marytkelly- are you going to file a complaint? It only takes one. The quantity does not matter.

Posted by mondoboulder on November 11, 2007

This whole thing is outrageous, but also fascinating. It's breathtaking how ignorant so many people are about their own legal system. None of this stuff, "taking legal action" (whatever that means), changing the law, "filing a complaint," etc., etc., is going anywhere at all.
And if any of you are so ill-advised as to translate your bluff and bluster into action, you will find out about things like criminal mischief, harassment, vandalism, and myriad other charges that are very expensive to defend against. Consider the sad case of our own former city attorney and chill out.

Posted by Reality_Check on November 11, 2007
Posted by mondoboulder

It's breathtaking how ignorant so many people > are about their own legal system. None of this stuff, "taking legal action" (whatever that means), changing the law, "filing a complaint," etc., etc., is going anywhere at all.LOL! ... if you say so, mondo. Are you French? LOL!

Posted by CAR on November 11, 2007

Cavedaveeee, you have to pay taxes for land on which you're squatting in Cali -- so it's not exactly a "squatter's paradise", even though it only takes 5 years of possession.
Paying taxes on a neighbor's property makes the move more deceitful, but also more "open/notorious". Maybe CO's legislators should consider such an addition.

Posted by JBJ on November 11, 2007

Cjb: “Perhaps I am most disappointed in Judge Klein.”
I am with you here; I’ve been trying to find out what discretion the judge had in his ruling. I wonder why the aerial photos on the Fox news report aren’t mentioned in the court documents.
Mondoboulder: “It's breathtaking how ignorant so many people are about their own legal system. None of this stuff, "taking legal action" (whatever that means), changing the law, "filing a complaint," etc., etc., is going anywhere at all.” I shouldn’t have been, but I was totally ignorant of this Adverse Theft law. To busy raising a family, working within my profession and dealing with everyday life. I don’t make enough money to have a legal staff constantly analyzing my vulnerabilities. I wouldn’t count on the legal system to interpret each unique situation without bias. My neighbors and I back up to a large portion of private undeveloped land This land owner lets us access our property across his land and has for the last 15 years. I am going to tell him about this case. I don’t think any of my neighbors are of the Steven/McLean camp, but shining light on the risk is the least a good neighbor can do.

Posted by JBJ on November 11, 2007

Mondoboulder this is going somewhere, it's raising awareness.

Posted by silleekim on November 11, 2007

Mondo has an excellent point. If you are stooping to the level of the lynch mob, then you are no better than the thieves. Consider this: One poster threatens to kick their teeth in, another posts their address, phone, and email, a third posts their photos. This may border on harassment and conspiracy.

Posted by Reality_Check on November 11, 2007

Posted by tao400 on November 11, 2007
marytkelly- are you going to file a complaint? It only takes one. the quantity does not matter.
Not entirely true. While all the complaints arising from the same event will be consolidated into one case, the number of complainants does carry some weight, and different complainants may cite or point out different violations of the Code of Ethics, varying constructions to prior case law and disciplinary rulings. The bottom line is that someone's argument and rationale may be more concise and persuasive than another's. *Anyone* has standing to file a Grievance against an attorney (judge), and in fact complaints about ethical violations originating from people other than the Kirlins themselves wouldn't hurt the cause. And to the rest of those in the Boulder community who are outraged by this abusive, willful and deliberate thievery by professional lawyers manipulating arcane laws to their own personal financial benefit, consider a community wide SHUNNING of McLean/Stevens. SHUNNING in its true and complete form as practiced successfully throughout history: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shunning
Those of you who own businesses or other services, or have friends who do, can exercise the right to refuse service to anyone. Those of you who belong to organizations or groups can avoid McLean/Stevens in your activities. Neighbors can cross and walk on the other side of the street when they see them approaching. A complete and total ostracism by the community and the individuals in it who are offended and find this unethical behavior to be utterly unacceptable would send a lasting message, a strong messages that unfortunately in this day and age are never sent to miscreants and lowlifes who live amongst us. Just because it was Legal doesn't mean it was Ethical -- or Moral.

Posted by JBJ on November 11, 2007

“This may border on harassment and conspiracy.”
Let’s see, the Stevens/McLean's Cross a border for over 18 years and are rewarded in a court of law. The public gets wind of it and express their outrage on a public forum. Team “how dare they say that about -or- to us” takes legal action and acquires all registration information from the Daily Camera. Then traces them down threw there ip addresses and sues each and every one for 34% of their net worth…. Sounds about right…. Mondoboudler has made a good point.

Posted by Reality_Check on November 11, 2007

COLORADO RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT
PREAMBLE: A LAWYER’S RESPONSIBILITIES
[1] A lawyer, as a member of the legal profession, is a representative of clients, an
officer of the legal system and a public citizen having special responsibility for the
quality of justice.
[5] A lawyer’s conduct should conform to the requirements of the law, both in
professional service to clients and in the lawyer’s business and personal affairs. A
lawyer should use the law’s procedures only for legitimate purposes and not to
harass or intimidate others.
[6] As a public citizen, a lawyer should seek improvement of the law, access to the
legal system, the administration of justice and the quality of service rendered by
the legal profession. As a member of a learned profession, a lawyer should
cultivate knowledge of the law beyond its use for clients, employ that knowledge
in reform of the law and work to strengthen legal education.
In addition, a lawyer should further the public’s understanding of and confidence in the rule of law and the justice system because legal institutions in a constitutional democracy depend
on popular participation and support to maintain their authority.
[7] Many of a lawyer’s professional responsibilities are prescribed in the Rules of
Professional Conduct, as well as substantive and procedural law. However, a
lawyer is also guided by personal conscience and the approbation of professional
peers. A lawyer should strive to attain the highest level of skill, to improve the law
and the legal profession and to exemplify the legal profession’s ideals of public
service.
[12] The legal profession’s relative autonomy carries with it special responsibilities
of self-government. The profession has a responsibility to assure that its
regulations are conceived in the public interest and not in furtherance of parochial
or self-interested concerns of the bar. Every lawyer is responsible for observance
of the Rules of Professional Conduct. A lawyer should also aid in securing their
observance by other lawyers. Neglect of these responsibilities compromises the
independence of the profession and the public interest which it serves.
[13] Lawyers play a vital role in the preservation of society. The fulfillment of this
role requires an understanding by lawyers of their relationship to our legal system.
The Rules of Professional Conduct, when properly applied, serve to define that
relationship.
[19] Failure to comply with an obligation or prohibition imposed by a Rule is a
basis for invoking the disciplinary process.

Posted by Reality_Check on November 11, 2007

RULE 8.4. MISCONDUCT
It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to:
(a) violate or attempt to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct, knowingly assist or induce another to do so, or do so through the acts of another;
(b) commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects;
(c) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation;
(d) engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice;
(f) knowingly assist a judge or judicial officer in conduct that is a violation of applicable rules of judicial conduct or other law;
(h) engage in any conduct that directly, intentionally,
and wrongfully harms others and that adversely reflects on a lawyer’s fitness to practice law.

Posted by Reality_Check on November 11, 2007

(c) engage in conduct involving DISHONESTY, FRAUD, DECEIT or MISREPRESENTATION;
There's the key to the Grievance action against attorneys McLean & Stevens.
Point of Fact: McLean/Stevens painted themselves into the proverbial corner on this one, being that in order to prosecute and prevail in their Adverse Possession action against the Kirlins, McLean/Stevens had to confess and stipulate to those elements -- dishonesty, fraud, deceit -- in order to meet the requirements of Adverse Possession.
- McLean/Stevens KNEW the property wasn't theirs.
- McLean/Stevens willfully trespassed on said property for years, knowing those actions would eventually cause severe financial harm to their neighbors.
- McLean/Stevens KNEW the rightful owners lived next door and took no effort to directly contact them about their actions and intent.
- McLean/Stevens KNEW that their continued trespass of their neighbor's property would eventually result in conversion of said property to the financial harm and detriment of their neighbors, and to their own selfish benefit.
- McLean/Stevens acknowledged it was their INTENT to "hostilely occupy and take" the Kirlin's property as their own, without permission, without compensation, and against the will of the Kirlins
- McLean/Stevens KNEW that if they disclosed their habitual trespass, and/or their intent to "hostilely occupy and take the property" directly to the Kirlins at any time prior to 18 years it would have extinguished the claim.
<note: had the Kirlins *given permission* to McLean/Stevens, that too would have nullified the claim>
- McLean/Stevens hid their intent to convert <steal> the property from the Kirlins in order to profit personally.
i.e. "conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation", ipso facto. QED HTH


Posted by ahma221 on November 11, 2007

The use of this arcane law for personal gain by anybody, particularly by a judge and a lawyer is a prime example of the Greek tragedy: GREED. And I thought they both cared about the rights of their neighbors while they represent their voices on community boards such as PLAN BOULDER and fill leadership roles in their political affiliations. If this isn't hypocrisy, what is?