Back to All About SoWal

Customary Use and Our 30A Legacy

Reggie Gaskins avatar
Beach Lover
526,502 views2
upload_2019-4-25_8-30-52.jpeg
When you see a PCB or Destin bumper sticker, what thought immediately comes to mind? Probably same for all of us with any time spent here - nice, but it ain’t 30A! Do you remember why you started renting/visiting here? What was it? Remember when you bought your first 30A property? Why here?
Because it was DIFFERENT, right? Remember the words you used to describe it to family and friends as you invited them here? “Private” “Quiet” “Intimate” “Less crowded”. That wasn’t by accident. The entire genetic code of Sowal beaches is because of the private ownership and neighborhood beach personalities.
You could rent “private beach”. You could buy “private beach”. There wasn’t a free for all frat party atmosphere because of unlimited public beach access on the sands. That behavior was regulated by the privately owned property where such behavior was immediately squelched. And yet, by custom, no one was ever “Kicked off” of private beaches because owners don’t do that unless bad actors abuse the privilege.
Walton County has always had more than 50% PUBLIC beach. Still does. That hasn’t changed. There are now deliberately misleading fear tactics out there with scary words like “Quiet Title” and “Privatization”, neither of which have affected one single square inch of public beach, not one. Yet, the mob mentality, orchestrated by local carnival barkers eager for fame and notoriety, and dollars, have mislead the citizens and deliberately tried to divide the community in a shell game of Customary Use.
The fact is that the county outran the capabilities of local Commissioners to plan for growth 20 years ago, and we haven’t improved that talent to deal with it even yet. So the County, in failing to plan beach availability, tried to illegally claim private property as public, without following the laws requiring judicial oversight. The local Good Ol’ Boys overreached their authority and got caught by the adults in Tallahassee. So they then decides to sue 4,800 of Sowal citizens to take their property. That’s right, your tax money is being spent, and a lot of it, to SUE almost 5,000 of your neighbors, and steal what they agreed to purchase at a premium, and have a deed to prove it.
Don’t blame them please, they didn’t want or ask for this fight. They live here and care for these beaches just like you and me. Go meet them, they are truly the eclectic fabric of 30A. The signs they had to put up are just in defense of this new orchestrated public attack against them.
The bottom line is this: The minute you release the public to occupy all of Sowal beaches, you IMMEDIATELY get nasty Destin and PCB problems. How will you feel about that 30A sticker then? Nostalgic? Me too.

03BC6F35-C70B-476E-8581-BDFB287ECF68.jpeg

Replies

2,312
kayti elliott avatar
Beach Lover
#1777
This thread attracts Aholes and lawyers like flies on a dogpile.
Is customary user your real name?
Beach Lover
#1778
Is customary user your real name?
Buzz Buzz
Beach Fanatic
#1779
FBB, I have GREAT answers for all your irrelevant, incredible and untruthful questions or false application of one fact that you repeatedly state in order to bait people into an emotion. Answers that come from natural laws that each and every one of us should strive to live by. Answers that come from legal precedent. Answers that come from many facts and truthful observations. I do not hide behind a computer. Your purpose here is not what you say it is. You are not who you say you are. I work, play and live here. I am in the 30A area most every week of the year and talk to a LOT of people. All your searching for information on me proves you are not who you say you are and that your methods are dishonest and dishonorable. The only fact that matters that come from your posts is that you are not a credible provider of truth or fact.

Here is your chance to prove your credibility in my offer to be more social and meet for a fish fry summit. If credibility and truth is part of your message then I see no reason why you would refuse. You can bring anyone from your group. If I were a BPO I would welcome a different tone. So far you have been very anti-social/anti-community. This is your chance! Put a face to your attacks on me or anyone else who disagrees with you. Put a face to your words. I offer you food, drink and a relaxed atmosphere from which to honor your words because I am not insulted by your attacks on me. I understand your tactics and I believe that you will behave better in a community setting. Surely you will not attack those that disagree with you when you see that we are hard working decent people who just want to go to the beach for the sole purpose of LLH. I/We have no other motive for wanting to go to any beach and forever so that future generations of our families will be able to enjoy this limited and amazing resource. At our summit you will have ample opportunity to explain your motives for excluding people from the beach. You say that excluding people from the beach is a power that comes from our Constitution and Bill of rights. I say that excluding people from the beach comes from an abuse of power. This will be good for your credibility and prove me wrong. It would be good for BPO's who enjoy this community as well as the beach. If you are a BPO reading this post please encourage FBB and the others that support private beaches to be honorable and attend my offer of a fish fry summit.
kayti elliott avatar
Beach Lover
#1780
Buzz Buzz
Is EZ4144 your real name? If so what planet do your forbears come from?
Beach Lover
#1781
Is EZ4144 your real name? If so what planet do your forbears come from?
buzz :poop: buzz
stone packard avatar
Beach Lover
#1782
Judge Green is not affected by anything said here on this forum. That is a fact!
I certainly hope the judge doesn't even read the bravo sierra on this forum. I'll also be glad when he rules on it and the issue can be put to bed.
Reggie Gaskins avatar
Beach LoverAuthor
#1783
I certainly hope the judge doesn't even read the bravo sierra on this forum. I'll also be glad when he rules on it and the issue can be put to bed.
Well SP, after sitting in Judge Green’s CU process hearing today, it appears he has indeed studied up on at least the same legal principles studied here on this thread. It seems as though he might even be leaning, based on his questions, towards a quick ruling on Nov 12 that renders this lawsuit against 5,000 citizens, forever Tango Uniform. Interesting development.
bob bob avatar
Beach Fanatic
#1784
Well SP, after sitting in Judge Green’s CU process hearing today, it appears he has indeed studied up on at least the same legal principles studied here on this thread. It seems as though he might even be leaning, based on his questions, towards a quick ruling on Nov 12 that renders this lawsuit against 5,000 citizens, forever Tango Uniform. Interesting development.
I have no idea what that means.
FloridaBeachBum avatar
Beach Fanatic
#1785
Well bob bob unsure what part of “that” you do not understand. To break it out.
SP is user name stone packard.
Judge Green is the First Judicial Circuit Court of Florida juror hearing plaintiff Walton County Commissions evidence to affirm Walton’s complaint that all people in the world have, old English common law use of Walton private beach property.
Some of the customary use legal principles include from 7 to 4 old English custom common law doctrine criteria depending which English or American court you cite.
A quick ruling of the plaintiff’s, Walton Commissioners, customary use of all 1,193 Defendant American private beachfront property parcels and 4,670 owners that Walton individually notified and file suite against. About 650+ parcels and 2,600 property owners that have hired 34 attorneys (that’s about 76 owners per attorney), have intervened to protect their Constitutional 5th and 14th individual property right, from the Commissioners’ taking of their property right to choose to share their private property or not. Just like every American.
Obviously you have not served in the military. Tango Uniform is the phonetic alphabet words for T and U. You can look up that slang meaning but means something does not work, is broken, or can’t be fixed. Kinda like the CU credibility of vocal CU believer’s beliefs.

Edited

PoppaJ avatar
SoWal Insider
#1786
I am a veteran familiar with the NATO phonetic alphabet and I also have no idea what is being conveyed. Checking with the urban dictionary the phrase that fits your definition of does not work, broken, can’t be fixed is Trump University. Amirite?
Beach Crab
#1787
Because the local newspaper has posted nothing on the very important hearing yesterday please provide more information about issues that were discussed and how the judge responded. Thanks.


Well bob bob unsure what part of “that” you do not understand. To break it out.
SP is user name stone packard.
Judge Green is the First Judicial Circuit Court of Florida juror hearing plaintiff Walton County Commissions evidence to affirm Walton’s complaint that all people in the world have, old English common law use of Walton private beach property.
Some of the customary use legal principles include from 7 to 4 old English custom common law doctrine criteria depending which English or American court you cite.
A quick ruling of the plaintiff’s, Walton Commissioners, customary use of all 1,193 Defendant American private beachfront property parcels and 4,670 owners that Walton individually notified and file suite against. About 650+ parcels and 2,600 property owners that have hired 34 attorneys (that’s about 76 owners per attorney), have intervened to protect their Constitutional 5th and 14th individual property right, from the Commissioners’ taking of their property right to choose to share their private property or not. Just like every American.
Obviously you have not served in the military. Tango Uniform is the phonetic alphabet words for T and U. You can look up that slang meaning but means something does not work, is broken, or can’t be fixed. Kinda like the CU credibility of vocal CU believer’s beliefs.
bob bob avatar
Beach Fanatic
#1788
Well bob bob unsure what part of “that” you do not understand. To break it out.
SP is user name stone packard.
Judge Green is the First Judicial Circuit Court of Florida juror hearing plaintiff Walton County Commissions evidence to affirm Walton’s complaint that all people in the world have, old English common law use of Walton private beach property.
Some of the customary use legal principles include from 7 to 4 old English custom common law doctrine criteria depending which English or American court you cite.
A quick ruling of the plaintiff’s, Walton Commissioners, customary use of all 1,193 Defendant American private beachfront property parcels and 4,670 owners that Walton individually notified and file suite against. About 650+ parcels and 2,600 property owners that have hired 34 attorneys (that’s about 76 owners per attorney), have intervened to protect their Constitutional 5th and 14th individual property right, from the Commissioners’ taking of their property right to choose to share their private property or not. Just like every American.
Obviously you have not served in the military. Tango Uniform is the phonetic alphabet words for T and U. You can look up that slang meaning but means something does not work, is broken, or can’t be fixed. Kinda like the CU credibility of vocal CU believer’s beliefs.
Have you always been so unclear in your communications or did you learn that in law school? Thanks for trying though.

Can someone in plain english tell us what happened and what it means?
30A Skunkape avatar
Skunky
#1789
Have you always been so unclear in your communications or did you learn that in law school? Thanks for trying though.

Can someone in plain english tell us what happened and what it means?

As best as I can tell, Reggie Gaskins was there and speculates that based on the line of the judge's questioning he is going to throw out the CU lawsuits. Of course, RG is probably ripe for confirmation bias, so, take it for what it is. The big reveal is 11/12/19:popcorn:
kayti elliott avatar
Beach Lover
#1790
Come on anonymous Elliott, you’re smart enough to know that “our“ means collective humanity going back millennia.
Does "collective humanity" include Native Americans and their rights under ancient English common law? I think they were here long before the Rauschkolbs came here from Germany. It is German is it not?
Beach Fanatic
#1791
If I were a BPO who is depending on credible information I believe I would double check Reggie/Regina's seating arrangement at the hearing. Since of course none of us enjoy being played for Bravo Sierra I think we should give him/her the benefit of the doubt. But even if Reggie/Regina has a crystal ball and knows the mind of Judge Green toward a quick ruling in favor of those that want to exclude families from the beach now and forever I wonder if he/she knows if that will be that on public vs private beach. If the beach is now prime real estate for the highest bidders I wonder how long before the beaches completely disappear from view or access as wealth takes control of yet another beautiful resource. As Reggie/Regina would say the facts are the facts...
bob bob avatar
Beach Fanatic
#1792
As best as I can tell, Reggie Gaskins was there and speculates that based on the line of the judge's questioning he is going to throw out the CU lawsuits. Of course, RG is probably ripe for confirmation bias, so, take it for what it is. The big reveal is 11/12/19:popcorn:
Thank you! I guess making simple points is so easy when you're not charging your client per minute!
Beach Lover
#1793
Has there been any mention by the WCC that they will appeal if Judge Green rules in favor of the BPO's? And any mention / discussion on how much of OUR tax money will be used for that step?
BlueMtnBeachVagrant avatar
Beach Fanatic
#1794
Good questions. Don’t think the county will “give up” if they lose the first go-round in court. The BCC’s majority of constituents wouldn’t have it any other way - a victory (or loss) “at all costs”. And to answer your 2nd question, again, Sarah Commander said they’re willing to spend 40 to 50 million dollars.

There appears to be 2 real issues that Judge Green will review in November:
1. The constitutionality of customary use;
2. Whether or not the 600+ parcels will be tried as one case (as the county desperately wants to happen out of shear convenience and cost) or whether they should be tried on a case by case basis (as determined in Trepanier v. County of Volusia).

Personally, I don’t see how customary use with all its vagueness can stand up against the Constitution.

And if Judge Green decides against the county from trying all private parcels as one case, then Sarah Commander’s monetary prediction of 40 to 50 million dollars may come true much to the delight of all attorneys involved.

For the record, I predicted as much over 12 years ago (click).

Edited

Beach Lover
#1795
Can someone in plain english tell us what happened and what it means?

On Oct 21 Judge Green held 2 Hearings but made no rulings other than to Continue the Stay (in other words the yellow caution flag is out and everything is on hold until a few particular motions are ruled on). It is expected the Judge will rule on the first 2 items below prior to the next Court Hearing on Nov 12.

The two items from the Oct 21 hearings were:

A. “Motion to Determine Jurisdiction and to Extend Time”. This is based on 2018CA547 Court Doc #492 (Mead), #996 (Mead), #1043 (reply to 996 by County), and #1056 (Mead reply to #1043).

B. Motion to Stay and for Case Status Conference. This is based on 2018CA547 Court Doc #795 (Dunaway) # 1041 (supplement by Dunaway), # 1055 (reply by County to #1041) and #1074 (Dunaway reply to #1055)

From the documents:

The County has alleged conclusion that use of private property against the will of the property owners has not been supported with facts. The information provided by County is “uninformative to the point of being cryptic and clearly insufficient”.

“The overriding requirement is that the claimant’s pleadings be sufficiently clear and direct to make it unnecessary for the respondent or the court to be clairvoyant in ascertaining the nature of the claim”

“First, the County has shot gunned thousands of properties into an action without any pleaded allegation to show just how each legally unique property in its history has been particular burdened by the County’s claims. Second, the County’s claims of supposed customary use are alleged in a wholly conclusory fashion, without factual allegations of any kind (conclusions without supporting factual allegations do not suffice)”.

County has not “plead factual matter sufficient to apprise the adversary of what he is called upon to answer so the court may determine the legal effect of the complaint”

It is often noted that “to allege murder is a conclusion; to allege that one party killed another deliberately and intentionally without legal justification or excuse represents “ultimate facts;” and to allege the detail of the attached itself is to allege evidence. The County has alleged a conclusion without facts or evidence.

“the use of the shore is public” but if the dry sand adjacent to the short is private property then the property owner has the right to exclude people and or beach equipment.

“the County’s response is remarkable only for what it completely lacks".
Beach Fanatic
#1796
Okay I have read some of the contents of the hearing and I would say to Reggie/Regina not so fast. The county seems to be "sufficiently clear" in conclusion of it's determination of customary beach use by the public. It will be up to Judge Green to determine if the evidence of customary use supports the conclusion. Not one of us know how Judge Green will rule.

Also, it seems that the county had no statutory requirement to limit the number of properties in the lawsuit.

What is remarkable is the complete lack of credibility coming from the power brokers. There is no way for any of us to know without a doubt what will happen in this lawsuit. The Justice system will dispense Justice...eventually.
Beach Lover
#1797
The county seems to be "sufficiently clear" in conclusion of it's determination of customary beach use by the public.

What have you reviewed that has allowed you to conclude that the county is "sufficiently clear" that forced occupation of private property of unlimited people with unlimited beach equipment, against the will of the deeded property owner, is ancient, reasonable, without interruption and without dispute?

So far the county has not provided it so if you have seen any documentation or arguments please share it!
Beach Fanatic
#1798
SCJ, the lawyers will submit the evidence, the Judge will rule on the motions and the court will dispense Justice. You and I are spectators and all we can do is speculate. I speculate that the evidence is similar to the words of one of our founding fathers, "self-evident". You can whoop and holler all you want but it matters not to anything in Judge Green's court or this court of public opinion.

The only thing that you and I can dispense is our opinions. My opinion is based on the many people I have spoken with that have been in these parts for generations. Their conclusion is that Walton County's beaches have been "reasonably" used by the public without "interruption" and without "dispute" for many generations. So, in my opinion that is evidence enough. But of course you will disagree because you are who again? Live where again? Do what again? All you have to do is answer one of those questions for credibility yet you keep stating one thing over and over. I have even offered you a chance to prove your self importance by attending a fish fry summit yet you keep your identity hidden. I answered your question so why not answer mine?

If you and FBB are one and the same I have more observations about the Declaration of Independence, The US Constitution and Majority and Minority rights. I read the information that FBB hyperlinked to certify your arguments of a supreme protection of individual rights to a limited natural resource that has been used by the public for generations. One problem though. It makes your arguments about how the Constitution protects individual rights look more like an abuse of power in terms of exclusive private beaches. I have someone who would like to debate you during our public fish fry summit. Are you willing to participate in a debate during my sponsorship of a fish fry summit? This is your chance to honor your words, prove credibility and prove your self importance to the complex nature of this issue.
kayti elliott avatar
Beach Lover
#1799
I always thought that the courts ruled on constitutional law. So, is the court supposed to cast aside the law and rule on the basis of ancient English common law and all the silly affidavits where people claim that they've been enjoying the beach for centuries? Oh and let's be sure that the judge is aware of those mean old "power brokers".
Beach Fanatic
#1800
Kathryn, The court will weigh the evidence, interpret the many laws, legal precedent and finally rule accordingly. The mean old power brokers are here to keep people upset. Apparently it is working otherwise we would all just wait and let the court do it's job.
FactorFiction avatar
Beach Fanatic
#1801
I have someone who would like to debate you during our public fish fry summit. Are you willing to participate in a debate during my sponsorship of a fish fry summit? This is your chance to honor your words, prove credibility and prove your self importance to the complex nature of this issue.

Unfortunately, a public debate at this point probably wouldn't alter people's opinions and would be a moot point since the case is in court. Until there are some rulings or new information, seems that the current topics have been exhausted.

Checking your forum account

Please wait while we verify your forum account.

New posts