asks the poster over at Blog the Rockies. There’s also a comment by Susie Kirlin regarding the meeting this Wednesday which I “stole”.
Susie Kirlin said at June 13th, 2008 at 3:48 pm
Hello,I really enjoyed your funny commentary on the ridiculous ruling these Boulder judges have recently made.
I am sitting here with Dana Marshall, the latest victim of a land grab and we thoroughly enjoyed your article.
We are organizing a group, tentatively named Boulder Property Rights Coalition and are having our first meeting to organize a protest of the high handed court decisions and the fact that the new law can still be abused. It will be at the Boulder Public Library Main branch, Boulder Creek Room on July2nd at 7-9pm. Any further questions…..call Dana at 303-444-3343. Please spread the word to anyone who cares about property rights.
I hope it is OK with you to post this on the website.
Here is Dana Marshall’s story, from her point of view, over at Landgrabber.org. I have not read the whole story as I don’t have time this morning (there’s a lot there in very small font!), but of what I’ve read/scanned, this part stuck out…
2) The judge may be overloaded and uninformed regarding the intricacies of the particular case and relevant precedent law. As in my case, the judge was appointed at the last minute and probably did not have adequate time to prepare and review the case. The previous magistrate and judge were aware that, at first, the adverse claimants had tried to get my property by representing to the city that the fence belonged to them. Then they attempted to manipulate the survey results. Then they switched to a claim of adverse possession. Then, unable to support the 18 year continuous requirement for predecessors, they flip-flopped to acquiescence- which fails as a claim. It fails as a claim, due to the requirement that common ownership dictates that acquiescence in boundary changes must be recorded in the deed or at least memorialized in written form. A further problem arises because neither my immediate predecessor in title, nor my neighbor to the west (whose fence is also involved), would agree that they ever acquiesced to the plaintiff’s use of their fence as the boundary. Edwin McConnell (referred to as “Old Mac”), the original owner of the plaintiff’s property also owned my property; introducing a problem of commonownership. So there’s a little problem with acquiescing to oneself. Acquiescence requires two people to be in agreement. Finally, when none of the plaintiff’s claims worked very well, they tried to have the trial continued in order to explore the possibility that a mistake had been made by the city surveyor when the corner markings downthe street were re-monumented to make way for city improvements.
All bold, italics and coloring are mine.
It sure appears that the Salim’s kept “throwing ideas” at the court until something finally “stuck”.
and further down is this statement…
One judge should not have the discretion to give your property to
someone else simply because another party wants it. Give me a jury trial any day.
So why wasn’t there a jury trial? Obviously there’s a reason.
More later, I’ve got other things to do for now. I plan to go to the meeting on Wednesday. Since the early 1990’s Wednesday is my usual beer drinking evening. That said, I think giving up beer for one Wednesday to attend the initial meeting of the Boulder Property Rights Coalition is a small sacrifice that I’m willing to make.
.
