December 18, 2007 8:10 AM
At least Boulder land-loss couple didn't wind up on a reservation
After successfully taking a third of their neighbors' property through "adverse possession," a Boulder couple now says negotiations are underway to reach a compromise.
Isn't this what happened to the Indians? Maybe the Kirlins, whose land was taken by a former Boulder judge and his wife, will wind up on a reservation.
Vanessa Miller reports:
Don and Susie Kirlin lost part of one of their two vacant lots in a lawsuit filed by former Boulder judge Richard McLean and his wife, attorney Edith Stevens."We'll see if we can come together on something that works for both of us," Susie Kirlin said. "We'll listen to any offer they make."
Because McLean and Stevens have a district judge's decision on their side, Susie Kirlin suggests that the negotiations are their opportunity to smooth over public outrage surrounding the case.
"My feeling is that they've had such a public backlash that I don't think they ever expected — I think they would like to retrieve their images as much as possible," she said. "Hopefully, this would help them out in the public if we can resolve this. I'm all for it."
Rocky editorial page editor Vince Carroll calls it "brazen."
When you look up the word "brazen" in future dictionaries, your eyes may alight on a picture of a Boulder couple named Richard McLean and Edith Stevens. McLean's mug shot in particular will deserve prominent treatment - not only because of his breathtaking indifference to the norms of a civilized community (his wife is guilty of that, too) but because he is a former judge, former mayor, former city councilman and former elected representative to the Regional Transportation District.Yet at the very time this pillar of the community was meting out justice from his courtroom or voting on how to spend hundreds of millions of dollars of tax revenue for the transit agency, he and his wife were blithely trespassing on property next door. Not merely trespassing, but using the land as if it were theirs.
"Plaintiffs knew the disputed property was someone else's lando and plaintiffs used the disputed property openly, continuously and notoriously for 25 years," District Court Judge James Klein concluded in an order last month whose stern words might have led you to believe he was about to punish the couple for their transgressions.
But no: The words "plaintiffs" and "disputed property" are the hints that something is amiss - that something truly bizarre is afoot. Klein was not punishing the couple at all. He was about to reward them.
His order granted McLean and Stevens about 34 percent of a 4,750-square-foot lot owned for more than two decades by Don and Susie Kirlin, who hadn't developed it but who paid taxes and homeowner fees on it during that time. The Kirlins say they'd walk by the property on a regular basis from their home down the street but never noticed their current adversaries using it.
Confused? Can a couple more or less squat on land they know isn't theirs and then go to court demanding a transfer of title when the owners move to fence them off?
They can, and they did.
The Kirlins are appealing.
November 19, 2007
9:46 AM
Anonymous writes:
Yet another reason to avoid Boulder like the plague.
November 19, 2007
10:11 AM
Ann Hoffman writes:
Shameful is what I would call the actions of McLean and his wife Edith Stevens. They are examples of all the reasons for bad jokes about lawyers. They are a disservice to their profession. They should be ashamed of themselves, and if they aren't, then they should be shunned, in the truest sense of the word.
I lived in Boulder County for 10 years and am not just another person venting about the Republic of Boulder. McLean and Stevens are pathetic thieves and have done a grave disservice to their community. Shame on them.
November 19, 2007
10:33 AM
Jan writes:
I continue to be shocked--and as a Boulder resident who continually sees evidence of "personal rights" and "freedom." Where are the Kirlin's rights, as the property owner--where is justice for them? I'm totally appalled.
November 19, 2007
10:36 AM
David Hakala writes:
This story, by various accounts, is overridden with local political connections. I can't wait to see it hit the appeals court level. The Kirlins claim that no footpaths appeared on the property until after the claim was filed. McLean and wifey claimed they held parties on the property but no evidence was introduced in court. I don't know where the district judge found enough evidence of "attachment" to justify his ruling.
The adverse possession doctrine is a threat to conservation trusts, too. Organizations that hold land with the intention of not developing it can be bushwhacked just as the Kirlins were. A whole new level of effort will be required to maintain title to such property, and it's going to cost a lot.
However, adverse possession can be tempered by legislation. Let's hope ours gets updated to prevent scams like this.
November 19, 2007
10:56 AM
Michael J. Gesin writes:
The McLeans are just another example of why are country is doomed to social decline. Their shameful greed and power abuse is very typical of aristocratic sociopathic behavior yet they are considered examples of success by our society. The judge who approved the adverse possession should be removed from office and charged with collusion. Who would ever want these people living next door yet we continue to reward this type of personality with promotions to CEO positions and powerful political appointments. When are we ever going to learn that business and political acumen also requires charity and compassion, not the sociopathic greedy self interest currently displayed by our social elite. Oh well, Machiavelli wins again!
November 19, 2007
11:15 AM
history buff writes:
I thought the doctrine of adverse possession required an open and notorious claim to another's land. The former judge and his lawyer wife appear to be acting subtly and discreetly. They are acting like common thieves and the judge who approved their theft should be removed from office. This is indefensible and exactly why Boulder gets ridiculed.
November 19, 2007
11:24 AM
jim writes:
According to Kirlin the grab had nothing to do with use by McLean. Kirlin's property backs up to public land and has a great veiw of mountains to the west which McLean wants to preserve for himself.
McLean got enough of Kirlin's property so that it cannot be developed. No dream house and a worthless lot. Expect to see this decision reversed on appeal amendatory legislation introduced next session.
November 19, 2007
11:32 AM
jay writes:
Must be a slow news day.
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=3884702
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=washingtonstory&sid=a8OB88_sjTvw
November 19, 2007
12:55 PM
benn writes:
Yea, I have been reading about it and is is ridiculous.
Also, 9:46, way to blame the wonderful city for the actions of a few. There was actually quite a large protest in-front of the McLean's yesterday... made up of BOULDERITES.
Everything gets magnified in Boulder, I am sure there are all kinds of property disputes in Colorado Springs that don't make the news.
November 19, 2007
1:15 PM
American Indian writes:
Seems to be right and proper, after all, the U.S. was created by stealing land.
In fact, the law (English common) comes from the most prolific thieves in all of recorded history.
November 19, 2007
2:03 PM
Bill K writes:
Owning Property in Boulder County, I can attest that Boulder County has gone beyond the law multiple times in their "mandate" to protect civilization from itself. Except, mind you, if you have enough money or political clout. Step on the lower classes but pump themselves up by doing it with a “purpose”. My few acres outside of Neatherland can not be built upon (because of first, overcrowding the mountains, then because it was old mining property and might be dangerous, then because it was next to "open space") BUT, suddenly three years ago, an entire housing development pops up on the acreage next to mine, owned by a wealthy Boulder Realtor. Funny, I still can not build because of county "zoning regulations" at this point.
November 19, 2007
2:08 PM
Oh Wise One writes:
Way to stay on topic there jay. So if you think there may be a recession coming, does that mean you admit there was a good economy? Cause most moonbats, like you, deny there ever was.
November 19, 2007
2:23 PM
Anonymous writes:
Economy was great in the 90's.
November 19, 2007
2:26 PM
jay writes:
owo, depends on if you were in the upper class or not. Median real household incomes declined for 6 years under W....I can't imagine that those folks thought it was a great economy.
November 19, 2007
2:34 PM
shaggy writes:
Is it no surprise that the two Attorneys stealing this land are Demoralrats?
New FemDem motto:
When ya can't tax the working class anymore, just start taking from them.
Just as long as it is about me me me and my wants.
November 19, 2007
2:57 PM
jay writes:
shaggy, shaggy, shaggy, shaggy.....
You wonder why you have no credibility here. Over the last 7 years the Rubs have actively taken away from the middle class and given to the upper class. Give us some sign that you understand that.
November 19, 2007
3:35 PM
frankmitchell writes:
The death penalty was enacted by the state of Colorado specifically with these 2 Boulder liberal cockroach lawyers in mind.
November 19, 2007
3:44 PM
Matt writes:
American Indian,
You sound like a racist. All people of all colors have done that sort of stuff since the begining of time. Even Native Americans like you are guilty.
November 20, 2007
8:36 AM
Anonymous writes:
Demoralrats or Repugnants, what is the difference?
November 20, 2007
2:51 PM
FreeToChoose writes:
Would it be possible to propose an ordinance in Boulder so that McLean and Stevens not only would be forced to return the land and reimburse the Kirlins for the legal hassel, but so that the two are also placed in stocks on the Pearl Street for 2-3 hours every day for a month to be embarrassed and ridiculed by their neighbors for such abhorrent un-neighborly behavior?
November 20, 2007
3:13 PM
Anonymous writes:
I just moved here from New York City to get out of the rat race and be around those who also love the mountains- but stories like this make me think that it is no better out here than back there. The "professional" couple stealing the land should be dis-barred from practicing law since they clearly can do no good with their education. Ditto for the judge who ruled. Can someone please take these people on?????????
November 20, 2007
3:13 PM
shaggy writes:
Mclean and Stevens should have been arrested for trespassing.
I also heard Mclean hit someone with their car while driving away from their house during the protest.
He should also be arrested for assault with a deadly weapon.
November 20, 2007
3:17 PM
Anonymous writes:
I just moved here from New York City to get out of the rat race and be around those who also love the mountains- but stories like this make me think that it is no better out here than back there. The "professional" couple stealing the land should be dis-barred from practicing law since they clearly can do no good with their education. Ditto for the judge who ruled. Can someone please take these people on?????????
November 20, 2007
3:19 PM
Anonymous writes:
Republicans just LOVE eminent domain.
November 20, 2007
3:30 PM
Stone Cold writes:
These two people are leeches, total scum.
The Law is a good thing - usually. Vermin like these two show us, however, that a person extremely knowledgable of the Law can use that expert knowledge to take advantage of those who are not legal experts.
I'd like to think that a Judge would be able to make an exception in a case like this - yes, the law says one thing but it's blatantly unfair in this case. Isn't that the function of a Judge?
November 20, 2007
6:26 PM
David Hakala writes:
Well, every day some new details of the testimony creep out. Seems McLean and Stevens have several claims of "use" of the land:
- cutting across it to their back door. Sorry, not a continuous and exclusive use, as required.
- cutting paths. Photos don't show them until after the lawsuit was filed.
- holding fundraising and other parties. Where are attendees to corroborate this?
- extending a garden. OK, if it's been extended for more than 18 years then give 'em that strip of land. No proof of how long it's been on the Kirlins' land.
- making a woodpile. Again, prove it's been there more than 18 years.
I find it very hard to believe that all thse uses have been going on for over 18 years and the Kirlins never heard of one of them.
November 20, 2007
9:19 PM
Vote NO on Klein in 2008 writes:
Don't criticize Boulder until we've had our chance to throw this Republican-appointed activist judge out of office. "Liberal" Boulder had no say in the appointment of Judge James C. Klein. Instead, it was our former governor, Bill Owens, a "conservative" Republican, who we can thank for that. Judge Klein, who was appointed by Bill Owens in 2005, will stand for retention in the 2008 election.
November 21, 2007
9:19 AM
fiesty writes:
I've been following this case, and it's appalling. For those who don't know, here are a few more interesting facts on the case:
1. McLean admits to knowingly using the property without permission when it belonged to someone else, to include having parties. Further, he admits to modifying the property, such as placing a woodshed on it.
2. Not only does McLean files to force the Kirlins to give them the land; worse yet, he has the cojones to request that the couple also pay his court and filing fees!
3. The Kirlins had been discussing with a friend how they had finally gotten plans drawn up to build their dream home, when they hear rumors about the McLeans. So they get a permit and begin building a fence on their property. Yet miraculously they are served with a restraining order within just a few hours! [And we aren’t supposed to believe this former judge used his connections? How was it done so quickly and what was the basis?]
4. Last month, they are ordered to sign over the title to 34% of their land; just enough to prevent them from having a buildable lot, and keep from blocking the judge's view of the mountains.
This is appalling. Here are a few questions for the judge who ruled in favor of McLean:
1. Why should McLean and his wife be able to say they are more “attached” to the land vs the Kirlins whose dream it is a part of?
2. Why did McLean decide on this course of action AFTER the Kirlins drew up house plans? [My opinion is because their view of the mountains was going to get blocked.]
3. What happened to purchasing land as an investment? So, in your ruling, are you implying that if you buy land now, you have to build on it to keep it? It seems like the Kirlins are being punished for having the foresight to buying the land years ago, even though they couldn’t afford then to build the house.
4. Why should the Kirlins have to pay the court fees for McLean, in the original filing? This would only make sense in subsequent appeals by the Kirlins.
5. Do you know McLean? If so, why didn’t you recluse yourself from this case?
6. Why are your rewarding McLean and his wife for trespassing and modification, rather than prosecuting them for it?
7. Why aren’t you charging McLean for both rent and restitution given they admit to willfully using and modifying someone else’s property?
8. If ruling in favor of McLean, is he going to pay the Kirlins back all the taxes they paid during the years he admits to using their property?
Rather than rewarding McLean and his wife for being greedy land-grabbers and manipulating the law for personal gain at someone else's expense, this is what I think needs to be done:
1. This law needs to be repealed.
2. Both the judge who issued the restraining order and the one who ordered the couple to sign over the title need to be investigated; if they knew McLean, why didn’t they recluse themselves? Also, the grounds and procedures for the emergency restraining order need to be investigated as well.
3. The order to transfer title needs to be revoked.
4. McLean should pay the Kirlins’ court fees, as well as mental anguish/suffering.
5. McLean needs to be prosecuted for trespassing.
6. McLean needs to pay back rent to the Kirlins for using their property without their consent.
7. McLean needs to pay restitution to the Kirlins for modifying their property without their consent.
8. McLean and his wife, being both lawyers, need to have the license reviewed by the lawyer license board for ethical reasons. Personally, I believe they need to be disbarred for their unethical conduct in abusing the law and their expertise for personal gain.
November 21, 2007
1:59 PM
Mountain Cat writes:
Jay,
Is there ANY topic at all that you are able to discuss without politicizing it? Any at all??
November 21, 2007
2:02 PM
Mountain Cat writes:
There are numerous terms to use in viewing the actions and attitudes of McLean and Stevens.
It’s hard to know where to start. Spoiled. Greedy. Cunning. Narcissistic. Devious. Arrogant. Pompous. Selfish. Self-indulgent. Repugnant.
Unfortunately, since they appear to have not broken any laws we cannot call their actions criminal. But they certainly are immoral and unethical.
I’d bet their egos allow them to sleep well.
November 22, 2007
12:39 AM
Bud Keegan writes:
Man, just saw this on boingboing.net and it is infuriating. I hate these people just on the basis of what I have read. This arrogancy is beyond comprehension, let alone the fecklessness of the "judge" who adjudicated over the matter. Can you imagine what these people must be like personally, to have stolen this couple's land out from under them?
If there's any consolation it is that:
1.) these two have been unmasked as the precious jerks they are for all the world to see and
2.) karmic payback is a bitch
Hope their few square meters of stolen sod was worth it...
November 22, 2007
7:56 AM
Myron Van Hassenback writes:
A case like this is exactly why websites like Zabasearch.com should be shut down. Parties to an important lawsuit such as the one the McLeans are involved in shouldn't have their addresses, public records and phone numbers posted publicly like this, easy for sickos wanting to spoil their holidays with unwelcome phone calls to find.
December 17, 2007
9:56 AM
jay writes:
just doin my part to keep the discussion factual and free from far right wing myths, hillkitty
December 17, 2007
10:01 AM
Anonymous writes:
These people are typical of the far left, who are continually trying to take from the honest and hardworking. They belong in Boulder along with the rest of the liberal trash.
December 17, 2007
10:07 AM
can't stay on topic either writes:
Jay says- "Median real household incomes declined for 6 years under W"
This is a myth. These statistics below are from the Census Bureau at census.gov.
AUG. 26, 2004
"Real median household income remained unchanged between 2002 and 2003 at $43,318, according to a report released today by the U.S. Census Bureau. At the same time, the nation’s official poverty rate rose from 12.1 percent in 2002 to 12.5 percent in 2003. The number of people with health insurance increased by 1.0 million to 243.3 million between 2002 and 2003, and the number without such coverage rose by 1.4 million to 45.0 million. The percentage of the nation’s population without coverage grew from 15.2 percent in 2002 to 15.6 percent in 2003."
Aug. 30,2005
"Real median household income remained unchanged between 2003 and 2004 at $44,389, according to a report released today by the U.S. Census Bureau. Meanwhile, the nation’s official poverty rate rose from 12.5 percent in 2003 to 12.7 percent in 2004. The percentage of the nation’s population without health insurance coverage remained stable, at 15.7 percent in 2004. The number of people with health insurance increased by 2.0 million to 245.3 million between 2003 and 2004, and the number without such coverage rose by 800,000 to 45.8 million.
Aug. 29,2006
"Real median household income in the United States rose by 1.1 percent between 2004 and 2005, reaching $46,326, according to a report released today by the U.S. Census Bureau. Meanwhile, the nation’s official poverty rate remained statistically unchanged at 12.6 percent. The percentage of people without health insurance coverage rose from 15.6 percent to 15.9 percent (46.6 million people)."
December 17, 2007
10:20 AM
shaggy writes:
Hey jay, put these facts in your pipe and smoke them.
Dick McLean and Edith Stevens are Democrats.
They are open space activists.
They are Democratic activists as well.
They are blatantly stealing this property.
They have not paid one penny in property taxes on this property in dispute.
The are also suing the rightful owners to pay for their attorney fees for taking their land.
Liberals motto to live by.
Take from someone who earns it.
December 17, 2007
10:38 AM
fiesty writes:
Mediation... what a crock! As others stated on the story page, this is just an excuse for McLean to say "we tried". Why should the Kirlins just give up their land? Even if I agreed with the concept of adverse possession, the "openly" use criteria has not been met in this case. Sheesh. Not only should the Kirlins be given their land back, but McLean should pay for all court costs plus mental anguish, and be prosecuted for trespassing!!
December 17, 2007
10:55 AM
just sayin' writes:
Mountain Cat, wouldn't that be a more appropriate question for shaggy?
December 17, 2007
11:00 AM
PMSXpress writes:
Well, now that so many folks are following this case, and I wonder if the appellate judge will be compelled differently? Haven't Stevens and McLean perjured themselves here? Not sure if oaths were taken before Klein, not that it matters anyway as he is as dishonest as the "plaintiffs." The story is so obviously a lie, fabricated merely to protect a cherished view and serve selfish interests. The Kirlins currently live just down the street from their lot, they nor other neighbors have seen sign of years-old activity, only more recently.
As another person commented on a different thread, the mediation that took place was merely a smokescreen to justify the theft.
I hope the legislature has this on radar also and will institute changes to the law - so this sort of abuse of the law's original intention doesn't continue.
December 17, 2007
11:02 AM
gr8fuldude writes:
If this were a just world, these two would be living next door to the clowns who have the "broncos horn" that they use during games.
December 17, 2007
11:03 AM
Tbone writes:
Wow, a whopping 1.1% increase in real median household income!!!
Break out the champagne boys, we're in the money now!!
This 1.1% rise mostly reflects the fact that the rich are getting richer. In fact, the income RISE in the top 1% between 2003 and 2005 is greater than the sum of the entire income of the poorest 20% of Americans. And that's just the INCREASE in income for the top 1%, not the sum of their actual income.
And, on average, the top 1% saw their incomes rise by an average of 43%, while the incomes of the lowest 20% rose by a whopping 1.3%.
December 17, 2007
11:03 AM
can't stay on topic writes:
Shaggy, jay's busy either trying to refute the Census Bureau postings or else contemplating calling the Census Bereau a right wing think tank.
Here's a good one.
Give a man a fish, and he'll eat that day. Teach him to fish and he'll eat for a lifetime. -Consevative Proverb
If a man can't fish, I'll take a fish a day from the guy who can and give it to the one who can't. -Liberal Proverb
December 17, 2007
11:17 AM
Gene writes:
I am contacting Ward Churchill’s genealogist to see if I have any Indian blood in me. If I do, I may have a go at that McLean Stevens land.
December 17, 2007
11:19 AM
Gene writes:
I am contacting Ward Churchill’s genealogist to see if I have any Indian blood in me. If I do, I may have a go at that McLean Stevens land.
December 17, 2007
11:24 AM
can't stay on topic writes:
Tbone, the facts show that there was no decline and that was the point. Here are some more stats you'll hate.
The top 1% pay 39.4 of the total income tax burden.
The top 5% pay 59.7% of the total income tax burden.
The top 10% pay 70.3% of the total income tax burden.
The top 25% pay 86.0% of the total income tax burden.
The top 50% pay 96.9% of the total income tax burden.
The bottom 50% pay 3.1% of the total income tax burden.
So if the top percenters had increases in income, the also payed more taxes which put more money into the myriad number of government programs for the poor and needy. Not all of which want to better themselves.
December 17, 2007
11:29 AM
Anonymous writes:
R. M. News - your mixing up our messages with wrong names !
December 17, 2007
11:29 AM
Anonymous writes:
R. M. News - your mixing up our messages with wrong names !
December 17, 2007
11:32 AM
Anonymous writes:
You are.
December 17, 2007
12:05 PM
Anonymous writes:
Taking someone else's property and then demanding that they pay your legal fees for that priviledge sounds like something jay would pull.
December 17, 2007
12:25 PM
Jerry Seinfeld writes:
Hey "can't stay on topic" how about posting some numbers showing the distribution of wealth in this country? I would really like to know.
December 17, 2007
1:05 PM
can't stay on topic writes:
Jerry, wealth is a subjective term. A guy making 15,000 a year might think 75,000 is wealthy. 75,000 guy says the guy worth 500,000 is wealthy. 500,000 says 5 million is wealthy. What's Hill and Bills' personal portfolio up to?
Personally, I like the term "distribution of opportunity". Look at Oprah. She's richer than God and she came from poor beginnings. She and many like her show that hard work and determination aren't just empty catchphrases.
December 17, 2007
1:15 PM
Hogar De Vuelta (العودة) writes:
This and the following link are all pointing toward the need for less government intrusion into the lives of the CITIZENS. On this issue, the majority of both parties are equally guilty. It is time for those who want less government to put pressure on all who would grow the scope and power of the Federal government.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59229
December 17, 2007
1:22 PM
history buff writes:
Hogar, in your post, mom is telling the school district that her dog ate her homework. I don't think that is a reason to overthrow the government.
December 17, 2007
1:56 PM
JW writes:
Speaking of Government control....
The Senate is working on passing a FISA bill with telco immunity as we speak. With the possible procedures, it looks like Dodd can filibuster the POS untill it has to be put off till next year regardless of what the Senate does, but this morning they voted 76-10 to pass it.
Both Allard and Salazar voted for this.
With the story about unwaranted wiretaping continuing to develop (it now appears the NSA has been sifting alot more domestic traffic than previously thought, and much of it has no relation whatsoever to possible terrorism) seems to me that passing retro active immunity for the phone companies who were willing you give up YOUR privacy is not exatly representing us as voters, and it sure as hell isnt up holding the constitution as they swear to do.
December 17, 2007
3:28 PM
Oracle writes:
McLean is just doing for himself what he did from the bench, and the mayor's seat before that. I once observed a case several years ago where Boulder's wealthiest developer needed to steal a small corner of land to make a lot from investing a little. I'll always remember McLean booming down his personal opinions while ignoring the law, to make sure it happened.
The arrogance of the Boulder limousine liberals is remarkable. Take Roxanne Bailin, Alice Madden and Mary Lacy, the judicial, legislative and adminstrative branch representatives, respectively. There are no checks and balances for these gals, just blank checks. They are so convinced they are needed to administer over the "little people", they forgot their roles and ethical observations in governing.
The liberal establishment ignores ethics, and won't hold their own to answer.
December 17, 2007
3:39 PM
DenverDan writes:
Democrats love eminem domain. That's the same type of "legalized theft" that Democrats Stevens and McLean are using to steal the Kirlins land.
Just like the liberal Supreme Court justices that voted in favor of allowing eminem domain to empower government bureaucrats to boost their tax revenues.
Typical Democrats... steal and then complain when the public calls them on it. Time to remember Democrat tactics on election.
December 17, 2007
3:46 PM
Barnie writes:
Denver Dan gets the thick as a post award for today.
December 17, 2007
4:05 PM
mrw650 writes:
This is nothing but spin, spin, spin--good faith, my foot! Those two thieves and the two judges who helped them should be charged with collusion, conspiracy, fraud, theft, deprivation of rights under color of law, and perjury. Crimes were committed here, but the U.S. Attorney may have to be the one to investigate it since the local DA is likely in McLean/Stevens pocket.
I believe these two have been using the legal system to railroad people for years, and this time they just went too far and got caught.
This is from the DNC website:
The Democratic Party is committed to real ethics reform and meaningful campaign finance reform that protects our rights and ensures that elected officials act ethically -- not just within the law, but within the spirit of the law. Democrats offer an aggressive reform package to reverse Republican excesses and restore the public trust.
Well DNC, you can start with these two, even if they are 'retired.' I'm a registered Democrat and you will not get a dime from me until these two shysters are prosecuted.
December 17, 2007
4:08 PM
mrw650 writes:
If the Democrat Party is interested in cleaning up corruption, they should start with these two.
December 17, 2007
4:50 PM
Anonymous writes:
gee
it makes you wonder if Bushco is using
this in Iraq. I mean why are they building bases there?
December 17, 2007
4:52 PM
Hogar De Vuelta (العودة) writes:
HB,
Government has no business regulating education. Let the private sector do that. Employers are fully capable of testing people. SATs and other private testing services can offer their services to schools and employers. Just say no to the government education nazis.
December 17, 2007
5:14 PM
Tbone writes:
Who sets the standards, Hogar?
And, there is a difference between testing people and regulation. They are two completely different things. Taking that into account, your post makes no sense. Private companies probably already do all the testing.
December 17, 2007
6:13 PM
Can you believe it? writes:
Is it true that the land grabbing lawyers are Democrats?
Imagine that.
December 17, 2007
6:39 PM
mrw650 writes:
Yes, McLean and Stevens are chairs of the Boulder Democrat Party. When the money dries up because of them, that's when the national party will pay attention. They will have to make a decision: Dick & Edie vs. the angry voters/money. It's up to the national Dem party to decide whose ethics they want to back.
IMHO, McLean and Stevens have stepped in public doggy-doo and smeared the Dem party with it. No political party needs people like these.
December 17, 2007
6:40 PM
shaggy writes:
I hope this whole ordeal ends up costing McLean & Stevens a ton of money and personal scrutiny before they have to rightfully give this land back.
They have to win the top two scums sucks of the year award for sure.
Donate if you can to the Kirlins defense fund. This is just wrong and people like McLean and Stevens need to be exposed.
They also need to take a look into McLeans record as a Judge and Mayor and see what else this corrupt scum suck has been up to.
Even the majority of Liberals think these two are low lifes so that speaks volumes in itself.
December 17, 2007
8:22 PM
Anonymous writes:
John Wayne Gacy was a Republican....oh never mind
December 17, 2007
9:47 PM
Anonymous writes:
Tim Mcveigh was a republican
http://www.cnn.com/interactive/us/0103/mcveigh.background/frameset.exclude.html
and a terrist too.
December 17, 2007
11:27 PM
William Rich writes:
Remember the ONE right which separates a free nation from a kingdom? Didn't you learn it in grammar school? It is embedded in our Constitution and is the cornerstone of our freedoms. It is the right to own property. End of argument.
We have many laws designed to protect those rights which go all the way up to the use of deadly force. Does anyone in their right mind believe that a couple of lawyers, one a former judge, cannot go to a court with their cronies on the bench and obtain a ruling in their favor? (Wink wink) The fix was in.
December 18, 2007
5:30 AM
Grey Stone writes:
The Channel 4 and 7 news reports yesterday show that the Kirlins have been telling some "whoppers."
1. The case didnt' start the way they said it did. They claimed it was a slap down suit with no notice; now we find out there was mediation.
2. They didn't offer to "give" land, the Kirlins wanted $300K for a 5 foot strip. Greedy Kirlins.
3. The Kirlins agreed to the after hours TRO that they are bichin about now. Flip Flop. Flip Flop.
4. McLean/Stevens did not know the judge who made the decision. The Kirlins have been spreading lies about that. Can you spell DEFAMATION?
What a HOOT!
December 18, 2007
6:04 AM
Legal--maybe--Ethical? NOT writes:
No matter what petty comments arise out of so-called "flip-flop" assumptions, the Kirlins aren't lawyers, and don't have the depth/breadth knowledge, experience, and just plain shyster cunning McLean and Stevens have. As for the judge not knowing McLean and Stevens, well, the "network" of lawyers and judges--especially in this case, is likely quite, shall we say, thick. What's clear, is that McLean and Stevens planned to do whatever they could to prevent any development that might block their Shangri-La view. Trouble is, somewhere, somehow, some way--people *always* make things "even" in the end.
December 18, 2007
7:34 AM
mrw650 writes:
Hey "Legal" the Kirlins weren't greedy, nor are they liars, they offered to GIVE their 'neighbors' five feet of their land for *nothing* and McLean/Stevens turned them down. According to the first news reports, McLean/Stevens tried to sue for the WHOLE lot (without paying). And they want the Kirlins to pay their court costs. That's not greed? More like legal rape.
December 18, 2007
7:42 AM
Grey is a moron writes:
Grey -
You overlook one small fact:
THE LAND DID NOT BELONG TO THESE PEOPLE! (The McLean/Stevens party)
I don't care if the Kirlins didn't use it, didn't know it existed, or didn't care. The %#&*ing land was theirs. Period.
Typical liberal tactic: You have something. I want it. I will take it and claim victimhood if you protest.
December 18, 2007
7:55 AM
JW writes:
Its pretty lame that these people basically stole land through our court system. Id hardly call it a "Liberal" tactic though. As one poster pointed out, the right to own land is in our constitution. Being "Liberal" means you support liberties. Guess what the constitution is....its our guarantee of liberties.
Ill never get over how stupid some of you are. The Right starts using "Liberal" as a bad word, and even though it describes YOU (because most of you, while stupid, are at least rational enough to support the constitution) you idiots just buy it and follow along like lemmings.
WORDS HAVE DEFINITIONS! If you dont know what they mean, maybe you should look them up. And you can start with "Liberal". That way, most of you who support our constitution and therefore ARE LIBERALS can stop using it as an insult and looking like idiots.
BTW,
Looks like the FISA bill is now stuck and delayed till January. Took Dodd walking off the campaign trail to stop telco immunity. The whitehouse has responded by saying the President will veto any bill without retro active immunity for Telco companies.
I find it funny as hell that you people are all bent about this one instance of injustice regarding a land grab that is likely to be overturned on appeal, but not one of you is up in arms about our President demanding that Telco Companies be retro actively sheilded from their crimes, which actually took YOUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.
Amazing.
December 18, 2007
8:10 AM
Anonymous writes:
JW - Wow. Looks like somebody needs a hug.
And some therapy.
And a critical thinking class.
Please dude, get some help from professionals. And don't try to "buy and sell" anyone today.
December 18, 2007
8:21 AM
Holier Than Thou writes:
This issue isn't about liberal or conservative. It's about exploiting trespassing and tolerance to steal someone's land. McLean and Stevens are lowest kind of cowardly scum you can find in America. Shooting is much too good for them. I say we bring back drawing and quartering for such miserable excuses passing themselves off as human. Make it a law. Too bad we killed Saddam Hussein, because now we could use him as a consultant for how to dispose of such scum. Acid bath, eyelids peeled off, skinning alive? What do you think, Saddam?
Those despicable politeness and good faith remarks deserve this kind of scorn. This is typical of wealthy exploiters in America. They used to say that keeping slaves was good for them and that they're better off without their freedom. Same thing, different case. The happy-dappy bull flakes fall like snow.
Look for the bribe that was passed to the judge who ruled in their favor. That bribe was well worth the money because the judge must've spent an all-nighter thinking up a convoluted rationale in favor of this robbery. But judges are better than the mafia at knowing where to stash their loot. So, good luck on that one.
One way or another they're coming for yours. Either your job will be offshored or outsourced, and you loose it to foreclosure. Or they just show up, make up a good excuse, and take it using our screwed up legal system.
Eventually, we'll all probably be living in trailers and tents on a reservation alongside the descendants of the folks that our ancestors robbed. Start collecting feathers now and learn to dance the two-hop.
December 18, 2007
8:40 AM
just sayin' writes:
I agree with you JW. You read a post about guns and people are squawking about protecting their rights from the government and then they turn a blind eye to real infringements on freedom. They seem to believe that as long as they own a gun they still have all their rights. I for one want the Telcom companies to be told that they have to follow the law. Our government does not have the right to break the law.
December 18, 2007
8:42 AM
Holier Than Thou writes:
JW,
Off topic but we need that topic. The US Constitution is printed on toilet paper that is delivered to the White House. What real Americans hold dear is viewed as an inconvenient obstruction by Bush and his boys.
The Fourth Amendment says:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures , shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue , but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
That means that it's patently illegal for any government official to listen in on your private conversations, open and read your mail (including private email) without probable cause for the commission of a crime that justifies a warrant that must be issued by a judge.
Telco executives must be prosecuted and rendered to full and severe punishments for allowing the Bush regime to trample our rights.
Call your Senators and complain about giving the telco executives and illegal wiretappers immunity in the FISA bill:
Wayne Allard 202-224-5941
Ken Salazar 202-224-5852
Naturally, they make it a toll call from Colorado unless you have one of those new-fangled phone services.
December 18, 2007
9:45 AM
JW writes:
Yes, you need to call those two. BOTH of them voted to give telco's retro active immunity yesterday. Thats a Republican and a Democrat, both scum, both in the pocket of telcos. Call them and let them know its NOT OK to sell your rights out.
While youre at it, you may want to rethink your upcomming vote for president. Dodd is the ONLY one that stopped this thing from breezing straight through. He did it at the cost of his campaign time, at one of the most pivotal times. Hillary, Obama, and Edwards couldnt be bothered to take time off to protect your rights. The Republicans, well, most couldnt have done anything any way, but if they could have, it would have been to vote FOR telco immunity, which makes them no better.
December 18, 2007
11:25 AM
Anonymous writes:
1. The Kirlins bought the land.
2. The Kirlins OWNED the land.
3. McLean/Stevens KNEW the Kirlins owned the land.
4. McLean/Stevens figured out that someday (probably sooner than later) the Kirlins might either sell the land, or build on THE KIRLIN'S LAND, and block McLean/Steven's view.
5. McLean/Stevens decided to TAKE the land, any way they could get it, in order to protect their sacrosanct view.
6. McLean/Stevens, knowing their way around the law, since they're BOTH lawyers and well-acquainted with the legal and political system in Boulder, having been elected public officials AND JUDGES, figured they'd just STEAL the Kirlin's land--why? BECAUSE THEY KNEW THEY COULD.
7. McLean/Stevens are THIEVES.
8. END of discussion.
December 18, 2007
11:36 AM
reid writes:
The old man and his wife, McLean and Stevens, are a true pair.
During a meeting with the Kirlins, on the Kirlin's property, they called the Boulder cops on me. Here's the full story: http://www.reidwegs.com/2007/12/scenes-from-great-land-grab.html
December 18, 2007
12:00 PM
Anonymous writes:
Wow Reid, thats some good cop work there Lou. You are an idiot, your long winded post shows nothing and only proves you are an idiot. And there are laws that say once an officer asks you for ID you must comply, its not nazi germany douchgebag, its simply their right to know who the hell you are. Bonehead. Put the bong down and get a clue
December 18, 2007
12:15 PM
Shaggy writes:
Do any of you know that the reason McLean and Stevens chose this particular station to do an interview when all the media outlets have been wanting them to do one?
Because they are friends with the owners!!
That is right, one of the big wigs at this station even testified on their behalf in the court hearings.
They kept telling everyone they will not do any interviews until the appeal process is over but I guess that doesn't include favorable interviews.
Another lie coming from McLean and Stevens is that they said the Kirlins never offered them 5 ft of their land but now it turns out the Kirlins want the mediation files to be Public records that clearly show they offered several ideas to to the thieves but the thieves kept turning them down.
McLean and Stevens said they didn't ask for 1/3 of the Land and that the Judge awarded it to them with out them knowing.
So then if this is true why did they go back to court and ask the jugde to award them another 9 inches?
McLean and Stevens even have the gal to sue the Kirlins to pay for their Legal fees for stealing their land.
This is just so unbelievable and pathetic that two people can actually be so vile.
Can these two thieves do anything without using their past positions to get what they want?
Sounds like this is a common thing up in Boulder.
December 18, 2007
12:35 PM
mrw650 writes:
I posted this at the D.C. I'll repost it here.
I believe Deprivation of Rights under Color of Law occurred when Judge Sandstead issued the speedy Friday afternoon restraining order to prevent the Kirlins from putting up their fence in the first place. For being law-abiding and playing by the rules, they ultimately lost their land. What they didn't know is M/S played by crooked (their own) rules.
The act of putting up a fence was an attempt on the part of the real owner to stop the adverse possession claim, and they were prevented from doing that by court order. The Kirlins faced jail (contempt of court) if they put up their fence.
All the attempts by the M/S team to spray Febreeze on their actions and reasoning makes them stink worse to average people like you and me. They forget that people like us sit on JURIES.
We the people can insist the U.S. Attorney Troy Eid get a grand jury to look at this mess as a prelude to prosecution.
December 18, 2007
12:39 PM
mrw650 writes:
Shaggy: according to early news reports, the M/S team didn't ask for 1/3 of the land. They asked for the whole damn lot!
December 18, 2007
12:54 PM
Hogar De Vuelta (العودة) writes:
Take a good hard look America, this is a microcosm of the America that Progressives want to create through the Men In Black.
People rail about what Bush does to fight terrorism, but are mum to actually totalitarian ACTS being committed against real CITIZENS every day.
December 18, 2007
1:13 PM
just sayin' writes:
Wait a minute Hogar, it's shaggy's job to make everything a right/left or conservative/liberal issue. You are supposed to be arguing that government should be church. Keep your roles straight or you will confuse everybody.
December 18, 2007
1:45 PM
JW writes:
Yes, one miscarriage of justice that is likely to be overturned on appeal is far worse than illegally wiretapping the entire nation in direct conflict with the constitution.
Why?
Because, the wiretapping was done by Republicans, and the single miscarriage of justic likely to be overturned happened in Boulder, which can conveniently be labled "Liberal".
Good Christ you need to get your damn priorities straight Hogar. Bending over for Repubs regardless of what they do while simultaneously decrying "Liberals" at every turn regardless of what they do should not be priority #1.
Oh, and youve used yet another strawman in your arguement. Only a rabid fool would believe that the progressive movement counts stealing people's property as one of its central goals. That is pure foolishness only a complete idiot would commit to ANY form of media likely to be viewed by others. That is the kind of dark, twisted fundie logic that should be relegated to your diary, if only so you can discontinue making others "rooster" at their desks.
December 18, 2007
4:00 PM
Anonymous writes:
js,
You should not listen to JW. JW does not understand political satire. I am for government being separated from the following:
Church
School
Families
States rights
local government rule
medicine
income tax
speech
politics
almost everything else
December 18, 2007
4:35 PM
Tbone writes:
But let me guess, 4:00, that you vote republican?
The same people who gave us:
Roy Moore & the marriage of church and state
no child left behind
trying to tell us who can be a family and who can't
trying to overrule the california EPA on fuel mileage standards
lies about the cost of the new medicare fiasco, including no barganing over prescription costs
reverse robbin hood (steal from the poor to give to the rich)
"free speech zones"
If you really value those things you listed, might want to check a little closer into who you vote for.
December 18, 2007
7:07 PM
Anonymous writes:
TBone,
I think Alabaman's should decide if Judge Roy Moore is their judge, not the Federal government.
No Child Left Behind was Ted Kennedy's bill and he took GW for the ride of his life. I want a Constitutional amendment that says the Federal government cannot be involved in education in any way shape of form. You are correct that I will never get that from the RINOpublican party, which is why I would love to see Ron Paul elected.
If you don't understand that Tab A does not go into Tab A and Slot B does not go into Slot B, then you need to go back and read the directions.
I agree that the Federal government should not be allowed to meddle with the fruits and nuts in California.
I want a Constitutional amendment that says the Federal government cannot be involved in healthcare in any way shape of form. You are correct that I will never get that from the RINOpublican party, which is why I would love to see Ron Paul elected.
How can the government be stealing from the poor when they don't pay any taxes. I want a Constitutional amendment that says the Federal government cannot tax income at all in any way shape of form. You are correct that I will never get that from the RINOpublican party, which is why I would love to see Ron Paul elected.
I want a Constitutional amendment that says the Federal government cannot be involved in speech in any way shape of form. You are correct that I will never get that from the RINOpublican party, which is why I would love to see Ron Paul elected.
I'm looking are you?
December 18, 2007
7:17 PM
mrw650 writes:
Government isn't church...that would be a step down...they're convinced they are God.
December 19, 2007
7:41 AM
JW writes:
"You should not listen to JW. JW does not understand political satire."
Sure I do. You just arent very good at it Hogar. As far as I can tell, Gr8ful is the only person who can consistantly tell where you are comming from. Ill give the guy props...deciding which one of your statements is satire takes more dedication and thought than I am willing to give.
"I hate Democrats."
"I REALLY hate Democrats."
Which one is the satire?
"I am for government being separated from the following:"
Church- Then why do you push your religious doctrine as social law?
School-We've already covered your "beliefs" regarding American education, and how the Market has decided EXACTLY the opposite.
Families- Then why do you think it should decide who can form a family, and who cannot? Oh yea, because you want your religion in our govt.
States rights- Sure.
local government rule-Redundant much?
medicine-sure
income tax-sure
speech-Yet the other day you said anyone who says they will hurt someone else should be locked up.
politics- Hehe. No comment.
almost everything else- Yes, the USA should follow Rwanda's lead. It quite obviously works very well.
December 19, 2007
8:29 AM
gr8fuldude writes:
JW - The key to interpreting HDV is the fact that when he speaks in extremes (i.e. "Judges always know everything, Judges always know what is best"), he is kidding. Blogging tends to be pretty flat as a form of communication. All gestures, voice moderation, etc is missing, and those are the usual qualities that indicate a person is kidding around when they are speaking.
He's also huge into states' rights, so when he starts talking about the wisdom of the federal gov't, it is a pretty clear indicator that satire is on its way.
That said, I may not always agree with him, but I can respect how articulately he makes a point. Voltaire's most famous quote is especially appropriate here.
You may now return to your regularly scheduled blogging. Party on gang!
December 19, 2007
5:04 PM
Hogar De Vuelta (العودة) writes:
gr8,
Thanks for understanding. And thanks for being who you are.
JW,
You like to take certain things that I have said satirically and repeat them over and over again without any context. Isn't that the same thing you criticize (rightfully often) the right wing pundits for doing?
You claim to be such a great defender of the Constitution, but you don't want to follow the spirit of the no religious test clause. no religious test shall ever be required, as a" qualification to any office or public trust, under the "United States. It should apply equally to candidates and to citizens.
You say that I am trying to impose my religous view of family on the rest of the country. What I am doing is exercising my right to say that I will not give a tax break or special legal status to gays who marry. I feel the same way about single people. I don't hate either gays or single people, but I am not going to vote them my tax money. And I don't have to defend how I arrived at that conclusion to anyone, including you. In the political arena right is not part of the equation. Persuasion will always trump right. It is a good thing when persuasion champions right, but we all know that in this Post-Mpdern world everyone thinks they are right. So you have to be able to convince enough other people or you will not have any effect. Now the American people have supported tax breaks for marrieds for a long time.
You may be right
I may be crazy
But it just might be a lunatic you're looking for
Turn out the light
Don't try to save me
You may be wrong for all I know
But you may be right
You may be wrong but you may be right
You may be wrong but you may be right
I digress. You believe that every poilicy decision should be made on the basis of science and reasoning. I would agree if we knew everything. but the bottom line is that science and reasoning are limited because knowledge is limited. Where knowledge leaves off, belief takes over. You want to call your belief knowledge, but you are only fooling yourself.
I am not as ignorant as you make me out to be and you are not as knowledgeable as you would want us to believe.
Now answer one question. If Hogar is so far out in left field, and you represent the majority in the country, why is Mike Huckabee doing so well?
December 19, 2007
5:27 PM
Hogar De Vuelta (العودة) writes:
gr8,
Here is an interesting quote from Voltaire.
It would be the height of folly to pretend to improve all men to the point that they think in a uniform manner about metaphysics. it would be easier to subjugate the entire universe through force of arms than to subjugate the minds of a single village. . . .
Of course, Voltaire never met Hillary.
December 19, 2007
7:59 PM
JR writes:
Actually, the McLean/Stevens' remind me of the old chestnut about the man who murdered his parents, then begged the judge for mercy because he was an orphan.
December 20, 2007
7:46 AM
JW writes:
"You like to take certain things that I have said satirically and repeat them over and over again without any context. Isn't that the same thing you criticize (rightfully often) the right wing pundits for doing?"
You know, Gr8's example was of you saying judges know everything, or that the feds are so awesome and should have more power.
To my knowledge, you have NEVER said these kinds of things. I would get that as satire.
But again, when I miss it, its usually because some how to you, this is satire;
"I really hate Democrats"
and this is serious;
"I hate Democrats".
Now, Im willing to say perhaps I dont spend enough time trying to figure out when you are serious and when you are attempting satire. That said, when your equally insane whether serious or attempting satire, whats the friggin point? Satire or serious, you beliefs are partisan or religiously based. One has been scientifically proven to only use half your brain half the time, the other hasnt got any proof or even rational evidence AT ALL.
"You claim to be such a great defender of the Constitution, but you don't want to follow the spirit of the no religious test clause. no religious test shall ever be required, as a" qualification to any office or public trust, under the "United States. It should apply equally to candidates and to citizens. "
This is just a strawman. Ive never promoted a religious test. I dont vote based on the religion of the candidate, and I dont have a problem with you because youre Christian. I have a problem with you because you want others to be forced to follow your religious based beliefs, and that is the same reason I dislike Huckabee (though, because Im not like you, I can actually admit that many of his policies are very much in line with mine. You on the other hand couldnt admit that Hillary's economic policies are more fiscally conservative than most Republicans if it would save your life. Shes a Dem.). Simply put, you simply cant get the difference between "I hate Christians" and "I hate people who try to force their religious beliefs on everyone". To you, its all the same.
"You say that I am trying to impose my religous view of family on the rest of the country. What I am doing is exercising my right to say that I will not give a tax break or special legal status to gays who marry."
BS. This is probably part of your reasoning (and Ill get to that in a moment) but part of it is also your religious beliefs. Besides, even if I just say "ok" to this, you have several other policy stances that are TOTALY based on YOUR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS that you would have made law.
"I feel the same way about single people. I don't hate either gays or single people, but I am not going to vote them my tax money."
I believe Ive talked about how you are willing to give up other people's rights because you dont consider those particular rights that important, but the rights you consider important are inviolate in your mind. This is simply an extention of that same lack of concern for others. You get the tax breaks, but you are completely willing to say others dont deserve the same based on arbitrary bs. If you said NO ONE deserved them, that would be one thing. But no, others being treated unfairly or losing constitutional rights they value isnt a concern to you, so long as you keep yours.
"And I don't have to defend how I arrived at that conclusion to anyone, including you."
No you dont, but you seem to try like hell.
"In the political arena right is not part of the equation."
Copout excuse for your bs position. Pathetic.
"Persuasion will always trump right."
Which is why your self induced ignorance backed by unsupported belief is so infuriating. And its not just you. Its the majority of the voting public. You people are pursuaded by bs rhetoric and emotional vitrol because you dont take the time to live up to your responsibility as part of the voting block, and get informed.
"It is a good thing when persuasion champions right, but we all know that in this Post-Mpdern world everyone thinks they are right."
Some of us are just more interested in knowing than "Thinking" or "believing" so we continue to self educate. Some of us just read the bible everyday and for some reason think that gives them enough info to be right about every complicated issue out there.
"Now the American people have supported tax breaks for marrieds for a long time."
They supported slavery for a long time, and discrimination for a long time after that. Didnt make it right.
"You believe that every poilicy decision should be made on the basis of science and reasoning."
What are the alternatives? Belief? Thats INSANE. Armagedon is NOT A FOREIGN POLICY.
"I would agree if we knew everything."
This is equally insane. "We dont know everything, so we should ignore what we DO know in favor of Faith." This is just nuts, and the result is the last 7 years.
"Where knowledge leaves off, belief takes over. You want to call your belief knowledge, but you are only fooling yourself. "
Listen to yourself. From a position of rank ignorance about what I know, you say Im fooling myself. At the same time, you excuse your ignorance by once again turning to "Belief". As if your 2000 year old system of "Belief" can trump any knowledge, and so what I know really isnt important, your ignorance isnt important, its me fooling myself because you have faith. This is insane.
"I am not as ignorant as you make me out to be and you are not as knowledgeable as you would want us to believe."
Funny thing about this statement, so far Im the only one on this blog whos ever admitted he was wrong. Between just you and me, Im the one who has changed his ideas and stances based on new info, and you are the one who disregards all knew info to cling to your set beliefs. In other words, I learn, and can assimilate new info. You believe, and are therefore stuck with what you believe regardless of whether or not it is correct.
"Now answer one question. If Hogar is so far out in left field, and you represent the majority in the country, why is Mike Huckabee doing so well?"
Im not one who continually claims to represent "the majoirty". Believing in the constitution, I dont have to be, minorities have the same rights. Additionally, Ive said MANY TIMES that our electorate is IGNORANT. How else can you explain how the polls shift based on pure rhetoric, and emotional bs? When was the last time you saw a huge shift in the polls based on say...foreign policy? No, its all over some instance where one candidate says something, and the others keep bringing it up over and over and over. Look at yourself. Clinton's actual actions as president are more in line with your stated Economic policy wishes than freaking REAGAN's were, but youre so caught up in the bs you were fed by the press you HATE the man AND HIS WIFE!
Its pathetic.
And whats even more pathetic is that you just disregarded that final statement without even thinking about it, and in pure ignorance of what Clinton and Reagan's actual economic policy decisions were. You "Believe" in Reagan. What he actually did doesnt even matter. You "Believe" Clinton was a bad person. What he actually did doesnt even matter. And you would NEVER stop and think, "Huh. Maybe I should actually go do some research about what Reagan did regarding economic policy during his presidency, and then do some research on Clinton". Your emotions blind you and bind you in ignorance.
December 20, 2007
7:57 AM
JW writes:
You know what Hogar, lets just make this simple. Ignore that last post.
Why do you support Mike Huckabee?
December 20, 2007
8:32 AM
just sayin' writes:
Hucksterbee is doing well with the Evangelicals in the Republican Party. Who else would those people support? If he gets the nomination he will have a hard time getting independents to vote for him. In my opinion, McCain is the most electable Republican when it comes to the general election.
December 20, 2007
9:31 AM
fiesty writes:
mrw650 -
I've asked that same question numerous times on other blogs. What justification did the judge use in issuing the "emergency" restraining order against the Kirlins for building on their own land? Is it normal procedure to issue it in just a few short hours like this, i.e. was there possible favoritism involved?
December 20, 2007
11:55 AM
mrw650 writes:
Fiesty: it could be favoritism, or just plain old collusion, which is a criminal act (white collar crime) in Federal law.
collusion n. where two persons (or business entities through their officers or other employees) enter into a deceitful agreement, usually secret, to defraud and/or gain an unfair advantage over a third party, competitors, consumers or those with whom they are negotiating.
Considering that there was allegedy an arbitration, or mediation prior to trial, the above fits.
Also: Collusion is an agreement between two or more persons, to defraud a person of his rights by the forms of law, or to obtain an object forbidden by law.
I don't see how M/S and Judge Sandstead are going to get around this. It looks ugly.
December 20, 2007
12:05 PM
Holier Than Thou writes:
"Is there favoritism involved?"
As a result of Judge Klein accepting a bribe, common sense and logic loudly calls: YES!
But as I mentioned earlier, judges are better than the mafia when it comes to stashing bribe loot.
In this case, we know it happened because of the crack-brained decisions and overpowering stench of corruption.
You may not be able to see a vessel in the fog but you can hear the fog horn and see the waves produced in its wake, while the odor of rotting trash would indicate that it's a garbage scow.
December 21, 2007
1:08 PM
mrw650 writes:
Bribery is a pretty strong accusation.
If you have any proof of that, forward that information to Troy Eid, the U.S. Attorney and insist a grand jury be convened.
Otherwise do not state bribery as if it were fact, or you could find yourself in trouble.
December 22, 2007
3:26 PM
Anonymous writes:
That this crime was committed by lawyers is bad enough, but Democrat lawyers? I'm going to be sick....
January 2, 2008
10:28 AM
Hogar De Vuelta (العودة) writes:
JW,
I don't support Huckabee, because I find that he is too willing to take my money and support Socialist policies. I am actually more of a Ron Paul supporter.
And regarding your other post, I would have no problem with marrieds not getting a marriage deduction. Of course I would rather just eliminate all income taxes, that would settle all kinds of problems introduced by the income tax system. The bottom line is that I want less government. You simply cannot name any issue outside of abortion where I want to force people to believe what I believe. If we had less Federal government and less government interference in general, many of the so called issues would not exist.
January 7, 2008
7:37 PM
Dwayne c Ketzler writes:
this is why you should have it surveyed first then build a fence as soon as you buy it,but 25 Years,is long time !the law was made for good reason just used for the wrong in this case