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...
Customary Use and Our 30A Legacy
- Thread starter Reggie Gaskins
- Start date
-
Trouble logging in? Send us a message with your username and/or email address for help.
Thank you! I guess making simple points is so easy when you're not charging your client per minute!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
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?
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).
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).
Last edited:
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".
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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".
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.