Claire Levy - still not getting it
When asked what her reaction was to Stevens’ resignation, Levy said, “It’s best that we all just move on and attend to the business we have.”
This may actually be the most damaging outcome for Claire because it lets her think this is behind her while she still has not spoken to the issue. And her ending request to move on once again comes across as arrogant and unwilling to speak to the issue at hand.
Again, we will have to see how the next few weeks play out.
Will Claire finally make a statement about her opinion of the land grab?
Will this story stay front and center for awhile? Will a credible opponent run against Claire in the election?
But as of now I think her seat remains very much in play in the upcoming election. And if the Republicans nominate a strong candidate (hint - Bob Greenlee), then it’s a real race.
http://www.davidthielen.info/politics/2007/11/claire-levy-—s.html
CharlesLuce :
The point is not that what McLean did was unlawful, but rather that it was unethical. Having the legal power to effect a result is not a legal imperative to do so.
Assuming that McLean can state a successful claim for adverse possession, you just don’t do that to you neighbor, even an absentee neighbor.
One would think that a respected judge, who has witnessed the sad pagentry of litigation play out in his courtroom for years, would understand this, and would understand why people are upset.
It’s not about legal rights. It’s about doing what is right.
http://www.dailycamera.com/news/2007/nov/25/paths-never-crossed-families-in-land-battle-both/
Nice to see the other side saddled with a big problem.
Thoughts on Claire Levy - still not getting it
and some other links.