Couple claim hope for 'peace' in Boulder land grab case
By Heath Urie, Daily Camera
Published December 24, 2007 at 6:59 a.m.
Updated December 24, 2007 at 3:38 p.m.
BOULDER — The Boulder couple who successfully sued for part of their neighbors' land mailed a letter this week to "those who have supported us," saying they hoped to restore peace in their neighborhood.
Richard McLean and Edith Stevens, plaintiffs in the controversial adverse-possession case against Don and Susie Kirlin, spelled out their side of the story in the four-page letter -- obtained by the Camera from a recipient who wished to remain anonymous.
"We still hope that we can reconcile our differences with the Kirlins and restore peace in our neighborhood and community," McLean and Stevens wrote.
Contacted at her home on Hardscrabble Drive, Stevens said the letter was meant as a private communication with friends. She objected to the Camera publishing its contents,citing the ongoing legal case.
The Kirlins say they plan to appeal a Boulder judge's October ruling that McLean and Stevens should be awarded about a third of one of the Kirlins' two vacant lots next door. McLean and Stevens used the legal doctrine of adverse possession to successfully claim they cared more for the land than its owners did.
In the hand-signed letter, McLean and Stevens ask recipients not to release its contents to the media. They said they hadn't made a public case because they decided to just let the publicity "go away."
"It has not gone away, and we don't expect it to go away for some time," they wrote. "Meanwhile, partly because of our silence, the accounts in the media have not accurately portrayed what occurred or why."
The letter covers five points about the case:
The Kirlins never intended to build a dream home there, as they've told reporters, McLean and Stevens wrote.
The land in question is only 11 percent of the Kirlins' combined lots, but is typically referred to as one-third of their property. "The Kirlins still have the full right and ability to build their 'dream home' on the remaining property as they had always intended," the letter continues.
McLean and Stevens say they never trespassed on the Kirlins' property, writing that the Kirlins "decided to dismiss any such claim voluntarily, long before trial."
A scenic view is not what the case is about, despite the charges of some critics. "We did not make our claim of adverse possession to protect our view," McLean and Stevens wrote. "Our living room windows face to the northwest."
The former judge and attorney say they did not use any connections within the court system to help their case. "The trial was fair," the letter states. "We retired from the legal world long before the trial. We had never met the trial judge, who was appointed by Gov. Owens in the last year or two. ... The Kirlins lost and are, understandably, upset about losing, but they still have legal avenues to pursue that do not involve creating a media frenzy."
Susie Kirlin said Saturday that she disagrees with nearly all the points made in the letter.
"This is obviously an attempt to justify taking their neighbors' land," Susie Kirlin said. "We obviously disagree with many, if not all, of their misrepresentations. The bottom line is they took something that didn't belong to them, got caught, and are now trying to justify their behavior."
Since the story became public, McLean and Stevens have become the targets of protesters and others who think the couple used their legal knowledge to steal a prime piece of real estate, their attorney has said.
McLean and Stevens ended their letter saying they hope their friends "understand the reasons for our actions."
"Property disputes can be difficult to resolve," they wrote. "When Robert Frost wrote, 'Good fences make good neighbors,' he was speaking ironically."
Featured
-
DNC in Denver
Complete coverage of the 2008 Democratic National Convention.
-
The Crevasse
A five-part series that examines one tragic day on Mount Rainier.
-
Deadly denial
Sick nuclear workers applied for government compensation but most haven't seen a dime.
-
Final Salute
The Rocky followed Maj. Steve Beck as he took on the most difficult duty of his career.
-
'Colorado's burning'
Coverage of the state's worst wildfires.
-
Columbine shootings
Coverage of the April 20, 1999, shootings at Littleton's Columbine High School.
-
The Crossing
Colorado's deadliest traffic accident killed 20 children on Dec. 14, 1961.
-
Osveli's journey
Osveli Sales left Guatemala for a better life. Two months later, he came home in a box.
-
Wake for an Indian warrior
Oglala Sioux bestow a tribute to the first tribal fatality in Iraq.
December 24, 2007
7:31 a.m.
Suggest removal
CDee writes:
I am reminded of a quote here
"That badge don't make you right"
Legal or not, this is just wrong. This is not a 6 foot section that was mistakenly used and agreed upon by both parties. This is stealing, plain and simple.
December 24, 2007
7:34 a.m.
Suggest removal
Spencer writes:
I wonder who they could have sent this letter to? I didn't realize that ANYONE supported them.
December 24, 2007
7:50 a.m.
Suggest removal
Raynelq writes:
Mclean and Stevens want to restore their reputation in the community more than they want to reconcile their differences with the Kirlins. Reconciliation attempts by the Mcleans have been mostly through media spins. Stevens is trying to minimize the grabbing of the land by stating that they only took 11% of two lots as opposed to 1/3 of one lot. Its still wrong. What the Kirlin want to do with their property within HOA guidelines is their business. I am firmly on the Kirlins side as to intent and credibility. There is too much inconsistency in the Mclean version of this issue for me. This outrage will never be justified.
The statement on page 2 of the letter is incorrect. The fence would not deny the Mcleans access to their patio. The day of the picnic/protest I saw with my own eyes the house guard go into the house through the patio door. The patio door access is not addressed in the letter nor the access on the East side. Denial of access to their patio is a terrible misleading premise which no reasonable person should buy. They have always had access through their own property. The paths are actually the long way around.
It's understandable why Edie doesn't want media attention. Truth will stand the light of day .
December 24, 2007
8:44 a.m.
Suggest removal
saffron writes:
This letter that was "accidentally" issued to the media served it's purpose, but also earned them the Lame PR Tactic of the Week at the ReidWegs Report.
www.reidwegs.com
December 24, 2007
8:47 a.m.
Suggest removal
BirdonaWire writes:
I'm sure the neighbors love these people for all the media attention brought to their neighborhood. They probably have to send this letter because no one will talk to them.
December 24, 2007
8:52 a.m.
Suggest removal
Diff writes:
If they wanted to restore peace, all McLean and Stevens would need to do here is DO THE RIGHT THING! You don't take, by any method what does not belong to you! Same on you McLeans/Stevens.
What sad, pathetic, despicable,loathsome,repugnant people they must indeed be! If I were the Kirlin family I think I would sell out, I would not want to live near or next to such people.
Lawyers = Thieves
Lawyers = Lowlifes
Lawyers = Scum
Lawyers = Cold hearted bastards
Lawyers = Self serving Crumbs
Lawyer = ?
every bad thing you have every heard about them are exemplified by these two jerks
McLean/Stevens Go away, move to Washington DC, I bet you would be right at home and received with open arms there!
December 24, 2007
9:12 a.m.
Suggest removal
reddog writes:
If they truly want peace back in the hood then they should relinquish the land they stole and offer an apology. The problem is they want peace at no loss to them of anything including the stolen land. Have a crappy christmas McLean and Stevens.
December 24, 2007
9:17 a.m.
Suggest removal
CDee writes:
I think the last thing they deserve is peace
December 24, 2007
9:24 a.m.
Suggest removal
kevin3 writes:
I'll bet it was the McLeans who sent the letter to the B.D.C. in an attempt to make themselves look good. It did not work! The only way for the McLeans to redeem themselves is to give the land back and compensation to the the Kirlins!
December 24, 2007
9:30 a.m.
Suggest removal
American100 writes:
I only hope for the worst for this disgusting duo
December 24, 2007
9:57 a.m.
Suggest removal
elaineb writes:
McLean is the Grinch and Stevens is the scrappy little side-kick dog.
Bah-Humbug!
December 24, 2007
10:06 a.m.
CWW writes:
(This comment was removed by the site staff.)
December 24, 2007
10:35 a.m.
Suggest removal
FreedomFighter writes:
If they want peace, a good start would be to return what they have stolen through the assistance of a misguided court.
December 24, 2007
10:36 a.m.
Suggest removal
elaineb writes:
So far, the only justice is knowing that McLean and Stevens will rot in hell. Hopefully sooner, rather than later.
December 24, 2007
10:48 a.m.
Suggest removal
CDee writes:
ELAINEB,
While I will never wish death on anyone, make no mistake, there is a special place in hell for people like this.
December 24, 2007
10:56 a.m.
Suggest removal
Rhino writes:
Appears the victim's are getting the support to fight this injustice and the land grabbers are getting what they deserve-lack of support and loss of friendships from neighbors and personal friends. They knew the property belonged to their neighbors and then they used their background to take it. Want PEACE-give back the land and put up a fence!
December 24, 2007
11:14 a.m.
Suggest removal
rg writes:
Hell is a fiction; in reading these comments I learn they will burn while on earth. McLean/Stevens need to restore and make their victim whole by paying their legal cost and awarding them, at least, $10,000 for their grief. This will save them from the pyre. In the Dark Ages/Inquisition a pyre amounts to combustible material with a heretic attached i.e. a person whose personal opinion is declared heresy by Christianity and the pyre set on fire. Richard Grimes, deicide http://www.geocities/r22037/think.html
Deicide Corner: “The personages of the Christian heaven and their conversations are no more matter of fact than the personages of the Greek Olympus and their conversations.” -- Matthew Arnold
December 24, 2007
11:38 a.m.
Suggest removal
NoMoCoroprateWelfare writes:
"Good fences make good neighbors," is ironic?
Post-winter-solstice-almighty, don't these folks realize what they see as "irony" is the basis of the social contract (Rousseau's, "... that everyone should be maintained in the peaceful possession of what belings to him..."). Only a lawyer could twist the legal concept of adverse-possession (arising from English common law and a need to sort out real disputed ownership and title) into legalized land theft!
Actually, McLean and Stevens have given all Coloradans two gifts, in the form of insights found in their Christmas letter: 1.) That these judges appointed by Governor Owens need to be voted out of public office and go back to private industry where ripping-off clients may be the custom; & 2.) Restoring peace in this case is one thing (give back the land), but how about protecting the rest of us in the future ... has any legislator proposed a "Colorado property dispute under adverse possession reform act," yet (or does the state's involvement only extend to seeing property taxes get paid)?
I may be against most kinds of development, but not at the expense of doing what's right and fair!
December 24, 2007
12:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
Spencer writes:
Like I said before, "who supports these people?" The letter was supposedly sent to their supporters. Is there a supporter? anywhere? Buler?
December 24, 2007
12:30 p.m.
Suggest removal
shamusmtb writes:
Let's see how Dick & Edie's friends support them if they start to get hurt!
http://www.clairelevy.org/endorsement...
Judge James C. Klein HAD to follow the letter of the law, but he DOES NEED TO BE VOTED in/out next year!
The adverse possession laws are antiquated and need to be removed from the books. They were created back when your land was defined by "that thar tree to the crick, then o'er to the big rock and back."
Dick, Edie, if you want peace, and the land, BUY IT AT FULL MARKET PRICE!!!!! Oh, and pay back the Kirlins' taxes they paid FOR YOU for the last 25 years!!!
December 24, 2007
1:03 p.m.
Suggest removal
mandycat writes:
There used to be a method by which members of a community could express their disdain for certain individuals who, while within the letter of the law, have acted in a shameful fashion. It was called "shunning." No one speaks to the shunned parties, no one will conduct business with them, no one will look at their faces. They become invisible to right-thinking people.
That seems like a pretty good tactic with the McLean-Stevens gang.
December 24, 2007
1:15 p.m.
Suggest removal
vudumom writes:
WOW!Totally agree with everyone!
One questoin for the theives and land grabbers,if this is causing YOU so much problems and hatred in the community,WHY DON"T YOU GIVE THE LAND BACK THAT IS NOT YOURS???????
ARE YOU THAT STUPID AND GREEDY????
What a no brainer!
December 24, 2007
1:34 p.m.
Suggest removal
jacka writes:
Red commie, former government brutusicrats McLean and Stevens reinforce the horrible sterotypes that Boulder has.
Maybe the property tax authorities need to do an assessment on these bastards - quick before they deed it to a conservation area and claim a tax credit!!!!!!!!!
December 24, 2007
1:46 p.m.
Suggest removal
Goobzilla writes:
Pretty feeble attempt at spin control IMO. Do these greedy shysters even have any supporters? Did they mail a copy to each other? Stop hiding behind 'the law" and do the ethical thing. Oh wait, I forgot they're lawyers...that's not going to happen.
December 24, 2007
1:58 p.m.
Suggest removal
snowbelly writes:
i am so encouraged to se that boulder is such a protector, a veritable bastion , of private property rights. the unfortunate thing about judges is that they are usually lawyers.
December 24, 2007
3:09 p.m.
Suggest removal
Francesca writes:
There are contradicting statements in the letter (unless the RMN has transcribed it incorrectly):
The Kirlins never intended to build a dream home there, as they've told reporters, McLean and Stevens wrote.
The land in question is only 11 percent of the Kirlins' combined lots, but is typically referred to as one-third of their property. "The Kirlins still have the full right and ability to build their 'dream home' on the remaining property as they had always intended," the letter continues.
**********
If the Kirlins never intended to build a home, then why on effin' earth did Stevens/McLean state in the very next paragraph that they still have full right and ability to build as they had always intended?
If you two are reading this and you claim you want things to be right, if you want peace, if you don't want to be shunned by your neighbors and the community then give the Kirlin's rightful land back and stop whining about how you can't get to your patio. Nobody is that stupid. Well, perhaps.....
December 24, 2007
3:17 p.m.
Suggest removal
Francesca writes:
One more thing, it appears that even their friends don't want them to have peace if as Stevens stated, "the letter was meant as a private communication with friends." This should be a huge wake-up call that even people they think are close to them are trying to give.
December 24, 2007
3:33 p.m.
Suggest removal
joe writes:
Hey ezekiel777! Phoenix already has quite enough numbskulls thank you very much. I think a much smaller place would be more in order for these two, like Adak, Alaska, along with a name change and maybe some cosmetic surgery.
December 24, 2007
3:44 p.m.
Suggest removal
elaineb writes:
I agree that they need to be shunned. I just wonder if they are intelligent enough to realize WHY people are shunning them? The fact that they even thought (in the first place) that this theft was the right thing to do makes me wonder. Their parents should be ashamed to have raised such greedy idiots.
December 24, 2007
3:57 p.m.
Suggest removal
pappy writes:
They obviously have no shame or conscience, so why do they bother to write a letter to their ‘friends’. I would be embarrassed if they were to consider me one of their ‘friends’, and would have also turned the letter over to the public domain.
They had, and still do have alternative methods to access their patio, even moving the retaining wall ‘accidentally’ placed on someone else’s property by a ‘developer’. It is merely inconvenient for them to do so, and why should they? They have what they want.
At one point they claimed the judge actually gave them more land than they had originally asked for. Have they even given the ‘excess’ back, or held on to it out of greed?
They claim they are just waiting for the publicity to “go away”, “it has not gone away, and we don’t expect it to for some time” they write in the letter. Ummm, maybe magic will make it go away? This was wrong, the very core basis of wrong, and it is still wrong. It will not go away, this week, or in the next year. They will die probably with this land, but it is 'theirs' now.
I have done some wrong things in my time, unintentionally, or unknowingly. I have done my best to make them right, just so I might have peace with myself. They did this knowingly, willingly, and now are waiting for it to “go away”.
They apparently just do not have the moral character to understand. Shame on them!
December 24, 2007
8:06 p.m.
Suggest removal
mrw650 writes:
Did you guys read the letter that claims that now, they didn't trespass? So much for their "adverse possession" claim.
http://web.dailycamera.com/pdf/1223Mc...
Fact: McLean, Stevens, Judge Sandstead, and Judge Klein are subject to and bound by the Canons of Ethics of the Bar, in that they cannot commit or countenance a criminal act.
Fact: McLean and Stevens both testified and proved (to the satisfaction of Judge Klein) 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.
How can it be that McLean/Stevens are now saying they didn't trespass when they swore under oath that they did? Is this the "I was for trespassing before I was against it" defense?
Somebody, please help me off this merry-go-round before I get dizzy.
December 24, 2007
8:23 p.m.
Suggest removal
mrw650 writes:
Posted by pappy: At one point they claimed the judge actually gave them more land than they had originally asked for.
Pappy, that's a lie--they went back and asked for another 9 inches. I would venture to guess that they’ve been railroading people their entire legal careers, only this time, they went too far and got caught. Now they're trying to paint themselves as two old people who fought for "their" property rights. Give me a break.
If they are persona non grata in Boulder--well, actions have consequences. They even have the nerve to call Susie Kirlin "disgruntled" and "confused". They don't like it that the media has shined an uncomfortable spotlight on their cockroach actions. Are they responsible? No...they blame the media, their architect, the builder, the Kirlins, the public, everybody but themselves.
It can take 20 years to build a reputation and only five minutes of utter stupidity to ruin it. All these people cared about was to WIN their case, at any cost. So long as it cost somebody else and not them.
December 24, 2007
8:39 p.m.
Suggest removal
aeb1barfo writes:
I step on cockroaches.....
But comparing these three to cockroaches insults the cockroaches...
The innermost circle of HELL will be their new home in a few years....
December 24, 2007
9:25 p.m.
Suggest removal
ebmfck writes:
Dick McLean is absolutely the best judge I've ever appeared before and that was back in the early '70's when I was still in law school. I've had other contacts with him over the years and I still think he's one of the nicest people I've ever met. There has to be more to this story than the one-sided presentation we're getting. Also, for all you people getting all heated up about adverse possession, this has been the law for pushing 1000 years. Don't let people use your land or you WILL end up losing it. THAT'S THE LAW WHETHER YOU LIKE IT OR NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!
December 24, 2007
10:44 p.m.
Suggest removal
elaineb writes:
Well, ebmfck (stupid name, by the way)...I think it is pretty obvious that none of us like this antiquated law! And hopefully we can all rally to get it removed from the books! Maybe back in the 70's, McLean was a good lawyer, but things have changed. And, by the way, if you haven't noticed, pretty much none of us like lawyers--like yourself.
McLean/Stevens are in the same company as Kenneth Lay (Enron), Joe Nacchio (Qwest), and every other thief who has finally been exposed.
December 25, 2007
9:18 a.m.
Suggest removal
mrw650 writes:
A scripture message for Dick & Edie. Revelation 3:17-18
17 Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked: 18 I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see. 19 As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent.
You two have a pre-trial hearing with the King of Glory. Choose this day, Dick and Edie, what Master you will serve.
December 25, 2007
9:50 a.m.
Suggest removal
mrw650 writes:
ebmfck: They've stated their side of the story in their letter to their 'friends.' If you compare that with the actual court transcript, however, you'll cringe at the conflicting testimony. It is my guess they are now deliberately trying to confuse everybody to save their hides. They are going to use their age as an excuse, paint themselves as just a pair of pathetic confused old people who just don't understand what's going on around them! Please. Remember, one of them IS a former politician (Mayor)--enough said.
Sure there's more to this story...we haven't even touched on any FOBOS/RTD scandals--yet.
As for Dick, to be fair, I believe you when you say, he was kind and a good Judge back in the day. But that was yesterday. I stated before, it can take 20 years to build a good reputation and only five minutes of utter stupidity to ruin it. I sincerely pray that God is stirring his soul and he is truly sorry, but I don't see any indication of that AT ALL with the wife.
"It is better to live in a desert than with a contentious and angry woman" (Proverbs 21:19).
December 25, 2007
1:57 p.m.
Suggest removal
NoMoCoroprateWelfare writes:
ebmfck's Christmas eve post is misguided ... mainly in asserting adverse-possession has been the law for almost a thousand years; which is incorrect since it only became common in Western civilization in late-Medieval times with the demise of feudalism around the 15th century. More importantly, "might" (verses "use-it-or-lose-it") is an older, more prominent, and on-going basis for ownership ... and is exactly what "law" is intended to limit as a criteria for ownership. Admittedly, both power and wealth attempt to subvert law to support a status quo of inherited and institutionalized privilege instead of merit; but fortunately, a dynamic democratic capitalism recognizes the ultimate folly entailed in maintaing the advantages of the idle rich and other effete groups (e.g., lawyers).
To put it in words that a even a lawyer might understand: Law is not an end but only valuable in promoting order and society; and legally putting everybody's property at risk promotes neither!
Favoring those who are productive with land has enjoyed an historic bias, but not at the expense of basic property rights and fairness.
When laws become outdated they need to be changed; and so let me end this Christmas post in the words of Charles Dickens, " ...the law is a ass, a idiot..."
December 26, 2007
10:42 a.m.
Suggest removal
Raynelq writes:
I ascertain that Mclean and Stevens knew that what they were doing was wrong.
They just thought they could get away with it.
They also thought that noone would care.
The first paragraph in the letter confirms this.
December 26, 2007
10:53 a.m.
Suggest removal
Raynelq writes:
"Did they trespass or didn't they treaspass. That is the question"
Too many inconsistancies are an indication of untruthfullness. One tell is the story keeps changing. The story teller can not keep the lies straight. A lie detector would help.
December 26, 2007
11:10 a.m.
Suggest removal
Raynelq writes:
ebmfck:
Your comment :
"There has to be more to this story than the one-sided presentation we're getting"
Response: We have heard both sides of this story. Maybe your experience with Judge Mclean was positive but the experience of Mclean by the kirlins was very negative. Please weigh both sides objectively. People change. The only thing constant is change.
Your comment:
"THAT'S THE LAW WHETHER YOU LIKE IT OR NOT"
Response: First, I aledge that the law can be misused as in this case. Is it still legal if perjury is involved?? Remember this case is still on appeal. Your argument is that it is right if the law sayth it is. I don't like it morally or ethically. Hence, the outrage
December 26, 2007
12:43 p.m.
Suggest removal
Tree_Hugger writes:
I only hope that there is no retaliation against "poor Dick" McLean and Edith Stevens.
Sure they legally stole the Kirlins property, but that's no reason why anyone should want to toilet paper their house, soap up their car windows or other such nonsense. (Wink wink, nudge nudge.)
December 27, 2007
9:25 a.m.
Suggest removal
kathyM writes:
How lame can these thieves get? It's right up there with "I didn't inhale."
December 27, 2007
4:38 p.m.
Suggest removal
Raynelq writes:
Taken from "the letter"
NOTE THE INCONSISTANCY BETWEEN POINT 1 & POINT 2:
"Since the trial, the Kirlins and/or the Media have made unfounded allegations against us and the judge who tried the case."
Point 1, Paragraph 1, Sentence 1
"The Kirlins never intended to build their "dream home" on the adjoining lot."
Point 2, Paragraph 3, sentence 3,4
"Most of the property awarded to us is on the side of the hill formed by the evacuation of our garage. The Kirlins still have the full right and ability to build their "dream home" on the remaining property , as they had always intended."
WHAT IS IT MCLEANS: DID THEY OR DIDN’T THEY???
January 5, 2008
12:02 p.m.
Suggest removal
mrw650 writes:
Hey boys and girls...
I anagrammed the name Edith Stevens. Look what came up!
SEVENTIETHS SEVENTIETH DEVISES INVESTED NEEDIEST SEEDIEST DETESTS DIVESTS EVIDENT HEISTED HESSITE INVESTS SEETHED SEETHES THEISTS THIEVED THIEVES DENIES DESIST ENVIED ENVIES HEISTS HISSED SENSED TENETS TENSED THIEVE TINTED VEINED VENTED VESTED EDITS EVENS EVENT HEEDS HEIST HIDES HINTS SENDS SHIED SNIDE SNITS STINT TESTS VENTS DISS EDIT ENDS EVEN HEED TINES TINTS