Led Away In Handcuffs Update Update

Yes, we would!!! :funn: :funn: :funn:

the state wants to avoid litigation....

They know that SJ doesn't want to sit on anymore juries. :roll:

The owner dropped the charges because they feared the outcome.

They know that SJ doesn't want to sit on anymore juries. :roll:

:funn:

They know that SJ doesn't want to sit on anymore juries. :roll:

Now there is a jury on which I would love to sit.

I'd also love to hear why the Attorney General dismissed the case. Is it because he wants to avoid going there, or perhaps he thinks it is a ridiculous case since the public has been using the beach for a long, long time?

Thanks for giving us the 411, Andy A, because I was planning on driving up there tomorrow to get the inside report.

It will be interesting to see the reasoning of the Attorney General. I can tell you that the Solicitor General who is 2nd under the AG was the one that represented the FDEP in the beach nourishment lawsuit at the State Supreme Court. That case hinged on public/private ownership before and after a project, and the customary use doctrine was discussed. Also, Governor Crist allowed the Secretary of the Department of Community Affairs to continue to serve as counsel for Walton County. At that time, it appeared that the state believed in the public's right to use the beach.

Is this area in question clearly marked and posted, as private property, no tresspassing?

If not, I can't see they had any legal ground to stand on.

Or actually I guess that would be legal sand to stand on.

Is this area in question clearly marked and posted, as private property, no tresspassing?

If not, I can't see they had any legal ground to stand on.

Or actually I guess that would be legal sand to stand on.

It isn't well marked at all. At The Retreat, the private property signs are located at the foot of the cliff/dunes, at the private walkovers. Not on the beaches. The neighboring properties' private property signs are located at the western and eastern ends of the beach, violating the laws regarding items left on the beach overnight.

They know that SJ doesn't want to sit on anymore juries. :roll:

Now there is a jury on which I would love to sit.

I'd also love to hear why the Attorney General dismissed the case. Is it because he wants to avoid going there, or perhaps he thinks it is a ridiculous case since the public has been using the beach for a long, long time?

Thanks for giving us the 411, Andy A, because I was planning on driving up there tomorrow to get the inside report.

SJ and all, please bear with me as I am not very computer literate. The case number on Eduardo Gonzalez is 07001092MMMA. He entered "No Plea". I am not a lawyer so I don't know what that means. He is on probation for 3 months and then the matter will be expunged, according to my understanding. You may find the entire sequence of events by going to the Walton County website and the Clerk of the Court section. When you search the misdemeanor file under the Criminal court, only use the 1092 portion of the case number. Once you find the case, click on the case # in the upper left hand corner and that will lead you to the sequence of events on the case. It is my understanding from reading the sequence that nothing regardin use of the beach has changed. According to a representative from the Attorney General's office I talked to yesterday, there is a case before the Florida Supreme Court that will affect that issue. I don't know if that is the one from Okaloosa County or not. This brings all of you up-to-date on the case. The case has been completed.

892-8030 is the State Attorney, not the Attorney General. Two different levels entirely.

And I can think of several reasons that the State Attorney's office would drop this case like a hot potato, but I don't know for sure and that's one agency I don't gossip about. Otherwise, I'll be sharing a cell with SJ. ;-)

Andy, to be not so internet savvy, you sure seem to know a lot about where to find this info. Thanks for the info.

Here is the history of the case >>>clicky<<<

892-8030 is the State Attorney, not the Attorney General. Two different levels entirely.

And I can think of several reasons that the State Attorney's office would drop this case like a hot potato, but I don't know for sure and that's one agency I don't gossip about. Otherwise, I'll be sharing a cell with SJ. ;-)

I better go search YouTube.com for tips on escaping from handcuffs and jailbreaks. Now who is in charge of baking the "cake?"

CASE NUMBERFILE DATECASE TYPESTATUS662007MM001092XXAXMX
[07001092MMMA]07/09/2007MisdemeanorCLOSED CASE CHARGE SEQ#STATUTESTATUTE TEXTDATEPHASE1810092aTRESPASS ON PROPERTY08/31/2007Court: Pre-trial Diversion [DEFENDANT=GONZALEZ, EDUARDO I ALSO KNOWN AS=EDUARDO, GONZALEZ I ALSO KNOWN AS=EDUARDO, GONZALEZ I ]
[JUDGE=GREEN, DAVID W] LAST DOCKET DATE=09/10/2007 DISPOSITION DATE=08/31/2007 [Court Events | Finance Info] ACTION DATETEXT07/05/2007ARREST SEQ: 107/09/2007CASE FILED WITH CLERK07/09/20071. ARREST REPORT FILED/TW.07/09/20072. TRESPASS WARNING/TW.07/09/20073. OFFENSE REPORT FILED/TW.07/09/20074. FINGERPRINT CARD FILED AND SEALED/TW.07/09/20075. AFFIDAVIT OF INDIGENCY STATUS FILED/TW.07/09/2007AFFIDAVIT FOR INDIGENCY DENIED BASED ON INCOMPLETE APPLICATION.07/09/20076. PROVISIONAL ORDER APPOINTING COUNSEL FILED.07/09/2007UNSIGNED/TW.07/09/20077. SURETY BOND ASK3K20897 Posted 500.00/TW.07/09/20078. RELEASE SHEET FILED/TW.07/11/2007JUDGE DAVID W GREEN ASSIGNED07/11/2007PROSECUTOR: MICHAEL A TABOR ASSIGNED07/11/2007PLEA DAY - COASTAL SET FOR 08/16/2007 AT 09:00 IN C/A,07/11/2007JDG: DAVID W GREEN07/11/2007NOTICE MAILED TO DEFENDANT/TW.07/11/2007NOTICE MAILED TO BONDSMAN/TW.07/16/20079. NOTICE OF APPEARANCE FILED BY:07/16/2007MARTIN W. LESTER JW07/16/200710. NOT GUILTY PLEA, DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL AND07/16/2007REQUEST FOR TEN DAYS WITHIN WHICH TO CHALLENGE THE07/16/2007LEGAL SUFFICIENCY OF THE INFORMATION JW07/16/200711. NOTICE OF DISCOVERY JW07/18/2007DEFENSE ATTY: MARTIN W LESTER ASSIGNED07/18/2007PRETRIAL MISD SET FOR 09/12/2007 AT 09:00 IN M/A, JDG:07/18/2007DAVID W GREEN07/18/2007NOTICE MAILED TO DEFENDANT, ATTORNEY AND BONDSMAN. JW08/15/200712. DISCOVERY EXHIBIT; JL08/28/2007PROSECUTOR: JENNIFER A LIEB ASSIGNED08/31/2007DEFENDANT ENTERED PLEA OF NO PLEA ENTERED SEQ: 108/31/2007DEFENDANT APPEARED With ATTY FOR NO TRIAL TRIAL SEQ: 108/31/2007PRE-TRIAL DIVERSION SEQ: 108/31/2007DEFENDANT SENTENCED AS FOLLOWS: - CHRG 108/31/2007ASSESSED MM DPA AGREEMENT 185.00 DUE 11/29/200708/31/200713. DEFERRED PROSECUTION AGREEMENT FILED BD08/31/2007THE DEFENDANT MUST HAVE NO VIOLATIONS OF THE LAW08/31/2007IN A 3 MONTH PERIOD.08/31/2007THE DEFENDANT WAIVES THE RIGHT TO A SPEEDY TRIAL.08/31/2007THE DEFENDANT MUST PAY 185.00 IN COURT COST.08/31/2007IF ALL CONDITIONS HAVE BEEN MET,08/31/2007THE STATE WILL FILE A NO PROSECUTION.08/31/2007CASE CLOSED.08/31/2007DEFENDANT APPEARED By ATTY SEQ: 109/10/200714. COVER LETTER FROM MARTIN LESTER. JL
he pleaded out so he didn't win in my veiw. The Court system has once again failed.

Andy, to be not so internet savvy, you sure seem to know a lot about where to find this info. Thanks for the info.

Here is the history of the case >>>clicky<<<

SJ, not greenroomsurfer's last post. While I am half way decent at research, I can't move "stuff" around on the net like he did.

SJ, not greenroomsurfer's last post. While I am half way decent at research, I can't move "stuff" around on the net like he did.

Some formats like that excel format, become difficult to read when copied and pasted. It is much easier to understand in the original format which I linked to.

I meant note not not. And greenroomsurfer is right, in my opinion, the court system certainly did not work as far as solving the problem.

OOPS! It looks like my link has now restored to a blank search page. To find the case, under "Case Search,"
enter 2007 for the year,
enter 1092 for the sequence
enter Misdemeanor (MM) for Court Type
Then, click "search."

Here is the link again.

When faced with 6 month jail time, it may be easier to pay the $185 and stay out of the way of the Law for 90 days. I'd want a good lawyer, not a court appointed lawyer, representing me, and that costs $$$$. Sometimes, personal obligations also take precedence over standing up to make a point.

From Sept. 15th Walton Sun:

Beach trespasser does not receive sentence

By Sean Boone sean_boone@link.freedom.com


Atlanta resident Eduardo Gonzalez, who was arrested in July for trespassing in Blue Mountain Beach, had his judicial hearing dropped this week by the state of Florida. Gonzalez agreed to pay a DPA fine of $185 and fulfill three-months probation. On July 5, Gonzalez was sitting on the beach near the Retreat resort?s private property in Blue Mountain beach when he was asked repeatedly by security to move to the wet sand area or vacate the premises. After he refused, numerous Walton Deputies escorted him off the beach and arrested him for trespassing.
Gonzalez was not available for comment for this story.
Walton County uses the wet sand area of the beach as a guiding line for public and private property. Private property can be walked across but not used as a beach access or area of loitering.
Since the Gonzalez arrest, there have been no additional beach arrests by the Walton County Sheriff?s Office.

Wow, $185 and 3 months probation for sitting on the beach behind The Retreat. Was he allegedly doing anything else? If so he certainly would have been charged it sounds like.