)

SharonGold said...

God bless what used to be America. He may as well ignore this one because it isn't even related to the other.

stonemason said...

Scary scary stuff. From what I read in another article, the Kirlins' neighbors are holding picnics, etc. to gather support. But that's about all we average citizens can do, and in the end it counts for nothing. The elite will do whatever they want anyway.

Anonymous said...

"As if the preceding weren’t evidence in itself of unmitigated chutzpah, the McLeans are not only claiming to ‘own’ a large portion of the land in question (without ever having paid a penny for it, or any of the taxes incumbent in its ownership), they are also asking the court to rule that the Kirlins must pay any legal fees that they incur in order to achieve this particular theft."

The privilege of the elite class is now "in your face," completely overt, and "what are you going to do about it?"

As I see it, we have two choices: serfdom or revolution.

John Cooper said...

Video of the lot and the Kirlans at Kirlin's Lost Land

John Cooper said...

Legal land grab should be overturned on appeal, an editorial in the Denver Post.

"Land-use lawyers tell us the adverse possession doctrine involves fairly difficult legal tests including using the land in an observable, open and notorious way, uninterrupted for many years."

"The legal issues probably will be hashed out over the next few years. In the meantime, the Kirlins are left with mounting legal fees and a lot they say is too small to build on. As the legal process drags on, appellate judges will have a chance to right this egregious wrong. We hope they take it."

cw-patriot said...

John,

Many thanks for posting the link to the video of the Kirlins explaining their plight.

It describes, more vividly than anything that has been written here, the battle between the average American citizen and our modern American 'ruling elite'.

That elite is gaining an increasingly strong foothold in the fabric of our society, and robbing you and me of our individual liberties (among them, the Constitutionally-guaranteed right to private property) daily.

But too many of us are more interested in the comfort of our couches, and the proximity of our remote controls, than we are in the plight of the likes of the Kirlins -- victims of a system gone awry.

How many of us who have read this account have done anything at all to see that justice is done -- even if our action only involves forwarding our own synopsis of it to as many people as we know?

I don't know the answer to that, but I do know that, unless we start giving a damn about the abuses that our neighbors suffer under tyrannical government dictates, those abuses will someday affect us, and there will be nobody left who can turn the tragedy around.

The only difference between appeasement and surrender is the passage of time.

~ joanie

Anonymous said...

The only difference between appeasement and surrender is the passage of time.

Tell that to the anti-war folk.

John Cooper said...

More details at Boulder couple accuses former judge, mayor of land grab

Be sure to read the comments. One way or another, this land grab will not stand.

John Cooper said...

The citizens with pitchforks and torches are already gathering outside the McLean-Stevens house.

Hard feelings on Hardscrabble Drive (more video and photos)

Land Ruling Protest Draws Hundreds

"Anger over a land dispute case came to the doorstep of a prominent Boulder couple who have been accused of exploiting an obscure concept in property law to seize a swath of land next to their home.

More than 200 people holding signs that read, "Thou shall not covet, thou shall not steal" and, "You'll never enjoy a stolen view" gathered Sunday on Hardscrabble Drive in south Boulder to condemn Richard McLean, a former district court judge and former Boulder mayor, and his wife, Edith Stevens, for taking possession of a portion of two vacant lots that have belonged to Don and Susie Kirlin for nearly a quarter of a century.

...Several protesters yelled "shame" and "thief" at McLean and Stevens as they drove away from their home shortly before the rally began at noon.

One woman stepped up to the car's passenger side window and yelled, "How can you live with yourself?"

Seconds later, Kevin Callahan, of Boulder, said his arm was swiped by McLean with his Toyota Prius in his hurry to get away from the crowd."

~~~~~

Let's see...two lawyers, living in Boulder, different last names, driving a Prius... Ya' think the McLeans/Stevens couple might be democrats?

Oh, well, here it is. Edith Stevens was elected chairwoman of the Boulder County Democrats [1981]. Richard "Dick" McLean elected chairman of the Boulder County Democrats in October 1966. He would serve as its chairman for two years, and in the summer of 1968 was selected to be the McCarthy floor leader at the State Democratic Assembly — seeking a Colorado delegation to the Chicago convention that would support Sen. Eugene McCarthy's bid for the U.S. presidency.

There's no democrats like old democrats.

calbrindisi said...

Exellent research, Cooper. When I have more time (after the holiday weekend) I intend to do my own part to voice my disapproval.

John Cooper said...

Apparently, Daily Camera has a "five free peeks" policy. If the links above stop working for you, delete the browser cookie for dailycamera.com and it will start working again.

John Cooper said...

Contact Information for officials representing Boulder, CO.

You know what to do.

cw-patriot said...

Thanks, John, for your very valuable research! I've added the contact link to the body of the essay, and I intend to e-mail the commissioners, senators, and congressmen before the night is over. I urge others to do so as well.

robmaroni said...

I intend to e-mail the commissioners, senators, and congressmen before the night is over. I urge others to do so as well.

Will be done from this location too.

daveburkett said...

Likewise.

Lori_Gmeiner said...

When you, Joanie or John, send your emails, will you please post their content here, just for the record? Thanks!

John Cooper said...

Here's another contact:

Office of the State Court Aministrator
1301 Pennsylvania St. Ste. 300
Denver, CO 80203
303-861-1111 800-888-0001

The judge that stole the Kirlin's property was a part-timer on the district court. His main expertise was workman's compensation law.

Honorable [?] James C. Klein

"Judge Klein is a fourth generation Colorado native. He attended the University of Colorado in Boulder where he received his Bachelor of Arts degree in 1979, and where he completed two years of work towards a Master’s degree in Public Policy Analysis before being accepted to law school at the University of Denver College of Law in 1984. Judge Klein was awarded his Juris Doctorate degree from the University of Denver in 1987, and was admitted to the practice of law in Colorado in 1988. After a brief stint in general private practice, Judge Klein joined the Colorado Attorney General’s office as an Assistant Attorney General where his practice focused primarily on workers’ compensation and unemployment insurance related matters. In 1994, Judge Klein was hired by the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment, Division of Workers’ Compensation to serve as a Prehearing Administrative Law Judge in its’ Dispute Resolution Unit. In September of 2002, Judge Klein was hired by the Colorado Department of Personnel and Administration to serve as an Administrative Law Judge in its’ Workers’ Compensation Unit. Judge Klein joins the 20th Judicial District on a civil rotation that is primarily oriented to civil and domestic disputes."

~~~~~

Appointed by Gov. Bill Owens on July 1, 2005, "The initial term of office for a district court judge is a provisional term of two years, after which the incumbent must stand for retention to serve an additional six years. The annual salary for this position is $107,044."

What does "stand for retention" mean? A vote of the people? Would that be this coming November, by chance?

John Cooper said...

Ahhh, yes, the good judge Klein is up for "retention" in 2008, according to a comment in The great Boulder land grab in Rocky Mountain News. The comments following the article are precious. One example:

~~~~~

1. Why should McLean and his wife be able to say they are more “attached” to the land vs the Kirlins whose dream it is a part of?
2. Why did McLean decide on this course of action AFTER the Kirlins drew up house plans? [My opinion is because their view of the mountains was going to get blocked.]
3. What happened to purchasing land as an investment? So, in your ruling, are you implying that if you buy land now, you have to build on it to keep it? It seems like the Kirlins are being punished for having the foresight to buying the land years ago, even though they couldn’t afford then to build the house.
4. Why should the Kirlins have to pay the court fees for McLean, in the original filing? This would only make sense in subsequent appeals by the Kirlins.
5. Do you know McLean? If so, why didn’t you recluse yourself from this case?
6. Why are your rewarding McLean and his wife for trespassing and modification, rather than prosecuting them for it?
7. Why aren’t you charging McLean for both rent and restitution given they admit to willfully using and modifying someone else’s property?
8. If ruling in favor of McLean, is he going to pay the Kirlins back all the taxes they paid during the years he admits to using their property?

Max Shapiro said...

Thank you for the heads up. I will be writing to most of the people included in the link. This is an outrage.

John Cooper said...

Here's a good letter from Landgrabber.org (Kirlin's website)

Minuteman23 said...

This is an outrage. I'll be using the links to send an email just as soon as I settle down enough to do it.

Jeff Head said...

Just sent the following email to each of those listed...the County Commissioners and the State Legislators:

Boulder County Commissioners and Colorado State Legislators

To whom it may concern,

I am writing you in reference to a situation on the outskirts of Boulder, Colorado concerning Don and Susie Kirlin and the lot they have owned for 20 years and have faithfully paid taxes on.

Don and Susie own this lot, worth roughly a million dollars in today’s market, on the outskirts of Boulder. They purchased it about twenty years ago with the idea of eventually building a home there. It is located just down the road from their current home, they walk by the land regularly, and, to my understanding, they have been paying taxes on it faithfully the entire time.

Unfortunately for the Kirlins the couple that owns a home adjacent to their lot consists of a county judge, Richard McLean, and his wife, Edith Stevens, who is also an attorney. McLean and Stevens have been active, and powerful, in Boulder County politics for decades. It seems that this couple has been using a portion of the Kirlins’ land to occasionally hold their own private parties, and, in doing so, they have also created worn pathways through portions of that land.

It also would appear that these two believe that, if the Kirlins build a home on the land they purchased for just that reason, the view of the surrounding landscape from their own home would be diminished.

When the Kirlins attempted to build a fence on a portion of their vacant land before beginning construction on it, McLean and Stevens had a restraining order issued against them, stating that, since they had been using the land themselves for some time, they had become ‘attached’ to it and they are claiming it as their own. The restraining order was issued within a few hours of their request for it. Apparently the wheels of justice move at lighting speed, if the person requesting the moving has the right connections.

As a result, McLean and Stevens have invoked the doctrine of ‘adverse possession’, which allows a citizen to claim another’s property simply by virtue of using it for a specified period of time, in order to declare one third of the Kirlins’ land as their own. A Boulder judge has ordered the Kirlins to hand over to McLean and Stevens one-third of their land, which will result in their no longer owning sufficient land on which to construct not only their dream home but any home at all.

This is a travesty and an outrage, and should not be allowed to stand. It is nothing short of theft under the color and guise of law and, in my opinion, no honest judge should have ever entertained such a self-serving motion that clearly wrests and corrupts a law to the personal gain of these individuals.

Please use whatever influence and capabilities you may have under the law to ensure that this travesty is reversed and that the Kirlins are reinstated in full as the rightful and legal owners of thos property that they have bought and paid for and maintained for so many years.

I know I do not reside in your area, but I view this as an issue that should concern all Americans. If it can occur there, it can occur here, and as such, I intend to contact everyone I know and bring this issue to the attention of lawmakers, policy makers, government officials, and the media in an effort to get it the attention it deserves and to turn back what I consider to be an abject abuse of the system and travesty.

Sincerely,

Jeff Head
Emmett, Idaho

Anonymous said...

I am really puzzled as to how this could have been ruled a case of adverse possession. From what I understand, in order for land to be claimed under adverse possession, the claimant must have maintained the land for a specified period of time and must also have paid the taxes on it (which would mean that the actual owners did not). Neither of those conditions seems to have been met here, so either something is missing from this story or the judge is deeply corrupt.

Emails sent.

Anonymous said...

Thus, as is becoming increasingly common in Amerika 2007, ... people in power have decided to use a corrupt system to steal from someone else of lesser political stature -- in this case, out in the open, and without conscience or remorse.

Thank you for this essay, Joanie, I see it as one more brick in the road to revolution.

In truth, my own feeling is that the US has been on that road since the Supreme Court ruled that Corporations have the same Rights as A Man before the Bar of Justice. That single ruling, and the judicial policy of stare decisis has allowed for the socialist undermining of our Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Corporations, of necessity, are socialist in construct; they have a dictatorial hierarchy without which they could not function. Unfortunately by their standing the corporations are usurping the laws that granted them Powers, not Rights, as We, the People, granted Powers to our Governments.

Kelo was a wake-up call to the Joe and Jill Sixpack Nation, but because of the bread-and-circus lifestyle made obsequious by life's necessities, was one of very few rulings that showed the power that those we have granted Powers to have amassed to our detriment. Our Citizenship has been steadily undermined with lesser rulings, many counter to the true meaning and clear proscriptions of the Constitution, that we no longer live in the land that our Forefathers bequeathed us. I believe it was Ben Franklin who remarked: "A Republic, if you can keep it."

It appears that we no longer have the means or will to regain our true Republic, and I fear for the coming storm that will drive our children back into serfdom.

~brityank

Anonymous said...

Good letter, Jeff.

But the people you are sending it to are the ones who are allowing this travesty.

cw-patriot said...

Thanks, again, John for your invaluable research on this thread.

And thanks, Jeff, for taking the time to write your excellent e-mail to the Colorado powers that be.

Brityank, every word of your response is infused with common sense and a reverence for our roots. I sadly share your realism that sees a bleak future for a citizenry that will not defend its inheritance.

And everyone else who has posted your concerns here, thank you so much for taking the time to read about the Kirlins’ plight, and for the e-mail action you may have taken in order to show your support for them.

PGalt, in response to my posting this essay on another forum, wrote beautifully:

_____________________

Sometimes the law defends plunder and participates in it. Thus the beneficiaries are spared the shame, danger, and scruple which their acts would otherwise involve. Sometimes the law places the whole apparatus of judges, police, prisons, and gendarmes at the service of the plunderers, and treats the victim — when he defends himself — as a criminal. In short, there is a legal plunder, and it is of this, no doubt, that Mr. de Montalembert speaks.

This legal plunder may be only an isolated stain among the legislative measures of the people. If so, it is best to wipe it out with a minimum of speeches and denunciations — and in spite of the uproar of the vested interests.

from “The Law Defends Plunder”...(much more) here...

http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html#SECTION_G1434

_____________________

Below is the final response I wrote on the thread that ensued after I posted this case on that other forum:
The question I would like to ask those (many of you who appear to be legal experts of some kind) who are defending McLean and Stevens because you claim that this case is a clear example of ‘adverse possession’ is:

Do you believe that our Founders, in their vision of ‘the right to property’ (a right upon which they placed the same importance as the rights to life and liberty) intended that that right meant that, once you own a piece of land, you were required to ‘develop’ it or ‘put it to use’ within a ‘reasonable’ amount of time, or your ownership of it could be revoked if someone else had a better ‘use’ for it? If your answer is yes, then your acquaintance with our Founders’ mindset regarding the term ‘inalienable rights’ bears no resemblance to mine.

I don’t care how long the Kirlins allowed this land to sit idle. That is their prerogative. They paid the required taxes. They performed the required maintenance.

The arguments asserting that the Kirlins were somehow lax in that they didn’t monitor the property, didn’t ‘watch’ it, or didn’t ‘use’ it (despite the fact that they faithfully paid taxes, and homeowners’ dues, on it for more than twenty years) rings hollow. Those arguments appear to come from a source that has been so enmeshed in liberal legal technicalities that the original purposes of ‘law’ and ‘justice’ in a free society that values individual rights have become obscured. No matter how well-intentioned or character-filled one is, when one’s profession becomes mired in swamp-water, it becomes difficult to remember what green grass looks like.

Who exactly has determined that a free citizen’s land must be ‘used’ properly? Why can’t a free citizen purchase a piece of land and determine never to ‘use’ it? The term ‘use’ opens up a myriad of legalistic interpretations, most of which end in ‘public good’, and most of which at least hint at socialist theory. The right to own property in the free society supercedes such nonsense. As long as a free man’s land does not endanger others, or is not a ‘blight’ on the neighborhood, it is no one’s (and certainly not the government’s) business what he does with his property.

The thing that most strikes me about the responses that are claiming that this is a ‘clear case’ of adverse possession is that I don’t see this as a ‘clear case’ at all. I am not a legal scholar, but I have read the assertions on both sides. McLean and Stevens are asserting that they have had ‘notorious, exclusive, open, hostile’ possession of the land for eighteen years. I have read or seen absolutely nothing that shows they have proved that they planted a single flower on the land. And ‘Edie’s pathway’ is not a pathway indicative of twenty years of regular use. I strongly suspect that, as has been asserted by the Kirlins, it is a pathway that was hurriedly ‘constructed’ when McLean and Stevens got wind of the fact that the Kirlins were about to obstruct their view by building their dream home on the land they have owned for more than twenty years.

Mrs. Kirlin’s own explanation, if true (and I tend to believe her), states that ‘Since 1984, we have paid taxes, homeowners' dues, complied with our HOA requests for fence maintenance, and city of Boulder requests for weed control. We walked by at least once a week and never saw any indication that the neighbors were using it, much less making a hostile claim to our property’ and many of her neighbors appear to corroborate her assertions. A picnic in support of the Kirlins, occurring in the tiny neighborhood, brought out more than two hundred of them in vocal and demonstrative protest of McLean’s and Steven’s claims.

I have read absolutely nothing that tells me that the Kirlins did anything morally or legally wrong. I have seen no evidence, other than a silly photograph of a small path, that proves that McLean or Stevens ever set foot on the Kirlins’ land, let alone ‘improved’ it (not that that should matter anyway).

What is clear is that McLean and Stevens:

(1) Watched the Kirlins paying taxes and homeowners fees for more than twenty years on a piece of land that they intended to steal, without having paid a cent for the land or its tax obligations

(2) Refused Mr. Kirlin’s offer to allow them access to their back patio by giving them a five-foot-wide strip of his land, which would have been sufficient for the patio-access need that they expressed

(3) Are demanding to steal just enough of the Kirlins’ land to render it no longer a legal building lot – thus ensuring that their view of the surrounding area remain unobscured

(4) Plan to not only acquire this valuable (estimated at ~$300,000) piece of land at no cost (purchase price or tax-wise) but are also requesting that the court force the Kirlins to pay all of their legal fees.

To my (admittedly inexperienced legal) mind, this amounts to nothing more than a grotesque combination of grand theft by two politically privilege modern American elitists, made possible by political corruption. And no amount of legal precedent, or legal technicalities (neither of which appears to be supported by any hard evidence on the part of McLean or Steven anyway) makes it ‘just’.

Our Founders would be in tears that the Constitutional/legal validity of this issue is even being debated.

~ joanie

Anonymous said...

Bravo, C.W.! And thank you for trying to bring this to the attention of as many people as possible. It's disgusting and cannot be allowed to stand.

kathymlynczak said...

Joanie, your evaluation of this above is what should be sent to all city and state politicians involved.

Anonymous said...

Well done! Thank you for trying to make a difference. Not enough people do.

Anonymous said...

Good work. Thank you.

John Cooper said...

I read spunkets' comments on that other forum, and he or she is simply wrong, although I admire him/her for her perseverance in his/her error.

I believe in the rule-of-law as much or more than the next person, because I think I have a pretty good understanding of what the alternative is.

The point in this case is: The requirements of the law were pretty clearly not met - rather, this was clearly a case of legalized theft by a couple of politically-connected slimeball democrat lawyers (pardon the redundancy).

Lawyer: One skilled in the circumvention of the law. --Ambrose Bierce

I always seem to end up quoting Ayn Rand and I don't want people to think I'm monolithic. It just seems that she knew about The Kirlins and the McLean-Stevens people 40 years ago.

~~~~~

[Kirlin:] "...an honest man can cheat himself. His trusting innocence can lead him to swallow sugar-coated poisons - the deadliest of which is altruism. Americans accept it - not for what it is, not as a vicious doctrine of self-immolation - but in the spirit of a strong, confident man's overgenerous desire to relieve the suffering of others, whose character he does not understand. When such a man awakens to the betrayal of his trust - to the fact that his generosity has brought him within reach of a permanent harness which is about to be slipped on him by his sundry beneficiaries - the consequences are unpredictable.

There are two ways of destroying a country: dictatorship or chaos, i.e., immediate rigor mortis or the longer agony of the collapse of all civilized institutions and the breakup of a nation into roving armed gangs fighting and looting one another, until some one Attila conquers the rest. This means: chaos as a prelude to tyranny - as was the case in Western Europe in the Dark Ages, or in the three hundred years preceding the Romanoff dynasty in Russia, or under the war lords regime in China."

~~~~~

If this decision is allowed to stand, we are heading for chaos - a time when the law has become corrupt and nobody with any sense respects it. In The Fountainhead, Ayn Rand also wrote:

"Do you wish to know whether that day is coming? ...When you see that money is flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors - when you see that men get richer by graft and by pull than by work, and your laws don't protect you against them, but protect them against you - when you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice - you may know that your society is doomed.

The Kirlins were the people we all try to be - honest, trusting, good neighbors, and maybe too much so. But like many of us, they had no concept of the evil that lurks in the hearts of some people.

Joanie-- I haven't written my letters yet; Being just a dumb redneck, I have to ponder the situation for a while. My instinct is that it's gone beyond letter writing, but I *do* like the letter Jeff Head wrote.

S.o.A. said...

Tyrants wage war when the price of aggression is cheap.

John Cooper said...

As near as I can tell, the legal concept of "adverse possession" or "squatters rights" dates back to the rein of Henry II of England (1133-1189) and the Magna Carta.

"No freeman shall be taken or imprisoned, or diseised, or outlawed, or banished, or in any way destroyed . . . unless by the lawful judgment of his peers, or by the law of the land."

To be disseised was to be deprived of your land (which is what just happened to the Kirlins). The concept of "seisin" was the right to occupy land, regardless of ownership. Further complicating things, there is a "seisin in law" and a "seisin in deed". (The latter is the actual possession of the land.)

Also, read about the Diggers or True Levellers.

"The Diggers were a group of agrarian communists who flourished in England in 1649-50 and were led by Gerrard Winstanley (q.v.) and William Everard. In April 1649 about 20 poor men assembled at St. George's Hill, Surrey, and began to cultivate the common land. These Diggers held that the English Civil Wars had been fought against the king and the great landowners; now that Charles I had been executed, land should be made available for the very poor to cultivate. "

These laws have remained on the books for almost 900 years, even though there is scant use for them these days.

England changed their adverse possession law in 2002 to prevent this kind of travesty.

Anonymous said...

It sounds like this is a law that all landowners need to familiarize themselves with. While I strongly disagree with what is happening, it sounds like it is within the law. I do, however, advise the evil couple who plan to take the land to sleep with one eye open. I’d be consumed with the need for revenge if someone did this to me. It is going to be hard to feel sorry for either of them if they suffer an, um, “accident” or get mistaken for a deer or rabid bear when they walk across their newly grabbed land.

John Cooper said...

From the Kirlin's website:

Please send email to help change the law!

Representative Rob Witwer
rob.witwer.house@state.co.us

Senator Ron Tupa
ron.tupa.senate@state.co.us

These are the folks that are going to introduce new legislation in January to stop "bad faith" adverse
possession cases like ours.


Here's a description of the changes made in British law in 2002, and the rational:

Mace & Jones

"...it is now considerably more difficult for a squatter to obtain adverse possession of registered land as, under this new regime, in order to obtain title to the land, the squatter must give notice to the registered owner of his intention to do so.

...The squatter must establish an intention to possess the land in his own name to the exclusion of the paper owner and all others."

John Cooper said...

Ignoring all the legal mumbo-jumbo, you just have to ask one simple question here. What kind of person would do that to a neighbor?

brityank said...

I just knew there was something i felt I liked about this guy, Don Kirlin ( http://www.redair.net ).

And a little background:

The Kirlins, ^ meanwhile, developed a lucrative business acquiring foreign fighter jets from around the world to sell to wealthy aviation enthusiasts and to help train U.S.Navy pilots. An October 2005 profile of Don Kirlin in Wired magazine is titled "Building Your Own Air Force, One Mig at a Time."


Life in the air


Don Kirlin has earned a unique reputation among the world of aviators — most notably for amassing a personal air force of foreign fighter jets that he pits in training missions against the Navy.

Not only a Navy Vet Pilot, but owns his own fleet. OooKay!! Color me slightly jealous.

Hope he wins in the end, and the McLeans vacate his neighborhood.

John Cooper said...

brityank:

He-hey...I'm glad you posted that. I knew about Red Air, and being a pilot myownself, posted some comments about this on an aviation forum.

This story is going to have a happy ending IMHO.

SharonGold said...

Brityank,

How can we not stand behind this man? I'm betting McLean's resume contains nothing even remotely as impressive or 'American'.

Anonymous said...

Don Kirlin has earned a unique reputation among the world of aviators — most notably for amassing a personal air force of foreign fighter jets that he pits in training missions against the Navy.

God bless him! (And bring him victory in this battle.)

stonemason said...

Publish Date: 11/26/2007

An adverse use of adverse possession

In 1993, a cellular phone company cut a hole in an 80-year-old fence on a ranch near Holyoke and began construction of a tower, despite the fact that the three sisters who possessed the land had denied Cellular One access. The three grew up on the ranch shortly after the fence was placed, and the hill that the phone company wanted to lease had been a beloved part of their family’s property for as long as they could remember.

But Cellular One had learned that the fence was not the true boundary of the land, that the hill belonged to the sisters’ neighbor. And the neighbor gave the company permission to proceed with construction.

The sisters challenged, using a doctrine called “adverse possession,” and they won. The tower came down.

Adverse possession law has been around for centuries. Its premise is that someone who possesses and uses land as his own for a certain period of time should have title to it, regardless of original ownership. Every state allows for adverse possession, with the requirements for possession in most states ranging from 10 to 20 years. In Colorado, 18 years of use is enough to claim adverse possession.

Adverse possession is designed for situations such as that in Holyoke. A family that had possessed and productively used land for a generation had the legal right to keep the highest point on its ranch from becoming a site for a cell phone tower.

Why the history lesson?

Because adverse possession is the same law that a Boulder couple used recently to acquire a third of their neighbors’ empty lot, the place the original owners had hoped to build their dream home.

The claim arose from what the couple says has been its continued, unchallenged use of the empty lot for 25 years. They say they have used the property as a means of walking around their house to get to their back patio, and that they have crossed the property while using trails on the open space that surrounds their neighborhood.

Their use appears to have met the letter of Colorado’s adverse possession law — which includes a right to passage — and a Boulder judge sided with the couple.

But taking a neighbor’s land to keep your preferred route to your back patio appears to break the spirit of the law, especially when the injured landowner’s offer to give up a five-foot strip of land is rejected. The 1,400-square-foot taking is enough to make building a home on the lot impractical, according to the lot’s owners. Interesting. It just so happens that this lot is at Boulder’s southern tip, where million-dollar properties rest upon the edge of city open space, where not having another house next to yours equates to unobstructed views and higher property values.

This isn’t 80-year-old widows protecting their family’s heritage. It’s using the law as a means of improving a real estate portfolio. And it’s reason the Colorado Legislature should take a second look at how adverse possession is used in urban and suburban settings.

Coloradans shouldn’t need to place no-trespassing signs on their front lawns to protect themselves from neighbors who have designs on their property. And, anyway, neighbors shouldn’t treat one another so poorly.

http://www.reporterherald.com/opinion-story.asp?ID=13388

John Cooper said...

Phone numbers and E-mail for Twentieth District (including Judge James C. Klein), and his supervisor:

Hon. Roxanne Bailin, Chief Judge
Boulder County Justice Center
P.O. Box 4249
1777 Sixth Street
Boulder, Colorado 80306-4249
Fax: (303) 441-1677

Judge Klein's fax number:(303) 441-4147

Clerk's office fax number: (303) 441-4750

Judicial Discipline Commission:"The commission has the constructional authority to investigate any of the following acts:
- willful misconduct by a judge, including misconduct which, although not related to judicial duties, brings the judicial office into disrepute or is prejudicial to the administration of justice;"

Rick Wehmhoefer
Executive Director/General Counsel
899 Logan St., #307
Denver, CO 80203
(303) 894-2110

Commission on Judicial Performance "Commissions on Judicial Performance were created in 1988 by the Colorado General Assembly for the purpose of providing voters with fair, responsible and constructive evaluations of trial and appellate judges and justices seeking retention in general elections. The results of the evaluations also provide judges with information that can be used to improve their professional skills as judicial officers. The Chief Justice, the Governor, the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House appoint state and local commission members. Each commission is a ten-member body comprised of four attorneys and six non-attorneys." (These commissions will be recommending judges for retention in 2008.)

Colorado Bar Association on Judicial Retention "The State Commission on Judicial Performance developed evaluation techniques for district and county judges, justices of the supreme court, and judges of the court of appeals. According to statute, those criteria include the following: integrity; knowledge and understanding of substantive, procedural and evidentiary law; communication skills; preparation, attentiveness, and control over judicial proceedings; sentencing practices; docket management and prompt case disposition; administrative skills; punctuality; effectiveness in working with participants in the judicial process; and service to the profession and the public. The State Commission members are Carol R. Byerly and Lance M. Sears, Co-Chairs, and Jeanne M. Adkins, Paul Farley, M. Gordon Butz, Linda K. Carroll, Charles McClure, William G. Meyer, Bradley A. Levin and Laurie Glauth." (This list may be dated. I'm still searching for the current members.)

Program Contact:
Jane Howell, Executive Director
1301 Pennsylvania St., Suite 300
Denver, CO 80203
(303) 837-3665

daveburkett said...

Good work, Cooper. I'll be using at least a couple of those numbers.

george 76 said...

How did the Kirlins learn this travesty was afoot? Susie Kirlin was warned about it at a Boulder High School football game. Be cautious, her neighbor warned, someone has designs on your property.

“I laughed when I first heard it. I really didn’t know that anyone had an emotional attachment to our land,” Kirlin tells me. “I was quite surprised. I was even more surprised that someone could claim our land. But my neighbor told me this was a well- connected person and I should take it seriously.”

When the couple began building a fence on the land - which is within Boulder city limits, not out in the wilderness - McLean was able, according to the Kirlins, to obtain a restraining order in an exceptionally speedy 2 1/2 hours.

Boulder District Judge Morris Sandstead, who served with McLean, issued the restraining order quite swiftly.

http://www.denverpost.com/harsanyi/ci_7501264

Anonymous said...

Judges using their knowledge of the law to take advantage of their neighbors: shame is dead.

Anonymous said...

Second ex-Boulder judge at center of a land-claim case

By Ryan Morgan

Wednesday, November 28, 2007

The land-dispute case on Hardscrabble Drive isn't the first time a former Boulder judge has used the legal concept of "adverse possession" to win land from a neighbor.

Earlier this year, the secretary of the Indian Peaks chapter of the Sierra Club and his wife lost about 100 square feet of their property to Marsha Yeager, a former judge, and her husband, John Yeager.

(read more):

http://www.dailycamera.com/news/2007/nov/28/another-case-of-land-claim-by-former-boulder/

John Cooper said...

Re: anonymous "shame is dead": Just in some (Democrat) circles.

I live in a rural, mountainous, area, where the original land surveyors were probably drunk on the job. A number of my neighbors have bought lots only to find out that the boundaries were not even close to where they thought they were.

Adding to that confusion, we are in a difficult area for septic systems - the drainage can be poor, and there are a lot of streams which prevent drain fields within 50'. Some people have bought lots only to find them unbuildable.

But the folks around here have always worked those problems out amongst themselves. One lot owner will offer to buy 50' of the next lot, or the two of them will buy an adjoining lot and split it to give them the land they need to do what they want.

That's the way it's supposed to work among civilized people.

But Judge James C. Klein's ruling has changed all that: Neighbors around the country will no longer trust the good will of their own neighbors. No-Trespassing signs and fences are probably going up as I type. Judge Klein has sown distrust among the people, and for that, he should be tossed out. I trust the good sense of Coloradoans to do just that next year.

"If the law supposes that," said Mr. Bumble, "the law is a ass—a idiot." --Charles Dickens

robmaroni said...

Good thought and good words, Cooper.

brityank said...

Well said, Mr. Cooper.

Here's my take after digging through all of the stories and several other segues to others similar:

Fact: McLean and Stevens both testified and proved that they willfully, intentionally, and with forethought trespassed onto the Kirlin property.

Fact: Statutory Law holds that you cannot profit from any result of your own intentional criminal act, of which Trespass is one.

Fact: McLean, Stevens, and Judge Klein are subject to and bound by the Cannons of Ethics of the Bar, in that they cannot commit or countenance a criminal act.

Conclusion: The Kirlins retain their property at the original boundaries. McLean and Stevens are assessed Kirlins legal fees and court costs. A formal request is placed to the State Bar and/or Licensing Commission to investigate McLean, Stevens, and Klein, with a view toward Disbarment.

That should be what the Appeal Court determines. We shall see if Colorado still honors the Rule of Law.

cw-patriot said...

Thanks, John and brityank, for the excellent additional information and insights.

All, it you're interested in still following this case, have a look at the excellent post by CardCarryingMember.VastRightWC on the thread I had posted on the other forum. His post, and those that follow his, are very enlightening:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1930455/posts?page=574#574

~ joanie

John Cooper said...

...another of my submissions got lost in the Ethernet, so let me try again:

Final Order in Case Number 06 CV 982

Everyone needs to read this.

Lori_Gmeiner said...

Awesome pictures in those photos on Free Republic, Joanie. From the 500+ responses it sounds like that judge is going to get a lot of major biting feedback, of that's any indication of how this is playing all over America. If his decision isn't overturned, the will of the people doesn't count at all anymore.

John Cooper said...

According to the link I submitted prior to this one, Judge James C. Klein ruled that NONE of these photos were introduced at the trial.

It's my sense that the Kirlins had totally incompetent lawyers, not that they should have needed lawyers in the first place.

What *should* have happened is that the McStevens partners should have approached the Kirlins and asked them to if they could buy a portion of their lot.

They chose to legally steal it instead, and the Kirlins were to naive to believe that their future neighbors would actually do something like that.

cw-patriot said...

In Judge Klein’s original ruling, his bias is blatant. When discussing McLean’s and Stevens’ witnesses, he does not question any of their testimony. Yet when summarizing the testimony of the Kirlins’ witnesses he appears suspect of their truthfulness throughout. He qualifies virtually everything they said, looking for ulterior motives, and even uses the word ‘subjective’ when describing the testimony of one of the Kirlins’ witnesses, as if the plaintiffs' witnesses were the only ones with an objective point of view. The bias is blatant.

John, your link to yesterday’s corrected order makes my blood boil.

McLean and Stevens argued that the court awarded them less land than they were entitled to, pointing out that the court did its figuring based on using the midline of the alleged ‘path’ rather than the outside border of the ‘path’ they had allegedly made, so they petitioned the court to award them an additional nine inches of the Kirlins’ property!

A link to Allegiance and Duty Betrayed now appears on the Kirlins’ website (landgrabber.org). I had been wondering why my blog has been receiving so many hits of late. :)

I hope that a large percentage of those who are reading about this travesty – wherever they may be reading about it – are seeing to it that their voices are heard, through e-mails, faxes or phone calls. When enough people express outrage, would-be-tyrants tend to turn tail (witness the results of the so-called ‘immigration reform bill’ a few months back). That must happen here.

~ joanie

johnsteever said...

There are more than 550 posts on this essay posted on Free Republic, most of them livid about what is happening to the Kirlins, but a few "it's the law" idiots who it appears would have been "following orders" at Auschwitz, not because it was right but because it was "the law" (of sorts).

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1930455/posts

Anonymous said...

This is even worse than the cases of corruption of eminent domain (Kelo vs. New London, etc.) It's two conscienceless elites with political connections using "the law" to rob their neighbors.

Sick.

paul Nicholas said...

Adverse possession is a concept brought over from common law in England. Adverse possession is a friend of mine; this is no adverse possession (i.e., it's a convenient perversion of a legal principle that has merit in its true intent).

Anonymous said...

Deuteronomy 27:17 --

‘Cursed is anyone who steals property from a neighbor by moving a boundary marker.’

editor-surveyor said...

Joanie, this gets into a much larger issue, one that no court is likely to address, because of the only possible outcome. The power of taxation of vested, and accumulated wealth and real property is owned by the monarch. This perogative is the basis of the concept of "Adverse Possession." We have no monarchy here; the very government exists at the pleasure of the people, who have failed to delegate to the government any monarchistic powers. Ad Valorem taxation is an unauthorized theft of personal wealth. It's unconstitutional at it's root.

Those defending this judgement are statists at heart, not free men.

Brad Zimmerman said...

I won’t pretend to know the legalities or the details of this case.

But I hope judges across America start to feel the heat of the ridiculous mess they have made of our Constitution.

Anonymous said...

The Colorado attorney general needs to get involved in this case.

Anonymous said...

"...if my Neighbour hath a mind to my cow, he hires a lawyer to prove that he ought to have my cow from me."


Gulliver’s Travels, by Jonathan Swift, (IV:5;13)

CardCarryingMember.VastRightWC said...

Going off on a tangent here ...
You know, I might be persuaded to change my mind on the issue of illegal immigration, if we had some agreement with Mexico to exchange an excess lawyer for each illegal they want to send this direction.

As I posted earlier, half of all the world's lawyers practice in the US. We have 5% of the world's population and 50% of its lawyers. Do the math!

I suspect that the costs to society of this huge overpopulation of our nation's legal caste are even more staggering than any of us know.

In around 1985, I first became aware of a pattern that was happening around me, when, within a period of a couple of months, I witnessed three incidents that all fit into the same pattern, namely, a bunch of lawyers getting very rich at the expense of yet one more of our rights being taken away.

The first occurrence was when I returned to a riding stable up in a nearby mountain valley that was surrounded by national forest lands laced with many good trails and small meadows. Previously, I had rented horses by the hour and taken off in any direction I felt like, exploring any trail I liked, and riding across flat meadows at whatever speed I liked.

But now this had all changed. The only option was to go on a "group ride" that consisted of all of us in single file with one wrangler at the front and one at the back. There was no opportunity to choose direction or speed. In fact, there were no choices at all. You may as well have been riding on a merry-go-round horse.

The stable owner apologetically explained to me the reason for the change. Due to a growing number of law$uit$ against stables like his, filed on behalf of customers who had injured themselves during unstructured horse rides, the insurance companies had either stopped offering insurance plans for this type of riding, or else increased the premiums to where they were out of reach of all but the biggest operations.

Dang! So, some tort lawyers somewhere were now able to buy extra vacation homes overseas, and in exchange, the rest of us had yet another little piece of the Pursuit Of Happiness puzzle taken away from us.

During that same summer, a much more galling example of this happened. There was a medium sized lake on the plains east of here that had been a source of enjoyment for many residents of Ft. Collins, Greeley, Loveland, Windsor and other towns. It was a "no wake" lake that was perfect for canoeing, sailing, swimming (all at your own risk), trolling, shore-fishing, camping and picnicing in the groves of huge cottonwood trees, and just hanging out. ALL AT NO COST. The water was owned by some ditch company or other, but the lake surface, the campground, the picnic area and boat ramp were all run by the Colorado Division of Wildlife. There was no fee collection, and I never saw anyone in uniform. Obviously, the DOW had to pay for things like trash collection and periodic maintenance, but it must have been a fairly low cost to maintain (the campgrounds were fairly primitive).

There always seemed to be several Hispanic families at the picnic area and shore-fishing. Twice I saw large groups of motorcycles in the campground. It had kind of a blue collar, middle class and lower-middle class flavor. I would camp out there with friends, or just come for a day to sail my 1939 Snipe sailboat or paddle my canoe. What a wonderful resource for people who couldn't afford using a fee area on a regular basis (or were just cheap, like me).

Then that summer of '85, I went to make my first visit of the year, my canoe on the roof rack. The entrance gate was locked, something I'd never seen at any hour of day or night, in the 6 years I'd gone there. I drove around to all the possible alternate entrance points, getting out and examining the locked gates. Soon, an armed security guard drove up in a pickup truck, got out and approached me. He informed me that it was now operated by a private club in Ft. Collins, and was only for "members and guests".

Soon after, I heard the full story from the scoutmaster of a Boy Scout troop in a nearby town, whose troop had traditionally used that reservoir and campground as their primary camping trip destination. He told me that late the previous fall, three duck hunters in a canoe had done something dumb in the middle of the reservoir to capsize their canoe. Only one of them made it back to shore, the others succumbing to hypothermia.

Who do you think the families of the deceased sued (no doubt on the advice of some ambulance chaser)? The canoe or paddle or gun manufacturers? The family that owned the canoe? The ducks?

No. They sued the Division of Wildlife, the ones responsible for the lake surface and the surrounding facilities. Who knows what grounds were used. Perhaps the DOW was criminally negligent in not posting large signs at ten foot intervals around the lake saying, "Don't do anything stupid on the middle of the lake in winter that might cause you to die of hypothermia!"

The scoutmaster told me that the DOW's insurance company cancelled the policy, so they were forced to close off access to the lake. Right after that, a local group was formed from wealthy lawyers, business owners and doctors, who bought the rights to the lake, the facilities, and a large ring of land surrounding it all. The members of this club, for a stiff annual membership fee (the stiffer the better .... helps keep out the riffraff, you know), could now enjoy exclusive access to this wonderful little gem of a community resource that was now lost forever to the general public. The scoutmaster was unable to get permission from the club to regain access for him and his young charges.

The irony of the dual involvement of wealthy lawyers at the start and the end of this travesty was not lost on me.

John Cooper said...

From Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's dissent in the Kelo case:

"Over two centuries ago, just after the Bill of Rights was ratified, Justice Chase wrote:

"An act of the Legislature (for I cannot call it a law) contrary to the great first principles of the social compact, cannot be considered a rightful exercise of legislative authority ... . A few instances will suffice to explain what I mean... . [A] law that takes property from A. and gives it to B: It is against all reason and justice, for a people to entrust a Legislature with such powers; and, therefore, it cannot be presumed that they have done it." Calder v. Bull, 3 Dall. 386, 388 (1798) (emphasis deleted).

John Cooper said...

"Today we return to Boulder and find that although some of its hippies have grown up to be lawyers and judges, it's quite possible they haven't put away the ol' hashish pipe. Meet Richard ("Dick," as you will see) McLean, lawyer, former Boulder mayor and ex-district judge, and his wife, Edith Stevens, who is also a lawyer. (Lawyers tend to marry within the group, gazing into each other's beady eyes after passing the bar exam on their sixth attempt and softly whispering those three magic words: "I cheated, too.")"

--How to 'own' land in Boulder in the Colorado Independent

cw-patriot said...

CardCarryingMember.VastRightWC --

Your examples of ‘the law’ gone awry are all too common, I’m afraid. And perhaps the saddest aspect of that tragedy is the fact that each succeeding generation is robbed of a part of America that was once a beautiful thread in the fabric of our society. They will never know that it was once possible to do many of the things you used to do as a young person. They will assume that life was always so regimented and fear-filled. Generations will grow accustomed to the binding restrictions, because a person cannot mourn something that he never new.

The self-enriching types who have caused this sorry (and toxic) state of affairs are now among our most powerful societal architects …of which one of the major democrat presidential candidates is a sterling (*cough*) example.

The major platform plank on which John Edwards is basing his candidacy is providing universal healthcare. When discussing said ‘altruistic’ issue, he maintains a well-practiced, benevolent demeanor, decrying the state of healthcare in America, and expressing a humanitarian desire to provide excellent, low-cost care for every American (especially the children).

Yet the way in which Dr. Edward made his millions was by means of junk-science lawsuits in which he recruited fringe ‘scientists’ to testify regarding malpractice on the part of North Carolina’s obstetricians. These suits resulted in two things which, to this day, seriously endanger the lives of North Carolina women and children:

(1) the number of Caesarian births in North Carolina has skyrocketed, because performing a Caesarian section (despite its hugely increased risk to the mother) greatly reduces the possibility of such a lawsuit.

(2) competent obstetricians have fled North Carolina in droves, due to the enormous increase in both birth-related lawsuits and malpractice insurance, resulting in a severe, and dangerous, lack of obstetrical care in the state.

John Edwards’ phony ‘compassion’ is a fa├žade, meant to disguise his genuine motive: the amassing of personal wealth and power.
And his self-serving machinations played a major role in both of the above obscenities. Such frivolous, but lucrative, lawsuits, much moreso than the ‘greed’ of the American drug companies or health professionals or procedures, are the most egregious contributor to the rising cost of American healthcare.

And those rising costs are actually one of the unspoken goals of the leftist elite – because the higher the cost of healthcare, the more their pockets are lined, and the more the populace will feel obliged to look to the government for assistance (enter national healthcare, stage left). The left is systematically destroying the most advanced, lifesaving and life-healing, healthcare system in the history of mankind in order to fulfill a political agenda.

And so it is with most of the tort lawyers who create such adverse conditions for all of us, not the least of which are your two examples – of the stable and the lake -- in which access to wonderful, typically American pastimes has been bureaucratized, or eliminated, due to the greed of much of the legal profession.

Just sit through (which is becoming increasingly difficult for any informed American to do) any personal injury attorney’s television advertising in which he asks, ‘Have you or a loved one been injured by ______ ? Were you or a loved one ever exposed to _______ ? Are you feeling lethargic? Depressed? Have you developed unexplained hangnails over the past decade? If so, you could be the victim of workplace/environmental _______. Call ___________. We will make things right. We will get the maximum monetary award the law allows.’

Generally this sickening diatribe is delivered by a somber-faced attorney, with unbridled faux ‘compassion’ dripping from every word. And, nine times out of ten, the ‘victim’ winds up receiving a pittance from the settlement, the attorney’s pockets are thickly lined, and the cost of some good or service winds up costing all of us significantly more.

I suspect that the costs to society of this huge overpopulation of our nation's legal caste are even more staggering than any of us know.

And the monetary cost, though staggering, is not the most devastating aspect of our loss. The theft of our freedoms, and our uniquely American way of life, is irreversible and irreplaceable.

Thank you for the eloquent and insightful commentary.

~ joanie

cw-patriot said...

John, did you read the 'How to Own Land in Boulder' piece in its entirety? I laughed out loud half a dozen times (sent Rick running in here to see what was going on). As for hilarious sarcasm, it rivals that Dave Barry history book that we both cackle over. :)

arlene albrecht said...

Joanie, I'm sure you've stirred up a lot of interest in this case with this essay on your blog, the post on Free Republic, and the link on the Kirlins' site. You have done your part. Way to go! Now let's hope their appeal is successful. Actually I'd like to see the McLeans and Judge Klein behind bars, but that's too much to hope for.

Mary Norelli said...

This is an excellent summary of this case, and many equally excellent comments. Let's all hope and pray that the Kirlins prevail.

POSRP said...

Revised Statute 2477 is another law that is being used to seize private property from law-abiding, tax-paying citizens. To read about it, Google "RS 2477" and "POSRP". It is an antique law that applied to the wild west, and now needs to be repealed before anybody else loses their land!

stonemason said...

posrp, you've pointed out another way that outdated laws that were meant for entirely different purposes are being skewed in order to give the government more unconstitutional power. Good find.

brityank said...

Interesting; seems McLean is involved in another land grab, as a member of the RTD and its FasTracks Corridor Line.

Story here: RTD land grab raises hackles at Rocky Mountain News.

mrw650 said...

Just when you thought McLean/Stevens couldn’t stink any worse, and here they go again.

cw-patriot said...

Thanks for the link, brityank.

I’m afraid this kind of thing is happening all over the country. And, unless we happen to live in the vicinity of a particular government land grab, we rarely if ever hear about the atrocities involved. (And most of us, even if we do, are too busy protecting our individual freedoms in our own neighborhoods to embark on a crusade to help others who live hundreds of miles away.)

The common law concept of eminent domain was established by wise men who could never have foreseen the kind of perversion of public policy, or outright political corruption, that exists in modern America.

Modern politicians, on all levels of government, have contorted the concept of ‘government/public use’ to mean ‘the common benefit’. And if we informed citizens have difficulty comprehending how the former could have come to signify the latter, all we need do is reflect on the fact that the phrase ‘Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof’ has now morphed into ‘There shall be no public exhibition of Christianity’. Same kind of perversion of semantics; different brand of tyranny.

Where eminent domain and the new definition of ‘public use/public benefit’ is concerned, federal, state and local governments are now seizing public property for such outlandish ‘public benefit’ reasons as the provision of a higher tax base, economic development, urban renewal, job creation and the like. After all, demolishing a farm homestead that has been in a family for six generations brings in very little tax revenue, as opposed to a high-rise apartment complex. So various municipalities across the country are now using eminent domain in order to thus increase their tax base … thus (at least theoretically) increasing the ability to provide public services to the community at large … thus increasing the ‘public benefit’.

But why should this surprise us? In virtually every area of government these days, the rich, powerful, and well-connected have been successful in perverting law (with the indispensable help of left-leaning activist judges) for their benefit, and to the detriment of the everyday, hardworking American. The abuse and re-definition of the concept of eminent domain represents just one glaring example of thousands of originally noble concepts, made ignoble by greedy, self-serving traitors to the Founders' vision.

McLean and Stevens, the perpetrators of the Boulder land grab, may find themselves stunned if the Kirlins are successful in their appeal. But I’m not holding my breath. Most such injustices are not overturned anymore, simply because the results generally depend on the luck of the draw (i.e., which judge is designated to hear one’s case, etc.) – and the average, hardworking Amercan’s ‘luck’ is running out.

~ joanie

John Cooper said...

Lots of new stuff on the Kirlin's website. I like this one especially:

Independence Institute TV Interview

"I always thought that government was there to protect the rights of property owners..."

John Cooper said...

Good news. Colorado is changing their law

This won't help the Kirlins, though.

John Cooper said...

Mr. Cooper:

The district commissions evaluate the trial judges in their district. Boulder is in the 20th Judicial District. However, the commissions will not begin meeting until May. As soon as they meet, they will appoint a chair. I will be posting the names of the commission members along with the chairs in May at www.cojudicialperformance You may want to check then for contact information.

Jane B. Howell
Executive Director
Commission on Judicial Performance
1301 Pennsylvania St., Ste.300
Denver, CO 80203
(303) 837-3665

John Cooper said...

Perjury - Motion Filed Showing McLean/Stevens Fabricated Evidence from February 15th, 2008.