Posted on 11/25/2007 6:31:07 PM PST by joanie-f
How many times have we heard about government abuses of the right to own property going on in neighborhoods across America, in the form of the invoking of the right of ‘eminent domain’, and the corruption of other legal concepts? Kelo vs. New London is probably the most publicized of such unconstitutional atrocities, but similar atrocities occur daily across this country.
How many of us have attempted to help the victims of such abuses of power? I myself have done so no more than once or twice.
I ask any FReeper who happens upon this thread to take ten minutes of his or her day to read about one such abuse of power. In terms of land area, it is a small abuse, and it affects only two ordinary American citizens who wield no more power than you or I. But its ramifications are enormous. If we’re not going to decide to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with the two relatively anonymous Americans I’d like to introduce to you, exactly when will we decide that it’s time to unite in revolt against the growing ‘privileged elite’ in this country, and the menace they represent to us all? The so-called legal/justice system is using all manner of wicked precedent to commit major, obscene private land grabs ... all such crimes tracing back to a desire for more wealth and power on the part of those who already wield more than you or I.
Before inserting the precious words ‘life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness’ into the Declaration, our Founders seriously considered using the wording ‘life, liberty and property’ (as originated by John Locke). I believe the latter to be a more powerful representation of our inalienable rights, but apparently the modern American government/judicial system vehemently disagrees with either expression.
Don and Susie Kirlin own a vacant lot, worth roughly a million dollars in today’s market, on the outskirts of Boulder, Colorado. They purchased it about twenty years ago with the idea of eventually building a home there. It is located just down the road from their current home, they walk by the land regularly, and they have been paying taxes on it faithfully for the past two decades.
Unfortunately for the Kirlins the couple that owns a home adjacent to their lot consists of a county judge, Richard McLean, and his wife, Edith Stevens, who is also an attorney. McLean and Stevens have been active, and powerful, in Boulder County politics for decades. It seems that this ambitious couple has been using a portion of the Kirlins’ land to occasionally hold their own private parties, and, in doing so, they have also created worn pathways through portions of that land.
It also would appear that these two believe that, if the Kirlins build a home on the land they purchased for just that reason, the view of the surrounding landscape from their own home would be diminished.
When the Kirlins attempted to build a fence on a portion of their vacant land before beginning construction on it, McLean and Stevens had a restraining order issued against them, stating that, since they had been using the land themselves for some time, they had become ‘attached’ to it and they are claiming it as their own. The restraining order was issued within a few hours of their request for it. Apparently the wheels of justice move at lighting speed, if the person requesting the moving has the right connections.
As a result, McLean and Stevens have invoked the doctrine of ‘adverse possession’, which allows a citizen to claim another’s property simply by virtue of using it for a specified period of time, in order to declare one third of the Kirlins’ land as their own. A Boulder judge has ordered the Kirlins to hand over to McLean and Stevens one-third of their land, which will result in their no longer owning sufficient land on which to construct not only their dream home but any home at all.
As if the preceding weren’t evidence in itself of unmitigated chutzpah, McLean and Stevens are not only claiming to ‘own’ a large portion of the land in question (without ever having paid a penny for it, or any of the taxes incumbent in its ownership), but they are also asking the court to rule that the Kirlins must pay any legal fees that they incur in order to achieve this particular theft.
Thus, as is becoming increasingly common in Amerika 2007, two people in power have decided to use a corrupt system to steal from someone else of lesser political stature -- in this case, out in the open, and without conscience or remorse.
Needless to say, the Kirlins are appealing the ruling (and amassing large, and no doubt growing, legal fees in the process). But I wouldn’t be taking any bets on their success. ‘Fighting city hall’ is fast becoming an empty phrase anymore, because the concepts of government of, by and for the people -- originally made possible by public servants who value individual rights more than government power -- is fast heading for extinction, as corruption, greed, and lust for power achieve a momentum that has become virtually relentless and unstoppable. Not to mention the fact that both the eighth (re: coveting) and tenth (re: stealing) of the Ten Commandments have essentially been declared null and void.
This case vividly portrays the battle between the average American citizen and our modern American 'ruling elite'. Yet too many Americans are more interested in the comfort of our couches, and the proximity of our remote controls, than we are in the plight of the likes of the Kirlins -- victims of a system gone awry.
Unless we Americans start giving a damn about the abuses that our neighbors suffer under tyrannical government dictates, those abuses will someday affect us, and there will be nobody left who can turn the tragedy around.
The only difference between appeasement and surrender is the passage of time.
Contact Information for Boulder, Colorado officials (and thanks, in advance, to all who avail themselves of this source of redress):
Cindy Domenico, Boulder County Commissioner
Ben Pearlman, Boulder County Commissioner
Will Toor, Boulder County Commissioner
Joan Fitzgerald, Colorado State Senator, District 16
Brandon Shaffer, Colorado State Senator, District 17
Ron Tupa, Colorado State Senator, District 18
Alice Madden, Colorado State Representative, District 10
Jack Pommer, Colorado State Representative, District 11
Paul Weissmann, Colorado State Representative, District 12
Claire Levy, Colorado State Representative, District 13
Dianne Primavera, Colorado State Representative, District 33
Resources:
Legal Landgrab Should Be Overturned on Appeal
Boulder Couple Accuses Former Judge, Mayor of Land Grab
Hard Feelings on Hardscrabble Drive
~ joanie
Allegiance and Duty Betrayed
I think that’s probably true most places. The article isn’t clear, but it notes that it was a “restraining order” and was issued within a “few hours” of the request. While temporary, as you note, it wouldn’t be unusual for a TRO to be requested and issued within a few hours.
As I know you know, I am just pointing out that this isn’t a valid reason to think that the process wasn’t above board.
In addition, their known plans, known to the folks involved in the taking, were to build on that land, thereby increasing the tax base and increasing its productiveity from a societal standpoint. That has now been rendered impossible as I understand under current covenants in that area. The ruling itself has decreased the productivity that land would have provided the local societal interests.
Every commercial land holding op hires folks to look after their land and keep people off, to prevent this from happening.
"There may be a law on the books allowing for stealing of land but that by no means makes it a Constitutional or moral act by any party including our government."
Pack your bags then and head back to Europe. Just mail the keys to your house in the door so the tribesmen can return to their property.
BTTT
I have seen judges in North Dakota recuse themselves, without the need for a motion.
It appears to me that the Kirlins were legally ignorant, and you presume they had a lawyer. I will make no such presumption, otherwise the guy should get handed his butt for not thinking of legal options.
Now I have a question for you. I have seen the value of the property before 1/3 was taken set at 1 million (in a post here). The remaining 2/3 of the property would now be pretty much worthless because of this taking.
Assuming that figure is correct, do the Kirlins have the right of civil redress of this 'taking' in that the value of their remaining property (no longer large enough for a home site)has been substantially diminished by their neighbors' actions to the tune or 2/3 of 1 million dollars--or whatever the pre-action value of the complete parcel was-- (they hold title to 2/3 of the original property yet), less whatever the market value of the remaining property is--(probably not much) which sum would have a starting valuation of 2/3 of $1 million or some $666,666.67?
My answer is yes. The doctrine of adverse possession dates to English common law and was uniformly adopted by the colonies following independence. The Founders adopted and applied the law. What possible reason would you have to think that they opposed it?
I don’t care how long the Kirlins allowed this land to sit idle.
Of course, this isn't an argument. You may not care, but it is the law. If you let the land sit idle while someone else improves it, you can lose title. That's the way it goes.
Who exactly has determined that a free citizen’s land must be ‘used’ properly? Why can’t a free citizen purchase a piece of land and determine never to ‘use’ it?
English common law. It goes back around 400 years. If you are looking for a particular person, I can't really help you, other than to guess Blackstone. As far as your second comment, a person is free to purchase land and never use it. But if someone else improves it, they run the risk of losing title.
I have read or seen absolutely nothing that shows they have proved that they planted a single flower on the land.
Check the judicial opinion. It states: "There is non-native vegetation along the front drip line of the large pine trees near the front of the lot. This non-native vegetation extends 3.5 feet into the adjacent lot, and includes Iris plants. . . ."
Every now and then, you get off on a weird tangent, and this is one of those times. I have given expert testimony on enough of these cases to see what is and is not happening. The issue presented here is not “adverse possession,” but “prescriptive use.” Study it and get back to us.
They fail on either path, anyway.
("Freedom is about authority", sprunkets, pro-land grabber)
Let it sink in a few minutes. The right to own property is no less a sacred right than that to keep arms. One right in this case should enfore the other.
Look at the aerial photos of the land. They disprove every claim of the plaintiff.
I didn’t argue one way or the other on the case because I’m no expert and don’t know all the facts, either. It SOUNDS wrong to me. My post was simply to point out that adverse possession has been around for centuries.
Very well written.
And those who are arguing that the founders would agree with this because adverse possession was a part of English Common Law don't recognize that this is a major perversion of it.
The founders were well versed in adverse possession and grabbed the land from the indians. The concept is old and various SC justices have written on the matter.
"once you own a piece of land, you were required to ‘develop’ it or ‘put it to use’ within a ‘reasonable’ amount of time, or your ownership of it could be revoked if someone else had a better ‘use’ for it?"
Irrelevant. The question are, did someone else use the land for the ~20yrs, and did the owners ever note it and object over that period of time. If the owners do nothing to enforce their rights, the State will follow suit. The State is just following the precident set by the owners and rewarding title to the ones that have used it as their own.
"I don’t care how long the Kirlins allowed this land to sit idle. That is their prerogative. "
They didn't just let it sit idle. They did nothing to protect it over that time, while someone else used it as their own.
"Those arguments appear to come from a source that has been so enmeshed in liberal legal technicalities that the original purposes of ‘law’ and ‘justice’ in a free society that values individual rights have become obscured."
They're not liberal legal technicalities. Adverse possession is a ancient doctrine and as such it's a conservative principle. It involves responsibility to care for ones property. The liberal technicalities here involve the zoning, building codes and homeowner's assn. which prevent folks from using their land as they see fit to. That includeds building a 500 sq ft house.
"Why can’t a free citizen purchase a piece of land and determine never to ‘use’ it?"
That's not logical. There must always be a reason why folks do things.
"As long as a free man’s land does not endanger others, or is not a ‘blight’ on the neighborhood, it is no one’s (and certainly not the government’s) business what he does with his property."
There's the liberal principle in the concept of blight. There are no individual property rights wherever that concept is allowed as a basis of law. Property then belongs to the local old ladies beautification committee.
Joanie, this gets into a much larger issue, one that no court is likely to address, because of the only possible outcome. The power of taxation of vested, and accumulated wealth and real property is owned by the monarch. This perogative is the basis of the concept of "Adverse Possession." We have no monarchy here; the very government exists at the pleasure of the people, who have failed to delegate to the government any monarchistic powers. Ad Valorem taxation is an unauthorized theft of personal wealth. It's unconstitutional at it's root.
Those here defending this judgement are statists at heart, not free men.
That contention is backed only by perjured testimony, not by any hard and palpable fact.
______________________________________
Get off your high horse and do the research, the concept of legal adverse possession runs uninterupted from colonial days through now. There are significant chunks of our history where the concept was encouraged by the government via squatter's rights in the west.
Placing yourself morally above those here who understand the grown-up realities of the world and explain those realities gains you nothing with me. Especially since those who explain what they know about the law are not making any ethical judgement of the case, just a realistic legal one.
"sprunkets, pro-land grabber) Let it sink in a few minutes. The right to own property is no less a sacred right than that to keep arms. One right in this case should enfore the other.
If you don't defend your sacred rights, you deserve to loose them. The Kirlins did nothing to defend their right for over 20 years and lost part of their land as a result of their neglegence.
What does it show? And was it introduced into evidence?
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.