[george76]

Latest.

[george76]

Don Kirlin said he doesn’t expect to appeal the decision of the Ethics Review Board, although he will appeal Klein’s ruling...

[Gondring]

Sickening

[ken21]

life on the democrat plantation.

[BallyBill]

This is pathetic.

Wars have been started over crap like this.

[dynachrome]

I am sure they will be very good neighbors after this. McLean and Stevens = scumbags.

[Wally_Kalbacken]

Adverse possession is a concept that should hardly be considered arcane. It appears in essentially the same form in each state, though the period of adverse possession required for title to pass varies from state to state.

I have read only this article on the subject - but from the way the paper phrased their use in this article - it would seem that all they gained by adverse possession was an easement to cross the property, not title to the property itself.

[george76]

“Some men rob you with a six gun and some men rob you with a fountain pen....”

— Woody Guthrie

[george76]

A Warning for Property Owners (Boulder, CO)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1924861/posts

Retired judge: This land is my land (Jurist rules in favor of colleague, snatches $1 million parcel)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1925997/posts

Land Lost After Boulder Couple Failed To Use It
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1926521/posts

Panel won’t probe Boulder land ruling
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1929194/posts

[Liberty Valance]

Tresspassers should be shot.

[Labyrinthos]

"Adverse possession” has been part of the common-law that we inherited from England prior to the ratification of the United States Constitution, and adverse possession remains the law in nearly every state as part of the common-law of that state or codification of the common-law. It is by no means “arcane” or a “legal loophole.” In addition, “adverse possession” does not simply give title to real property to “someone who uses another’s property for 18 years without an owner’s objection ... “ Rather, a person claiming land by adverse possession generally must establish that he or she has openly, continuously, adversely, and notoriously used the land for a long period of time (usually ten to twenty years, depending upon the state).

If, in fact, the owners walked by their land nearly every day and saw that it was being used by others, then they should have promptly taken steps to either prevent the use (i.e., put up a fence or prosecute for trespass) or given them permission to use the property so that their use is no longer “adverse” and “notorious.” Instead, they apparently did nothing for eighteen years, and therefore, they have no one to blame but themselves.

[editor-surveyor]

"In a letter to the Kirlins, assistant regulation counsel Louise Culberson-Smith said that the McLean and Stevens' use of an "adverse possession claim" to win the land does not constitute a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct."

But using perjury to win the claim does I bet...

[shhrubbery!]

This reporter is either a liar or he's ignorant. Likely both.

1. a neighboring couple who used an arcane legal loophole to take over their property

Adverse possession is not "a legal loophole."
Adverse possession is also not "arcane" (unlike, say, Arlen Specter's use of Scottish law).

It is real property law that has been around for centuries. It is used in hundreds, if not thousands of boundary line disputes every year. I'm not a lawyer and I knew about it. IIRC all US states (except Louisiana) honor the concept.

2. McLean and Stevens won a third of a vacant lot that the Kirlins owned for more than 20 years, making it impossible for them to build a dream home they had planned for the site.

This is a flat-out falsehood.

It is NOT "impossible" for the Kirlins to build on the site. They still own PLENTY of room to build. (I have proved this on previous threads, posting links to aerial photographs that showed all lot lines.)

I was initially sympathetic to the Kirlins, but the more I looked into the case the more I saw they are distorting the facts, and cynically manipulating a willing media to try to inflame the public.

Dumb move. They wasted their money and their time pursuing vindictive "ethics" charges that their lawyer almost certainly told them were clearly unfounded. Their appeal will go nowhere either.

Don't trust the biased media in this case. Instead, read the judge's order, linked in previous threads, in which the judge outlined the law, the facts, and the reasoning. The law and the facts were NOT on the Kirlins' side.

[MaxMax]

What a low life piece of cr@p a Judge must be to take away from others
for personal gain. And at what gain accept to just take it because..

[VOA]

bump

[fella]

Who says that the old fashioned, RAT style, “good ole’ boy network” down at the courthouse is a thing of the past?

[george76]

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

[shield]

CROOKS...