Paths never crossed in south Boulder 'land grab' case
Families in land battle both achievers
By Heath Urie (Contact)
Sunday, November 25, 2007
The case thrust both families into the spotlight last month when the court decided McLean and Stevens are more attached to the land than the Kirlins, based on the long-existing but little-known law of adverse possession.
But long before newspapers, television shows and radio pundits were clamoring to weigh in on the land case, the Kirlins, McLean and Stevens were busy living their own lives sometimes in the public eye.
McLean and Stevens have been involved in local politics for decades: he as a judge, city councilman and mayor; she as a political activist and chairwoman of the Boulder County Democratic Party.
The Kirlins, meanwhile, developed a lucrative business acquiring foreign fighter jets from around the world to sell to wealthy aviation enthusiasts and to help train U.S.Navy pilots. An October 2005 profile of Don Kirlin in Wired magazine is titled "Building Your Own Air Force, One Mig at a Time."
Life in the air
Don Kirlin has earned a unique reputation among the world of aviators most notably for amassing a personal air force of foreign fighter jets that he pits in training missions against the Navy.
But the Kirlins try to keep a low profile when it comes to the family business, after the Wired profile ruffled feathers in the former Soviet bloc, where the couple has traveled extensively and lived occasionally over the past two decades.
The magazine recounts Don Kirlin's daring and relentless journey into the crumbling Soviet empire to acquire his first plane in 1994 and describes his fighter jet collection, kept in a hangar in Quincy, Ill., as "an air force more formidable than that of many countries."
The Kirlins contract with the military to pit their jets, and hired pilots, in simulated battles against Navy fighters to help with aviator training. "Iraq was flying three kinds of plane when we invaded," Kirlin told Wired. "The L-39, the MiG-21, and the MiG-29," all models of fighters Kirlin has acquired over the years.
"The military found out it was cheaper to hire a private contractor and go up and do dog-fighting with their pilots than it is to use their own military pilots and aircraft," Susie Kirlin, 51, told the Camera last week. "(Don) always thought it'd be a great market for a lot of former military pilots there's nothing like flying those jets."
Don Kirlin, 54, said he started hunting down rare fighter jets, rotting in fields a half-world away, as a personal passion. When it turned into a profitable business, he opened the company Air USA, which specializes in fighter-jet restoration, sales and other specialty services.
In 1999, the couple formed Red Air, a division of Air USA focused on the niche market of military contracting. According to the company's Web site, Red Air provides an array of "tactical services to the U.S. defense agencies, defense contractors and foreign governments."
Both companies are based in Quincy, the 40,000-population city on the banks of the Mississippi River where Don Kirlin grew up.
When Kirlin was a child, his father had a small chain of candy stores called Andes Candies, which opened in 1948 and also carried Hallmark cards. Now named "Kirlin's Hallmark," the company has since grown into the world's largest chain of Hallmark greeting card stores operating more than 100 stores in 10 Midwestern states.
But while two of his brothers went into the family business, Don Kirlin decided to pursue a career in aviation.
Kirlin served in the Navy from 1976 to 1979, flying A-4 Skyhawk attack jets, before getting an MBA from the University of Northern Colorado, where he met his wife, and moving to Boulder in 1980.
After school, Kirlin took up commercial piloting, flying first for a commuter service in the mid-1980s, then for Piedmont Airlines, known today as US Airways. Susie Kirlin, meanwhile, taught at Boulder's Casey Junior High from 1980 to 1989.
The couple have three children ages 18, 21 and 23, all student pilots and they maintain a personal fighter jet at a hangar in Jefferson County. The whole family skydives together, and for 16 years hosted the World Freefall Convention in Illinois.
Don Kirlin was laid off from US Airways in 2002 but said he's accepted an offer to return to the company next month as a commercial pilot.
"I'm looking forward to getting back into airline flying again full time," he said.
Though they've operated their two jet companies in Illinois for about 13 years, the Kirlins moved to Boulder in 1980, when they purchased the first of three homes they would live in over the years all in the same short stretch of Galena Way in Boulder's Shanahan Ridge neighborhood, nestled at the base of the Flatirons.
In 1984, the couple decided to buy the 4,750-square-foot lot up the road from their home, intent on building their dream home there one day. The Kirlins said they visited the property almost weekly, on walks to the nearby open space.
Other than that, the land was mostly an afterthought until their three children left the house for college.
Last year, the Kirlins decided the time was right to build a home on the property, which Susie Kirlin said was, "the prettiest piece of property to build a house that we found in Boulder."
"We've had the great fortune to take our family to some really beautiful, wonderful places all over the world," Susie Kirlin said. "We always come home, and there is never any place on the planet like Boulder. We'll always live here we know that without a doubt in our mind."
The Kirlins said they're happy that details of the legal fight over their property are making rounds on the news and in social circles, so that it might help someone else in their situation.
"I want the focus to be on how easily this can occur to anyone else living here or to anyone else living in this country," Susie Kirlin said. "If by going public that helps other people, and I know it has ... that's been the really positive thing for us."
Grounded in politics
Richard "Dick" McLean and Edith "Edie" Stevens are household names to longtime observers of the Boulder political scene, but in recent weeks the couple have gained an entirely different kind of notoriety.
McLean, 76, and Stevens, 72, have become the targets of relentless phone calls, angry letters, newspaper editorials, threats and even protesters outside their home since news of their lawsuit captured attention a few weeks ago.
The couple have declined to say more than a few words about the case publicly, saying they don't want to "try the case in the media." McLean and Stevens didn't respond to requests to talk about their lives in Boulder, but each has been in the public eye during long political careers.
According to Camera archives, McLean successfully ran for Boulder City Council at age 37, when he was already an established partner in a Denver law firm. He had served two years in the U.S. Army and earned a bachelor's degree from Stanford University and a law degree from the University of Colorado.
His 1970 campaign included a platform of curbing "rapid growth" in the development and population of Boulder. During the campaign, McLean also spoke out about special legislation aimed against the "hippie problem," saying government had no right to curb the constitutional rights of one group of people.
"The rights of every citizen in Boulder are no stronger than the rights of its most despised citizens," he said in a 1969 Camera article.
After two years on the council, McLean was elected mayor a position he held in 1972 and 1973.
A Camera profile of McLean in February 1972 said he was always active in politics, and changed his political affiliation from Republican to Democrat during college.
"I began to feel, especially at school, that government rightly handled can change the shape of the nation," McLean said shortly after taking office as mayor.
McLean's Democratic persuasion grew in Boulder, where he was elected chairman of the Boulder County Democrats in October 1966. He would serve as its chairman for two years, and in the summer of 1968 was selected to be the McCarthy floor leader at the State Democratic Assembly seeking a Colorado delegation to the Chicago convention that would support Sen. Eugene McCarthy's bid for the U.S. presidency.
McLean also would serve on the steering committee for the Democratic presidential campaign of former New York Mayor John Lindsay, in March 1972.
McLean announced in August 1973 that he would not seek re-election to the City Council so he could concentrate on his private law practice.
In January 1981, at age 48, McLean was appointed a district court judge by then-Colorado Gov. Richard Lamm.
The same year, Edith Stevens was elected chairwoman of the Boulder County Democrats.
Stevens said she would "reorganize the party into a clean, strong and effective machine," according to Camera archives. She promoted a "five-point plan" for restructuring the group, which included plans to improve communication between elected officials and party workers.
In September 1990, at age 55, Stevens was named Boulder County's "top young lawyer" by the Colorado Bar Association. She had earned her law degree just a few years earlier, and was admitted to the bar in 1989.
Stevens worked as an attorney for Brauchli-Snyder, a Boulder law firm.
Back in the courtroom, McLean made headlines for offering "voluntary castration" as an alternative to jail time for convicted pedophiles.
At least three times in 1994, McLean suggested men convicted of sexual assault should consider castration as a form of treatment and punishment. None of the men accepted the offer.
McLean retired from the bench in 1996.
He was elected in 1998 to serve as Boulder's representative on the Regional Transportation District's board of directors and lobbied for the passage of the FasTracks transit expansion in 2004 before leaving office.
Stevens was serving as campaign treasurer for state Rep. Claire Levy and on the board of directors of Friends of Boulder Open Space a group she helped found in 2006 when the land case generated outcry earlier this month. She has since resigned from both groups.
Levy, D-Boulder, said Stevens has faced undue personal attacks.
"I don't really think it's fair for perfect strangers to draw conclusions about another person's character based on reports in the media about a lawsuit," Levy told the Camera earlier this month. "There are all kinds of assumptions about their motivations and about improper influence, and all of that is just pure speculation by complete strangers."
Although few friends and colleagues have been willing to be interviewed in the case, some have written letters in support of McLean and Stevens.
"Dick McLean was probably the finest trial judge I've ever been privileged to practice before," retired attorney Micheal W. Sutton wrote in a letter to the editor, published in the Nov. 20 Camera. "What made him so was his complete lack of arrogance ... to even suggest that he might be evil or arrogant would show one to be stupid, arrogant, and quick to judge without any regard for reality."
Contact Camera Staff Writer Heath Urie at urieh@dailycamera.com or 303-473-1328.
Comments
Posted by hultquist on November 25, 2007 at 2:05 a.m.
...the reality is, McLean and Stevens are theives, and they have sealed their own fates..... Until and unless they give back what they've stolen, they can expect waves of angry phone calls, letters, emails, protests, and cold isolation.
Businesses will begin to refuse to serve these scumsucking leaches, people will relentlessly remind these theives to stay away, fearful that allowing them to walk on any private property can somehow be turned to their advantage via their connections in the "legal" system.
Adverse Possession is for settling MARGINAL encroachments - like - a fence that is a few inches over a property line. Adverse Possession is supposed to avoid the greater cost of moving something like a fence or garage or driveway - the cost of which may be more than the actually value of the encroached land.
McLean and Stevens are full-on premeditating cold-blooded cheaters, thieves, with the connections to back up and enable their disgusting behavior.
Posted by evanesce on November 25, 2007 at 4:33 a.m.
This article is disturbing in that it is painting a picture of Kirlin as the mega rich outsider with three Boulder homes and plans to build another one, while portraying Mclean and Stevens as benevolent saviors of Boulder open space.
As much as I staunchly support limited development in Boulder, and the preservation of our open space, the way in which McLean and Stevens have gone about this is fundamentally wrong and, IMO, unethical.
McLean and Stevens, if they actually care about the integrity of our local justice system, should request that the court countermand the original judgment, returning rightful ownership to the Kirlins.
Posted by Bigair on November 25, 2007 at 5:40 a.m.
McLean received a law degree from the University of Colorado? I guess ethics is not a required course.
Posted by EasyRider on November 25, 2007 at 5:54 a.m.
To have an ethics course, you first need a faculty member qualified to teach one.
Posted by Integrityfirst on November 25, 2007 at 6:18 a.m.
I'm wondering what the intention of this article is. As a good friend of the Kirlins, there are errors in the story. But ultimately it doesn't matter.
Distractions abound around us on a daily basis. These distractions may keep us comfortable, but we risk becoming the proverbial frog who gets so used to the hot water, he doesn't realize when he's been cooked.
So, can we get back to JUST THE FACTS MAAM: McLeans and Stevens misused their knowledge of the law to "legally" steal someone else's property. There appears to be evidence of cronyism and connections.
THIS IS THE REAL STORY.
Anything else is fluff.
Posted by fbog on November 25, 2007 at 6:42 a.m.
I guess Don Kirlin can be thankful that Dick McLean didn't also request that he be castrated.
Posted by trappist99 on November 25, 2007 at 6:48 a.m.
Integrityfirst
I agree, this case is about corruption of the law and abuse of power. I wonder how many people in Boulder would be able to get a legal restraining order in under 3 hours? How many deals have been quietly worked out in the backrooms to the benefit of the connected few that never made the headlines?
I have my own concerns with the way Stevens influences parts of the city government thru her FOBOS organization. I feel the Kirlin case is the tip of the iceberg.
Posted by alanbl on November 25, 2007 at 7:10 a.m.
Let's see, Don Kirlin was a military pilot and then turned his passion into an entepreneurial venture that is successful. He also is a commercial pilot who was laid off and is once again considering picking up his profession. Susie taught school and raised a family.
McLean/Stevens have spent almost their entire lives at the public trough or filling that trough as Democratic Party Ops.
The Kirlins offered an easement so that McLean/Stevens could access their property. McLean/Stevens used legal subterfuge and their cronies to steal the land.
I know who I'd rather go to dinner with!
Posted by kl53c on November 25, 2007 at 7:44 a.m.
Well, this story of good vs. evil continues, with the good guys in business to save tax dollars, while the dick and edie spent tax $ as fast as they could. Does McLean also believe in cutting off the hands of thieves?
Posted by mtbdad on November 25, 2007 at 7:49 a.m.
I believe Don Kirlin should consider the military option.
Posted by kl53c on November 25, 2007 at 7:57 a.m.
Claire Levy's comment about not judging strangers by their actions makes me laugh. A polititian asking us not to judge people we don't know. OK Claire, no vote for you (I don't know you ;I can't judge you)!
Posted by driveby_poster on November 25, 2007 at 8:17 a.m.
The Camera has pulled the stopper and this event is circling the drain.
Posted by aprilsmile on November 25, 2007 at 8:43 a.m.
"In September 1990, at age 55, Stevens was named Boulder County's "top young lawyer" by the Colorado Bar Association."
Does anyone think that the above had any affect on the bar complaint being dismissed against Edith Stevens so quickly?
Posted by japhy on November 25, 2007 at 9:32 a.m.
trappist stuff your FIDOS agenda in your pocket for a bit. This case has nothing to do with FOBOS. This is about a couple of rich lawyers being scumbags. FOBOS purpose is to insure the open space is used and protected in accordance with the charter purposes and not subjected to the gimme gimme attitude of your user group.
Posted by cheesemonger on November 25, 2007 at 9:46 a.m.
This article is probably the result of the attention focused so brightly on the professions of the McStevens', and an attempt at equal "exposure", as it were.
But while in the Kirlins' case, their professions are irrelevant, the professions of the McStevens are very relevant. That the McStevens abused their knowledge gained from their professions to unethically manipulate the law and those who pretend to apply it is very relevant.
Does anyone else think that Don Kirlins' job if *cool*? Just me? Good for him for creating it, for doing something he loves.
Posted by kl53c on November 25, 2007 at 9:47 a.m.
japhy>It sure DOES have something to do with it, when the fact is that one of the "rich lawyer scumbags " is a founder of FOBOS!
Posted by Bluesky on November 25, 2007 at 9:49 a.m.
I want to know how McLean and Stevens were able to get a restraining order against the Kirlins when they had never even met? It's actually very difficult to get a restraining order and you usually have to prove a threat of physical violence. This would not be possible if there had never even been a meeting, at least by phone. What kind of favortism is being shown through the legal system to these people and on how many levels? Let's re examine very carefully the "good old boy" network that seems to be alive and well right here in Boulder. This could happen to ANY of us. These people, or their so called "friends" could move next door to you next. They could steal your land. My land. We need to keep complaining about this until this decision is reversed in favor of the Kirlins and we also need to lobby to get the antiquated adverse possession law changed before more land is stolen from innocent parties. I don't care how many attorneys are willing to vouch for McLean and Stevens' character, this is wrong any way you cut it.
Posted by sidd on November 25, 2007 at 10:22 a.m.
McLean and Stevens are both political people what side of issues they take says noting about their characters other then they are good politicians and know how to pick the winning side.
When you are in Boulder politics you need to take the liberal side of things to survive and be popular.
It just goes to show that a lot of the politicians say on thing and do other things. Public deception one of the key elements of the game.
Posted by bugmenot on November 25, 2007 at 10:23 a.m.
Wow, this article is very interesting. I definitely was sympathetic to the Kirlins' case before, but now I'm not so sure. I'm a little uneasy about people trying to support and raise money for a couple of millionaire arms dealers who've been crowing to the media that they're such victims. Don't really think the Kirlins need a legal defense fund, that's for sure. At least we know that McLean and Stevens have been productive members of the Boulder community for years, irrespective of their recent land-grabbing behavior. But what do we really know about the Kirlins? Does Boulder really want to be supporting people who made their fortune buying and selling killing machines? This story just got a lot more interesting.
Posted by hatmonger on November 25, 2007 at 10:30 a.m.
"Does Boulder really want to be supporting people who made their fortune buying and selling killing machines?"
Yes.
Posted by meatpieandtatters on November 25, 2007 at 10:41 a.m.
Killing machines? Don't be such morons. Wrong is wrong and the fact the over-lawyers used the system to steal something that didn't belong to them is repugnant on every level. If I were a city leader, I'd order that these two would be shunned and blackballed. But, of course, among their lawyer friends they're now held in the highest regard because they've created a new cottage industry for other lawyers to follow.
Posted by hatmonger on November 25, 2007 at 10:49 a.m.
"If I were a city leader, I'd order that these two would be shunned and blackballed."
Would you, now? Planning on becoming a city leader any time soon?
Posted by greystonewest on November 25, 2007 at 10:53 a.m.
The machine is killing Don and Susie Kirlin's right to build a house.
No MIG can do that.
Only the insider political machine of Dick McLean and Edie Stevens can cause that injustice.
Posted by lafayetteeast on November 25, 2007 at 10:55 a.m.
Dear Bug Me: This story changes EVERYTHING!!!
Wrong now becomes 'right.' Unethical now becomes ethical. The trains now run backward! Homing pidgeons forget where home is; bees lose the scent of their hive (well, that's actually occurring - so maybe you're on to something) ....
Not.
Posted by hatmonger on November 25, 2007 at 10:59 a.m.
"Does Boulder really want to be supporting people who made their fortune buying and selling killing machines?"
The difficulty with this sort of material is that it is very difficult to tell if it is a genuine loony-leftist of a heavy-handed right-wingnut parody of a loony-leftist.
bugmetnot is a login available to anyone via a website (sort of like sharing a condom), for folks to paranoid or lazy to register with the Camera.
So it's not necessarily the same person two times running.
Posted by lafayetteeast on November 25, 2007 at 11:03 a.m.
grey: I don't think being a Democrat has anything to do with one's mean intent, lack of integrity, or downright sneakiness. The "machine" didn't do this .... meanspirited, unethical, sneaky people did this. They had accomplices of course .... but you can't blame this on the Democrats. Well, you can, but I think that unwise. Since M/S didn't know their neighbors (supposedly) ... they couldn't have had a political motive, right? They would have done this to any hapless neighbor.
Posted by MicMacGirl on November 25, 2007 at 11:03 a.m.
Claire Levy's statements make my blood pressure rise - who can trust someone who condones this behavior? The McLean/Stevens are awful people and they stole their neighbors property. They should be ashamed of themselves and I hope, if the legal system won't correct this situation, it somehow corrects itself in a Karmatic way. Maybe like a deadly cancer....
Posted by mondoboulder on November 25, 2007 at 11:04 a.m.
Those Democrats will drink your blood like wine.
Posted by jadam12 on November 25, 2007 at 11:06 a.m.
Not quite sure of the reason for this article. Was it just to print some facts about these family's lives or was there some kind of ulterior motive?
From the comments above the article seems to have roused the ire of the anti-war folks. Hmmm. I'm a Democrat, not necessarily a fan of the rich, but I don't think the Kirlins are in the wrong here as the article is trying say surrepticiously.
Posted by silleekim on November 25, 2007 at 11:12 a.m.
Hatmonger, I love your condom analogy. (Is my hat safe?)
Posted by mondoboulder on November 25, 2007 at 11:14 a.m.
That should be " A railroad man." Sorry. My apologies to Democrats.
Posted by concrete666 on November 25, 2007 at 11:20 a.m.
I want to know the names of these judges who have rubber stamped everything the McStevens wanted, obviously without any attempt at judging the merit of the case. Anything for Dick & Edie, eh?
Are these judges appointed or due to face re-election any time soon? Are they subject to recall votes? Any Boulder politicos paying attention?
I've had enough of the Boulder legal system's rampant cronyism!
Posted by MelCap on November 25, 2007 at 11:23 a.m.
I would like to see State Rep. Rob Witwer, R-Evergreen and Sen. Ron Tupa, D-Boulder successful in adding the good faith clause to the adverse possession law. This would make all the notoriety of this case good or bad mean something in the end.
http://dailycamera.com/news/2007/nov/22/...
Posted by malohovno on November 25, 2007 at 11:26 a.m.
i'm susprised no one in boulder hasn't said "they did it for the children."
Posted by sobocous on November 25, 2007 at 11:37 a.m.
Well, this was all fine and interesting, but it doesn't change the fact that politically connected attorneys took their non-attorney neighbor's property. But the public opinion war isn't going to be won among the "peace at all cost" left, or the "open space is wasted space" right.
Posted by evanesce on November 25, 2007 at 11:40 a.m.
"At least we know that McLean and Stevens have been productive members of the Boulder community for years, irrespective of their recent land-grabbing behavior. But what do we really know about the Kirlins? Does Boulder really want to be supporting people who made their fortune buying and selling killing machines? This story just got a lot more interesting"
To answer the first comment: What we know is that M/S are exploiting the law to steal the property of the rightful, tax-paying owners of that land.
As for your character question: Whether or not you choose to support Kirlin's rightful ownership of his land, based on his desire, as a pilot, to collect and restore military aircraft, is your prerogative, although his hobby and business interest has absolutely nothing to do with the issue.
Posted by captainendeavor on November 25, 2007 at 12:01 p.m.
Two words...
Laser Guided
Posted by bullseye on November 25, 2007 at 12:19 p.m.
The land grab must be stopped and the Kirlins reimbursed for all expenses thus far. If the land grab is allowed to remain it will fuel the institutional arrogance of those in power. Things will get a lot worse with even more quasi legal theivery from lawyers and judges.
I'm still amazed that your ethics panel doesn't think anything is worth looking into. The only way you will know that there has been true justice is if a Grand Jury hands down a bunch of indictments.
I really am beginning to think that one of the pre-requisites to being an attorney is to have a ethicsectomy.. There must be a surgical procedure that removes any morals and ethics from 98% of the attorneys.
As far as this article, I agree that the Kirlin's business is largely irrelevant. (except to make me respect Don even more since I worked with Naval Aviation for a number of years. Anyone that can get to altitude and mix it up with our front line fighter and attack pilots is amazing)
On the other hand, we have two people who have largely lived at the public trough and who are cloistered in their own little world of sycophants. Most lawyers have egos that are far larger than can be supported by facts.
Posted by albanal on November 25, 2007 at 12:31 p.m.
I'm not surprised. White people!
Posted by SoBoPop on November 25, 2007 at 12:39 p.m.
The article is designed to divide and conquor, from the posts above,it seems to have succeeded in splitting some leftists off.
Too bad. This story is about greedly lawyers and the people who got shafted by them. The amount of wealth, occupations, and hobbies of the Kirlins are irrelevant facts to the issue of political insiders, with no morals, stealing land from regular citizens who just happen to be successful.
Keep your eye on the ball, folks.
Posted by rayq on November 25, 2007 at 12:41 p.m.
I'm glad that the kirlins have the resources to fight for their land and not be a push over for a couple that decided that they had a right to the kirlin's property simply because they wanted it. Mclean and Stevens "might" of had admirabe careers but the truth is the truth and they reveled themselves for the scoundrels they are. They thought everyone is stupid and they would not get caught. This time the victim was not afraid to push back
Posted by alanbl on November 25, 2007 at 12:49 p.m.
Posted by bugmenot: "Does Boulder really want to be supporting people who made their fortune buying and selling killing machines? This story just got a lot more interesting.?"
Do you know how to read and interpret? The Kirlins are not arms dealers. I don't think they're selling fleets of old MIGs to Sudan. They buy the MIGs and use them to train pilots, mostly ours, in how to deal with MIGs. However, Jeffco might be in the market to buy a couple of the fighter jets to protect their land from Boulder.
Posted by alanbl on November 25, 2007 at 12:54 p.m.
Posted by jadam12: "Hmmm. I'm a Democrat, not necessarily a fan of the rich.."
You should be. The so called "rich" pay 80% of the taxes in this country. Without them, your Dem colleagues would raise YOUR taxes! Or continue to raise taxes on evil corporate America. Of course, evil corporate America will just raise prices on their products to cover the taxes thus you'll be paying more for your products and blaming evil corporate America for raising prices.
Posted by hatmonger on November 25, 2007 at 1:03 p.m.
"You should be. The so called 'rich' pay 80% of the taxes in this country."
This is the time-honored principle that it's pointless taxing people without any money. I think the "rich" are so-called because they, in fact, have money.
Posted by greystonewest on November 25, 2007 at 1:11 p.m.
lafayetteeast: I didn't say Democrat.
Posted by alanbl on November 25, 2007 at 1:13 p.m.
Posted by greystonewest: "lafayetteeast: I didn't say Democrat."
Please don't. That can be construed as hate speech.
Posted by mgwalnut on November 25, 2007 at 1:30 p.m.
I have known about adverse possession since high school, and my parents are blue collar workers so I got that from just paying attention. A lot of reaasonably bright folks who paid some tiny amount of attention in school know about it. This thing goes way back into early legal history and there's something about the "land being used for productive purpose" that underlies the whole thing. And, it's actually usually to the benefit of poorer folks who live out in the woods on property that someone owns but hasn't found the time to even visit for some twenty plus years. In any case, the "common law" isn't necessarily always about "common sense," but the judge here did exactly what very old law requires. The Kirlin's can appeal if they think that the law is wrong, but I doubt it'd work for them.
Frankly, I don't feel a tiny bit sorry for those folks who couldn't even be bothered to look around on their land (okay, they walked by it every day) to just once say "Okay, I'll give you permission to use this little patch" or "get the heck off my property." Kids, for one, don't quite get the idea of trespassing and there could have been something dangerous on that land, which is why the idea of having an incentive for a land owner to take a good look around now and then is not at all a bad idea.
Posted by greystonewest on November 25, 2007 at 1:32 p.m.
Judge Klein was appointed by Bill Owens.
So this property rights killing machine is bi partisan.
jeeeez.
Posted by sobocous on November 25, 2007 at 1:42 p.m.
If Don owns that red MIG out at Rocky Mountain Metro Airport, I'm here to say...I want a ride in it!
Posted by jgarcia on November 25, 2007 at 1:59 p.m.
The article is interesting but still one fact remains. McLean/Stevens are thieves!
Posted by hatmonger on November 25, 2007 at 2:02 p.m.
Isn't it fun seeing the people who haven't read any of the bazillion words already posted in comment on this issue in the last week chime in with the clueless and the glaringly obvious and the already-done-to-death?
BTW, as a member of the so-called poor, let me assure you we are indeed taxed, and at a 5% higher rate than rich bond dealers.
Posted by sobocous on November 25, 2007 at 2:38 p.m.
This is odd; the print version and the on-line version of the article don't read the same. The first two paragraphs from the print version are missing from the on-line version. The print version calls Don "heir to the world's largest chain of Hallmark greeting-card stores", but that's missing on the on-line version. I wonder why that isn't in the on-line version?
Posted by SoBoPop on November 25, 2007 at 4:11 p.m.
MGwalnut: Your momma must be proud.
Posted by paulingrid on November 25, 2007 at 4:58 p.m.
This article in the Daily Camera is really interesting. What are they trying to do, turn the public around so we all feel sorry for McLean and Stevens? They are thieves!!!!!!! I dont care if Don and Suzie Kirlin have a good income or business or whatever. Good for them, they worked for it. Do you have to be homeless or dirt poor to get justice?? It is their land, plain and simple, and MacLean/Stevens stole it by unethical means.
My guess is, there have been some complaints by you know who and friends to the Daily Camera about being too sympathetic to the Kirlins. Also who knows whom at the Daily Camera might make a difference. But whatever, wrong is wrong is wrong is wrong, and thievery is thievery.
Posted by greystonewest on November 25, 2007 at 5:03 p.m.
"Hmmm. I'm a Democrat, not necessarily a fan of the rich.."
You might want to keep up. U.S. Census data shows that the richest congressional districts are blue.
I have just told you a fact.
Posted by alanbl on November 25, 2007 at 5:52 p.m.
Posted by hatmonger: "BTW, as a member of the so-called poor, let me assure you we are indeed taxed, and at a 5% higher rate than rich bond dealers."
If you earn less than $35K/year, you pay no income tax. To change the subject, if you really want to see tax equity, you'll support the Fair Tax proposal.
Posted by jeffm on November 25, 2007 at 6:02 p.m.
Uh oh, GS, you just committed the ultimate politically incorrect invocation-Facts.
Given that the taboo's been broken I'd request some facts or interpretations from any in the know on a related subject.
I drove by the scene of the crime and noted that there IS a fence, a kinda scattershot convoluted thing that makes it clear there's no usable or buildable lot now by the McLean/Stevens spread.
So when was this built and by whom?
Did the M/S's act just as quickly as you could say 'restraining order' or judge Klein says 'it's yours now'?
Could it be they want to make sure nobody does them like they do?
Posted by greystonewest on November 25, 2007 at 6:10 p.m.
No worries jeffm, this dog of a ruling won't stand.
...another fact. :)
Posted by hatmonger on November 25, 2007 at 6:18 p.m.
"If you earn less than $35K/year, you pay no income tax."
Maybe on the planet you're from!
Posted by observer1 on November 25, 2007 at 6:19 p.m.
bugmenot - Don Kirlin took his knowledge of aviation and built a business that develops the combat and survival skills of our pilots and helps to protect our country as a result. McLean and Stevens took their knowledge of the law and used it to commit criminal acts (trespass) and ultimately steal property from another. By even raising a morality question from the information in the article speaks volumes about your ability to process information. You must participate in the same book-reading club as Claire Levy. Personally, I think the judge in this case should be investigated criminally for First Degree Official Misconduct - and that includes the judge that issued the original restraining order:
CRS 18-8-404 First Degree Official Misconduct
1) A public servant commits first degree official misconduct if, with intent to obtain a benefit for the public servant or another or maliciously to cause harm to another, he or she knowingly:
(a) Commits an act relating to his office but constituting an unauthorized exercise of his official function; or
(b) Refrains from performing a duty imposed upon him by law; or
(c) Violates any statute or lawfully adopted rule or regulation relating to his office.
(2) First degree official misconduct is a class 2 misdemeanor.
Posted by vicky.green on November 25, 2007 at 6:19 p.m.
greystonewest -- Surely you know that facts are superfluous, it's how one "feels" that really matters. How long have you lived in Boulder?
Posted by greystonewest on November 25, 2007 at 6:34 p.m.
I gotta warm fuzzy that this won't stand.
And I'm feeling pretty proud to just another unhinged critic among the people of no substance.
Posted by sierra5701 on November 25, 2007 at 7:29 p.m.
Before I witnessed the actions of Judge Sandstead (who granted the restraining order for his friends Judge McLean and Edie) several years ago on a land dispute my attorney (who went to law school with Mo) warned me that he was squirrelly. I was naive but when I recently looked up the dictionary definition I saw it meant "nutty." Yep, my attorney was right.
Did you know that Colorado is one of only a half-dozen states that protects judges by letting political appointee judges review complaints. Ummm ... who is that protecting?
Time to let the Colorado Bar Association do the job because there is a problem.
Posted by greystonewest on November 25, 2007 at 7:48 p.m.
We'll remember when it comes time to vote for retention.
Fact.
Posted by CharlesLuce on November 25, 2007 at 8:48 p.m.
The point is not that what McLean did was unlawful, but rather that it was unethical. Having the legal power to effect a result is not a legal imperative to do so.
Assuming that McLean can state a successful claim for adverse possession, you just don't do that to you neighbor, even an absentee neighbor.
I recall an incident after I had move to a new neighborhood many years ago. My daugher's foot was injured by a defectively designed door at a McDonalds restaurant. About a week later a "claim adjuster" called to try to settle a claim we had never raised. I explained to the adjuster that I was a lawyer, that our daughter was not seriously injured, and all I wanted to do was alert McDonalds that it's door needed to be designed to avoid trapping tender toes.
The adjuster wanted me to sign a release. I told him I would not, but that Bob Charles (who owned the McDonalds in question) was a neighbor of mine, and I did not plan to sue my neighbor (who I had, and still have, never met) because that's not what neighbors do. But I hoped he would alert Bob to the problem with the door, because not everyone feels as I do.
As worried as the adjuster was, despite my assurances that I had no intention of suing his insured, I am sure I could have exacted a financial settlement, had I wanted to. The adjuster was almost beside himself that my wife and I eschewed the conventional "rules of the game." But I believed then, as I do now, that this is not how neighbors treat each other.
One would think that a respected judge, who has witnessed the sad pagentry of litigation play out in his courtroom for years, would understand this, and would understand why people are upset.
It's not about legal rights. It's about doing what is right.
Posted by silleekim on November 25, 2007 at 9:50 p.m.
In this society, we are often pushed and expected to be bad neighbors. Last winter, I slipped on the ice on the sidewalk in my neighborhood. The insurance company wanted to go after the people whose house I slipped in front of, to pay for my stitches in the ER. Unfortunately, I "couldn't remember" which house it was.
Posted by BoulderMath on November 25, 2007 at 10:01 p.m.
The Kirlins purchased the property. it is there property. Let them keep what is rightfully theirs.
Posted by alanbl on November 25, 2007 at 10:23 p.m.
Posted by hatmonger ""If you earn less than $35K/year, you pay no income tax."
Maybe on the planet you're from!"
Sorry, my mistake. If you earn $31,850 then your income tax is a whopping $782.50.
Posted by motiff on November 25, 2007 at 11:28 p.m.
Land grabbers, arms dealers.
Arms dealers, land grabbers.
Land grabbers steal land.
Arms dealers kill people. Lots of people.
Killing people sucks. Killing people for personal profit REALLY sucks.
They're all poor excuses for human beings.
But, the arms dealers suck (way) more.
I now change my support to the weasely judge and his broad.
Posted by zivo24 on November 26, 2007 at 6:46 a.m.
Claire Levy is digging a hole for herself.
There is NO defense for what Dick and Edie did. None. ZERO.
We don't need to know them personally to know what they did was wrong.
Even though they never met the Kirlins personally, they admit that they knew the property belonged to them.
According to their own testimony, they used this property without seeking permission from it's rightful owners. As lawyers, they knew that if they sought and received permission from the Kirlins to do anything on their land, it would make their devious plans to take the land through this obscure law null and void.
I don't believe for a second that they needed this land to access their backyard. That's a bullsh-t excuse, if I ever heard one.
If that were their sole reason, they would have accepted the Kirlins generous offer to GIVE them several feet of the property abutting their property but they turned that down because they wanted enough of the property to make it unfeasible for building a home upon.
So, wake up, Ms. Levy. Your friend's motives were despicable and do not merit any defense.
Moreover, your defending them seriously calls into question YOUR judgment.
Posted by 499ocsgrad on November 26, 2007 at 7:21 a.m.
Has anyone thought about posting pictures of McLean and Stevens all over Boulder?
Posted by hatmonger on November 26, 2007 at 7:39 a.m.
"Sorry, my mistake. If you earn $31,850 then your income tax is a whopping $782.50."
What planet is this? My tax tables from form 1040 put that at $4,514.
Posted by hatmonger on November 26, 2007 at 7:42 a.m.
"Arms dealers kill people. Lots of people."
Stupid.
Posted by zivo24 on November 26, 2007 at 8:49 a.m.
I find it hard to believe that Stevens and McLean never thought there would be any consequences for their actions.
Stevens has already had to resign many if not all of her positions. Both of them have tarnished the reputations they worked so hard to build.
Apparently the loss of those positions and reputations were not enough to make them rethink their positions.
I hope everyone in the Boulder business community takes it upon themselves to help create more consequences by refusing to provide goods or servides to these two until they return the property to the Kirlins.
Posted by katiekurt0102 on November 26, 2007 at 9:03 a.m.
Is it true that McLean/Stevens will now be suing the Kirlins for reimbursement of their legal expenses? If so, would McLean/Stevens use the same attorney/law firm and would they go before Judge Klein again?
Posted by jeffm on November 26, 2007 at 10:01 a.m.
KK: I'm surprised the M/S's even need attorneys given the special treatment they receive over we mere peons.
I mean the presiding judge is 'honored' to have them before him and believe every single utterance of DICK McLean and dismisses as lies every bit of evidence of the actual owners.
And this after Mo Sandstead streamlines a restraining order that WE'D never receive even if our lives were in danger.
Which makes me hope and wonder that since the 'fac ts' of the case aren't sufficient for appeal then at least the appearance of bias and impropiety should. (Is it in the transcipts that "judge" Klein used the 'honored' epithet in court?)
Which would at least produce the wonderful pre-appeal scenario of a conflict of consequences for the M/S's.
On the 1 hand they'd want a change of venue because of the extreme prejudice apparent in the local community. On the other hand they need to have the case heard in Boulder because that's where their fellow thieves, liars and scoundrels (judges and attorneys) rule.
Decisions, decisions-what's lying, thieving scum to do?
Families in land battle both achievers
By Heath Urie (Contact)
Sunday, November 25, 2007
The case thrust both families into the spotlight last month when the court decided McLean and Stevens are more attached to the land than the Kirlins, based on the long-existing but little-known law of adverse possession.
But long before newspapers, television shows and radio pundits were clamoring to weigh in on the land case, the Kirlins, McLean and Stevens were busy living their own lives sometimes in the public eye.
McLean and Stevens have been involved in local politics for decades: he as a judge, city councilman and mayor; she as a political activist and chairwoman of the Boulder County Democratic Party.
The Kirlins, meanwhile, developed a lucrative business acquiring foreign fighter jets from around the world to sell to wealthy aviation enthusiasts and to help train U.S.Navy pilots. An October 2005 profile of Don Kirlin in Wired magazine is titled "Building Your Own Air Force, One Mig at a Time."
Life in the air
Don Kirlin has earned a unique reputation among the world of aviators most notably for amassing a personal air force of foreign fighter jets that he pits in training missions against the Navy.
But the Kirlins try to keep a low profile when it comes to the family business, after the Wired profile ruffled feathers in the former Soviet bloc, where the couple has traveled extensively and lived occasionally over the past two decades.
The magazine recounts Don Kirlin's daring and relentless journey into the crumbling Soviet empire to acquire his first plane in 1994 and describes his fighter jet collection, kept in a hangar in Quincy, Ill., as "an air force more formidable than that of many countries."
The Kirlins contract with the military to pit their jets, and hired pilots, in simulated battles against Navy fighters to help with aviator training. "Iraq was flying three kinds of plane when we invaded," Kirlin told Wired. "The L-39, the MiG-21, and the MiG-29," all models of fighters Kirlin has acquired over the years.
"The military found out it was cheaper to hire a private contractor and go up and do dog-fighting with their pilots than it is to use their own military pilots and aircraft," Susie Kirlin, 51, told the Camera last week. "(Don) always thought it'd be a great market for a lot of former military pilots there's nothing like flying those jets."
Don Kirlin, 54, said he started hunting down rare fighter jets, rotting in fields a half-world away, as a personal passion. When it turned into a profitable business, he opened the company Air USA, which specializes in fighter-jet restoration, sales and other specialty services.
In 1999, the couple formed Red Air, a division of Air USA focused on the niche market of military contracting. According to the company's Web site, Red Air provides an array of "tactical services to the U.S. defense agencies, defense contractors and foreign governments."
Both companies are based in Quincy, the 40,000-population city on the banks of the Mississippi River where Don Kirlin grew up.
When Kirlin was a child, his father had a small chain of candy stores called Andes Candies, which opened in 1948 and also carried Hallmark cards. Now named "Kirlin's Hallmark," the company has since grown into the world's largest chain of Hallmark greeting card stores operating more than 100 stores in 10 Midwestern states.
But while two of his brothers went into the family business, Don Kirlin decided to pursue a career in aviation.
Kirlin served in the Navy from 1976 to 1979, flying A-4 Skyhawk attack jets, before getting an MBA from the University of Northern Colorado, where he met his wife, and moving to Boulder in 1980.
After school, Kirlin took up commercial piloting, flying first for a commuter service in the mid-1980s, then for Piedmont Airlines, known today as US Airways. Susie Kirlin, meanwhile, taught at Boulder's Casey Junior High from 1980 to 1989.
The couple have three children ages 18, 21 and 23, all student pilots and they maintain a personal fighter jet at a hangar in Jefferson County. The whole family skydives together, and for 16 years hosted the World Freefall Convention in Illinois.
Don Kirlin was laid off from US Airways in 2002 but said he's accepted an offer to return to the company next month as a commercial pilot.
"I'm looking forward to getting back into airline flying again full time," he said.
Though they've operated their two jet companies in Illinois for about 13 years, the Kirlins moved to Boulder in 1980, when they purchased the first of three homes they would live in over the years all in the same short stretch of Galena Way in Boulder's Shanahan Ridge neighborhood, nestled at the base of the Flatirons.
In 1984, the couple decided to buy the 4,750-square-foot lot up the road from their home, intent on building their dream home there one day. The Kirlins said they visited the property almost weekly, on walks to the nearby open space.
Other than that, the land was mostly an afterthought until their three children left the house for college.
Last year, the Kirlins decided the time was right to build a home on the property, which Susie Kirlin said was, "the prettiest piece of property to build a house that we found in Boulder."
"We've had the great fortune to take our family to some really beautiful, wonderful places all over the world," Susie Kirlin said. "We always come home, and there is never any place on the planet like Boulder. We'll always live here we know that without a doubt in our mind."
The Kirlins said they're happy that details of the legal fight over their property are making rounds on the news and in social circles, so that it might help someone else in their situation.
"I want the focus to be on how easily this can occur to anyone else living here or to anyone else living in this country," Susie Kirlin said. "If by going public that helps other people, and I know it has ... that's been the really positive thing for us."
Grounded in politics
Richard "Dick" McLean and Edith "Edie" Stevens are household names to longtime observers of the Boulder political scene, but in recent weeks the couple have gained an entirely different kind of notoriety.
McLean, 76, and Stevens, 72, have become the targets of relentless phone calls, angry letters, newspaper editorials, threats and even protesters outside their home since news of their lawsuit captured attention a few weeks ago.
The couple have declined to say more than a few words about the case publicly, saying they don't want to "try the case in the media." McLean and Stevens didn't respond to requests to talk about their lives in Boulder, but each has been in the public eye during long political careers.
According to Camera archives, McLean successfully ran for Boulder City Council at age 37, when he was already an established partner in a Denver law firm. He had served two years in the U.S. Army and earned a bachelor's degree from Stanford University and a law degree from the University of Colorado.
His 1970 campaign included a platform of curbing "rapid growth" in the development and population of Boulder. During the campaign, McLean also spoke out about special legislation aimed against the "hippie problem," saying government had no right to curb the constitutional rights of one group of people.
"The rights of every citizen in Boulder are no stronger than the rights of its most despised citizens," he said in a 1969 Camera article.
After two years on the council, McLean was elected mayor a position he held in 1972 and 1973.
A Camera profile of McLean in February 1972 said he was always active in politics, and changed his political affiliation from Republican to Democrat during college.
"I began to feel, especially at school, that government rightly handled can change the shape of the nation," McLean said shortly after taking office as mayor.
McLean's Democratic persuasion grew in Boulder, where he was elected chairman of the Boulder County Democrats in October 1966. He would serve as its chairman for two years, and in the summer of 1968 was selected to be the McCarthy floor leader at the State Democratic Assembly seeking a Colorado delegation to the Chicago convention that would support Sen. Eugene McCarthy's bid for the U.S. presidency.
McLean also would serve on the steering committee for the Democratic presidential campaign of former New York Mayor John Lindsay, in March 1972.
McLean announced in August 1973 that he would not seek re-election to the City Council so he could concentrate on his private law practice.
In January 1981, at age 48, McLean was appointed a district court judge by then-Colorado Gov. Richard Lamm.
The same year, Edith Stevens was elected chairwoman of the Boulder County Democrats.
Stevens said she would "reorganize the party into a clean, strong and effective machine," according to Camera archives. She promoted a "five-point plan" for restructuring the group, which included plans to improve communication between elected officials and party workers.
In September 1990, at age 55, Stevens was named Boulder County's "top young lawyer" by the Colorado Bar Association. She had earned her law degree just a few years earlier, and was admitted to the bar in 1989.
Stevens worked as an attorney for Brauchli-Snyder, a Boulder law firm.
Back in the courtroom, McLean made headlines for offering "voluntary castration" as an alternative to jail time for convicted pedophiles.
At least three times in 1994, McLean suggested men convicted of sexual assault should consider castration as a form of treatment and punishment. None of the men accepted the offer.
McLean retired from the bench in 1996.
He was elected in 1998 to serve as Boulder's representative on the Regional Transportation District's board of directors and lobbied for the passage of the FasTracks transit expansion in 2004 before leaving office.
Stevens was serving as campaign treasurer for state Rep. Claire Levy and on the board of directors of Friends of Boulder Open Space a group she helped found in 2006 when the land case generated outcry earlier this month. She has since resigned from both groups.
Levy, D-Boulder, said Stevens has faced undue personal attacks.
"I don't really think it's fair for perfect strangers to draw conclusions about another person's character based on reports in the media about a lawsuit," Levy told the Camera earlier this month. "There are all kinds of assumptions about their motivations and about improper influence, and all of that is just pure speculation by complete strangers."
Although few friends and colleagues have been willing to be interviewed in the case, some have written letters in support of McLean and Stevens.
"Dick McLean was probably the finest trial judge I've ever been privileged to practice before," retired attorney Micheal W. Sutton wrote in a letter to the editor, published in the Nov. 20 Camera. "What made him so was his complete lack of arrogance ... to even suggest that he might be evil or arrogant would show one to be stupid, arrogant, and quick to judge without any regard for reality."
Contact Camera Staff Writer Heath Urie at urieh@dailycamera.com or 303-473-1328.
Comments
Posted by hultquist on November 25, 2007 at 2:05 a.m.
...the reality is, McLean and Stevens are theives, and they have sealed their own fates..... Until and unless they give back what they've stolen, they can expect waves of angry phone calls, letters, emails, protests, and cold isolation.
Businesses will begin to refuse to serve these scumsucking leaches, people will relentlessly remind these theives to stay away, fearful that allowing them to walk on any private property can somehow be turned to their advantage via their connections in the "legal" system.
Adverse Possession is for settling MARGINAL encroachments - like - a fence that is a few inches over a property line. Adverse Possession is supposed to avoid the greater cost of moving something like a fence or garage or driveway - the cost of which may be more than the actually value of the encroached land.
McLean and Stevens are full-on premeditating cold-blooded cheaters, thieves, with the connections to back up and enable their disgusting behavior.
Posted by evanesce on November 25, 2007 at 4:33 a.m.
This article is disturbing in that it is painting a picture of Kirlin as the mega rich outsider with three Boulder homes and plans to build another one, while portraying Mclean and Stevens as benevolent saviors of Boulder open space.
As much as I staunchly support limited development in Boulder, and the preservation of our open space, the way in which McLean and Stevens have gone about this is fundamentally wrong and, IMO, unethical.
McLean and Stevens, if they actually care about the integrity of our local justice system, should request that the court countermand the original judgment, returning rightful ownership to the Kirlins.
Posted by Bigair on November 25, 2007 at 5:40 a.m.
McLean received a law degree from the University of Colorado? I guess ethics is not a required course.
Posted by EasyRider on November 25, 2007 at 5:54 a.m.
To have an ethics course, you first need a faculty member qualified to teach one.
Posted by Integrityfirst on November 25, 2007 at 6:18 a.m.
I'm wondering what the intention of this article is. As a good friend of the Kirlins, there are errors in the story. But ultimately it doesn't matter.
Distractions abound around us on a daily basis. These distractions may keep us comfortable, but we risk becoming the proverbial frog who gets so used to the hot water, he doesn't realize when he's been cooked.
So, can we get back to JUST THE FACTS MAAM: McLeans and Stevens misused their knowledge of the law to "legally" steal someone else's property. There appears to be evidence of cronyism and connections.
THIS IS THE REAL STORY.
Anything else is fluff.
Posted by fbog on November 25, 2007 at 6:42 a.m.
I guess Don Kirlin can be thankful that Dick McLean didn't also request that he be castrated.
Posted by trappist99 on November 25, 2007 at 6:48 a.m.
Integrityfirst
I agree, this case is about corruption of the law and abuse of power. I wonder how many people in Boulder would be able to get a legal restraining order in under 3 hours? How many deals have been quietly worked out in the backrooms to the benefit of the connected few that never made the headlines?
I have my own concerns with the way Stevens influences parts of the city government thru her FOBOS organization. I feel the Kirlin case is the tip of the iceberg.
Posted by alanbl on November 25, 2007 at 7:10 a.m.
Let's see, Don Kirlin was a military pilot and then turned his passion into an entepreneurial venture that is successful. He also is a commercial pilot who was laid off and is once again considering picking up his profession. Susie taught school and raised a family.
McLean/Stevens have spent almost their entire lives at the public trough or filling that trough as Democratic Party Ops.
The Kirlins offered an easement so that McLean/Stevens could access their property. McLean/Stevens used legal subterfuge and their cronies to steal the land.
I know who I'd rather go to dinner with!
Posted by kl53c on November 25, 2007 at 7:44 a.m.
Well, this story of good vs. evil continues, with the good guys in business to save tax dollars, while the dick and edie spent tax $ as fast as they could. Does McLean also believe in cutting off the hands of thieves?
Posted by mtbdad on November 25, 2007 at 7:49 a.m.
I believe Don Kirlin should consider the military option.
Posted by kl53c on November 25, 2007 at 7:57 a.m.
Claire Levy's comment about not judging strangers by their actions makes me laugh. A polititian asking us not to judge people we don't know. OK Claire, no vote for you (I don't know you ;I can't judge you)!
Posted by driveby_poster on November 25, 2007 at 8:17 a.m.
The Camera has pulled the stopper and this event is circling the drain.
Posted by aprilsmile on November 25, 2007 at 8:43 a.m.
"In September 1990, at age 55, Stevens was named Boulder County's "top young lawyer" by the Colorado Bar Association."
Does anyone think that the above had any affect on the bar complaint being dismissed against Edith Stevens so quickly?
Posted by japhy on November 25, 2007 at 9:32 a.m.
trappist stuff your FIDOS agenda in your pocket for a bit. This case has nothing to do with FOBOS. This is about a couple of rich lawyers being scumbags. FOBOS purpose is to insure the open space is used and protected in accordance with the charter purposes and not subjected to the gimme gimme attitude of your user group.
Posted by cheesemonger on November 25, 2007 at 9:46 a.m.
This article is probably the result of the attention focused so brightly on the professions of the McStevens', and an attempt at equal "exposure", as it were.
But while in the Kirlins' case, their professions are irrelevant, the professions of the McStevens are very relevant. That the McStevens abused their knowledge gained from their professions to unethically manipulate the law and those who pretend to apply it is very relevant.
Does anyone else think that Don Kirlins' job if *cool*? Just me? Good for him for creating it, for doing something he loves.
Posted by kl53c on November 25, 2007 at 9:47 a.m.
japhy>It sure DOES have something to do with it, when the fact is that one of the "rich lawyer scumbags " is a founder of FOBOS!
Posted by Bluesky on November 25, 2007 at 9:49 a.m.
I want to know how McLean and Stevens were able to get a restraining order against the Kirlins when they had never even met? It's actually very difficult to get a restraining order and you usually have to prove a threat of physical violence. This would not be possible if there had never even been a meeting, at least by phone. What kind of favortism is being shown through the legal system to these people and on how many levels? Let's re examine very carefully the "good old boy" network that seems to be alive and well right here in Boulder. This could happen to ANY of us. These people, or their so called "friends" could move next door to you next. They could steal your land. My land. We need to keep complaining about this until this decision is reversed in favor of the Kirlins and we also need to lobby to get the antiquated adverse possession law changed before more land is stolen from innocent parties. I don't care how many attorneys are willing to vouch for McLean and Stevens' character, this is wrong any way you cut it.
Posted by sidd on November 25, 2007 at 10:22 a.m.
McLean and Stevens are both political people what side of issues they take says noting about their characters other then they are good politicians and know how to pick the winning side.
When you are in Boulder politics you need to take the liberal side of things to survive and be popular.
It just goes to show that a lot of the politicians say on thing and do other things. Public deception one of the key elements of the game.
Posted by bugmenot on November 25, 2007 at 10:23 a.m.
Wow, this article is very interesting. I definitely was sympathetic to the Kirlins' case before, but now I'm not so sure. I'm a little uneasy about people trying to support and raise money for a couple of millionaire arms dealers who've been crowing to the media that they're such victims. Don't really think the Kirlins need a legal defense fund, that's for sure. At least we know that McLean and Stevens have been productive members of the Boulder community for years, irrespective of their recent land-grabbing behavior. But what do we really know about the Kirlins? Does Boulder really want to be supporting people who made their fortune buying and selling killing machines? This story just got a lot more interesting.
Posted by hatmonger on November 25, 2007 at 10:30 a.m.
"Does Boulder really want to be supporting people who made their fortune buying and selling killing machines?"
Yes.
Posted by meatpieandtatters on November 25, 2007 at 10:41 a.m.
Killing machines? Don't be such morons. Wrong is wrong and the fact the over-lawyers used the system to steal something that didn't belong to them is repugnant on every level. If I were a city leader, I'd order that these two would be shunned and blackballed. But, of course, among their lawyer friends they're now held in the highest regard because they've created a new cottage industry for other lawyers to follow.
Posted by hatmonger on November 25, 2007 at 10:49 a.m.
"If I were a city leader, I'd order that these two would be shunned and blackballed."
Would you, now? Planning on becoming a city leader any time soon?
Posted by greystonewest on November 25, 2007 at 10:53 a.m.
The machine is killing Don and Susie Kirlin's right to build a house.
No MIG can do that.
Only the insider political machine of Dick McLean and Edie Stevens can cause that injustice.
Posted by lafayetteeast on November 25, 2007 at 10:55 a.m.
Dear Bug Me: This story changes EVERYTHING!!!
Wrong now becomes 'right.' Unethical now becomes ethical. The trains now run backward! Homing pidgeons forget where home is; bees lose the scent of their hive (well, that's actually occurring - so maybe you're on to something) ....
Not.
Posted by hatmonger on November 25, 2007 at 10:59 a.m.
"Does Boulder really want to be supporting people who made their fortune buying and selling killing machines?"
The difficulty with this sort of material is that it is very difficult to tell if it is a genuine loony-leftist of a heavy-handed right-wingnut parody of a loony-leftist.
bugmetnot is a login available to anyone via a website (sort of like sharing a condom), for folks to paranoid or lazy to register with the Camera.
So it's not necessarily the same person two times running.
Posted by lafayetteeast on November 25, 2007 at 11:03 a.m.
grey: I don't think being a Democrat has anything to do with one's mean intent, lack of integrity, or downright sneakiness. The "machine" didn't do this .... meanspirited, unethical, sneaky people did this. They had accomplices of course .... but you can't blame this on the Democrats. Well, you can, but I think that unwise. Since M/S didn't know their neighbors (supposedly) ... they couldn't have had a political motive, right? They would have done this to any hapless neighbor.
Posted by MicMacGirl on November 25, 2007 at 11:03 a.m.
Claire Levy's statements make my blood pressure rise - who can trust someone who condones this behavior? The McLean/Stevens are awful people and they stole their neighbors property. They should be ashamed of themselves and I hope, if the legal system won't correct this situation, it somehow corrects itself in a Karmatic way. Maybe like a deadly cancer....
Posted by mondoboulder on November 25, 2007 at 11:04 a.m.
Those Democrats will drink your blood like wine.
Posted by jadam12 on November 25, 2007 at 11:06 a.m.
Not quite sure of the reason for this article. Was it just to print some facts about these family's lives or was there some kind of ulterior motive?
From the comments above the article seems to have roused the ire of the anti-war folks. Hmmm. I'm a Democrat, not necessarily a fan of the rich, but I don't think the Kirlins are in the wrong here as the article is trying say surrepticiously.
Posted by silleekim on November 25, 2007 at 11:12 a.m.
Hatmonger, I love your condom analogy. (Is my hat safe?)
Posted by mondoboulder on November 25, 2007 at 11:14 a.m.
That should be " A railroad man." Sorry. My apologies to Democrats.
Posted by concrete666 on November 25, 2007 at 11:20 a.m.
I want to know the names of these judges who have rubber stamped everything the McStevens wanted, obviously without any attempt at judging the merit of the case. Anything for Dick & Edie, eh?
Are these judges appointed or due to face re-election any time soon? Are they subject to recall votes? Any Boulder politicos paying attention?
I've had enough of the Boulder legal system's rampant cronyism!
Posted by MelCap on November 25, 2007 at 11:23 a.m.
I would like to see State Rep. Rob Witwer, R-Evergreen and Sen. Ron Tupa, D-Boulder successful in adding the good faith clause to the adverse possession law. This would make all the notoriety of this case good or bad mean something in the end.
http://dailycamera.com/news/2007/nov/22/...
Posted by malohovno on November 25, 2007 at 11:26 a.m.
i'm susprised no one in boulder hasn't said "they did it for the children."
Posted by sobocous on November 25, 2007 at 11:37 a.m.
Well, this was all fine and interesting, but it doesn't change the fact that politically connected attorneys took their non-attorney neighbor's property. But the public opinion war isn't going to be won among the "peace at all cost" left, or the "open space is wasted space" right.
Posted by evanesce on November 25, 2007 at 11:40 a.m.
"At least we know that McLean and Stevens have been productive members of the Boulder community for years, irrespective of their recent land-grabbing behavior. But what do we really know about the Kirlins? Does Boulder really want to be supporting people who made their fortune buying and selling killing machines? This story just got a lot more interesting"
To answer the first comment: What we know is that M/S are exploiting the law to steal the property of the rightful, tax-paying owners of that land.
As for your character question: Whether or not you choose to support Kirlin's rightful ownership of his land, based on his desire, as a pilot, to collect and restore military aircraft, is your prerogative, although his hobby and business interest has absolutely nothing to do with the issue.
Posted by captainendeavor on November 25, 2007 at 12:01 p.m.
Two words...
Laser Guided
Posted by bullseye on November 25, 2007 at 12:19 p.m.
The land grab must be stopped and the Kirlins reimbursed for all expenses thus far. If the land grab is allowed to remain it will fuel the institutional arrogance of those in power. Things will get a lot worse with even more quasi legal theivery from lawyers and judges.
I'm still amazed that your ethics panel doesn't think anything is worth looking into. The only way you will know that there has been true justice is if a Grand Jury hands down a bunch of indictments.
I really am beginning to think that one of the pre-requisites to being an attorney is to have a ethicsectomy.. There must be a surgical procedure that removes any morals and ethics from 98% of the attorneys.
As far as this article, I agree that the Kirlin's business is largely irrelevant. (except to make me respect Don even more since I worked with Naval Aviation for a number of years. Anyone that can get to altitude and mix it up with our front line fighter and attack pilots is amazing)
On the other hand, we have two people who have largely lived at the public trough and who are cloistered in their own little world of sycophants. Most lawyers have egos that are far larger than can be supported by facts.
Posted by albanal on November 25, 2007 at 12:31 p.m.
I'm not surprised. White people!
Posted by SoBoPop on November 25, 2007 at 12:39 p.m.
The article is designed to divide and conquor, from the posts above,it seems to have succeeded in splitting some leftists off.
Too bad. This story is about greedly lawyers and the people who got shafted by them. The amount of wealth, occupations, and hobbies of the Kirlins are irrelevant facts to the issue of political insiders, with no morals, stealing land from regular citizens who just happen to be successful.
Keep your eye on the ball, folks.
Posted by rayq on November 25, 2007 at 12:41 p.m.
I'm glad that the kirlins have the resources to fight for their land and not be a push over for a couple that decided that they had a right to the kirlin's property simply because they wanted it. Mclean and Stevens "might" of had admirabe careers but the truth is the truth and they reveled themselves for the scoundrels they are. They thought everyone is stupid and they would not get caught. This time the victim was not afraid to push back
Posted by alanbl on November 25, 2007 at 12:49 p.m.
Posted by bugmenot: "Does Boulder really want to be supporting people who made their fortune buying and selling killing machines? This story just got a lot more interesting.?"
Do you know how to read and interpret? The Kirlins are not arms dealers. I don't think they're selling fleets of old MIGs to Sudan. They buy the MIGs and use them to train pilots, mostly ours, in how to deal with MIGs. However, Jeffco might be in the market to buy a couple of the fighter jets to protect their land from Boulder.
Posted by alanbl on November 25, 2007 at 12:54 p.m.
Posted by jadam12: "Hmmm. I'm a Democrat, not necessarily a fan of the rich.."
You should be. The so called "rich" pay 80% of the taxes in this country. Without them, your Dem colleagues would raise YOUR taxes! Or continue to raise taxes on evil corporate America. Of course, evil corporate America will just raise prices on their products to cover the taxes thus you'll be paying more for your products and blaming evil corporate America for raising prices.
Posted by hatmonger on November 25, 2007 at 1:03 p.m.
"You should be. The so called 'rich' pay 80% of the taxes in this country."
This is the time-honored principle that it's pointless taxing people without any money. I think the "rich" are so-called because they, in fact, have money.
Posted by greystonewest on November 25, 2007 at 1:11 p.m.
lafayetteeast: I didn't say Democrat.
Posted by alanbl on November 25, 2007 at 1:13 p.m.
Posted by greystonewest: "lafayetteeast: I didn't say Democrat."
Please don't. That can be construed as hate speech.
Posted by mgwalnut on November 25, 2007 at 1:30 p.m.
I have known about adverse possession since high school, and my parents are blue collar workers so I got that from just paying attention. A lot of reaasonably bright folks who paid some tiny amount of attention in school know about it. This thing goes way back into early legal history and there's something about the "land being used for productive purpose" that underlies the whole thing. And, it's actually usually to the benefit of poorer folks who live out in the woods on property that someone owns but hasn't found the time to even visit for some twenty plus years. In any case, the "common law" isn't necessarily always about "common sense," but the judge here did exactly what very old law requires. The Kirlin's can appeal if they think that the law is wrong, but I doubt it'd work for them.
Frankly, I don't feel a tiny bit sorry for those folks who couldn't even be bothered to look around on their land (okay, they walked by it every day) to just once say "Okay, I'll give you permission to use this little patch" or "get the heck off my property." Kids, for one, don't quite get the idea of trespassing and there could have been something dangerous on that land, which is why the idea of having an incentive for a land owner to take a good look around now and then is not at all a bad idea.
Posted by greystonewest on November 25, 2007 at 1:32 p.m.
Judge Klein was appointed by Bill Owens.
So this property rights killing machine is bi partisan.
jeeeez.
Posted by sobocous on November 25, 2007 at 1:42 p.m.
If Don owns that red MIG out at Rocky Mountain Metro Airport, I'm here to say...I want a ride in it!
Posted by jgarcia on November 25, 2007 at 1:59 p.m.
The article is interesting but still one fact remains. McLean/Stevens are thieves!
Posted by hatmonger on November 25, 2007 at 2:02 p.m.
Isn't it fun seeing the people who haven't read any of the bazillion words already posted in comment on this issue in the last week chime in with the clueless and the glaringly obvious and the already-done-to-death?
BTW, as a member of the so-called poor, let me assure you we are indeed taxed, and at a 5% higher rate than rich bond dealers.
Posted by sobocous on November 25, 2007 at 2:38 p.m.
This is odd; the print version and the on-line version of the article don't read the same. The first two paragraphs from the print version are missing from the on-line version. The print version calls Don "heir to the world's largest chain of Hallmark greeting-card stores", but that's missing on the on-line version. I wonder why that isn't in the on-line version?
Posted by SoBoPop on November 25, 2007 at 4:11 p.m.
MGwalnut: Your momma must be proud.
Posted by paulingrid on November 25, 2007 at 4:58 p.m.
This article in the Daily Camera is really interesting. What are they trying to do, turn the public around so we all feel sorry for McLean and Stevens? They are thieves!!!!!!! I dont care if Don and Suzie Kirlin have a good income or business or whatever. Good for them, they worked for it. Do you have to be homeless or dirt poor to get justice?? It is their land, plain and simple, and MacLean/Stevens stole it by unethical means.
My guess is, there have been some complaints by you know who and friends to the Daily Camera about being too sympathetic to the Kirlins. Also who knows whom at the Daily Camera might make a difference. But whatever, wrong is wrong is wrong is wrong, and thievery is thievery.
Posted by greystonewest on November 25, 2007 at 5:03 p.m.
"Hmmm. I'm a Democrat, not necessarily a fan of the rich.."
You might want to keep up. U.S. Census data shows that the richest congressional districts are blue.
I have just told you a fact.
Posted by alanbl on November 25, 2007 at 5:52 p.m.
Posted by hatmonger: "BTW, as a member of the so-called poor, let me assure you we are indeed taxed, and at a 5% higher rate than rich bond dealers."
If you earn less than $35K/year, you pay no income tax. To change the subject, if you really want to see tax equity, you'll support the Fair Tax proposal.
Posted by jeffm on November 25, 2007 at 6:02 p.m.
Uh oh, GS, you just committed the ultimate politically incorrect invocation-Facts.
Given that the taboo's been broken I'd request some facts or interpretations from any in the know on a related subject.
I drove by the scene of the crime and noted that there IS a fence, a kinda scattershot convoluted thing that makes it clear there's no usable or buildable lot now by the McLean/Stevens spread.
So when was this built and by whom?
Did the M/S's act just as quickly as you could say 'restraining order' or judge Klein says 'it's yours now'?
Could it be they want to make sure nobody does them like they do?
Posted by greystonewest on November 25, 2007 at 6:10 p.m.
No worries jeffm, this dog of a ruling won't stand.
...another fact. :)
Posted by hatmonger on November 25, 2007 at 6:18 p.m.
"If you earn less than $35K/year, you pay no income tax."
Maybe on the planet you're from!
Posted by observer1 on November 25, 2007 at 6:19 p.m.
bugmenot - Don Kirlin took his knowledge of aviation and built a business that develops the combat and survival skills of our pilots and helps to protect our country as a result. McLean and Stevens took their knowledge of the law and used it to commit criminal acts (trespass) and ultimately steal property from another. By even raising a morality question from the information in the article speaks volumes about your ability to process information. You must participate in the same book-reading club as Claire Levy. Personally, I think the judge in this case should be investigated criminally for First Degree Official Misconduct - and that includes the judge that issued the original restraining order:
CRS 18-8-404 First Degree Official Misconduct
1) A public servant commits first degree official misconduct if, with intent to obtain a benefit for the public servant or another or maliciously to cause harm to another, he or she knowingly:
(a) Commits an act relating to his office but constituting an unauthorized exercise of his official function; or
(b) Refrains from performing a duty imposed upon him by law; or
(c) Violates any statute or lawfully adopted rule or regulation relating to his office.
(2) First degree official misconduct is a class 2 misdemeanor.
Posted by vicky.green on November 25, 2007 at 6:19 p.m.
greystonewest -- Surely you know that facts are superfluous, it's how one "feels" that really matters. How long have you lived in Boulder?
Posted by greystonewest on November 25, 2007 at 6:34 p.m.
I gotta warm fuzzy that this won't stand.
And I'm feeling pretty proud to just another unhinged critic among the people of no substance.
Posted by sierra5701 on November 25, 2007 at 7:29 p.m.
Before I witnessed the actions of Judge Sandstead (who granted the restraining order for his friends Judge McLean and Edie) several years ago on a land dispute my attorney (who went to law school with Mo) warned me that he was squirrelly. I was naive but when I recently looked up the dictionary definition I saw it meant "nutty." Yep, my attorney was right.
Did you know that Colorado is one of only a half-dozen states that protects judges by letting political appointee judges review complaints. Ummm ... who is that protecting?
Time to let the Colorado Bar Association do the job because there is a problem.
Posted by greystonewest on November 25, 2007 at 7:48 p.m.
We'll remember when it comes time to vote for retention.
Fact.
Posted by CharlesLuce on November 25, 2007 at 8:48 p.m.
The point is not that what McLean did was unlawful, but rather that it was unethical. Having the legal power to effect a result is not a legal imperative to do so.
Assuming that McLean can state a successful claim for adverse possession, you just don't do that to you neighbor, even an absentee neighbor.
I recall an incident after I had move to a new neighborhood many years ago. My daugher's foot was injured by a defectively designed door at a McDonalds restaurant. About a week later a "claim adjuster" called to try to settle a claim we had never raised. I explained to the adjuster that I was a lawyer, that our daughter was not seriously injured, and all I wanted to do was alert McDonalds that it's door needed to be designed to avoid trapping tender toes.
The adjuster wanted me to sign a release. I told him I would not, but that Bob Charles (who owned the McDonalds in question) was a neighbor of mine, and I did not plan to sue my neighbor (who I had, and still have, never met) because that's not what neighbors do. But I hoped he would alert Bob to the problem with the door, because not everyone feels as I do.
As worried as the adjuster was, despite my assurances that I had no intention of suing his insured, I am sure I could have exacted a financial settlement, had I wanted to. The adjuster was almost beside himself that my wife and I eschewed the conventional "rules of the game." But I believed then, as I do now, that this is not how neighbors treat each other.
One would think that a respected judge, who has witnessed the sad pagentry of litigation play out in his courtroom for years, would understand this, and would understand why people are upset.
It's not about legal rights. It's about doing what is right.
Posted by silleekim on November 25, 2007 at 9:50 p.m.
In this society, we are often pushed and expected to be bad neighbors. Last winter, I slipped on the ice on the sidewalk in my neighborhood. The insurance company wanted to go after the people whose house I slipped in front of, to pay for my stitches in the ER. Unfortunately, I "couldn't remember" which house it was.
Posted by BoulderMath on November 25, 2007 at 10:01 p.m.
The Kirlins purchased the property. it is there property. Let them keep what is rightfully theirs.
Posted by alanbl on November 25, 2007 at 10:23 p.m.
Posted by hatmonger ""If you earn less than $35K/year, you pay no income tax."
Maybe on the planet you're from!"
Sorry, my mistake. If you earn $31,850 then your income tax is a whopping $782.50.
Posted by motiff on November 25, 2007 at 11:28 p.m.
Land grabbers, arms dealers.
Arms dealers, land grabbers.
Land grabbers steal land.
Arms dealers kill people. Lots of people.
Killing people sucks. Killing people for personal profit REALLY sucks.
They're all poor excuses for human beings.
But, the arms dealers suck (way) more.
I now change my support to the weasely judge and his broad.
Posted by zivo24 on November 26, 2007 at 6:46 a.m.
Claire Levy is digging a hole for herself.
There is NO defense for what Dick and Edie did. None. ZERO.
We don't need to know them personally to know what they did was wrong.
Even though they never met the Kirlins personally, they admit that they knew the property belonged to them.
According to their own testimony, they used this property without seeking permission from it's rightful owners. As lawyers, they knew that if they sought and received permission from the Kirlins to do anything on their land, it would make their devious plans to take the land through this obscure law null and void.
I don't believe for a second that they needed this land to access their backyard. That's a bullsh-t excuse, if I ever heard one.
If that were their sole reason, they would have accepted the Kirlins generous offer to GIVE them several feet of the property abutting their property but they turned that down because they wanted enough of the property to make it unfeasible for building a home upon.
So, wake up, Ms. Levy. Your friend's motives were despicable and do not merit any defense.
Moreover, your defending them seriously calls into question YOUR judgment.
Posted by 499ocsgrad on November 26, 2007 at 7:21 a.m.
Has anyone thought about posting pictures of McLean and Stevens all over Boulder?
Posted by hatmonger on November 26, 2007 at 7:39 a.m.
"Sorry, my mistake. If you earn $31,850 then your income tax is a whopping $782.50."
What planet is this? My tax tables from form 1040 put that at $4,514.
Posted by hatmonger on November 26, 2007 at 7:42 a.m.
"Arms dealers kill people. Lots of people."
Stupid.
Posted by zivo24 on November 26, 2007 at 8:49 a.m.
I find it hard to believe that Stevens and McLean never thought there would be any consequences for their actions.
Stevens has already had to resign many if not all of her positions. Both of them have tarnished the reputations they worked so hard to build.
Apparently the loss of those positions and reputations were not enough to make them rethink their positions.
I hope everyone in the Boulder business community takes it upon themselves to help create more consequences by refusing to provide goods or servides to these two until they return the property to the Kirlins.
Posted by katiekurt0102 on November 26, 2007 at 9:03 a.m.
Is it true that McLean/Stevens will now be suing the Kirlins for reimbursement of their legal expenses? If so, would McLean/Stevens use the same attorney/law firm and would they go before Judge Klein again?
Posted by jeffm on November 26, 2007 at 10:01 a.m.
KK: I'm surprised the M/S's even need attorneys given the special treatment they receive over we mere peons.
I mean the presiding judge is 'honored' to have them before him and believe every single utterance of DICK McLean and dismisses as lies every bit of evidence of the actual owners.
And this after Mo Sandstead streamlines a restraining order that WE'D never receive even if our lives were in danger.
Which makes me hope and wonder that since the 'fac ts' of the case aren't sufficient for appeal then at least the appearance of bias and impropiety should. (Is it in the transcipts that "judge" Klein used the 'honored' epithet in court?)
Which would at least produce the wonderful pre-appeal scenario of a conflict of consequences for the M/S's.
On the 1 hand they'd want a change of venue because of the extreme prejudice apparent in the local community. On the other hand they need to have the case heard in Boulder because that's where their fellow thieves, liars and scoundrels (judges and attorneys) rule.
Decisions, decisions-what's lying, thieving scum to do?
Counter Totals
