"Stevens and McLean said in court that they knew the land was owned by someone else, but they used it anyway for access to their yard, to host parties and to store a wood pile."

If there were justice, Stevens and McLean would be facing criminal trespassing charges. It makes my blood boil that there is no justice in this matter. If Stevens and McLean had an ounce of decency, he would back down.

"The doctrine, incorporated into Colorado's Revised Statutes"

The doctrine needs to be repealed by the Colorado legislature. No one should be rewarded for trespassing.

"'Adverse possession has been around a long time, and it's not a theory of law that is questioned,' Toft said."

How long this injustice has been around is not relevant to whether it is moral and serves justice.

Chuck Wright

http://www.RonPaul2008.com/

Posted by anonymous on November 10, 2007

The law of adverse possession is based on the notion that a property owner SHOULD bring trespassing charges against those unlawfully on their land. If the land owner fails to do so - because he or she leaves the land unattended, unprotected, and unused - those who actually use that scarce resource for productive purposes may claim a right to it. The law is meant to ENCOURAGE protection of property and also productive use of land. It's not about being "rewarded for trespassing," although it may seem like it in some cases.

Posted by aprilsmile on November 10, 2007

the owners said they did not even know that trespassing was happening. It has to be open and notorious. I think the homeowners have to know it is going on. What I want to know is what kind of people would take land from other people in a situation like this, especially when it is such a small lot? I hope there is such negativity that the boulder population runs them right out town

Posted by kl53c on November 10, 2007

"It's not about being "rewarded for trespassing", although it may seem so in some cases." It is not that it seems so in some cases: IT IS SO in all cases. This law should be stricken from the books, this is not the wild west frontier anymore. This law should never have applied to city lots in the first place. SHAME ON THAT EX JUDGE, no morals at all.

Posted by evanesce on November 10, 2007

Mclean is a former judge, and he exploited an archaic law for the purpose of stealing someone else's land. Whether or not this law supports his case does not change the fact that his action is despicable. I hope that his neighbors shun him for his behavior, and I really hope that the property owners win their appeal. Mclean should be ashamed of himself.

Posted by cawrigh on November 10, 2007

"The law is meant to ENCOURAGE protection of property and also productive use of land."

I understand the purpose of the law. I don't agree with it. The government should protect the property rights of the owners regardless instead of trampling their rights, and the owners should be allowed to decide whether to put the land into productive use, when to put it into productive use, and what constitutes productive use.

Chuck Wright
http://www.RonPaul2008.com/

Posted by fbog on November 10, 2007

Mclean/Stevens don't want someone blocking their view (or their path heh-heh). Why don't they do the right thing and offer to buy the lot? Do they want people to think of them as thieves?

Posted by boulderhippie on November 10, 2007

we have a farmers ditch that crosses our property, making a small corner of our property difficult to access. We heard a story that a few owners before us, a group of condo owners who's property is adjacent to us tried to claim that piece of property as theirs, because they used it more than the owners. The judge denied the claim, but made the owners install a bridge to access the land.

Posted by alpnclymber on November 10, 2007

Yep if you enter 2059 Hardscrabble Dr 80305 into Google Earth it's pretty obvious it's just some rich folks trying to protect their view.

Posted by boulderhippie on November 10, 2007

chuck - what does ron paul have to do with this?

Posted by blacksho89 on November 10, 2007

McLean: "I don't want this case tried in the media."
How about the Court of Public Opinion, then? "The Court find you and your Jezebel guilty of being scumbags. Of this decision, there is no appeal.
This session is adjourned."

Posted by KR on November 10, 2007

Stevens and McLean are thieving rats. They have stolen more than $300,000 worth of property, and then have the nerve to demand that their victims pay their legal fees? Shame on them.
If they choose to act so selfishly and un-neighborly, the rest of should band together to treat them as they see fit to treat others.

Posted by Reality_Check on November 10, 2007

As others have said, just because it was Legal doesn't mean it was Ethical. Therefore the Kirlins -- or ANY interested parties -- can and perhaps should file a Grievance with the Colorado Supreme Court Disciplinary Committee regarding Dick McLean's unethical behavior. There have been 100s of attorneys suspended or disbarred for unethical acts which themselves were perfectly legal. The Colorado Bar even denied one lawyer membership for simply "using" the law to expose and stop a corrupt evangelical preacher. The gist of the ruling was that since he knew the law so well, using every bit of it to attack a lay person for purely personal reasons, even though legal, was unconscionable and unethical. Colorado Supreme Court Office of Attorney Regulation(303) 866-6410 or 1 (877) 888-1370. You can read up on the Rules of Professional Conduct and actual disciplinary actions and the reasons therefore, at http://www.cobar.org/ors.cfm?ID=20041 Any act which tends to place the Profession in a bad public light is a violation, whether legal or not. Deliberately exploiting the arcane Adverse Possession law to one's personal advantage against a known neighbor in a modern residential development is, at a minimum, abusive. "... ours is a sick profession marked by incompetence,
lack of training, misconduct and bad manners. Ineptness, bungling, malpractice and bad ethics can be observed in court houses all over this country every day ... these incompetents have a seeming unawareness of the fundamental ethics of the profession."
-- Chief Justice Warren Burger

Posted by SoBoPop on November 10, 2007

The law was meant to work in a world of farmers and ranchers and probably worked well 150 years ago. Aren't judges supposed to consider the intent of the law? And the intent of the scoundrels attemping to use it in an unethical manner? Disbarring both of them as well as Ms. Hult sounds like a reasonable solution. Maybe folks should pitch some tents in the McClain Stevens' back yard and have a big party while they're on their next Carribean vacation. Then we could file suit and give the Kirin’s back their land as well as 50% of the judges property. Fair is fair, right?

Posted by michelleinboulder on November 10, 2007

Edie Stevens and Dick McLean are disgusting and clearly plotted for years to take their neighbors land. They were spoiled by the fact that the lot next to them remained empty for so long. And instead of counting their blessings ("hey, someone could've built a house next to us 20 years ago but instead we've had open space!") they go greedy and decide not only that they're *entitled* to have open space next to their house *permanently*, but that but that they should be awarded ownership of that space. They ought to be ashamed, but I wouldn't hold out much hope that they are.

Posted by jadam12 on November 10, 2007

"He noted that the Kirlins would have been within their rights to call authorities about any trespassing on their property, but because they did nothing, the adverse-possession clause prevails.” Wow, it doesn't pay to be neighborly. Now you neighbors can just take your land. I hope that McLean and Steven's greed will come back to haunt them. Why didn't they just use the trail as they always did? Is their house so huge that they couldn't have created access on the other side of the property? Why are these wealthy people (McLean and Stevens) being so petty? I guess they will have to live with their decision and will be viewed so with the community, unless they are the type who never leave the confines of their gated community.

Posted by Reality Check on November 10, 2007

Interesting note that the arcane Adverse Possession law does NOT apply to quasi-municipal or municipal corps. So while lowly private citizens are in danger of losing their property to trespassers, the City (or State) cannot lose their property under the same rules/law, no matter how many decades the 80-yr-old lady has lived in the cabin that she and her late husband built by hand upon Forest land in the 1930's ...And while Colorado's "Make My Day" law currently only applies inside one's home, it's an interesting note that some other may states allow deadly force to be used to defend person or *property* even outside the home ... so given that trespassers put one's property at risk, it's no wonder that in other venues -- "Trespassers WILL be SHOT ... survivors will be shot AGAIN!" Perhaps there is merit to the old adage -- Good Fences Make Good Neighbors. And if your neighbor is named McLean, make that an electrified razor-wire fence.

Posted by cjb on November 10, 2007

Perhaps I am most disappointed in Judge Klein. He ignored not only the intent of the law, but also important facts in his decision allowing the former judge to complete his unjust land grab. I am the Kirlin's neighbor and thought this case was a no brainier. If the intent of the law is to put the land to the best use during the supposed adverse-possession period, what better use of the land than preserving open space!! I knew the land belonged to the Kirlins--Susie told me three years ago. I was shocked and disappointed when I saw the fence go up because it detracts from the beauty of the property. The public should know that our homeowners association walks the entire neighborhood on a regular basis and there was no obvious encroachment until after the dispute arose. I see the Kirlins walk the trails virtually every day, which go right by the property. Obviously, the Kirlins regularly visited their property, which is just down the street from their home. Who wouldn't? I also walk by the property all the time and I never observed any evidence that the property was being used until I saw the fence, let alone any "open and notorious" use adverse to that of the Kirlins. Moreover, everyone on the HOA board knew the Kirlins owned the land and were paying their HOA dues every month for more than two decades on the property--how then could adverse possession have been open and notorious? McLean and Stevens never paid dues on this land. Is everyone on our HOA board a bunch of blind idiots? The real injustice (besides the whole land thing) is the cost, pain, and suffering of this ridiculous lawsuit. I bet the Kirlins (who are very nice people) would be more than happy to donate the cost of the appeal to the Nature Conservancy if McLean/Stevens dropped the whole matter. In fact, the Kirlins previously offered to accommodate the former judge's "needs" but the former judge rejected those reasonable accommodations. Oh, and by the way, most of the lots in our HOA are small by design.

Posted by michelleinboulder on November 10, 2007

"Dick!! Dick!! Have you heard?!? The owner's of the lot next door are planning on building a home! A HOME!! In OUR neighborhood! Can you imagine?!? What will become of my path? How will I ever access the backyard now?!? Am I supposed to use the backdoor, like a common housewife?! Do they expect me to to walk around the RIGHT side of the house instead?! Do you have any idea how many STEPS out of my way that would be?!?!""And what in heaven's name do they expect us to do with all that wood?!!?"

Posted by eadavis79 on November 10, 2007

cjb - Thanks for your thoughtful post. May you and your neighbors stand up for the Kirlin's at their appeal. This is a nutty story. Gives lawyers a bad name.

Posted by tao400 on November 10, 2007

cjb: are you and the other neighbors going to ostracize mcclean and stephens. I hope so.

Posted by malohovno on November 10, 2007

i can't imagine anyone wanting to be seen with stevens/mclean. "hey, democrats lets have a fund raiser and it's going too be at stevens/mclean house." of course o.j. simpson still has friends and plays in charity golf tournaments. so maybe stevens/mclean won't have a problem

Posted by EasyRider on November 10, 2007
Main Entry: shy•ster Pronunciation: \ˈshīs-tər\ Function: noun Etymology: probably from German Scheisser, literally, defecator Date: 1844
A person who is professionally unscrupulous especially in the practice of law or politics.

Posted by dc on November 10, 2007

We rightly expect that professionals not just uphold the law, but to live their lives fully aware of the greater realm of ethics. Using a legal provision to plot, document, and then adversely take (what most of us might consider, to steal) property from your neighbor is not neighborly, not ethical, and not what one expects of a judge. Shame indeed!

Posted by fbog on November 10, 2007

What's really disturbing is that someone so unethical and willing to twist the law for their own purposes was a sitting judge.

Posted by michelleinboulder on November 10, 2007

Here's the story on Fox 31:Click Here for the Video

Posted by malohovno on November 10, 2007

i hope they go through with the appeal. where can i buy my ticket for front row seat.
how many news people will be there. after all you can't make this stuff up.

Posted by MicMacGirl on November 10, 2007

Maybe the ex judge and the judge that heard the case are good ol' friends. Why was this case even tried in Boulder County? Isn't there a conflict of interest?

Posted by fbog on November 10, 2007

Does anybody know when corrupt Boulder District Court Judge James C. Klein comes up for voter approval?

Posted by alpnclymber on November 10, 2007

Don't forget that Kimberly Hult works for Boulder law firm, Hutchinson Black and Cook, LLC (http://www.hbcboulder.com/attorneys.php?...). Not much ethics in the bunch either...it's all about the money. But at least you know who to turn to if you want to screw somebody.

Posted by greystonewest on November 10, 2007

Here's a picture of the Dick. Its a from a few years ago. He's more shrunken and shriveled up now. http://web.archive.org/web/2002071813570...

Posted by tao400 on November 10, 2007

greystone: there is no picture at that site

Posted by greystonewest on November 10, 2007

yeah the snapshot doesn't come up right away. Go to that page, then click on Board of Trustees on the left side, then scroll down to the Dick McLean district O. Picture and bio there.

Posted by SoBoPop on November 10, 2007

address is 2059 Hardscrabble according to the RTD website.

Posted by greystonewest on November 10, 2007

Richard McLean
Address: 2059 Hardscrabble Dr.
Boulder, CO 80303
Home Phone: 303.494.3324
Fax: 303.494.6973
E-Mail: richardmclean2@attbi.com

Posted by tao400 on November 10, 2007

it's actually board of directors on the left side, not board of trustees.
Now, does anyone have a picture of his wife.

Posted by michelleinboulder on November 10, 2007

Is this Edie of the infamous "Edie's Path"?
http://photo.bouldercountydems.org/displ...

Posted by cardamomseed on November 10, 2007

The Kirlin's are absolutely wasting their time trying to appeal their adverse decision. I have read the actual decision in that case, and the evidence the plaintiffs brought forward is relatively unassailable. My family has spent the last 6 years trying to defend our property from an adverse possession claim brought against us by another retired judge, Marsha B. Yeager. In our case, the evidence Yeager brought for her case was almost negligible compared to McLean's, yet the judge (D.D. Mallard) found for them and not us. We appealed and the Appeal Court's rejection of our appeal was cursory and unhelpful in terms of explanation. We appealed further to the State Supreme Court because we thought that the adverse possession law had been too loosely construed on behalf of the claimant. That too was rejected. So we lost several tens of thousands of dollars in court costs and approximately 100 sq. ft. of our property, including a lovely stone wall that had been within the deeded and staked boundary of our property since sometime in the 1930's. To add insult to this injury, Yeager applied to the court for unlimited access to our property to make any future repairs to the wall that she had acquired. Fortunately, the judge denied that. We would like to think tat the decision in our case was due to the fact that Mallard apparently had little prior experience in civil law when she was assigned to our case, and that the (in our view) poor judgment rendered did not set any precedents for other people so afflicted. However, since the appeals court found no problem with the ruling, one can't be too sure. What did we learn from this waste of time and money? Regard all your neighbors with suspicion (especially if they are lawyers), and don't hesitate to prosecute trespass.

Posted by greystonewest on November 10, 2007

"The Kirlin's are absolutely wasting their time trying to appeal their adverse decision."
Wrong. Absolute falsehood.

Posted by mondoboulder on November 10, 2007

"Wrong. Absolute falsehood." Appeals courts don't generally admit new evidence or review the facts of the original case. The appeals court rules on the validity of the legal decision, mostly if errors were committed in the original trial.

Posted by alpnclymber on November 10, 2007

http://photo.bouldercountydems.org/displ... That's our former mayor Dick standing next to Claire and Conrad. You can read his name tag.

Posted by greystonewest on November 10, 2007

yep. thats the Dick next to Claire Levy.

Posted by greystonewest on November 10, 2007

Appeals courts don't generally admit new...
Don't ever.

Posted by alpnclymber on November 10, 2007

In case the Kirlin’s lose the appeal, they should sell the remaining lot to Karen Bernardi. The infamous realtor decided to sell her lot on Senda Rocosa instead of build the massive hulk that caused all the controversy. So she needs someplace for a McMansion. A perfect neighbor for Dick and Edith!

Posted by jim on November 10, 2007

How quickly can we get this absurd law removed from the books before it's abused again? I'm writing my rep now.

Posted by Ponderosa on November 10, 2007

This willful reprehensible behavior by Dick McLean and Edie Stevens, past chair of the Boulder Democratic Party, just goes to show how phony and hypocritical Democrats can be.

Posted by mondoboulder on November 10, 2007
How insightful!

Posted by cavedaveeee on November 10, 2007

In California it only takes 5 years to get adverse possession - making CA a squatter’s paradise.

Posted by mondoboulder on November 10, 2007

I'm immensely cheered to find so many people, some of whom might actually live in Boulderia, of such uncompromisingly high ethical standards, at least where other people's ethics are concerned.

Posted by tao400 on November 10, 2007

now we only need a picture of the wife. anyone got one. as to the appeal courts, the appeals courts do review facts of the case if it is an abuse of direction. that is a high standard but if the judge was totally wrong on the facts, they will overturn on those grounds. for instance, if a satellite photo from 2003 showed no path and no wood pile, as the Kirlin’s say, that is proof that may show an abuse of discretion. they also overturn on error of law, which might have also happened. it is definitely worth the appeal.

Posted by greystonewest on November 10, 2007

Edie is not terribly photogenic.

Posted by mondoboulder on November 10, 2007

"it is definitely worth the appeal." Perhaps all the rabid posters who are determined to do something should send the Kirlins at least a couple of hundred bucks.

Posted by greystonewest on November 10, 2007

For sure. A fund is being organized.

Posted by tao400 on November 10, 2007

keep us informed. I will throw in a hundred dollars

Posted by Reality_Check on November 10, 2007

The fact is that McLean didn't have to sue for *ownership* of the land in dispute, he could have sued for an Easement or for a Life Estate (fortunately he doesn't have much left) over the section in question. Which would have been more aligned with his claimed purpose of access (which everyone knows is a LIE) That McLean & Stevens chose to sue for the maximum personal financial benefit to themselves is a voluntary personal choice that reflects strongly on the character (or lack thereof) of Dick McLean. If everyone who has claimed outrage over this incident were to file an ethical grievance with the Supreme Court disciplinary Committee (and everyone has standing to do so, not just the Kirlins), then ole tricky Dicky could spend his final days fighting disbarment and humiliation, much like what happened to F Lee Bailey. The Kirlins must consult with an expert Land Use attorney regarding the merits of any appeal -- NOT their current attorney who lost the case. One thing they might consider is donating what's left of the lot as a Conservation Easement, or to the City for a Park or Open Space. They might be able to benefit from certain charitable tax deductions based on the value of the land, additionally they could assign the rights to the open appellate legal case to the new, deep pockets owners. Perhaps the new owners being the City/State/Feds could then exercise their superhuman powers of persuasion in the appeal, or perhaps wield the neutron-bomb of "eminent domain" against the Dick and Edie's "sendero luminoso".

Posted by susan on November 10, 2007

Mr. McLean,
I had the utmost respect for you when you were on the bench. How can you pull such a slimy trick like this to your neighbors? I am in disbelief that someone I thought so much of, has let me down so much. SHAME ON YOU! I hope YOU have to pay all of the legal fees for the disgraceful actions and disruptions you and your equally slimy friend have caused. Where did the Honorable Judge go? Off to start stealing, it seems. When you were on the bench, you would have thrown yourself in the pokey!

Posted by trappist99 on November 10, 2007

"what's left of the lot as a Conservation Easement, or to the City for a Park or Open Space"
No good, the OSMP are Edie's FOBOS lapdogs, then she gets everything.

Posted by Bluesky on November 10, 2007

Clearly, a former judge received special treatment on this one. What a load of crap this is. It sounds more like McLean should be tried for trespassing and destruction of private property. These kinds of people make me sick. I hope the appeal is successful for the Kirlins. I bet McLean didn't think this would make it to the paper. Now, his name is McMud.

Posted by Reality_Check on November 10, 2007

Susan -McLean didn't deserve any respect even when he occupied the bench as a Judge. He was known as an incompetent bungling jurist amongst the legal community. In fact his tenure on the bench in Boulder is the WORST record of any judge in modern history. McLean had made more reversible errors, been overturned on appeal for legal mistakes more times than numerous other Boulder judges combined. He was so pathetic and incompetent that in one case he was actually overturned TWICE, once on direct appeal, and then again when he screwed up the remanded case that was sent back to him -- WITH INSTRUCTIONS. This final incident of deliberate premeditated thievery is truly the crowning achievement in the final chapter in Dick McLean's life of mediocrity and incompetence.

Posted by BoulderBorn on November 10, 2007

What revolting conduct, Mr. McLean and Ms. Stevens. It's sharp practice.

Posted by KR on November 10, 2007

Some states have nullified this absurd law -- Alaska, for example. See this:
http://www.akrepublicans.org/wagoner/23/... We need to do something similar in Colorado.
(We should also get a bill passed that would eject McLean and Stevens from the state.)

Posted by sahd on November 10, 2007

I say its high-time we got some activist judges involved who can rule on this case based on their moral principles rather than precedent and established interpretation of existing law. I can't stand these strict constructionist judges who are slaves to the original intent of these laws. Can't they see that they no longer have reasonable meaning in modern context? It's an outrage, I say, an outrage.

Posted by Pooks on November 10, 2007

So sahd, do you think the claim was legitimate, or are you simply being a smart ass and trying to turn this into a political issue?

Posted by Reality_Check on November 10, 2007

sahd -LOL! Good one ... though without the sarcasm icon turned on, it may be lost on some.

Posted by greystonewest on November 10, 2007

boy o boy. This is not political. This is straight up favoritism buy a judge for a judge.

Posted by Reality_Check on November 10, 2007

Billprez -Come on, don't be shy, tell us how you really feel ...

Posted by susan on November 10, 2007

Pooks----Is this the first time you've read a newspaper? Do you have an iota of an idea of what is going on? I think not. Find out, and then voice an opinion. Scheesh! It is a political issue and it is an outrage!!!

Posted by flintonx2 on November 10, 2007

Reading all of this makes me wonder about questionable unethical relationships among Boulder judges, current and former. Something really smells.


Posted by mondoboulder on November 10, 2007

Wow! People of unimpeachable ethical standards are coming out of the woodwork!

Posted by trappist99 on November 10, 2007

NO monoboulder, this is not about "unimpeachable ethical standards", this is about screwing a neighbor. Its done, but there is no way it's considered acceptable in a normal society.

Posted by mondoboulder on November 10, 2007

Well, keep that thought. People get screwed in court every day Monday through Friday.

Posted by jrmanville on November 10, 2007

Dick and Edie, I hope you know that you'll never live this down. You're going to be the deserved recipients of stink eye for the remainder of your days in Boulder. Is it really worth it?

Posted by mondoboulder on November 10, 2007

Get real. The fools just reelected Matt Appelbaum, didn't they? Memories are short.

Posted by Reality_Check on November 10, 2007

Greenlee: "Trespassers have rights"
Extending that legal theory to the Immigration Debate -- perhaps the millions of undocumented aliens who've been trespassing for years in the USA could bring action and sue for "Adverse Residency" or "Adverse Citizenship", being they've embraced the "American Dream" more so than many native born citizens. Just a thought.

Posted by jgarcia on November 10, 2007

Stevens and McLean are just a pair of vulgar thieves. If I pay my taxes, my HOA fees, am I suppose to go there all the time and police my land. The base of our economic system is investments. You buy an asset to secure your future and you count on the law to protect you. It is already hard enough to deal with the thieves that Bankrupt companies as you buy mutual funds shares every two weeks, like a total idiot, for your 401K retirement. Now you have to deal with the dreg of society going after your rightful property. No honor, no decency.
I hope the appeals turns this down. For God's sake, go all the way to the supreme court if you must. The interpretation of the law is ludicrous. I am not a lawyer or a judge, and for that matter even not anything about this law, but I reckon any reasonable individual will use this law if you knew that it was the case that someone took over your property, and you did nothing.

Posted by flintonx2 on November 10, 2007

OMG! My nice neighbor has been walking his dog daily through my property and the undeveloped lot next to mine. I walk my doggies on the same undeveloped lot. Now I need to worry! Maybe I should try to do a land grab before my neighbor does.

Posted by m.heather on November 10, 2007

Although I think McLean and Stevens are wrong in this case (if they knew it wasn't their land then they shouldn't be surprised when the owners want it back), the adverse possession law is an important one. My grandparents needed to sue in a similar instance over a driveway they had shared with their next-door neighbors for fifty years. When my grandmother tried to sell the house, the neighbors said new residents couldn't use their half of the driveway and would have to dig out their yard to make their half wider. It was a ridiculous argument between an old, dementia-ridden man and my recently widowed grandmother. My grandmother settled the dispute out of court to spare the neighbor's wife (horrified about the whole thing but unwilling to contradict her husband) the trauma of a court battle.

Posted by JBJ on November 10, 2007

oreilly@foxnews.com

Posted by Merdian on November 10, 2007

Perhaps a positive step that could be taken is for those who have access to quality aerial photography to come forward. I realize that some has been made available but perhaps a volume of quality evidence has been overlooked by lack of awareness of its existence.
Whatever the outcome of the appeal it would be almost certainly be useful to have strong evidence for this case or a future case against the ethically corrupt judge(s) if McLean and Stevens are clearly distorting the evidence for their own pathetic greed.
The Kirlins have my sympathy, whatever the law the judgment smacks of "land for the boys"

Posted by the_daily_tracks_what_you_read on November 10, 2007

Godwin's law (also known as Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies)[1] is an adage formulated by Mike Godwin in 1990. The law states:[2][3] As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.

Posted by mondoboulder on November 10, 2007

"Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies"
Does it count if the poster misspells both Gestapo and the name of the alleged victims?

Posted by marytkelly on November 10, 2007

It was said once, but it needs to be said again. Not only did Stevens and McLean get 34% of the Kirlin's land, they are requesting the judge make a decision that orders the KIRLINS TO PAY THEIR LEGAL FEES! So, let me get this straight. They just got over $300,000.00 worth of FREE property, but they want the Kirlins, who they clearly and blatantly stole the land from, to pay their legal fees. I'm not religious but the term lowlife scumbag shysters is way too nice.
I would encourage everyone to write to get this story publicized nationally. Many states still have this outdated law. As for McLean, Stevens, and Klein, it could not be more evident that the good ole boys club is alive and well. Legal action should be taken against all three.

Posted by marytkelly on November 10, 2007

I want to second Reality_Check's (who's been writing some kick-ass comments) great advice that we all look into filing a grievance: "Therefore the Kirlins -- or ANY interested parties -- can and perhaps should file a Grievance with the Colorado Supreme Court Disciplinary Committee regarding Dick McLean's unethical behavior. There have been 100s of attorneys suspended or disbarred for unethical acts which themselves were perfectly legal. The Colorado Bar even denied one lawyer membership for simply "using" the law to expose and stop a corrupt evangelical preacher. The gist of the ruling was that since he knew the law so well, using every bit of it to attack a lay person for purely personal reasons, even though legal, was unconscionable and unethical. Colorado Supreme Court Office of Attorney Regulation(303) 866-6410 or 1 (877) 888-1370 You can read up on the Rules of Professional Conduct and actual disciplinary actions and the reasons therefore, at http://www.cobar.org/ors.cfm?ID=20041
I am. I'm naive enough to believe that there are times when the voices of many can actually silence the few.

Posted by meatpieandtatters on November 10, 2007

I'd kick the lawyer and the land-stealing scumbags right between the teeth.