War of words heats up in south Boulder 'land grab' case
Attorney: McClean, Stevens case shouldn't be sent back
Heath Urie, Daily Camera
Originally published 06:30 a.m., March 27, 2008
Updated 06:30 a.m., March 27, 2008
- Email this
- Print this
- Comments
- Change text size
- Subscribe to print edition
- iPod friendly
A war of words continues in a high-profile Boulder land case, with each side accusing the other of lying.
In January, Don and Susie Kirlin appealed an October ruling by Boulder County District Court Judge James C. Klein that awarded a third of their million-dollar lot to neighbors Richard McLean and Edith Stevens, based on the squatter's-rights law of "adverse possession."
The Kirlins at the same time filed a request with the Colorado Court of Appeals to send the case back to the district court level to hear additional evidence, alleging their neighbors fabricated evidence to win their case.
After the Kirlins wrote in the request that McLean and Stevens "willfully fabricated evidence," lied in their testimony and that new aerial photos of the property back up the claims, a recent response filed with the appellate court by McLean and Stevens' attorney fires back.
"(Don) Kirlin seeks to retry this case with evidence he now describes as 'newly discovered,' all of which was available to him prior to trial," Kim Hult wrote. "Kirlin does not allege or argue ... that this evidence could not have been discovered before with the exercise of reasonable diligence."
According to Hult, the case should not be sent back to Klein for review, a new trial or a reversal of his decision because the Kirlins are making false allegations.
"Kirlin simply seeks to make yet again, in a very public way, sensational false charges that have already been rejected by the district court," Hult wrote in her reply. "A remand is not warranted, and Kirlin's motion should be denied."
Hult goes on to argue that any photos of the disputed land or testimony from nearby residents and other witnesses could have been, and in some cases already were, introduced in the original trial last fall.
She wrote that the motion to send the case back to the lower court "undercuts the principle of finality long recognized by Colorado courts" and that the couple should not "be allowed a second bite of the apple."
Hult also accused Don Kirlin in the filing of resorting to "name calling" and making "baseless charges in the media."
A response filed Friday by the Kirlins' attorney, Andy Low, continues to assert that McLean and Stevens fabricated evidence of a longtime path on the Kirlins' lot -- which Low said is more than grounds for sending the case back to Boulder.
"Without the path, therefore, plaintiffs had no realistic chance of gaining most of the land at issue," Low wrote. "Although the Kirlins caught plaintiffs red-handed, the court seemed reluctant to believe that persons as prominent as the plaintiffs would have tampered with evidence."
McLean is a former district court judge and Boulder mayor, and Stevens is an attorney.
Low said that if tampering with evidence isn't enough to justify sending the case back to Klein, "It is difficult to imagine what would."
The court of appeals will likely decide whether to remand the case to the trial court within a few weeks.
Comments
Posted by Jim on March 27, 2008 at 7:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Anyone who lives in Boulder County please remember Judge Kleine who authorized the land grab stands for a retention vote following his three year provisional term on November 4,2008. Vote. The commission for the 21st Judicial District will be taking comments about Judge Kleine in May and will make a reccommendation as to whether he should be retained in office. Vote!
Posted by Jim on March 27, 2008 at 7:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Sorry. Make that the 20th Judicial District.
Posted by MarineGrunt on March 27, 2008 at 7:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Assclown judges giving other peoples land to another assclown judge? Who would have thunk it?
Why not... "we been walking on this land for so long.. it's ours!" Typical Boulder attitude. Do what I want, when I want and how I want! Gonna love when the Power grid goes down. I'm going shopping in Boulder!!!!
Way to go Boulder! If your not farking it up, Aurora is!
Posted by horsinaround on March 27, 2008 at 7:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Let's all hope Mclean and Stevens get caught perjuring themselves and wind up with criminal charges and their rears in jail! That would be justice. Not likely in Boulder, but we can always hope!
Posted by TCB on March 27, 2008 at 8:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Judges are bound by the law. They are not free to do what they (or you) think is right. The judge made the correct ruling under the law. If you vote him out, you better vote out the entire appellate court (oh wait, you can't) who upheld his ruling.
Why can't you guys understand that judges take an oath to uphold the law, right or wrong. If you don't like the law, you need to take it to the legislature. Voting out a judge who did his job correctly will do nothing. He will only be replaced by another judge that will continue to uphold the law until the law is changed.
Stop blaming judges for upholding laws you don't like. If you don't like the law, utilize the appropriate channels to change it. Otherwise, STFU.
Posted by Earl on March 27, 2008 at 8:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)
there are such peace loving people in the republic of boulder. mcleanstevens should be hung in the town square as upstand citizens of the county.
Posted by Jack_Bauer on March 27, 2008 at 8:09 a.m. (Suggest removal)
TCB,
You may want to read the transcripts of all the testimony and the judges ruling on the case. He did not make the right decision as he favored all of the Judge and his wifes testimony and those who testified in their behalf and ignored or passed off as uncredible those who testified for the true landowners.
Read it before deciding that he was right - you'll be surprised - maybe not since you are defending his actions.
Posted by jeffm on March 27, 2008 at 8:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I've been familiar with and following this case from the beginning, not only because of a People's Republic connection but the execrable visage of a judge enabling an ex-judge in stealing their neighbor's property. (Only lawyers can't bear calling that shovel a spade as the Daily Camera's blog will expugn such honest descriptions of the 'Honorable Richard McClein & the esteemed Ms. Stevens.')
As far as dotting 'I's and crossing 'T's it's not surprising a judge emeritus knew what and how to say to a sitting judge to get his way and his neighbor's land. (A neophyte soon to be returned to chasing ambulances and lying to judges instead of being lied to.)
The Kirlin's original lawyer erred in not requesting a jury who would have seen the justice being strangled by the law and ruled accordingly.
Indeed, it's interesting the 'logic' Ms. Hult is presenting which is essentially:
"Yeah, the Honorable judge McClean and the esteemed Ms Steven's lied and fabricated evidence. So what? The Kirlin's didn't prove it in time or the 'correct' way so they should lose their land because they lost the game."
Let's hope the appellate court perceives this isn't a "game" but a miscarriage of justice BY the law that has already moved the legislature to change the law.
And that once back in the People's Republic judge Jimmy will realize his ass is being watched this time and is on the line. ("Judge" DICK McClein's legacy is forever as a thief now, what does he want HIS to be?)
Does anybody out 'there' know the law sufficiently that if thiscase is remanded does it HAVE to go back to judge Jimmie's bench? Or could a jury be empanelled THIS time?
Or even go to a new judge or venue?
Which would be bad news for DICK & Edie since outside Boulder they aren't the Honorable judge emeritus McClean and the esteemed Ms Steven's but 2 of the worst people imaginable who USED the law to STEAL their neighbor's land.
Posted by MarineGrunt on March 27, 2008 at 8:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)
TCB... how does the crow taste? Did you share it with Mclean and Stevens?
Hrmmmm.... taste better if you stole it from your neighbor you know.
Posted by FallyBerry on March 27, 2008 at 8:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Sure judges are bound by the law, however you shouldn't be putting them on such pedestals. They are still human after all. It isn't like a judge around here has NEVER done anything wrong or been swayed by circumstance somehow. Please. Don't be ridiculous. If everything in life worked by the book of the law, we wouldn't need jails.
Posted by kimm1970 on March 27, 2008 at 8:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)
TCB maybe you need to look at the real world in regards to judges....they are forever making things personal or ruling with emotion or bais. The world is not black and white, sorry to tell you, and Colorado judges have proved that on several occasions.
If it's not a land grab, it's forcing a woman to counselling with her abusive husband or not stopping what they know is erroneous; whether its discounting valid testimony or allowing invalid testimony.
Posted by outrider on March 27, 2008 at 8:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)
These people should be tared, feathered and Paraded down Pearl Street Mall along with a few others.
The court seemed reluctant to believe that persons as prominent as McLean/Stevens would tamper with evidence? Hell they spent a lifetime learning how do deceive and lie. I have seen very few Attorney's with a conjunct.
People like McLean and Stevens are the worse swindlers because people put their trust in them. So that makes others Chopped liver.
And please don't play Liberal or Conservative. Anymore one's no better than the other.
Believe me the Boulder "Uppity Yuppie" are only surpassed by the cronies in the Bay Area.
we are investigating Boulder Immigration non- compliance Federal housing assistance filings, mandates, and guidelines. "Illegal Alien Giveaways"
Sames like in Boulder public official's do whoever they want, and whatever they want.
(THE EX-MAYOR)
Hmmmmmm..... Does that tell you anything.
Posted by MarineGrunt on March 27, 2008 at 8:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)
And where would one find these "Illegal Alien Giveaways" outrider?
I got a ton of stuff to do around the house...
Posted by Heidi on March 27, 2008 at 8:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)
MarineGrunt,
You better supervise that very closely, because you could end up with an empty house.
Posted by rickg19611 on March 27, 2008 at 8:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The judge is safe. He has the leftwing kook voters of Boulder to protect him.
The same ilk on the US Supreme Court voted in favor of eminent domain that allowed politicians to steal people's property so they could turn it over to their crony supporters to develop and raise property taxes too.
Nice little leftwing "scratch my back, I'll scratch yours" scam that their liberal judges support.
Posted by Heidi on March 27, 2008 at 8:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)
SumTingWong,
If you are a legal citizen, you would need your birth certificate, Social Security Card, government ID w/photo, copy of pay check, credit score above 650, a copy of your last utility bill, and copy of deed to property where you currently reside. Then you may qualify for the giveaway. Keep in mind that there is a 24 month waiting period and $5000 application fee.
Posted by MarineGrunt on March 27, 2008 at 9:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)
You can have one of mine, Sumting.
Posted by buffsblg on March 27, 2008 at 9:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)
At the risk of being subjected to more personal attacks, I will try to address some of the legal issues. An appeal is about errors in the law and not about decisions on the facts. Except in rare cases, the appeals court will defer to factual decisions by the trial judge or jury. A party is not usually allowed to bring in new evidence on appeal unless they can show that they could not have found the evidence prior to the trial. The idea is that you get one shot to present your evidence and you cannot keep bringing up additional evidence you should have brought up the first time. The key for the Kirlins is to prove that their new evidence is stuff they could not have presented at the first trial.
If the case is remanded, I still think the waiver of a jury would be in effect. There might be an exception to that buy I do not think so. The case would likely go right back to the same judge.
I know this topic inspires emotion and lots of name calling. I have asked before and will try here again. What actual evidence can any of you present that Judge Kirllin is corrupt or bought off or incompetent. I understand you do not like the law, but where is your evidence to crucify this judge?
Posted by happymike44 on March 27, 2008 at 9:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)
is it not amazing how a former judge and lawyer can seem to grab your property.If I was these people who lost my land to a no good squatter I would really be upset about this now.Also the land grabbers did not pay taxes or the property payments so what gives them the right to grab someone else's property.If I lived remotely close to the landgrabbers I would be worried they might come after me.If they are willing to steal part of one lot what will stop them from taking a home and the land around it.So people beware if they win this one it will open the door to people who just want a property to taking it.This law is jut another way for someone to take what you pay for and laugh at you about it.I hope the judge understands that this was not even their property to begin with.I am thinking of moving out of my current house but now I am worrried I might get a neighbor like these people who will say my house sat empty therefore it is theirs.Whatever happened to just being a good neighbor.My current home I had to install a 8 foot fence and keep it locked so the next door kids would stay home and not peek into my windows.Come on people what happened to just respecting your neighbor and leaving them to their privacy.After all is that not what you buy a home for.
Posted by GWM on March 27, 2008 at 9:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)
SumTingWong, that has to be one of the best handles ever! Whatever you are going to steal from your neighbor, could you get one for me please? All my neighbors have Rolos guarding their properties. My gay rights banner blew over to one of the neighbors and my butt got a scratch from their Shepard when I went to get it and screamed uncontrollably. I do plan to sue.
Posted by theguyoverthere on March 27, 2008 at 9:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Hey TCB, you obviously have never dealt directly with the legal system. There are just as many corrupt judges out there as there are lawyers. I know a judge who once he makes his decision, refuses to see any evidence that would contradict his decision, even if the judge’s decision would be proven wrong by the evidence. So much for our wonderful legal system. The reason there is an option to appeal is because a lot of judges out there are morons that think they can take their version of the law into their own hands and do whatever they want with it.
Posted by bropous on March 27, 2008 at 10:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Gee, someone shut up TCB and good.
GREAT job, someone!
Posted by RickyLee on March 27, 2008 at 10:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Boulder County voters:
Vote NO on retaining Klien. You don't have to explain it to anyone.
The next judge will be on notice, as will the scum-of-the-earth,
piece-of-s#*t, worthless land thieves.
Posted by rg52 on March 27, 2008 at 10:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Just plain 'right or wrong'.
McLean and Stevens were morally wrong to do what they did, and so was the judge. Is there anyone here that does not believe that McLean and Stevens used their knowlege and ability to bias this case in their favor. Who would ever believe that their property could be 'stolen legally' like this? Shame, shame, shame on them and anyone who takes their side.
Again it was MORALLY WRONG.
Posted by dwood on March 27, 2008 at 10:09 a.m. (Suggest removal)
You can't dye your poodle pink, you can't house rescued dogs on your property but you can house 4000+ mink, you can steal your neighbors land just because you want to...(and I know a judge)so typlical of the alien attitudes in Boulder, CO. Fence in the entire Republic, let them deal with absurd crap internally and keep it out of the news. It just reinforces the belief that the water they are drinking is far worse than what Alamosa is dealing with. Alamosa can be helped.
Posted by elaineb on March 27, 2008 at 10:09 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I think the reason TCB is so quick to defend the thieves is cuz
TCB *is* McLean/Stevens!!! The Crook B@st@rds!!!
Nobody else in their right minds would think any of this is okay!
I hope they rot in hell!
Posted by GWM on March 27, 2008 at 10:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)
rg52 no one wants to hear your opinion! Just kidding. You are exactly on point. It was all done legally within the law. The ones who used that law (meant for ranching) are scum. The law should be revised and the new evidence reviewed. I am confident (can I be?) that this case will be overturned. I also do not think the judge should be retained. He could have exercised discretion and done the correct thing for a *subdivision* not a ranch.
Posted by ParkHillPosse on March 27, 2008 at 10:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)
If those thieving land-grabbers are allowed to retain what they stole, they should be perpetually harassed, and the local Boulder community should ensure that they are never allowed to enjoy their ill-gotten gains in peace. I'm thinking car horns late at night, maybe some flaming bags of dog poop on the porch. What a couple of avaricious scumbags are McLean and Stevens, I hope they are ostracized and develop anxiety disorders.
Posted by Heidi on March 27, 2008 at 10:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)
GWM....finally someone who points that out!
Posted by Scott on March 27, 2008 at 10:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)
theguyoverthere,
I think that your comment about TCB is incorrect. I have the feeling that TCB is a prostitute (lawyer) or a prostitute admirer (law clerk, married to one, etc.). TCB is always coming to the defense of prostitutes, especially when they are morally wrong.
Scott
Posted by elaineb on March 27, 2008 at 10:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)
ParkHillPosse...
maybe some flaming bags of dog poop on the porch
TOO FUNNY!!!
Make it cow poop...it's bigger, take longer to burn,
and stink more!
Posted by MarineGrunt on March 27, 2008 at 10:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Prostitutes!!! How did I miss them? God I love whores...
Posted by fiesty on March 27, 2008 at 10:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)
TCB is wrong about the judge following the letter of the law. At a minimum, he awarded too much. Adverse possession is supposed to be restricted to the minimum involved; instead of the 5 ft or so that was disputed, he gave away 1/3 the lot- more than even the McGrabbers had asked for!
Posted by Jim on March 27, 2008 at 10:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Click on the link for a brief bio and photo of Judge Klein. He is the soul of Boulder.
http://www.courts.state.co.us/distric...
Posted by LuvAmerica on March 27, 2008 at 10:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)
LIBERALS! LEFTWING! Go ahead rickg19611, slap those labels on anything you don't like, even if it makes absolutely no flippin' sense. Wasn't that a conservative Supreme Court that made the asinine ruling on condemnation? This case has all the classic elements of Republicans: Wealthy well-connected people exploiting the legal system to trample the rights of less well-endowed folks. You may not like the behavior, but it ISN'T leftwing or liberal.
Posted by JSeifert on March 27, 2008 at 10:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)
If all this legal Bull is true then I should be able to claim approx 1 million square feet of state land as I use it most every day and the state does nothing but let it sit there. Or maybe we should just put these people on a rail to kansas including the judge for trying to turn this into a socialist country. Next they will say if you own more the 1/2 a lot you have to give it to someone who does not have it but only if they are rich Democrates.
Posted by GWM on March 27, 2008 at 10:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)
elaineb, in a former life, as a chemist, I analyzed horse, cow and chicken manure for evidence of pesticides from the feed they ate. I can tell you that horse manure smells like perfume compared to chicken manure. I vote for chicken manure!
Posted by Heidi on March 27, 2008 at 10:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)
How did this turn into a call for a vote on preferences of dung?
Posted by urnfndbag on March 27, 2008 at 10:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I hope Richard McLean and Edith Stevens are visited by the guys in Funny Games.
Posted by Scott on March 27, 2008 at 10:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"The judge is safe. He has the leftwing kook voters of Boulder to protect him..."
I agree.
"Nice little leftwing "scratch my back, I'll scratch yours" scam that their liberal judges support."
I disagree. The is not a lib versus con thing. It is crooked lawyer/judge (as if there is any other kind) thing. It does not matter what the political views (if any) are of the prostitute (lawyer/judge). REMEMBER. Lawyers are identically equal to prostitutes. Both will assume any position ... for a price.
Scott
Posted by elaineb on March 27, 2008 at 10:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)
GWM--
Chicken it is!!!
Posted by hakj on March 27, 2008 at 10:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Posted by MarineGrunt on March 27, 2008 at 7:20 a.m.
Assclown judges giving other peoples land to another assclown judge? Who would have thunk it?
Why not... "we been walking on this land for so long.. it's ours!" Typical Boulder attitude. Do what I want, when I want and how I want! Gonna love when the Power grid goes down. I'm going shopping in Boulder!!!!
Not that I agree with the land grab, but this has the familiar ring of what the US government and some of the American frontiersman did with the American Indians. These are true American frontiersmen here. Why not tout them as American heroes much like Col. Custard?
Posted by MarineGrunt on March 27, 2008 at 11:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)
It does, hakj! About 200 yr old ring to it...
Can we treat them to Col. Custards fate?
Posted by Justin_Credible on March 27, 2008 at 11:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)
McClean and Stevens suck...
May they suffer in hell for all eternity.
Posted by Krk on March 27, 2008 at 11:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I have no doubt I would take the law into my own hands if it didn't protect me... For their own sake, I'm happy to see the Kirlins are law-abiding citizens.
Posted by SteveFesch on March 27, 2008 at 12:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Mclean learned his tricks of land grabbing from being a former RTD board member.
Get ready Boulder. The bigger land grab is coming. RTD is thirsty for your land and they are "buying" it via eminent domain for pennies on the dollar right now.
People like to sit idle and encourage others to fight for property rights. Well it's up to all of us Coloradoans to rise up and protect them.
We're in a down market right now and the desire to land grab is at an all time high and our biggest land grabber right now is not Mclean. It's our own government(rtd) trying to pay for their budget mistakes.
Posted by kimm1970 on March 27, 2008 at 12:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Hey Buff...at the risk of you believing that this will be a personal attack...maybe the fact that judges seem to have their ethics out of wack.
Judges these days have no problem determining what's best for people and the fact that from what I read in the past this judge knew the McLean/Stevens faction (I may be wrong but it's what I read) thereby making him less than impartial.
Posted by rg on March 27, 2008 at 12:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Yo there TCB: When I was at DU law school, Professor Brody said: "The judge does any damn thing he pleases," and Justice Kirshbaum (then Judge) said: "Tell the judge the topic and he will tell you how it will turn out and evidence has nothing to do with it."
Perhaps such is the case since equity and the law merged way back about 1942. The presiding judge could easily invoke equity and give closure to this criminal action by the retired judge and his lawyer lay. Richard Grimes: Deicide, slayer of gods believing in equality and therefore disrespects all gods equally. http://www.geocities.com/r22037/think...
Posted by RickyLee on March 27, 2008 at 12:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)
NO TO JUDGE KLIEN IN 08
Boulder County voters, let's kick his a$$ out!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by jeffm on March 27, 2008 at 12:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I can appreciate at least what TCB or BB say on the facts and perspective of the case. (And 'if only' for 1`st amendment respect.)
It WILL be a hard slog to get this case reheard if only because DICK, as an ex-judge knew exactly how to present a case that appeared tight.
So again it's hoping the Appeals court sees at least the 'public interest and service' aspects.
And the deeper issues of perjury on the part of the plaintiffs and the appearance of judge Jimmy NOT using the correct standard of bias. i.e., the law explicitly states that evidence should be weighed favorably towards the ACTUAL property owners before making decisions or awards in favor of the ADVERSE property 'owners'.
This does not appear to have been done-vis a vis judge Jimmy believing EVERYTHING said by DICK & Edie and NOTHING believed from the Kirlin's.
Then there's also the onus of IGNORING evidence that shows Edie was lieing about "her path" by at least a decade.
I'd like to think it would be hard to ignore actual evidence merely because "DICK knew that 'T' was already crossed off..."
It would also present a bit of cognitive dissonance in the real world public for a spectacle like-
"Yeah, Joe Nacchio gets a new trial because the judge excluded 1 of his liars but the Kirlin's DON'T get a new trial because his opponent's liars got preference." (I realize that 1 was a federal case and this "just" local-but the 'law's the law'! Right?)
Posted by jvb on March 27, 2008 at 1:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I've read between the lines in letters past that the judge and his concubine will not be safe if they prevail in their corruption.
Posted by Big_D on March 27, 2008 at 1:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)
McLean and Stevens knowingly took advantage of the law that was meant for a completely different reason. Klein made his judgment with a biased view for someone he identified with. If they had abandoned the land why were they still living on it? This is just a bad case of influence gaming and McLean and Stevens deserve all the public hate they get. If you steal somebody else’s belongings you are a thief whether you like it or did it legally or not.
Posted by O_TRAIN on March 27, 2008 at 1:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recusal
If the judge had past relationships w/ mclame/stevens that would affect the fairness of the proceedings or him being impartial - he should have disqualified himself. This reeks of cronyism.
elaineb / GWM - if you run out of chicken poop, I'd be glad to personally fill a couple bags.
Posted by MeAgainstMachine on March 27, 2008 at 2:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Anybody have the McThievens address? I wanna drop a deuce on their porch and set it on fire? I don't have access to horses, chickens or cows, however, I do have access to a Mexican cheddar shack with some pretty wicked red chili.
Posted by LuckyMe on March 27, 2008 at 2:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Someone should remind Stevens & "Taken em' to the McLeaners" that entitlement is NOT one of the 5 Senses.
Posted by bettyandjames on March 27, 2008 at 2:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I saw a post a while back that said basically, "Cr@p! My postman has been walking across my yard for how many years?"
Thought that was good.
Forget the Chicken poo, go for human, lots of porta-pots around, and use a jacuzzi pump to deliver it.
Posted by Heidi on March 27, 2008 at 2:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Oh,no, I just thought of something! Rolo has been running across my yard for quite some time now. Will my house become a brothel for dogs? Who will pick the dog poo out of the yard?
Posted by MarineGrunt on March 27, 2008 at 3:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Does this mean I get to lick your peanut butter heidi?
Posted by Heidi on March 27, 2008 at 3:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Very funny, MarineGrunt. I will no longer be living there if Rolo claims my property. He doesn't like women. Or is it just screamers he doesn't like? I'm not a screamer.
Posted by MarineGrunt on March 27, 2008 at 3:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I'm cool with the quiet ones, too....
Plus.. I am DAMN good at it!
But, that might be a little off topic!
Posted by Golden on March 27, 2008 at 4:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Hye buffsblg, trust your instincts and don't write anymore. To answer your silly question... "What actual evidence can any of you present that Judge Kirllin is corrupt or bought off or incompetent. I understand you do not like the law, but where is your evidence to crucify this judge?" .
The evidence to crucify judge Kleine (and mcleinstevens) is the judge's very own ruling. It is self-evident.
and TCB... as eveyone points out...you are an idiot... Boulder deserve you and you it.
Posted by gs on March 27, 2008 at 4:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)
don't you people work?
Posted by EdVMorales on March 27, 2008 at 4:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Commend sense here folks. If he wasn't once a judge himself things would have been different. Can you say FAVOR!!!!
Posted by LuckyMe on March 27, 2008 at 4:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I work gs, but like most people (yourself included) seem to have a little time to play during the day as well.
Posted by RememberThis on March 27, 2008 at 4:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Makes Entry..............wow! phew! I see at least 2 feet of fecal material on the floor here.
Ya know, I really would be worried about being the neighbor of some of these posters in here who support this taking of ones land.
On the other hand ............there is this "Make My Day Law" that really should have been applied by the Kirlins in the first place.
This is such a joke.......If they dont win on appeal I will boycott Boulder forever, I wont do business with, drive thru, or spend a dime in Boulder ever again. I can EASILY sway the opinion of at least a 100 other people on this immediatly and many more with time.
As well as doing what I can to get this ridiculous law deleted off the books forever.
McClaim and Stealins you are not Coloradoan's , get the hell off your perch before your knocked down.
I would like to see a new sign on 36 headin in.........
~~~~~Welcome to Boulder! Home of the land grab!~~~~
Posted by angka on March 27, 2008 at 5:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)
What makes you people think this is a left vs. right issue? I and all the other liberals I know are horrified by this, and disgusted by what seems to be a crass manipulation of the law (at best) to take private property without compensation from a neighbor.
This is a legal issue that needs fixing, trying to play it into "liberals" committing some kind of BS stereotypical mischief is silly.
Posted by HolierThanThou on March 27, 2008 at 5:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Photographic evidence proves that McLean and Stevens lied and tampered with evidence in the first trial. The only correct decision for the Court of Appeals is to remand the case back to the District.
After that, put in for a motion to have the case dismissed. If the dismissal is not granted then the Kirlins should counter-sue McLean and Stevens for liability and damages for presenting a false and frivolous case. The case was originally fabricated to rob Kirlins of their property. Insist on having that one tried before to a jury.
The jury will then award the Kirlins a hefty sum for their trouble. I'd like to be on it because I would award them about 5 million dollars with a smile.
Then the Kirlins could use evidence gathered in the lawsuit to ask the district attorney to press criminal charges of perjury and presentation of false documents, both felonies, against McLean and Stevens. Ultimately, those two belong in jail.
Posted by The_Punnisher on March 27, 2008 at 5:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The LIARS and JUDGE ( I know, an OXYMORON ) should become decorative tree ornaments hanging from the trees around Hardscrabble drive....
Then the legal profession can start regaining the respect it once had..
Lawyers will assume any position for money...just like a prostitute.
At least the prostitute leaves the client happy with the service...
Posted by HollyGoLightly on March 27, 2008 at 6:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Is there a link or website to read the transcripts of the case?
Posted by TCB on March 27, 2008 at 6:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 38-41-101(1) provides for adverse possession where a plaintiff and/or his predecessors in interest have been in possession of property for more than eighteen years. The possession must be: (1) actual; (2) adverse; (3) hostile; (4) under claim of right; (5) exclusive; and (6) uninterrupted. See generally, Salazar v. Terry, 911 P.2d 1086, 1089, n. 4 (Colo. 1996).
Thats all it takes morons. If the facts fit the law (as they did here), the land is adversely possessed. Plain as day.
So funny how I can post something at 7:30am, put in a full day's work, and log back on in the evening to find out that you lay people had your panties twisted all day long. Classic...
Posted by TCB on March 27, 2008 at 7:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Some more knowledge for you dummies:
The credibility of the witnesses, the sufficiency, probative effect, and weight of all the evidence, and the inferences and conclusions to be drawn therefrom are all within the province of the trial court whose conclusions will not be disturbed on review unless so clearly erroneous as to find no support in the record. Am. Nat'l Bank v. Quad Constr., Inc., 31 Colo. App. 373, 504 P.2d 1113 (1972).
It is the responsibility of the trier of fact to determine the credibility of the witnesses and the weight, probative effect and sufficiency of the evidence. Hence, the factual findings of the trial court will be accepted on review unless they are clearly erroneous and not supported by the record. Wright Farms, Inc. v. Weninger, 669 P.2d 1054 (Colo. App. 1983); Wulf v. Tibaldo, 680 P.2d 1348 (Colo. App. 1984).
Posted by TCB on March 27, 2008 at 7:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)
OWNED!
Posted by youngman on March 27, 2008 at 8:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Lets all go to there house on Halloween....that will scare the crap out of them...
Posted by Hazardous_T on March 27, 2008 at 8:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Nice try on the Nuremberg defense TCB but we have heard it all before. As National Socialist, Walther Funk (Minister of Economics) said during his trial in July of 1946, "I signed the laws for the aryanization of Jewish property. Whether that makes me legally guilty or not, is another matter. But it makes me morally guilty, there is no doubt about that..." No doubt, and I believe the same rings true in this case.
The "I did nothing wrong because I followed the law" arguement is typical among tin plated gods who are forced to justify their tyranny and piracy.
Posted by elaineb on March 27, 2008 at 10:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)
TCB---
Don't you get it, Dick or Edie...or whoever you are?
WE DON'T LIKE LAWYERS!!!
LAWYERS = THIEVES
Posted by Scott on March 28, 2008 at 8:16 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The_Punisher,
You forgot to put the copyright notice on your comment about lawyer/prostitutes. I am the inventor of that comparison! I'm call my personal prostitute right now to sue you and take 1/3 of your property. :-) That's a smilie face!
Scott
Posted by jeffm on March 28, 2008 at 8:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)
TCB-since you seem sufficiently informed to quote supposedly salient case information, but not so much as to eschew gratuitous insults, perhaps you'd proffer a prediction for the next stage in this case.
Will the Appellate court read the essence of Ms. Hult's confession of collusion and fraud and just nod that it's O.K. after all since it's judges on the 1 side and merely citizens on the other?
Will they infer that judge Jimmy did NOT weigh the evidence in the most favorable light for the defendants?
Will they ignore the 'new' evidence of fraud and perjury because it wasn't presented 'properly'?
All quite probable, actually, since it was an arcane law and the arcane application of juris prudence that gave DICK & Edie their expected victory.
After all, the Kirlin's just had actual ownership, 20+ years of dues and diligence and DICK & Edie had an Insider's view of the System that could be used to steal a third of their neighbors property and render the rest useless.
So TCB-why not please extend your legal expertise into suggesting what the Kirlin's should do next to make sure DICK & Edie pay as much as possible and enjoy as little as possible the 'quiet enjoyment of "their" property'?
What counter-suits are available?
What legal hassles and impediments are possible? Perhaps a bill for reimbursement of 20+ years of property taxes, HOA dues and maintenance expenses-don't forget the interest, compounded quaterly. (All this before selling their remaining lots under attractive terms to a Dorm house for hyperactive insomniac crack addicts who love rap but are hard of hearing and have an ADA 'right' to turn their music up!)
Or does your legal opinions and insight only apply to immoral and ethically suspect applications of the law-with right and justice beyond the bounds?
Posted by CWW on March 28, 2008 at 9:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)
If the Kirlins do lose their land permanently, I hope they build a pet crematorium on what's left, as close as possible to the thieve's house. Or maybe they should build a 15 ft. fence on the edge and block any view the scumbags have.
Posted by Scott on March 28, 2008 at 11:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Hey TCB!
It is now 11:24 AM and you still have not answered jeffm's challenge that he posted at 8:38 AM. It appears that jeffm's last paragraph is correct.
Scott
Posted by RickyLee on March 28, 2008 at 11:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)
VOTE NO ON JUDGE KLIEN
Posted by rg on March 28, 2008 at 12:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Posted by HolierThanThou on March 27, 2008 at 5:32 p.m. Photographic evidence proves that McLean and Stevens lied and tampered with evidence in the first trial.
Man O Man: HolierThanThou will give them five $million if he sits on a jury; save a chair for me. Five sounds good to me. Richard Grimes: Deicide http://www.geocities.com/r22037/think...
Deicide Corner: “I'm a nonbeliever. I don't believe in the existence of a God. I don't believe in the Christian dogma. I find it horrifyingly silly.The intolerance that flows from organized religion is the most dangerous thing on the planet.” -- Jane Rule
Posted by Hazardous_T on March 30, 2008 at 3:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"Over a half century ago, while I was still a child, I recall hearing a number of old people offer the following explanation for the great disasters that had befallen Russia: 'Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened.'" Alexander I. Solzhenitsyn, winner of the 1970 Nobel Prize for Literature.
Posted by rg on March 30, 2008 at 1:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Hazardous has to bring a spoke in the wheel of excrement into the fray causing me to wonder which spoke he eats knowing that Christians, e.g. eat, symbolically, a "jew" transmogrified into an anti-Semitic Christian god with Dan Caplis amidst in a feeding frenzy:
All Reverends believe in ghost droppings; therefore, if you believe in Reverends you believe in ghost droppings. Dan Caplis, lawyer talk show host at KHOW rapes little boys because his priest rapes them with the Pope transferring beastly pedophile priests from diocese to diocese. Thanks to America's legal system the Pope has paid out nearly a $billion dollars with Caplis murmuring "foul," with the five catholic Supremes concurring. Richard Grimes, deicide, believing in equality; therefore, disrespecting all gods equally and slaying them so they can enter Mythology Cemetery and stop killing humans by the millions and billions. 2nd Coming Holy Genocide will deliver billions to the devil: (such silly stuff). http://www.geocities.com/r22037/think....
Deicide Corner:
“O Lord, please don't burn us.
Don't grill or toast your flock.
Don't put us on the barbecue
Or simmer us in stock.
Don't braise or bake or boil us
Or stir-fry us in a wok
Oh, please don't lightly poach us
Or baste us with hot fat.
Don't fricassee or roast us
Or boil us in a vat,
And please don't stick thy servants, Lord,
In a Rotissomat”
-- Eric Idle, John Du Prez, Graham Chapman, John Cleese
Post your comment (Requires free registration.)
Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.