View Full Version : Squatters destroy house, steal car...no charges.
CoGirl303
02-08-2018, 05:43
I dont understand this state and how squatters are protected. Why do these vermin have more rights than the homeowner? [emoji35]
Not to mention the homeowners have to pay thousands of dollars to lawyers and courts to get these animals out of their houses.
http://www.koaa.com/story/37433724/mother-fights-to-save-daughters-belongings-after-squatters-invade-home-and-take-car
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Squatters take over my house while I'm on vacation, I'll invoke make my day if they don't leave immediately.
The x who stole my guns tried breaking into my house after she was released on bail. Never made it past the door. The sheriff said I had to let her in since she established residency by living there. I refused, and said if he forces to me let her in they would be returning a few hours later to arrest me for murder. I had already tossed all her crap and there was no evidence of her ever living in the house. So it came down to he said, she said. The deputy eventually told her to go away and if she wanted in she had to go to court to get a civil ruling. I was then advised to evict her also. I consulted with the county victim advocate the next day and was told the same, but she skipped her court date that day and had a warrant. While at the sheriff's department, she happened to call the county to inquire about her rights and being allowed into her residence when her lanflord locked her out... Well the county said they would send a deputy to assist her entry, but they were going to arrest her instead for skipping bail.
Land owners need better rights. No signed contract to live on your property should mean there are no legal protections for these invaders. The police should remove them immediately and not force the land owner to pony up and feed cash to the legal system. Let the leaches pony up and prove they have a legal right to live there.
68Charger
02-08-2018, 07:05
To paraphrase a GnR song "what's so civil about squatters, anyway"
As soceity moves more left, they view property as more "communal"... doesn't make it right.
We considered holding CO property and renting it out while living in TX... situations like this are why we decided against that.
encorehunter
02-08-2018, 07:06
The last tenants I had did a lot of damage and skipped on rent. They also took the car they made two payments on under contrac5t, and took it with them when they left. I can't find them to sue them or get my car back. I went and tried to report it stolen, but because it has a contract the PD can't report it stolen. I went to the DA, who said to report it stolen. After $7000 in damages and skipping on $2200 for a car, I'm done "helping" people.
The laws are definitely written to protect law breakers. I'm no longer going to be a landlord because of all the BS laws.
Welcome to (D) paradise, where everything belongs to the people who didn't earn anything.
The last tenants I had did a lot of damage and skipped on rent. They also took the car they made two payments on under contrac5t, and took it with them when they left. I can't find them to sue them or get my car back. I went and tried to report it stolen, but because it has a contract the PD can't report it stolen. I went to the DA, who said to report it stolen. After $7000 in damages and skipping on $2200 for a car, I'm done "helping" people.
The laws are definitely written to protect law breakers. I'm no longer going to be a landlord because of all the BS laws.
That's a tough lesson.
CoGirl303
02-08-2018, 09:49
This is a common issue in most every state.
Lots of fail in this thread, btw.
Make my day, e.g. lawful use of deadly physical force providing for the affirmative defense against civil and criminal liability, requires a knowing and unlawful entry among it's other burdens. Let me explain that people have been successfully prosecuted in this state with that defense invalidated because of these kinds of complex situations.
In any circumstance where you have not filed a Forcible Entry and Detainer (FED action) and obtained a writ, e.g. eviction, even if the subject breaks back into your home at a later date, you will be unable to apply the "make my day law" because their entry is not, under the law, technically illegal even if they use force to enter, regardless if squatter or your ex.
That is going to be the same through the majority of the country which utilizes variations of this affirmative defense. If you kick (not evict) an ex out, they break back in, you can't apply "make my day". Kick squatters out (not evict), they break back in, you can't apply "make my day". This is also why we cannot apply "make my day" within a business during business hours, even if people come in to rob the place. (Because even if their intent is evil, their entry is not illegal). Only when the business is closed to the public is their entry illegal. * This doesn't foreclose on your ability to argue self-defense, which is only an affirmative defense against criminal prosecution. (The benefit of "Make my day" is a blanket immunity to civil as well)
That said, I have a LOT of personal experience with complicated situations such as this. A secret to "that's a civil issue" is it's also conversely a civil issue for them, one that requires a court order, and they are not in a winning position. So if someone takes your (titled and insured vehicle that is in your name) such as a family member, you will find LEO will declare it a "civil issue" and ask you to spend 10 grand to recover it via court order. Well, just take it back... wait until they go into a store or something. Blam, it's a civil issue for the other side now.
If you need to kick someone out such as squatters? Wait until they are gone, take one of those mobile connex units, unload all their shit into it and rekey the house in an organized effort. Maybe file a TPO if you can find a basis for it. (Don't use the default form, write out a petition in a word doc or whatever with the court header). Make sure you continuously occupy the house. If LEO come on e.g. a standby, vehemently deny that the people ever had residence (even if everyone knows you are lying) and explain to the LEO that it's a civil issue... for them. Refuse to provide entry unless they have a court order in hand. Oh, but you're aware they have shit in a connex located over (there, e.g. some storage facility).
*Standard disclaimer. This post does not constitute legal advice, you need to hire an attorney to obtain legal advice
screw make my day law.
I came home, squatter pulled a knife and attacked when I inquired who he was and why he was in my house, I dispatched him. Police show up. knife in squatters hand. justified self-defense. not another word to be said.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
hurley842002
02-08-2018, 09:56
screw make my day law.
I came home, squatter pulled a knife and attacked when I inquired who he was and why he was in my house, I dispatched him. Police show up. knife in squatters hand. justified self-defense. not another word to be said.
Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkSo this is your defense, rather it happened that way or not?
So this is your defense, rather it happened that way or not?
The internet is forever
I could write for days on this topic. Both as a land lord and as someone who's been not allowed into their own home because of an ex. I'll sum it up though as absolute and complete hogwash. The rules are 100% not fair.
Zundfolge
02-08-2018, 10:01
I came home, squatter pulled a knife and attacked when I inquired who he was and why he was in my house, I dispatched him. Police show up. knife in squatters hand. justified self-defense. not another word to be said.
Well now that you've posted that, better hope it doesn't actually happen to you or this thread will show up in your trial as evidence.
Hey if I get seated on your jury, don't worry I'll vote to nullify :D
The last tenants I had did a lot of damage and skipped on rent. They also took the car they made two payments on under contrac5t, and took it with them when they left. I can't find them to sue them or get my car back. I went and tried to report it stolen, but because it has a contract the PD can't report it stolen. I went to the DA, who said to report it stolen. After $7000 in damages and skipping on $2200 for a car, I'm done "helping" people.
The laws are definitely written to protect law breakers. I'm no longer going to be a landlord because of all the BS laws.
How awful. :( You could hire a skip-tracer to find out where they went. It'll cost a bit of money, and they may not be ale to locate them until about 30 days have passed, but it may be worth it.
Martinjmpr
02-08-2018, 11:13
WRT financing a car privately, I have to ask: Does it EVER work?
It just seems to me that when someone says "I really need to buy this $4000 car but I only have $150. Can I just make payments to you?" what they are basically saying is "please let me steal your car."
I haven't had it happen to me in over a decade but back around 2006 I put my old Subaru up for sale. I got at least half a dozen people emailing me with stories of woe and asking could they make payments, swearing they were "good for it" and adding that "I'll let you hold on to the title!" as if that is any kind of security.
I told them all the same thing: If you need a loan, go to the bank.
But the fact that they asked told me that there were people out there who actually do this and it amazed me. I could see maybe - MAYBE - doing this kind of arrangement with a family member but a total stranger? No way in hell.
I learned long ago: do not give loans; give gifts or cold stares, but never a loan.
CoGirl303
02-08-2018, 11:38
Oh boy, we godda tough guy over here! *read with a new jersey accent*
well, I'm a girl so there's that. [emoji6]
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
well, I'm a girl so there's that. [emoji6]
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
That doesn't mean shit. You think you're going to bat your lashes and go, "tee-hee, I'm just a girl," and everything will be all right? After what you posted?
So about that 19th Amendment... [mlp]
j/k Grey, don't hurt me.
It wouldn't be the first, or last time, someone on here posts the same exact thing.
So about that 19th Amendment... [mlp]
j/k Grey, don't hurt me.
[ROFL1]
Tbh I'd call it a lesson learned. Chances are they have little recoverable, already have other judgments/collections (likely even garnishments) and would file for BK protection if you tried to recover the car. Either way you'd be out the attorney fees from a case (not likely to get a fee award). I've found it takes a reasonably high threshold before you have a probability of getting any ROI. It's sad, but it's the nature of our screwed up system resulting from a few centuries of attorney monopoly....
If you did pursue it, stick to small claims and go pro se. You'll have a 7,500 cap but at least much lower cost. Done right, you might even be able to get a default judgement if they are truly "off the map". Then you can hire certain services to see where they have bank accounts, and garnish those directly. (that costs ~$350 by itself) **the more you know*** still, tbh, I'd just call it a lesson learned. Scummy people rarely have anything to collect from, so it's an exercise in futility.
When we moved to Colorado in 1992, the housing market in WI was soft so we leased our house out on a month-month contract with an option for ether party to cancel with 60 days notice. They also had a "rent-to-own" option where we would apply the rent to a sale. While he worked "construction," she was in a wheelchair on permanent disability and receiving SS benefits. We had semi-local family to keep an eye on the place, and thought we could trust the tenants. Arrangements were made for them to make their rent check directly with our bank (nearby branch) that held the mortgage, and the bank would notify us of any late payment. 3 months in, they stopped paying rent. They were also making it hard on the RE agent to setup showings. Took a few months to get them evicted and got a judgement against them for unpaid rent totalling $2,500, but they didn't pay and skipped. The deposit was used to pay an attorney. The family helped clean it up enough to price it for a fire sale. At least they didn't trash it. I had to write a check at closing and lost the little equity we had in the place (I made ~$20K in improvements not including my labor).
Apparently, you can't garnish SS benefits. The construction worker was likely working for cash for the most part and obviously under reporting his income. Never saw a penny and chalked it up as a life experience. Never again. I put it behind me and never really think about it anymore until this thread brought it back to light.
BushMasterBoy
02-08-2018, 12:28
Some people install surveillance or alarm systems in their houses. It keeps the squatters from establishing residency.
That doesn't mean shit. You think you're going to bat your lashes and go, "tee-hee, I'm just a girl," and everything will be all right? After what you posted?
I see a new member title coming, think Gwen Stefani...
https://youtu.be/PHzOOQfhPFg?t=26s
This just got interesting
I see a new member title coming, think Gwen Stefani...
https://youtu.be/PHzOOQfhPFg?t=26s
Spiderwebs right? Must not have her voice mail set-up.
I think Netherlands have some kind of law which protects people (bums) who breaks & enters and live there.
If that is so, where is the governors mansion?
hollohas
02-08-2018, 15:52
I don't know much about these sorts of issues, but it makes me angry just learning that it's possible for someone to enter your property and not be kicked out. How long does it take for someone to establish residency? Is there a certain time that they lose residency if they're gone for a while?
In regards to removing squatters stuff: Conex, bonfire...whatever...
[ROFL1]
A friend of mine had squatters in his rental house in Westminster. He waited until they left, then went in and changed all the locks, removing their belongings and ...er...disposing of them. Beavis came back and tried to get in the house, and was reported to the Sheriff as a burglar attempting to break in. Squatter gets arrested for attempted burglary, and several warrants. Never heard from him again.
There was a big case in Boulder in the early to mid 2000's about someone who lost some private property to the city simply because enough people walked on it. It was basically an undeveloped lot that people walked across. So many people walked across it for so long that there was a well worn footpath. The city ended up just stealing the land and calling it public.
wctriumph
02-08-2018, 17:13
Many years ago in a state far away, a friend had squatters take over his families vacation property and would not leave, saying that they had a right under the law to occupy a residence that was not continually lived in and that they would not leave until the sheriff showed up with a court ordered eviction notice, said good luck getting it done within a year. My friend explained the deal to me and a couple of other guys. We are all over 6' tall and back then in much better shape. One late Friday night we drove up there and, unarmed, entered through the back door and just walked the squatters out the front door without ever touching them. We just moved in a forceful manner and they moved to get out of the way and that meant out the front door. My friend called the sheriff and reported drunken people in his yard that would not leave. The deputies came and told them to leave as they were trespassing on private property and if they did not leave they would be arrested. They left and the deputies had a good laugh and told my friend that it was a good thing that we did not assault them in our eviction process. They knew about these people and they did this stuff to other homes in the area over the last couple of years and that there was not really anything they could do until a judge ordered the eviction.
These are very concerning stories of squatters. It makes me a bit concerned about the idea of leaving on vacation.
Maybe a house sitter is in order.
BPTactical
02-08-2018, 17:33
I see a new member title coming, think Gwen Stefani...
https://youtu.be/PHzOOQfhPFg?t=26s
LOL, just LOL.[Cheer][Cheer]
Zundfolge
02-08-2018, 17:37
I was going to say that I find it surprising that more squatters don't end up on the wrong end of the 3 S's (especially in rural areas) ... but I guess then again the last S kinda precludes us from ever hearing about such things.
68Charger
02-08-2018, 17:40
I don't know much about these sorts of issues, but it makes me angry just learning that it's possible for someone to enter your property and not be kicked out. How long does it take for someone to establish residency? Is there a certain time that they lose residency if they're gone for a while?
Depends... there's some rule about receiving mail at the residence. My Brother-in-law found this out the hard way. (I don't know if it's changed since then)
She calls in domestic dispute- LEO says they can't kick her out because she gets mail there. Seems like that could be easily exploited by someone determined...
These are very concerning stories of squatters. It makes me a bit concerned about the idea of leaving on vacation.
Maybe a house sitter is in order.
If you took every news story to heart, you wouldn't do anything, ever. You'd never send your kids to school, you wouldn't home school your kids, you wouldn't get a home loan, you wouldn't travel internationally, you wouldn't travel domestically, you'd never call the police, you wouldn't drive on public roads, you wouldn't buy food from the grocery store, you wouldn't dare grow your own food, you wouldn't contribute to charities, you wouldn't start a business, etc, etc, etc, etc.
It's so easy to be upset about every time we realize that the world can be a shitty place. Unfortunately, it's way easier to be frustrated at all the wrongs in the world, than it is to understand that there is a lot more good to experience in reality.
BladesNBarrels
02-08-2018, 17:57
I think Netherlands have some kind of law which protects people (bums) who breaks & enters and live there.
If that is so, where is the governors mansion?
Yep, but he has Colo State Patrol to keep folks out.
If you took every news story to heart, you wouldn't do anything, ever. You'd never send your kids to school, you wouldn't home school your kids, you wouldn't get a home loan, you wouldn't travel internationally, you wouldn't travel domestically, you'd never call the police, you wouldn't drive on public roads, you wouldn't buy food from the grocery store, you wouldn't dare grow your own food, you wouldn't contribute to charities, you wouldn't start a business, etc, etc, etc, etc.
It's so easy to be upset about every time we realize that the world can be a shitty place. Unfortunately, it's way easier to be frustrated at all the wrongs in the world, than it is to understand that there is a lot more good to experience in reality.
Yes, I suppose there must be some srt of balance. I'm glad I have watchful neighbors.
There was a big case in Boulder in the early to mid 2000's about someone who lost some private property to the city simply because enough people walked on it. It was basically an undeveloped lot that people walked across. So many people walked across it for so long that there was a well worn footpath. The city ended up just stealing the land and calling it public.
Actually, it was an adverse possession suit by the next door neighbors(Former Judge and Boulder Mayor Richard McLean), and was shady as hell. Someone bought a vacant lot with intent to build a house. The existing neighbor didn't want the house built because it would obstruct the view of the Flat Irons from his house,so he filed an adverse possession suit, wherein if you use someone's property for a period of time (18 years, IIRC), it becomes yours. The suit was heard by a judge that was a personal friend of the existing house owner, and was coincidentally rules in his favor, and because of setback rules, the lot was no longer deemed suitable for building.
http://www.dailycamera.com/ci_13106856
I kid you not, the governor's mansion was unoccupied before Ritter moved in there.
TFog, yep, that's the one.
CoGirl303
02-09-2018, 21:05
That doesn't mean shit. You think you're going to bat your lashes and go, "tee-hee, I'm just a girl," and everything will be all right? After what you posted?
lol. You dont know me well enough to know my sarcasm yet.
I'm a bit of a smart ass most of the time. [emoji51]
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
lol. You dont know me well enough to know my sarcasm yet.
I'm a bit of a smart ass most of the time. [emoji51]
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
"Sarcasm." I don't think that word means what you think it means. Unless, of course, you were referring to
screw make my day law.
I came home, squatter pulled a knife and attacked when I inquired who he was and why he was in my house, I dispatched him. Police show up. knife in squatters hand. justified self-defense. not another word to be said.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
In which case, might I suggest 'hyperbole' or 'fabrication.'
OtterbatHellcat
02-09-2018, 22:33
Probationary Time...
There's a reason for that.... :)
Bailey Guns
02-09-2018, 22:54
Lots of fail in this thread, btw.
Make my day, e.g. lawful use of deadly physical force providing for the affirmative defense against civil and criminal liability, requires a knowing and unlawful entry among it's other burdens. Let me explain that people have been successfully prosecuted in this state with that defense invalidated because of these kinds of complex situations.
Yes, there is lots of fail in this thread.
And "knowing" (or "knowingly") is not an element of 18-1-704.5 CRS.
https://i.imgur.com/2oT1WRv.jpg
Oh boy, we godda tough guy over here! *read with a new jersey accent*
Side note: has there ever been a more amazing piece of cinematic art than Commando?
wctriumph
02-10-2018, 13:46
Side note: has there ever been a more amazing piece of cinematic art than Commando?
I kind of likes Red Sonja ...
Great-Kazoo
02-10-2018, 16:33
It most certainly is.
Prerequisite for immunity under this section is an unlawful entry into the dwelling, meaning a knowing, criminal entry. People v. McNeese, 892 P.2d 304 (Colo. 1995).
Out of many problems with our judicial system is that you cannot merely rely on statue. Statues themselves are covertly re-written through crap-tons of precedential opinions; and congress has no obligation to go back and rewrite or clarify the statue. There are several other precedential clarifications that further limit the statue beyond it's original writing. And you have to know all of those secretive "edits" to stay in true compliance with any law.
So, regardless of the plain text of the statue, if a belligerent guy with Alzheimer wanders in your house, and pees on your carpet; while seeming to satisfy the elements as written in only the statue, you will be UTTERLY CRUCIFIED if you undertake any physical harm against the trespasser. Not only does common sense require "knowing"; but the courts require it as well.
*check* *mate*
All jokes aside though, your posts are always appreciated BG and I do make a mistake every now and again.
ETA with detailed case explanation for all interested parties:
The case was one where a black man kicked a (female) roommate out of his house, and the woman came back with two drunk men (one her husband, I'm not sure why they lived apart) to retrieve her property. An altercation ensued starting with the drunk husband putting the black homeowner in a chokehold, and the black homeowner killed both men and stabbed the woman in the head. Previously, it was agreed (even by the woman) that the husband was never to be inside the house, being that he was known to hate black men. So... his entry was sort of illegal as the woman at least knew he was uninvited. But the woman also had a right to be in her apartment, despite being kicked out, and had a right to invite people; the entry was unlawful, but not knowing. Ultimately, the homeowner was unable to apply the defense. This is is a detailed section of the Colorado Supreme Court opinion with a detailed explanation:
Bottom line for the layperson is:
NEVER POST what you would or wouldn't do on the web. AND ALWAYS follow laws for self defense / use of deadly force. Both in and outside the home.
Which leads to the next part of this post. How many more replies are needed before one of the mods locks it ? Since it seems to have run back around.
Bailey Guns
02-10-2018, 18:53
I guess what I meant was it's not an element of the mental state of the "homeowner" or shooter in terms of their belief in the intruder's state of mind. In other words, the shooter only needs to have a reasonable belief of the following:
1) the intruder has made an unlawful entry
2) the intruder has committed a crime in addition to the unlawful entry (or is committing or will commit a crime)
3) the intruder might use any degree of force
The homeowner or shooter does not necessarily need to consider the intruder's mental state.
And I disagree with your statement that a person will be crucified for shooting your fictional Alzheimer's patient. If that were the case, the few cases I can recall offhand where drunks have mistakenly entered the homes of others and were shot would not have ended with the homeowner successfully raising the "make my day" defense.
There's also case law to support that:
Jury instructions in error. Jury instruction that states that entry into a dwelling "must have been made in knowing violation of the law" could mislead the jury and thus is in error. Language is misleading in that it could be taken to mean that an intruder must know his or her conduct violates a criminal statute rather than that the intruder must not have a reasonable belief that his or her entry is licensed, invited, or otherwise privileged. People v. Zukowski, 260 P.3d 339 (Colo. App. 2010).
Jury instruction that states "[a]n entry made in the good faith belief that it is lawful, is not an entry made in knowing violation of the criminal law" allows an interpretation that the entry would not be unlawful under the make-my-day statute, and, thus, the instruction is also in error. An intruder may act under a mistaken belief of fact that he or she was lawfully on the premises and that this type of entry would not be unlawful under the make-my-day statute. A mistaken belief that an entry, although uninvited, is lawful does not make it lawful. People v. Zukowski, 260 P.3d 339 (Colo. App. 2010).
And, from your post (my bold):
We recognize that the statute does not expressly describe a culpable mental state of "knowingly." However, if "no culpable mental state is expressly stated in a statute ... a culpable mental state may nevertheless be required ... with respect to some or all of the material elements thereof, if the proscribed conduct necessarily involves such a culpable mental state."
I'm not trying to be a pain in the ass just to argue with you (and wasn't in my other post, either). There are obviously big differences in what the statute says and how it's actually applied. For example, most people say the intruder actually has to make entry but we've seen at least two examples I can think of off the top of my head where that wasn't the case: the case in Ault over a barking dog where the homeowner shot the intruder thru the front door and the case of Gary Hill where he shot one of the people who attacked him in his home while he (the "victime") was driving away. The first case was dismissed by the DA and the second went to trial where the homeowner was acquitted under the "make my day" defense.
So it's hard to say how a particular incident will play out. Best advice is be aware of the law if you're gonna carry a gun around and don't talk about what you've done to the police without legal representation.
http://www.dailycamera.com/news/boulder/ci_28107293/da-boulder-resident-who-killed-intruder-wont-be
http://www.dailycamera.com/ci_20704069/boulder-da-no-charges-against-homeowner-who-shot
I thought the second one was also killed, but I was obviously mistaken.
Great-Kazoo
02-10-2018, 21:38
Truth is, our system always makes everything somewhat of a crap shoot. I always provided several examples to help people understand the burdens and by making people imagine a juror's perspective (even though it is often a judicial ruling that applies the affirmative defense pre-trial). In the truth of it, every rule is a little flexible depending on how appropriate the action taken was and if the jurors/justice can personally justify it. I've always provided a disclaimer that people can get prosecuted (even successfully) for something technically legal, and they can get sued (even successfully) for something without any legitimate cause of action.
Insofar as "knowing" is concerned, I've always ask how likely you are to succeed arguing justified lethal force (with the Alzheimer example) but on the other hand, how sympathetic would a juror be for an incredibly belligerent drunk guy who breaks your glass and entered your house, even if on mistaken belief? What you never want is a situation that people will sympathize with the suspect. If that happens, you might be pretty screwed regardless of the circumstances. Case law is so porous and contradictory that a judge can almost always find legal support for any position they want to take, regardless of how contradictory. And it shouldn't work this way - but the appeals court goes much the same way. If they (emotionally) disagree with a legal concept, they will find a way to justify their own preference.
The reality is, any "normal" legitimate self-defense encounter involving a stranger, especially when it catches you by surprise - you are probably going to be okay (even if it goes to court). Rules: Don't be an asshole, don't provoke people, and mind your business. Also don't miss...
Now, any complicated situation involving someone you know, there's your crap shoot.
PPS: The advantage of the "make my day law" is a blanket criminal/civil immunity (which doesn't prevent court actions ,it must still be raised). People don't realize the breadth of that blanket and the value of it. In an applied situation, let's say you do miss one of your shots and tragically, that goes into your neighbors house and kills their dog (or worse) - surprise, the immunity prevents your neighbor from (successfully) suing you as well.
*Standard disclaimer applies, this is not legal advice, always hire an attorney to receive legal advice.
You're under the assumption use of deadly force actually goes to trial. IF ( as always key word) IF the use of deadly force was justified. You'll never see the inside of a courtroom. Now the civil lawsuit, that's a different story.
As for an Alzheimer's person you're defending yourself from an at the time, potential fear of serious injury or death. You or anyone else isn't there to analyze their state of mind. That sounds like something i'd read in the denver post.
Question for me is Why are you or anyone else arguing anything? That's what an attorney is for, one you're paying a good sum of $$ to, for keeping one out of going to trial.
For any and every thing else. Talk to my Attorney.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.