McLean, Stevens 'outraged' by twist in Boulder land grab
Heath Urie, Daily Camera
Published February 14, 2008 at 7:26 a.m.
Photo by Daily Camera
This photo taken one day after Richard McLean and Edith Stevens filed a lawsuit seeking a portion of the Kirlins' lot in October 2006 shows no visible path on the lot, according to the Kirlins.
Photo by Daily Camera
This photo, taken by Don Kirlin in November 2007, shows a section of an 80-foot walkway that cuts across the Kirlin property on Hardscrabble Drive in south Boulder. The path arches around three pine trees and back toward the street down a small hill.
A Boulder couple who lost a portion of their million-dollar lot in a dispute with their neighbors last year filed paperwork Wednesday alleging that the other couple fabricated evidence to win their lawsuit.
But, in a rare and emotional interview Wednesday, Richard McLean and Edith Stevens said they are "outraged" by the allegations and that they intend to fight the motion by Don and Susie Kirlin to dismiss an October trial court decision.
The Kirlins want Boulder County District Court Judge James C. Klein — who awarded Stevens and McLean about 34 percent of their next-door neighbors' lot under the legal principle of "adverse possession" — to "set aside the verdict" in light of what they say is new evidence in the case.
The package of evidence includes a series of new aerial and ground photographs taken of the Kirlins' south Boulder lot on Hardscrabble Drive, as well as five sworn statements from neighbors and others that the Kirlins said indicate McLean and Stevens deceptively created a path on the disputed land well after they decided to sue for the property in 2006.
The Kirlins now allege that McLean and Stevens lied in their testimony about how long the pathway has existed — a key element to proving an adverse-possession claim.
The longtime doctrine requires, among other things, that an adverse possessor continuously and openly use another's land for at least 18 years to be able to gain title to that property. The Kirlins said their neighbors — a former judge and an attorney — knew about the requirements and conspired to create a visible pathway to use as evidence in court.
The Kirlins' motion states that the new evidence proves that McLean and Stevens "willfully fabricated evidence" to advance their case.
McLean and Stevens, who have made only limited comments about the case publicly, expressed outrage about the Kirlins' motion.
"Neither Dick nor I have done anything that alters the width, length, contours or appearance of my path," Stevens said. "It takes time to create paths. Paths don't happen over a short period of time. ... I started walking that path in 1982 when we moved into the house."
She said the photos of the disputed property included with the Kirlins' request to revisit the trial-court decision are unreliable because they came from different companies, using different equipment and were taken from an altitude of about 10,000 feet.
"I saw an outline that looked very similar to the outline of our path," Stevens said about the pictures labeled by the Kirlins as not showing a clear pathway. "I think so much depends on the time of day and the season and whatever methods the photographers use on the contrast and the colors."
Kim Hult, attorney for McLean and Stevens, said the Kirlins could have introduced the photographic evidence during the trial but didn't.
"If the Kirlins wanted to introduce more pictures or more witnesses at trial, they should have gone out and gotten them," she said. "Fuzzy pictures don't, and won't, change the testimony of the many witnesses who remember those paths and who used those paths since the 1980s."
Susie Kirlin, though, said she thinks her other neighbors didn't want to get involved then, but now their testimony and newly discovered photographs clearly show that no path existed prior to the construction of a split-rail fence that touched off the lawsuit in October last year.
Specifically, the Kirlins point to the testimony of Josephine Touchton, a neighbor who lives about a half-mile from the disputed property. Touchton wrote in her affidavit that she often walked by the Kirlins' lot but never noticed a path until after she saw someone working on the land last winter.
"I saw a woman who looked like Edie Stevens in the north corner of the Kirlin vacant lot," Touchton wrote. "The woman I saw was tromping, stomping and kicking the ground, causing vegetation and dirt to rise from the ground in the area where the dirt path ... later appeared."
Stevens said she recalls working on a garden in the area Touchton described, but only to tend to a set of iris plants.
"I don't usually tromp or stomp around when I'm out there," Stevens said. "I was entitled to walk out into that area."
Both McLean and Stevens responded by saying they are tired of having their character questioned, and each denied the Kirlins' charges that they fabricated evidence or lied in court.
"I became an attorney because I believe in the law," Stevens said, choking up as she spoke. "I tried cases and I always instructed my witnesses to tell the truth. I would not go into a courtroom and lie.
"Any suggestion we had plotted to seize the land is just false."
McLean also strongly denied the allegation that he would lie under oath or at all, saying he would not compromise his reputation as a former Boulder mayor, city councilman and district court judge to win a lawsuit.
"I spent 15 years as a trial judge and many more before as a city councilman," McLean said. "I'm really fed up with their attempts to attack our credibility in this manner. I have nothing good to say about the Kirlins."
The Kirlins agreed, at least, that there's no love lost between them and McLean and Stevens.
"This isn't just about our land anymore," Don Kirlin said. "This is about simple right and wrong."
-----
THE KIRLINS' NEW EVIDENCE
Don and Susie Kirlin lost about 34 percent of their vacant lot in south Boulder when neighbors Edith Stevens and Richard McLean sued using the law of "adverse possession." The Kirlins have filed an appeal in the case, and on Wednesday they filed a motion for the trial court to reconsider the ruling in light of new evidence.
What Don and Susie Kirlin say
Ground-level photographs taken by Don Kirlin of the Hardscrabble Drive lot show a distinct path on the property after November 2007, but there is no visible path in a photo taken the day after the lawsuit was filed in October 2006.
Aerial photographs taken in June 2007 show a path on the Kirlins' land, but there is no path in an April 2006 aerial picture taken six months before the lawsuit was filed.
Five sworn affidavits from neighbors along Hardscrabble Drive and others indicate none of them saw a path on the Kirlins' lot prior to winter 2006.
Neighbor Josephine Touchton testified in a written statement that she thinks she once saw Edith Stevens kicking up dirt along the disputed pathway.
William Stone, a surveyor hired by McLean and Stevens, wrote in an affidavit that he felt pressured by his boss to include a pathway on a survey of the Kirlins' property when he never saw such a path.
What Richard McLean and Edith Stevens say
Photographic evidence was already presented at the Kirlins' trial, and the couple could have presented more but didn't.
Pictures taken of the lot from the ground and air are deceptive because of inconsistencies in equipment, daylight and seasons.
Stevens had permission to work on a small garden on her property, and that's likely what a neighbor saw her doing on the property.
Neither McLean nor Stevens lied under oath about their extended use of the Kirlins' land.
Surveyor William Stone was instructed to include the disputed pathway on a drawing of the Kirlins' lot but was never asked to lie about his own observations.
The couple had legal ground to file an "adverse-possession" claim for the Kirlins' land starting in 2000 but didn't file suit for it until they felt "threatened" by a split-rail fence the Kirlins erected on the property line separating the lots.
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.
February 14, 2008
10:04 a.m.
Suggest removal
kathyM writes:
What goes around comes around! Go Kirlins!
February 14, 2008
10:13 a.m.
Suggest removal
urnfndbag writes:
McLean and Stevens are low life scum and thieves. I hope they are charged with trespassing and damaging the property.
February 14, 2008
10:15 a.m.
Suggest removal
Diff writes:
The SCUMBAG lawyers got caught doing what lawyers do best..
HAHAHA ... hope the Kirlins take this one ALL THE WAY!
Lawyer-y it's related to robbery!
February 14, 2008
10:24 a.m.
Suggest removal
rickg19611 writes:
The clowns defending the corrupt lawyer and his Democrat party fatcat wife are strangely silent. Maybe they finally realized the shame of excusing sleazy behavior of sleazy people. The other possibility is that they are in shock that anyone is standing up to the thieves.
February 14, 2008
10:25 a.m.
Suggest removal
Scott writes:
Prostitutes (lawyers) lying? Why I've never heard of such a thing ... NOT!
Scott
February 14, 2008
10:25 a.m.
Suggest removal
MrsSnowrider writes:
OMG How funny! Like McLean and Stevens have ANY credibility left. I don't care what they did in the past. The offer by the Kirlins to build steps to make it easier for them to get to their back yard was turned down by McLean and Stevens ONLY so they could STEAL this land! They are thieves, trespassers, LAWBREAKERS, and should go to jail for it!
February 14, 2008
10:27 a.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
Does anyone else feel the urge to hurl a cream pie at whoever had the audacity to name a road alongside million dollar lots "Hardscrabble Drive"?
February 14, 2008
10:33 a.m.
Suggest removal
frankmm writes:
McClean and Stevens are sick of having their characters impugned. I certainly understand their being upset but why should they be surprised? After all, they perverted the application of the adverse possesion law to unethically and unjustly ENRICH themselves when the legitimate intent of the law has been to prevent parties from being unethically and unjustly DEPRIVED of something. Very BAD character indeed.
February 14, 2008
10:46 a.m.
Suggest removal
urnfndbag writes:
Who cares if she's a Democrat. It's more important that she sucks at being a person. I know a lot of Republicans and Democrats who fit that bill.
February 14, 2008
10:54 a.m.
Suggest removal
Fitzy31 writes:
I just checked Microsoft Virtual Earth and the trail is visible but not on the Google maps for the Steven's residence at 2059 Hardscrabble Drive, Boulder, CO. Although the resolution of the Google map isn't that great, you can tell that no trail exists.
Stevens & McLane are thieves and liars. The truth will be proven!
February 14, 2008
10:55 a.m.
Suggest removal
JK writes:
Feeling "entitled" doesn't make it right to trespass. This goes to show the character of the individuals involved. Now it can be our choice to distance ourselves from them and never use them for any legal advice, unless you want to learn how to screw someone over.
February 14, 2008
10:56 a.m.
Suggest removal
kathyM writes:
"Surveyor William Stone was instructed to include the disputed pathway on a drawing of the Kirlins' lot but was never asked to lie about his own observations." He was asked to include a NONEXISTENT path. If that isn't asking someone to lie, I don't know what is.
February 14, 2008
11:05 a.m.
Suggest removal
prk166 writes:
Our focus shouldn't be on Stevens and McLean but on our legislatures that have yet to address this legal loophole.
February 14, 2008
11:17 a.m.
Suggest removal
SteveFesch writes:
It all ties together prk. The Kirlins are on the front lines of the adverse possession law like many of us land owners who are losing land via abusive eminent domain to RTD.
There is a huge event going this weekend at Civic Center park. The Colorado Property rights coalition along with several other property rights coalitions are gathering at NOON on Sunday Feb 17th. We're calling it "The Pig Roast for Property Rights". See www.thecprc.org for more information.
We are putting the final touches on the speakers now. I've met the Kirlins and they are nice people who have been screwed over by a loop hole. I salute them for taking a stand and helping to change the law. We should support the Kirlins and their adverse possession bill.
Steve Fesch
www.eminentdomainsucks.com
February 14, 2008
11:27 a.m.
Suggest removal
fiesty writes:
Hmmm, no path as evidenced by physical photos and neighbor testimony. Even if there was a question over whether the path existed, then McLean failed to meet adverse possession requirements to PROVE without doubt use. Land needs to be returned to the Kirlins, court fees paid by McLean, counter-suit for trespassing and mental anguish filed by the Kirlins, and perjury charges brought against McLean.
McLean wants to use the all the laws available to get what he wants, then he needs to be prepared to have the full extent of the law brought against HIM and his wife.
February 14, 2008
11:31 a.m.
Suggest removal
fiesty writes:
Oh, and let's not forget to investigate both:
1. The judge who issued the emergency restraining order (in just 2 1/2 hours) against the Kirlins building on their own land, since the basis was never clarified and whether or not proper procedures were followed in its issuance.
2. The judge who ruled in favor of the McStealers, since they did not prove use for 18 years without doubt AND who awarded more than the minimum disputed land.
February 14, 2008
11:39 a.m.
Suggest removal
HolierThanThou writes:
I would never question the character of Richard McClean and Edith Stevens. They are proven thieves and liars, and the worst kind of neighbors that anyone can imagine. The chutzpah of these self-righteous mountebanks is hard to beat. Their stupidity is illustrated in the way they insult the intelligence of the average citizen, provoking hatred for what? A strip of land that they could easily have paid for legitimately.
To find worse examples of humanity, you'd have to look up mass-murderers. But then mass-murderers would probably exceed this couple in courage. At least a mass-murderer usually knows that mass-vengeance is going to stalk him to his grave.
February 14, 2008
11:46 a.m.
Suggest removal
rg52 writes:
Another thing to look at, McClean and Stevens, know the judges and lawyers in Boulder. Are they personal friends with the judge who awarded them the property??????
That judge and his judgements should be looked at closely.
February 14, 2008
11:50 a.m.
Suggest removal
gs writes:
I cannot believe you people. Wow, rich (very rich) Boulderites have a tiff and you come unglued. But RTD takes property, Aurora takes everything south of Fitsimmons, Denver closes a trailer park, Arvada(?) takes a store to build a bigger store and nothing is said. What causes you to have a comment. An injustice toward the landed aristocracy? You have got to be kidding.
February 14, 2008
11:58 a.m.
Suggest removal
ColoradoAztec writes:
What happens when you have 100 lawyer's buried up to their necks in sand?
Not enough sand!
February 14, 2008
12:15 p.m.
Suggest removal
drdrakeramore writes:
wow, i still can't believe that a good neighbor--i.e. one who did NOT call the cops on the neighbor for trespassing each and every time she walked on the land--is penalized for being part of the community...can we finally take the opportunity to strike down this silly legal statute?
Perhaps we can all start traipsing through the McLean/Stevens property in the likelihood that 18 yrs from now we get a piece of the action. I'm gonna start cutting corners every chance I get!
February 14, 2008
12:29 p.m.
Suggest removal
prk166 writes:
GS ---> I"ve complained about those land issues too. No way that rtD should be used as a disguise for corporate hand outs to pay them off to develop land next to light rail so the folks running RTD can say "look at all that development; it's a success!" and go one collecting their 6 figure paychecks irregardless of how well they're doing their job.
February 14, 2008
12:37 p.m.
Suggest removal
nowhearthis writes:
Path maintained for 18 years? In a semi arid climate such as ours the path would be all dirt after 18 years of use and we wouldn't be squinting for it in the grass (e.g. like paths tread upon in the county open lands around here).
February 14, 2008
12:52 p.m.
Suggest removal
Darwin writes:
drdrakeramore: Shhhhh! I have been traipsing through the McLean/Stevens property on the opposite side of their poperty that they have been concentrating on to steal. I have been doing so for the past 17 years and 361 days. Just a few more days to go and I will be given 1/3 of their property. I am going to buy (oops I mean seek judgment from) the same judge that they used. I'm sure this is going to be a slam dunk since this judge is obviously impartial.
February 14, 2008
12:53 p.m.
Suggest removal
JK writes:
Holy cow my mailman keeps cutting across my lawn to deliver my mail, I better stop him before he claims my yard.
February 14, 2008
12:57 p.m.
Suggest removal
Squatch writes:
So they have admitted to trespassing for 18 years and they get the property? Go figure. Maybe i should go trespass up in the mountians and see if it works for me.
February 14, 2008
1 p.m.
Suggest removal
Kslayer writes:
Good Point nowhearthis! If they have been using that path for 18 years it would be clearly visable. I think if you took a look at the path right now, you could tell if it's new, or 18 years old.
February 14, 2008
1:03 p.m.
Suggest removal
fiesty writes:
GS- the fact they are well to do is irrelevant, the injustice is important regardless. Eminent domain is also wrong when being abused, but we shouldn't confuse the two issues.
February 14, 2008
1:06 p.m.
Suggest removal
mark79trans writes:
I am so perplexed by all this. So, if a person owns a lot of property and doesn't notice somebody using a piece of it, then they can loose it? What in the heck kind of stupid policy is this. If somebody owns title to property, it belongs to that person. If somebody has been using somebody else's property without permission, it is trespassing. I guess with our left leaning court system, even property ownership is no longer observed and takings is only by government...what the heck happened to this country.
February 14, 2008
1:19 p.m.
Suggest removal
bookwerm writes:
McLean and Stevens "willfully fabricated evidence" to advance their case. Yes, Yes they did. They also fabricated evidence they are : Human, Decent, Honest and other good things. SHUN them. Treat them as if they are dead, just ghosts.
February 14, 2008
1:20 p.m.
Suggest removal
crebj writes:
Who owns the land? Was it deeded properly, and platted properly? Who paid taxes on the land?
End of discussion.
February 14, 2008
1:26 p.m.
Suggest removal
bookwerm writes:
This all would have been much better handled if the Kirlins just shot any trespassers on their land. Hope they have good aim.
February 14, 2008
1:33 p.m.
Suggest removal
pwern writes:
McLean and Stevens belong in prison. They're nothing more than land-grabbing criminals who are using their knowledge of the law to manipulate our legal system and victimize their neighbors. All attorneys are scum - theses peope are simply reinforcing that image the public has of the legal profession.
February 14, 2008
1:43 p.m.
Suggest removal
Spencer writes:
How can these people be outraged about anything? What they did is wrong and GWM is correct. Does not matter your political persuasion, they are stealing the land.
February 14, 2008
2:05 p.m.
Suggest removal
newshound writes:
By eminent domain, the government can seize your land, however in most cases you receive 'just compensation.' Also, when not abused, eminent domain can strengthen infrastructure. I hate eminent domain, but sometimes is it just necessary.
In this instance, McLean & Stevens are just trying to steal land for financial gain, with no compensation to the Kirlins'. I believe that when you purchase property, and it is deeded correctly, that property is yours free & clear no matter what. If McLean had such a problem with this, why not just get an easement.
I worked for a developer that was owned by a former state Supreme Court Judge and long time attorney. I will tell you from experience that if he wanted something, he would do whatever it took to get it, and didn't care who got hurt. In the end, its just about making the pockets a little deeper.
February 14, 2008
2:16 p.m.
Suggest removal
P_Denver writes:
I think the law is outdated (if it was ever needed to begin with) and the property should remain with the original owners. That said: I find it hard to sympathize with either. A couple of multi-millionairs arguing about land is just not going to get my blood going.
February 14, 2008
2:39 p.m.
Suggest removal
MrJim writes:
They can be 'Outraged' all they want. They are nothing more than manipulative crooks w/ no ethics. A special place in Hell awaits....
February 14, 2008
2:44 p.m.
Suggest removal
newshound writes:
It's not how much money they have, its the principle behind taking someone else's land for no other purpose than to be greedy. The Kirlin's were at a major disadvantage trying to go up against McLean with his connections, and our judicial system is a joke.
February 14, 2008
3:17 p.m.
Suggest removal
notknowitall writes:
Everyone in the world knows what lawyers do best- lie!
They defend criminals knowing that they are guilty and will lie and tell their clients to lie. Anything goes as long as the criminal goes free. No wonder our justice system is so screwed up.
These land grabbers are simply greedy and will forever have to put with the fact that they are simply stealing that land.
February 14, 2008
3:39 p.m.
Suggest removal
Devil_Dog writes:
Hey where is buffsblg anyway?
February 14, 2008
3:58 p.m.
Suggest removal
Francesca writes:
Apparently this sort of stuff is Lawyer 101. A lawyer acquaintance tried to talk us in to doing a similar thing to our absent neighbors years back.
Ourtraged? Ha! McLean and Stevens are outraged because they thought stealing that land would be a slam dunk - and the Kirlins decided not to roll over to the decision... and now the situation is being negatively discussed in public forums across the country. They're not outraged because of any injustice done to them by the Kirlins. Not by a long shot. Thieves always yell the loudest.
There are only half a dozen neighbors on that little street there, and if 5 of them came forward with depositions in favor of the Kirlins... whoa. The neighbors and those before and after photos are pretty revealing. Depends on which judge hears this in the future as to how it all pans out.
February 14, 2008
4 p.m.
Suggest removal
BirdonaWire writes:
Taxes are a point I never thought about. Since these jerks took their neighbors' land, on which the neighbors were paying property taxes for two decades, shouldn't they owe the Kirlins 1/3 of the taxes paid on that land?
February 14, 2008
4:18 p.m.
Suggest removal
Devil_Dog writes:
We're coming up on a three day holiday, buffsblg must be out gathering enough weed to get him through the long haul.
Maybe he was using the Kirlins land and skipped town before anyone noticed him tending his pot field in one of the photographs.
February 14, 2008
4:26 p.m.
Suggest removal
Francesca writes:
According to Stevens/McLean attorney Hult: "Fuzzy pictures don't, and won't, change the testimony of the many witnesses who remember those paths and who used those paths since the 1980s." I'd sure be curious to see this in front of a jury. It would be interesting.
And are those witnesses close friends of these people? Most likely. Testimony of unattached and disinterested parties (the neighbors) should carry the burden of evidence against Edie's alleged path. The very people living there cannot recall the path until very recently, after the suit came to light. An 18-year old path isn't just bare of vegetation, it will have eroded the ground also. It is pretty apparent who is being honest and who isn't.
I had forgotten about buffsblg, RickyLee. You nut job, you. Grin.
February 14, 2008
4:33 p.m.
Suggest removal
Chal writes:
"I don't usually tromp or stomp around when I'm out there," Stevens said. "I was entitled to walk out into that area." ENTITLED?!?!?!?!? Yeah, you sleeze bag, I hope you get entitled to a 8X10 cell soon.
February 14, 2008
5:20 p.m.
Suggest removal
PonchoVia writes:
I am not sympathetic to either party in this case. They both appear to be equally greedy, money grubbing children.
February 14, 2008
6:11 p.m.
Suggest removal
gs writes:
I'm not sympathetic to either party too. Though the loser seems stupid considering they were offered compensation for their property and preferred to go to court.
February 14, 2008
6:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
Francesca writes:
Gene: It isn't greedy to own land unless, of course, you've stolen it from someone else. LOL.
PonchoVia: How is it the Kirlins are greedy and money grubbing? Because they have a nice bit of land in a desireable area and you don't?
February 15, 2008
5:22 a.m.
Suggest removal
CP writes:
I've been hiking Barr Trail and Garden of the Gods for years now. Can I now get this judge to award Pikes Peak and Garden of the Gods to me since I've made clear trails?
This judge should be disbarred.
February 15, 2008
5:53 a.m.
Suggest removal
fiesty writes:
gs- you need to get the facts. The Kirlins DID offer the McStealers the 5 feet needed for the path, but the thieves wanted 14 feet, which is clearly excessive. Judge Klein went then and awarded 20 feet!!
February 15, 2008
6:23 a.m.
Suggest removal
vudumom writes:
Instead of the Boulder City Council trying to impeach Bush and Cheney,why don't they look into the judge who awarded the land to his friends?
February 15, 2008
7:28 a.m.
Suggest removal
fiesty writes:
vudumom- hear, hear!
What cracks me up in the latest development is that Stevens said she was "entitled" to be there. No she wasn't- until adverse possession was awarded, it was still TRESPASSING. Still, "entitlement" seems to aptly describe the McStealers mentality.
February 15, 2008
7:46 a.m.
Suggest removal
SteveFesch writes:
Property rights in general are being threatened in the front range. Mclean was a former RTD board member and I suspect that is where he learned some of his tricks. Those same tricks are being used on everyone in Boulder.
Do you guys even realize that your "light rail" to Boulder via what's called the Northwest Corridor is not the clean electric light rail that was promised. It's now a diesel train. Already voted on and approved in Oct. http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news...
The reason the plans changed is because RTD is almost $2,000,000,000 over budget. That is why they are converting to diesel, it's why they are taking more land then they need for commercial/retail developmet, and it's why they are rerouting and scrambling to change their plans almost weekly. http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news...
Everyone's property rights are in jeopardy when we the voters don't pay attention to what is going on. There are two many loop holes in Adverse Possession and eminent domain and they are both being abused. There are bills on the table now to stop the abusive of both of them.
It's one thing to get involved in a message forum. It's another to take it a step further to show up at the capital to speak on behalf of a bill or to call your senator or house rep to ask them to support a bill.
HB08-1148 is the Bill that will limit what happened to the Kirlins from happening to you! http://www.leg.state.co.us/Clics/CLIC...
Hit the search button and type in the bill number. You can read more about where it is in the process and what senators/house reps are sponsoring your bill. If your area rep is not supporting it then call them!
February 15, 2008
8:58 a.m.
Suggest removal
peachy0301 writes:
If McClean and Stevens are so worried about their character they should not do things that call into question their character. These people are elitists who think they can get away with anything they want. That is not character.
February 15, 2008
12:47 p.m.
Suggest removal
Francesca writes:
vudu: Excellent point!
February 18, 2008
12:32 a.m.
Suggest removal
SteveFesch writes:
Get ready boulder. More land grabbing on the way!
http://www.dailycamera.com/news/2008/...
February 18, 2008
4:52 p.m.
Suggest removal
mrw650 writes:
What are they going to fight back with? More lies and fabricated evidence?
These two are scared, and they should be. Everything has blown up in their faces. Nobody is willing to help them now. Their lawyer is spraying Febreeze like crazy (fuzzy pictures? Not!)
They need to remember that they are not above the law. Ask Paris Hilton, Martha Stewart and Scooter Libby, people who are (admittedly) far more famous and rich than Dick and Edie. They thought they were untouchable. The law showed them otherwise.
Hey Edie! Practice your knitting and crocheting skills to make yourself Martha's jail poncho -- you'll be doing some time yourself, real soon!
February 18, 2008
6:07 p.m.
Suggest removal
viking2boot writes:
Suppose the boulder couple had sold their property, would the judge and his wife been able to take the land from the new owners?
February 18, 2008
7:41 p.m.
Suggest removal
mrw650 writes:
M/S alleges a vague outline of the path is visible in all of the photos. They are desperately grasping at straws. An "outline of the path" is NOT the same clear-cut path the Judge based his ruling on. The older photos show NO path at all. Not even an phantom outline.
The issue is that M/S led the Judge to believe that the path that exists as it looks TODAY existed 18 years ago. The Kirlins can prove it did not.
If Edie's that spry to break a path at her age, she shouldn't feign age, weakness or sickness to stay out of the slammer where she belongs.
The law is the law. Break it and you go to jail!
February 18, 2008
7:49 p.m.
Suggest removal
mrw650 writes:
viking2boot: I think they would have to wait another 18 years to do it.