T1B

This is an ongoing case in the People's Republic....what do you think?

Not sure if it mentions this, but the judge that signed the restraining order knows the plaintiff...another judge.

http://dailycamera.com/news/2007/dec/23 ... -hope-for/

You didn't ask me, but . . .

I'm reasonably certain that every state has adverse possession laws of one sort or another. Usually, adverse possession is very difficult to prove, if for no other reason than it requires control of the property in question for a considerable length of time (it's ten years in New York, and I believe that might be one of the shorter periods of time nationwide).

I don't know enough about the particulars of this case to comment on whether I agree with the judge's decision, but it's worth noting that the people who claim adverse possession won at the trial level.

Salsashark wrote:Not sure if it mentions this, but the judge that signed the restraining order knows the plaintiff...another judge.

Close, but not quite, at least according to the article, which mentions nothing about a restraining order. I assume you're referring to the judge who handed down the decision to award the plaintiffs the disputed land.

The former judge and attorney say they did not use any connections within the court system to help their case. "The trial was fair," the letter states. "We retired from the legal world long before the trial. We had never met the trial judge, who was appointed by Gov. Owens in the last year or two. ...

I've heard california referred to as the People's Republic.

I've heard Seattle refferred to as the People's Republic.

Naturally, I've heard China referred to as the People's Republic... since that's its name.

Never heard Boulder/Colorado referred to as the People's Republic. Come up with something new.

Not enough details on the case in that article. But unless someone takes over an abandon property and expends resources improving it for 20 years, then any seizure of land for another's benefit is absolute horseshit, and any judge who rules for it should have both his job and his citizenship revoked, since he clearly isn't American nor does he represent American ideals.


But just nod your heads and be a good little sheeple, and join that march to socialism.

What are the actual circumstances of the case. I don't see anything about what actually happened other than a couple decided they had the right to take something that wasn't theirs because they took care of it.

Did they make any attempt to get the owners to maintain their property?

Sounds like a case of a pos lawyer using the law to fukk somebody. Boy, you don't see that happen much.

There's a case here where some sense-of-entitlement bitches are whining about some dude across the Sandy River (expensive houses on the Lower Sandy) cutting down a bunch of non-native trees, and trying to recreate a riparian habitat by planting something like 3000 native trees.

And his neighbors are pissed about this. They should fuck right the fuck off, assuming the land-clearing didn't æffect the riverbed/banks, which gets into other peoples' persuit of life liberty and whatnot.

This is about some fukk getting pissed because his view of somebody else's trees got messed up when that person had the gaul to chop down his own trees?

Da horrah.

Hope my neighbor behind me doesn't think likewise of me since I went on that oak tree killing spree in my back yard awhile back.

In California you can 'pop' any judge {with some harsh time retrains} no questions asked, but you can only do it once.

CCP 170.6

Dinsdale wrote:Not enough details on the case in that article. But unless someone takes over an abandon property and expends resources improving it for 20 years, then any seizure of land for another's benefit is absolute horseshit, and any judge who rules for it should have both his job and his citizenship revoked, since he clearly isn't American nor does he represent American ideals.


But just nod your heads and be a good little sheeple, and join that march to socialism.

I'm not quite sure here whether you honestly believe that adverse possession is socialism (subject to certain limited exceptions you laid out), or you're just attacking your favorite strawman (of late, anyway), or just plain trolling. In any event . . .

Adverse possession laws predate socialism. Tell me you knew.

Nor, for that matter, is adverse possession quite the arcane area of the law the media makes it out to be. Any first-year law student who didn't completely zone out in Real Property knows about it (of course, the amount of time spent on a topic in law school is often inversely proportional to the frequency with which one encounters said topic in practice). [mvscal]If the Kirlins' lawyer didn't tell them about adverse possession, he's a dumbfuck.[/mvscal]

Btw, here's a link to the other side of the story. Now, I'm no expert on the value of real property in Boulder, but $300K for a 1200 square foot portion of an unimproved parcel of land sounds just a tad exorbitant to me. Perhaps if the Kirlins had been a bit more reasonable, they could have avoided the trial.