Posted on 03/27/2008 8:18:41 AM PDT by george76
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.
McLean is a former district court judge and Boulder mayor, and Stevens is an attorney.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailycamera.com ...
The court of appeals will likely decide whether to remand the case to the trial court within a few weeks.
Judge Kleine who authorized the land grab stands for a retention vote following his three year provisional term on November 4,2008.
ht comments
Oh well, as long as they have the right name some can't do anything wrong. And I bet the judge isn't related to them or took any kick backs for his decision.
Contrast that with this thieving, well-connected democrat power couple.
There must be a precedent. Landgrab, see Snatch. Here it is Harvey v United States. Harvey 7, Unithed States 0. I knew it!
I always vote NO on retention for all Judges unless I know otherwise.
I still don't understand why the Kirlins didn't move to change venue or for a recusal of the Boulder judges, who were the guy's colleagues.
The whole thing is scary.
Bill Clinton was a prominent person too and he paid Monica to lie under oath for him.
Not only a Navy Vet Pilot, but owns his own fleet.
jurisprudence in Boulder County
Judge Denies Couple’s Request For 9 More Inches
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1935434/posts
RTD land grab raises hackles
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1934047/posts?page=15
That's it! I couldn't remember the name.
Thanks for the ping. I was thinking about this case the other day as I hadn’t heard much lately.
Don and Susie Kirlin seem to be the rightful owners.
They paid the taxes, HOA dues, etc. over the years plus the pictures do not show a 20 year trail...maybe a two year trail.
The co-worker judge should have recused himself and the case should have been tried in another district. A neutral judge would not have the appearance of favoring his friends and former fellow co-judge.
Boulder County PING.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.