NOT eminent domain: CO judge takes land just because he wants it personally

[J’raxis 270145]

I'd like to try this "adverse possession" deal on some of that Federally owned land out west. You know- that comprises something like 90% of all property out there. For some reason I think the law might be a little different when it comes to government owned land, though...

I would too but then we're nobody. We don't have the same rules these kings have.

43 USC 1068 covers federal public lands. RSA 539:6 covers New Hampshire.

[coffeeseven]

I'd like to try this "adverse possession" deal on some of that Federally owned land out west. You know- that comprises something like 90% of all property out there. For some reason I think the law might be a little different when it comes to government owned land, though...

I would too but then we're nobody. We don't have the same rules these kings have.

43 USC 1068 covers federal public lands. RSA 539:6 covers New Hampshire.

Let me rephrase. We don't have the same expectation of expediency.

Wasn't there a fellow that was trying to eminent domain one of the supreme judge's homes after the Kelo case? How's he doing with his case?

[J’raxis 270145]

Wasn't there a fellow that was trying to eminent domain one of the supreme judge's homes after the Kelo case? How's he doing with his case?

I remember reading about that. (It happened before I moved here.) From Wikipedia:—

Subsequent to this decision, there was widespread outrage across the US. A California developer and libertarian, Logan Darrow Clements scooped a similar proposal by New Hampshire libertarians to seize Justice Souter's 'blighted' home in Weare, New Hampshire, via eminent domain in order to build a "Lost Liberty Hotel" which he said would feature a "Just Desserts Cafe". Officials of the Libertarian Party of New Hampshire (LPNH) and the Coalition of New Hampshire Taxpayers had been eyeing the Justice's property to build a Constitution Park. A few weeks later, LPNH Vice-Chair Mike Lorrey discovered that Justice Breyer owned an extensive vacation estate in Plainfield, NH, and announced on the New Hampshire Public Radio show The Exchange focusing on eminent domain that LPNH would be pursuing their Constitution Park concept with Breyer's property in mind. Lorrey and Clements both advocated an amendment to New Hampshire's Constitution limiting eminent domain, which passed New Hampshire's legislature on March 24, 2006. The text of the amendment is as follows: "No part of a person's property shall be taken by eminent domain and transferred, directly or indirectly, to another person if the taking is for the purpose of private development or other private use of the property." It passed by an overwhelming margin in the 2006 general election.

From that description it looks like it was just a strategy to get that law passed.

[Dreepa]

There were even people on this board protesting at his house.
Some for the taking... others against.

[Lloyd Danforth]

Yes.  Some of us took turns protesting for and against, so,we could visit our friends.

[John Edward Mercier]

Eminent domain and adverse possession are different. Under eminent domain the government takes your land without prior establishment of usage, and pays you. Under adverse possession, someone takes your land after establishing usage, and no payment occurs.

The State could take a part of your property to put a road through without any road being there previously, and just pay the assessed value. A person/group using a trail without payment for a length of time, could establish adverse possession to the property.

[kola]

well, I would walk on the judges NEW land, slip and fall and sue the bastard.

...settle up even steven to get the land back..tyvm.

kola

[J’raxis 270145]

Eminent domain and adverse possession are different. Under eminent domain the government takes your land without prior establishment of usage, and pays you. Under adverse possession, someone takes your land after establishing usage, and no payment occurs.

The State could take a part of your property to put a road through without any road being there previously, and just pay the assessed value. A person/group using a trail without payment for a length of time, could establish adverse possession to the property.

Indeed, they're entirely different things. Eminent domain is a government power explicitly authorized in its respective constitution. Adverse possession is a right of the people that goes back to the common law.

This story is about a judge invoking a common-law right but using his influence as a government official in order to more easily get away with it.

[KBCraig]

I know it varies from state to state, but I've always thought that squatter's rights involved two elements: it must be known to the owner, and it must be against his interests.

In this case, the owners were (at least partly) aware the neighbors were accessing their land. But since it didn't harm their interest in the land, they allowed them to continue. I don't see how adverse possession applies. Maybe things are different in Colorado. Or maybe not, and the judge just used his insider influence to get away with it.