Customary Use and Our 30A Legacy

ScJ your premise is incorrect. Walton county has not taken anything from you. You have no authority to litigate neither do I. If you do may I suggest that you focus on the litigation instead of trying to mislead the BFO’s. I know you enjoy the Perry Mason stuff but it is getting old. It will take years for all the evidence to be presented to the court. Sit back and let the professionals handle your case. Maybe take a vacation here and spend some time interacting with the locals. Sitting behind a computer is bad for your back. My doctor says moving about is what our bodies and minds are made for. Sitting and typing not so much. See ya on the beaches!

I honestly don’t know why Dave even tries to engage BFOs on SoWal when he refuses to answer any question. The frustration of not having full editorial control is showing. But the obvious answer, at least to me, is he just is not able to.

As the chairman of floridabeachesforall.org one would think there would be a bit more legal (and rational) support for their platform other than just “we believe in customary use”.

The county commissioners (along with FBFA and overwhelming support from the local real estate industry) are taking Walton County taxpayers on an expensive legal “joy ride” at taxpayers’ expense for one REAL reason:

REMOVE ANY IMPEDIMENT TO GROWTH.

And again, over and over, repeating myself, beating the other dead horse, hammering a point, maybe you haven’t heard, cold off the press....

The economy is NOT one of the criteria of customary use - FACT. That’s definitely one of those inconvenient truths to its supporters.

Aren't you old enough to know when people are yanking your chain? And yet you never fail to growl.

ScJ your premise is incorrect. Walton county has not taken anything from you.

The county is suing 1194 parcel owners in an ATTEMPT to remove the Property Right of Private Property owners the right (if so desired) to exclude unlimited people with unlimited beach equipment on their legally deeded property. This lawsuit has already cost Walton Tax Payers and BFO's over $2,000,000 and is estimated to cost at least an additional $48,000,000.

So yes, the premise is correct and the BCC and FBFA have set in action a chain of events costing over $2,000,000 so far and $48,000,000 more pending. And so far the BCC and FBFA are Not Willing or Not Able to answer the most fundamental question of the lawsuit. Are you able to answer the question?

What evidence or arguments do you have that the removal of property rights (right of exclusion) is reasonable, without interruption, or without dispute? It doesn't take years to present evidence if none exists.

ScJ, your choice of words to describe the lawsuit is concerning. Not only is your premise of Walton County stealing from you incorrect there are other ramifications for false statements. You are definitely not a lawyer I see. All of us should realize that words are important. Just be more careful.

Anyway here are the real issues in the lawsuit:

Who owns the shoreline and what is the shoreline?
How does a dynamic shoreline be considered static relevant to ownership?
Is the property description in the deeds correct?
What is the USE of the shoreline portion of dry sand (aka the beach)?
Has Beach Use always been considered public?

Of course there are many more relevant questions and literally thousands of pieces of evidence in this very important case. Your camp has admitted that your posts are to "encourage" BPO's to spend their money on a lawsuit that has more to do with definitions of USE, SHORELINES, PROPERTY DESCRIPTIONS etc than property rights. Encourage is your word but IMO your posts are misleading BPO's. Your questions are completely off premise and being used to persuade BPO's to keep spending their money on a very controversial and negative campaign that hurts The People. Your words reveal your intent.

Scj you have come to this forum of public opinion for the purpose to provoke and mislead hoping to accomplish both. Yes, you have succeeded at misleading at least 2 people who live in Walton County to come to your side (you must believe that is success). I doubt that many of the BPO's are even listening to you anymore because you are so negative in regards to The People which includes Walton County. I would allow you more success in provoking the other side because I can feel the need to defend from people like you and the reason why I post my opinions over and over. At my age I am thinking now more in terms of my children and my grand children and my great great grand children's future. Your desire for power to exclude them from the beach provokes me so you win that one for now. I think it is time though that we all go down to the beach and let the power of nature heal us from this negativity about each other. Maybe just think a little more about what being good and positive means in this short life that we all have in common...

FBB, do you believe that the Framers of our Constitution could see into the future?

Not relevant question but I’ll bite - do you? Observation, you have your own interesting progressive interpretation of the Constitution; and have often mistakenly mixed quotes from the Declaration of Independence with the Constitution or Bill of Rights. Just be more careful.

There are seven Articles of the Constitution and 27 Amendments. The first 10 Amendments in 1791 make up the Bill of Rights to protected and strengthen Individual Constitutions rights - not “the public’s” rights. The Fifth Amendment states; “No person shall be ... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”
Bill of Rights - Bill of Rights Institute

The 1841 14th Amendment states; “nor shall any State [or a County subdivision of the State] deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

An person’s right to life, liberty, or property, without due process of law is the only individual right stated twice in the Constitution. That’s a fact; not me speaking for the Founders.

Interesting that the last 27th Amendment was passed September 25, 1789 but was not ratified until May 7, 1992. Only took Congress 203 years in the future to prevent granting themselves pay raises during the course of a legislative session.

Do you think they [the Founders] would be okay with how you hide behind a fake name and speak for them?

Where have I spoken for the Founders? Not credible statement. The Founders during the debates over the design and ratification of the United States Constitution, in 1787 and 1788, a large number of writers in the popular press used pseudonyms. Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, John Jay used the pseudonym “Publius” and wrote the 85 Federalist Papers.
Alexander Hamilton used the pseudonym “Phocion”.
List of pseudonyms used in the American Constitutional debates - Wikipedia
The Anti-Federalist Papers authors used pseudonyms as well. Cato (likely George Clinton), Brutus (likely Melancton Smith or Robert Yates or perhaps John Williams), Centinel (Samuel Bryan), and the Federal Farmer (either Melancton Smith, Richard Henry Lee, or Mercy Otis Warren.

Ben Franklin wrote under many pseudonyms and is best know as Richard Sanders and "Poor Richard" of Poor Richard's Almanac. Poor Richard said; "Half wits talk much but say little [or show silly images]." Does it change the meaning that Poor Richard wrote that instead of Ben Franklin? I may not be Ben Franklin; but Ben did not own beachfront in Walton County. Even if Ben did, public CU use of private property would not have been “ancient” use by Blackstone old English common law standards. Or tell us why it would be ancient use.

Do you think that they would not have a problem with concentrated power of a few that limits LLH for We The People?

Interesting interpretation of the Declaration of Independence. If you mean do I think the authors of the Constitution would have a problem with persons (individuals) having Constitutionally protected property rights (power) to own private property, that include private uninterrupted (quiet) use and enjoyment, that can not be “taken” by Government for public use and not compensate the owner for the take? No, I don’t think the Founders would have a problem with that property right since it is in the Constitutional Amendments - twice.

You are trying to label those of us who simply believe in public beaches for future generations into something that is just not the truth.

Your words not mine. Do you believe in the Rule of Law? Stop putting your words in my and BFO’s mouths. No credibility. What basis do you believe your truth? Opinions and feelings are not a good basis of labeling those that followed the law, have legal title to property, and pay taxes on their property, to unilaterally apply your or a partisan poll’s different belief. Not how the world works in the USA. Or amend the US Constitution.

I love my Country and I have as much admiration for the framers of our GREAT CONSTITUTION as you do!

Then read it, study it, and understand it. Read SCOTUS, the final judges of Constitution law, rulings too. Take the time to understand what you post before you post it. Be more careful.

If you would just stop speaking for other people and speak for yourself (but you must have an identity to do that) it would be a decent conversation of the problems that exist on Walton County Beaches.

Keep repeating and beating the pseudonym dead horse. Given your alternative class warfare conspiracy world view I’m not too concerned if you believe my facts or opinions or not.

CU believe what they want to believe; regardless of the facts or law, or who posts them. I post facts, law, and verifiable opinions to inform BFOs; not CU “believers”; who can not explain what basis you believe the CU agenda, other than it emotionally feels “right”. Want a conversation with a “real” BFO? Email James Lince. Email is well known or ask Rauschkolb for it. Discuss “ancient” public use of private property. Ancient is the first, but not only, CU criteria. Can you define “the People’s” old English or American “ancient” customary use criteria? 50 years like Commissioner Tony Anderson has proclaimed? 100 years? Time whereof the memory of man runs not to the contrary? Time immemorial? How about US courts? #79 Customary Use and Our 30A Legacy]

I really like to learn things I do not know but you believe that everything in LIFE exists around one principle.

Wrong again. Your opinion not mine. Stop putting your words in my and BFOs mouths.

I know you must be aware of the fact that LLH for We The People ensures a more perfect union.

Show us where you got that Declaration of Independence fact, other than your own opinion.

I don't really believe that you care much about Walton County BFO's.

Wrong again. Getting old repeating this. Your baseless opinion not mine. Stop putting your words in my and BFOs mouths.

We can have a decent and civil conversation but you should start speaking for yourself with an identity. Both you and Regina.

Repetitive, not relevant, and not credible reply to the previous CU civil conversation questions already asked or to the Commissioners’ multi-million dollar CU litigation. Besides CU believers would not believe any facts I or any BFO posts, and I would not have to worry about fake police report, attorney staging trespass on my property, or all the “kind” misinformed antisocial medial posts. CUnCourt as the Defendant in Walton Commissioner’s CU litigation.

by mputman #1705. ScJ, your choice of words to describe the lawsuit is concerning. Not only is your premise of Walton County stealing [borrowing?] from you incorrect there are other ramifications for false statements. [why do you believe, what basis are they false?] You are definitely not a lawyer I see. All of us should realize that words are important. Just be more careful. [mputnal I would not suggest anyone rely on your legal opinion and understanding of CU real property common law.]

Anyway here are the real issues in the lawsuit:

Who owns the shoreline and what is the shoreline? [Florida statues of the FORESHORE and MHWL property boundary is well defined. It' NAVD88 0.74 elevation in Walton County. NOT the wet sand! Don't like it change the FL statute.]
How does a dynamic shoreline be considered static relevant to ownership? [The MHWL is on the property survey and property boundaries posted within 12 months is generally considered lawful. Sherriff has a 2015 SOP.]
Is the property description in the deeds correct? [Yes, or the courts would quickly quiet the title. Like recent QT between private property owners and developers. Not between public title and private title. Discussed previously on this thread and other places.]
What is the USE of the shoreline portion of dry sand (aka the beach)? [What the Government or individual property owner chooses within the law; including owner uninterrupted quiet use and enjoyment.]
Has Beach Use [on privately owns property] always been considered public? [Not by the courts. That’s why Walton Commissioners as Plaintiffs are going to court to exclude private property rights of uninterrupted quiet use and enjoyment.]

Of course there are many more relevant questions and literally thousands of pieces of evidence in this very important case. Your [Constitutional property rights] camp has admitted that your posts are to "encourage" BPO's to spend their money [as defendants protecting their Constitutional rights] on a [Walton Commissioner] lawsuit that has more to do with definitions of USE, SHORELINES, PROPERTY DESCRIPTIONS etc than property rights [Really? No Constitutional rights questions?]. Encourage is your word but IMO your posts are misleading BPO's [Wrong. Disagree.]. Your questions are completely off premise [Wrong. Disagree.] and being used to persuade BPO's [already have more than of 650+ of the 1,193 parcels owners as Defendants] to keep spending their money on a very controversial and negative campaign [Walton Commissioner's are Plaintiff's, BFO are Defendants] that hurts The People. Your words reveal your intent [As does vocal CU believers' misinformation].

Scj you have come to this forum of public opinion for the purpose to provoke and mislead [Not BFOs. About 2,500 BFO agree with it by spending their own money defending their property rights] hoping to accomplish both. Yes, you have succeeded at misleading at least 2 people [Funny] who live in Walton County to come to your side (you must believe that is success). I doubt that many of the BPO's are even listening to you anymore because you are so negative in regards to The People which includes Walton County [want to bet?]. I would allow you more success [very gracious of you] in provoking the other [CU believers] side because I can feel the need to defend from people like you [and BFOs from “people” like you] and the reason why I post my opinions over and over [ad nauseam without basis, which prompt BFOs to respond to CU misinformation]. At my age I am thinking now more in terms of my children and my grand children and my great great grand children's future. Your desire for power [to protect your Constitutional rights] to exclude them from the beach [if BFO so choose and is their right] provokes me so you win that one for now [claim down take 30 minutes and go over to unobstructed Government owned beach views at Okaloosa Island east of the Destin Pass]. I think it is time though that we all go down to the [13 miles of available Walton public beaches or pay to enter the “unblemished” Walton State parks] beach and let the power of nature heal us from this negativity about each other. Maybe just think a little more about what being good and positive [no mputnal judgment for you Scj there. Scj no one should judge your intent, words, or lawful actions, unless they are a mind reader] means in this short life that we all have in common..

FBB, you remind me of a song "twist and shout" I am thinking of writing a new song with the same sentiments titled "slice and dice"

You believe that you know it all so that gives you the power (entitlement) to speak for all. Yes, you seem to be speaking for a lot of people that you could know nothing about. You think you know the minds of people like our great Founders which is concerning. You seem to be someone of extreme entitlement to use power that way. You make a lot of assumptions about what other people do not know and you do know. You do all that while hiding your identity. Where does your entitlement come from I wonder!?! Maybe your identity would prove your omnipotence!

You believe you know it all. You don't!

You believe you are the decider of all things. You ain't!

You believe you know me and others like Dave. You couldn't!

I think you must know who you are and what you are doing here on this forum and that is the reason why you do not have an identity. A few of your facts are true enough but irrelevant in this forum and maybe even in this lawsuit. Your "agenda" has been exposed!

My advice to us all is to look in the mirror and think about who we are and who we want to be. I guess that only works for us mortals

FBB, if you do look into a mirror and see Perry Mason, please tell him that he is a good actor and I enjoyed the entertainment but I really want to know if he and Stella worked things out...

Or if you see James Madison, please ask him if he enjoyed taking his family to the beach on vacations...

Or if you see Benjamin Franklin, please ask him why he liked to spend so much time in France...Something tells me you will not see Benjamin Franklin

REDICULOUS.

FBB, if you do look into a mirror and see Perry Mason, please tell him that he is a good actor and I enjoyed the entertainment but I really want to know if he and Stella worked things out...

Or if you see James Madison, please ask him if he enjoyed taking his family to the beach on vacations...

Or if you see Benjamin Franklin, please ask him why he liked to spend so much time in France...Something tells me you will not see Benjamin Franklin

I must have missed the early happy hour.

Those of you who are so confident of a win in this case are aware that the burden of proof is on the plaintiffs, aren't you? Frankly I don't know what your proof is? Enlighten us. This isn't exactly a slip and fall case where some slick plaintiffs lawyer impresses a stupid jury.

Anyway here are the real issues in the lawsuit:

Who owns the shoreline and what is the shoreline?
How does a dynamic shoreline be considered static relevant to ownership?
Is the property description in the deeds correct?
What is the USE of the shoreline portion of dry sand (aka the beach)?
Has Beach Use always been considered public?

Actually, NONE OF THOSE ARE ISSUES IN THIS LAWSUIT. They may be part of a future lawsuit, but they are not part of this one.

The BCC is suing to remove property rights (right of exclusion) of private legally deeded property in Walton County so unlimited people with unlimited people may occupy “dry sand” on private property against the will of the property owner. That is the lawsuit.

Specifically the “dry sand” in the lawsuit is defined as “area of the beach is defined as the zone of unconsolidated material that extends landward from the mean high water line to the place where there is marked change in material or physiographic form, or to the line of the permanent vegetation, usually the effective limit of storm waves, which is more seaward”.

And the ONLY evidence is exhibit “B”, specifically “The sources of evidence that the County Commission would rely upon to prove a recreational customary use has been ancient, reasonable, without interruption, and free from dispute are listed on Exhibit “B” which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED in a special session by the Board of County Commissioners for Walton County, Florida, this 3rd day of November 2018.”

Judge Green must rule if removal of property rights (right of exclusion) of legally deeded property between the mean high tide line and the line of permanent vegetation, so people and equipment may occupy private property against the will of the owner, is ancient, reasonable, without interruption, and without dispute. And he only has the evidence provided by the County to make that ruling and no where in exhibit B is anything mentioning that removal of the property rights is reasonable, without interruption, and without dispute (actually just the fact there is a lawsuit with so many defendants shows it is under heavy dispute).

That is it. That is what the Judge must rule on. Nothing else. So tell me, PLEASE, what evidence or arguments that removal of property rights is ancient, reasonable, without interruption, and without dispute? It is costing Walton County Taxpayers and BPO thousands of dollars EVERY DAY waiting on that answer.

Don't take my word for it. Go look it up yourself and see the wording of the lawsuit and evidence. It is open to the public and there are over 1000 court documents on the County Web Site. Case #2018CA547.

SV, I give you credit for being the only one of your group to understand humor.

SP, it would be a mistake for either side to be over confident.

SCJ, you and FBB need to coordinate. His version is different.

Regardless of how simple it all seems to you I doubt the Judge will see it that way. My point is that it all comes down to Judge Green being the decider and not any of us posting in this forum.

In addition the private exclusive beach group has attacked and bullied people over and over. I usually stay in the middle until I see such blatant disrespect which caused me to take sides. I think others will follow so just keep it up.

So thankful for this forum. Giving plenty of rope to bullies to nakedly hang themselves in full view of our wonderful community.

In this environment, maybe Dave will actually consider Reggie’s outreached hand for a face to face, framed as a discussion, not a debate. And who knows? Maybe something genuinely positive will occur.

Two weeks later....
Maybe not.

SCj, your group has admitted your mission is to encourage BPO's to remain "against the will" of public beaches. Many BPO's have been mislead, some support your politics and many are on the fence. The reason you hide your identity is so that those you represent (maybe even yourself) can run for political offices which is like killing two birds with one stone. The first mistake you made is that The People are so ignorant that they would not figure out your purpose. The second mistake you made is that some in your group has attacked and shamed We The People. Reggie/Regina's posts along with FBB's post provide the evidence in this court of public opinion.

The beach area between the "mean high tide line" and "the line of permanent vegetation" will take years of litigation to determine whether it can be privately owned at all. It is a fact that "property descriptions" in a deed can be wrong. You know this and it is the reason why your group is here on this forum keeping those BPO's that are on the fence stirred up and misinformed about protecting their (our) property rights. NO THANK YOU. I would never want anyone who hides their name and then attacks and bullies to represent me on anything.

The dry sand area of coastal shorelines is in dispute because people with money and power desire to control another valuable resource. This is not necessarily a class issue but rather how wealth and power accumulates and maintains their wealth and power thru "capital assets" and that IS the reason for this lawsuit. All this other stuff is to keep us all divided: Property rights vs Human rights, Liberals vs Conservatives, Democrats vs Republicans etc. If Walton County is not successful this will be the beginning of the end of public beaches for future generations as wealth accumulates capital in another limited resource. WE THE PEOPLE SHOULD BE PASSIONATE ABOUT SAVING OUR BEACHES.

Bottom line.
If you own beach property, you can get sued for liability for any injuries on your property.
Supreme Court still holds a Royal Flush.

An owner or lessee who provides the public with an area for outdoor recreational purposes owes no duty of care to keep that area safe for entry or use by others, or to give warning to persons entering or going on that area of any hazardous conditions, structures, or activities on the area. An owner or lessee who provides the public with an area for outdoor recreational purposes:

1. Is not presumed to extend any assurance that the area is safe for any purpose;

2. Does not incur any duty of care toward a person who goes on the area; or

3. Is not liable or responsible for any injury to persons or property caused by the act or omission of a person who goes on the area Chapter 375 Section 251 - 2012 Florida Statutes - The Florida Senate

An owner or lessee who provides the public with an area for outdoor recreational purposes owes no duty of care to keep that area safe for entry or use by others, or to give warning to persons entering or going on that area of any hazardous conditions, structures, or activities on the area. An owner or lessee who provides the public with an area for outdoor recreational purposes:

1. Is not presumed to extend any assurance that the area is safe for any purpose;

2. Does not incur any duty of care toward a person who goes on the area; or

3. Is not liable or responsible for any injury to persons or property caused by the act or omission of a person who goes on the area Chapter 375 Section 251 - 2012 Florida Statutes - The Florida Senate

BFO's are NOT providing any area for recreational purposes or ANY other purpose.

Moot point.

Nice try though.

BFO's are NOT providing any area for recreational purposes or ANY other purpose.

Moot point.

Nice try though.

Well, in the future they might have to and isn’t it nice that the Statute is already there to make it easy for them.

Well, in the future they might have to and isn’t it nice that the Statute is already there to make it easy for them.

Maybe. And maybe the CU supporters will lighten up on their hate and hypocrisy pointed at the BFO's.

Are BFOs also expected to pick up trash that slobs leave behind if their back yard is ruled to be a public beach?

Are BFOs also expected to pick up trash that slobs leave behind if their back yard is ruled to be a public beach?

Now that's funny. Since Beachfront Owners lawyers in their infinite wisdom talked them into stopping trash pickup by the county on OUR beaches. The good County trash pickup folks can take care of that as they had for decades if you wish.

Dave Rauschkolb, that is only the first third of section (2). This is NOT an open ended limitation of liability as you posted. You inconveniently (purposely?) left out the qualifying remainder of the Statute 375.251. Your credibility suffers when you leave out facts you want us all to consider. Did FBFA attorney Daniel Uhlfelder give you legal advise to exclude the written agreement with the State?

Interesting the specific “recreational purposes” do not include any coastal dry beach activates.

(2)(b) “… makes available to any person an area primarily for the purposes of hunting, fishing, or wildlife viewing is entitled to the limitation on liability provided herein so long as the owner or lessee provides written notice of this provision to the person before or at the time of entry upon the area or posts notice of this provision conspicuously upon the area.”

I’m guessing CU believers are OK with 1,192 BPOs posting on their dry sand beach a large conspicuous sign with this legal notice. Right?

(5)(b) “Outdoor recreational purposes” includes, but is not limited to, hunting, fishing, wildlife viewing, swimming, boating, camping, picnicking, hiking, pleasure driving, nature study, water skiing, motorcycling, and visiting historical, archaeological, scenic, or scientific sites.

Seems clear the 2012 legislature had inland lands, riparian waters, and parks in mind. Did not have the littoral dry sand beach recreation in mind or you’d think they would have listed at least one beach activity; but I would guess CU believers argue the beach falls under the “… but is not limited to, … part. Only a judge can interpret the statute ambiguities.

Here is the current official Florida Statute Chap 375 Sec 251
Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine
Not the 2012 Senate Legislative page that has not been updated since 2012.

FBB, I do not see how the Judge will allow the liability issue as evidence until he rules on the lawsuit. Your group is desperate to encourage BFO's to stay in the lawsuit and you have a credibility issue. The only way you can overcome this lack of credibility is to be honest about who you are. That should make sense to most everyone in the community including BFO's and non BFO's. I don't care whether you do or not I am just explaining why it is important to have credibility.

Dave Rauschkolb, here's another fact you and vocal CU believers never talk about. The State Parks DO NOT permit Walton TDC trash vehicles on the miles of State beachfront property, as is the State's right and power to do as beachfront property owners. The TDC could pickup trash on either side, from the east and west, of private properties that also prohibit TDC vehicles but the State Parks vehicle prohibitions block access from the east or west and strand a few sections of beach that the TDC can not drive (and leave the beautiful tire tracks or drag marks) on. The TDC published a PDF beach trash map. The TDC can access the beach from the road at all 56 public beach accesses too - just like the tourist. The State of Florida blocks many times MORE Walton beachfront that the TDC can NOT drive on the the few BPOs. Can't smoke or have pets in Florida Parks either; but BPOs can't prohibit the public on their private property; unless they have uninterrupted quiet use and enjoyment protected by the Constitution and American courts.