Posted on 12/24/2007 9:57:15 AM PST by george76
The Boulder couple who successfully sued for part of their neighbors' land mailed a letter this week to "those who have supported us," saying they hoped to restore peace in their neighborhood.
Richard McLean and Edith Stevens, plaintiffs in the controversial adverse-possession case against Don and Susie Kirlin, spelled out their side of the story in the four-page letter -- obtained by the Camera from a recipient who wished to remain anonymous.
"We still hope that we can reconcile our differences with the Kirlins and restore peace in our neighborhood and community," McLean and Stevens wrote.
Contacted at her home on Hardscrabble Drive, Stevens said the letter was meant as a private communication with friends. She objected to the Camera publishing its contents,citing the ongoing legal case.
The Kirlins say they plan to appeal a Boulder judge's October ruling that McLean and Stevens should be awarded about a third of one of the Kirlins' two vacant lots next door. McLean and Stevens used the legal doctrine of adverse possession to successfully claim they cared more for the land than its owners did.
Susie Kirlin said Saturday that she disagrees with nearly all the points made in the letter.
"This is obviously an attempt to justify taking their neighbors' land," Susie Kirlin said. "We obviously disagree with many, if not all, of their misrepresentations. The bottom line is they took something that didn't belong to them, got caught, and are now trying to justify their behavior."
Since the story became public, McLean and Stevens have become the targets of protesters and others who think the couple used their legal knowledge to steal a prime piece of real estate...
(Excerpt) Read more at rockymountainnews.com ...
Both of these criminals ( the Judge and his theiving Wife) and the crooked Judge friend who helped them Steal this land should all go straight to JAIL.
If it’s not on charges of trespassing, it should be on charges of perjury, collusion, conspiracy, theft, fraud and Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law (both those Judges and the two lawyers are officers of the court).
Correction. Three Judges and one lawyer are officers of the court.
I think you are exactly right. I wonder how many others have been harmed by these miserable excuses for human beings.
I hope they have to sell their house to pay all the legal bills. I don't imagine they have good relations with any of their neighbors.
If the case is as she described in the letter, then both they and the Kirlins have a case against the developer and his builder and contractors. Strange how none of that is evidenced in the court filings, though. Doesn't let them off the hook for criminal trespass that they both admitted to in court, though.
IIRC, the land thieves went back to court later and told the judge to give them more land, because the judge incorrectly calculated how much to award them in the first ruling. The judge refused to assist in any additional land grab.
Having the legal power to effect a result is not a legal imperative to do so.
I was just wondering-wondering mind you......what would happen if say some type of toxic material was found on the “newly acquired” piece of land? It could be maybe a big honking heap of CFLB(compact florescent light bulbs)or cadmium(from rechargeable batteries)the mind does boggle.
Of course the previous owners had no knowledge of any thing wrong with the land when THEY BOUGHT IT! Sooo, who would have to pay to clean it up? In accordance with Bolder-dashes tough but fair commie environmental standards?
I’m just thinking out loud.
It’s not only about legal rights.
It’s also about doing what is right.
Some have recommended a party for the college kids on the land.
Include a large stereo with many big speakers, beer on tap...
OK. Get out.
Well said.
This can't be said enough.
Not only in this case, but in all the govt. eminent domain cases. It's disgusting how greedy and cruel people can be.
You got that right. I just sold a property that my mortgagor had surveyed—and readjusted the stakes to 50' wide.
The new owner's survey moved the boundaries to a different 50', moving my new(ish) fence three feet onto the neighbor's lot. The oldest unsold lot seems always to be 47' wide.
Whoever they are, they are smiling now, seeing the divine law of justice (karma) in action.
Interesting, they used the same arguments as the first time and he said no. I think he's realizing now, that he'd been set up and it will be he who could lose his law license and his job. Judge Klein is up for re-election in 2008.
Agreed...and it's also a good lesson on no matter how old you are, how accomplished, how politically-connected, how well-esteemed you might be, you can still lose your good reputation if you shark your neighbor.
The attitude M/S still has, shows they really didn't care about any of that, so long as they "won" their case. Winning, and getting the land for free, was what mattered to them. Winning was everything. They even had the nerve to call Susie Kirlin "disgruntled" and "confused."
These people are not just scraping the bottom of the barrel...they are the bottom of the barrel, and they have only themselves to blame for it.
Unbelievable gall. Writing a letter thanking their “supporters”. Glad one of the recipients had enough of a conscience to make the letter public.
Let her find out which of her friends ratted her out to the press!
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.