I am with you. This is judicial taking not lawful taking.

Speaking of our frontier present and justice-this from South Park,CO (really)

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-bison4-2008may04,0,853278.story

Land grabs are never very pretty and adverse possession is just a vestige from our frontier past, where land was left abandoned for years which complicated ownership chains and tax collection. In any event, sometimes a judge has to be creative to effect justice. In this case the Judge certainly could have made a factual finding that the path did not meet the requisite time of existence and thus denied the Petition. In addition, he could have limited his ruling to the path itself without providing an appreciable access rendering the taking worthless. This would have certainly won him the Shakespeare award for the ruling most like Portia’s in the “Merchant of Venice,” another situation (albeit fictional)involving the oppressive application of law.

The easiest ruling would have been to deny the Petition on well established equitable principles which holds that, although equity will not “aid those who slumber on their rights” (a la the Kirlins), it will likewise require that those seeking equity come with “clean hands.” Since former Judge McClean and current lawyer Stevens may be living together without the benefit of marriage, my guess is that Colorado law does not countenance such a meretricious relationship and thus these litigants come to Court with unclean hands. Not a particularly enlightened view as modern sensibilities go, but few would doubt it is an equitable and just result.

While not routinely admitted, it is true that sometimes, in order to effect justice, you do have to keep two sets of books.