South Walton's Community Website
Beach Like A Local!
Create Account
New posts

BlueMtnBeachVagrant

Beach Fanatic
Jun 20, 2005
1,289
375
The reddish shaded property in the fake news picture above was never deeded as public property. As you can see from the recorded court document below, the sandy part of the beach was transferred by a court appointed trustee of the two original (now defunct) corporations who had legal ownership/interest in that property. It was never public beach except for the imaginations of the Walton Sun and, of course, Florida Beaches for All - a proven LIE.

Lot 1 Block 10 Document

By the way, I found this thanks to the caption under the image "Source: Walton County Tax Appraiser". The above document link comes directly from the tax appraiser's page. If I were the Walton County Tax Appraiser, I'd be really upset that the Walton Sun made this public beach claim citing WCTA as the source.

How is the public supposed to know what the truth is with sources like the Walton Sun and FBFA?
 

Attachments

  • Lot 1 Block 1 beach transfer.pdf
    103 KB · Views: 18

BlueMtnBeachVagrant

Beach Fanatic
Jun 20, 2005
1,289
375
NW FL Daily Fake News photo looks exactly like the CU images provocateur Chase G. produced that FBFA used in Feb 2019 and FBFA took at face value because that was what FBFA believes to be factual. Can Tom Mc(Laugh)lin deny Chase G. did not produce this intentionally false image. The Walton PA given credit did not.
#7 A shrinking public beach in South Walton
OMG! I missed your post in the other thread. You're right! Graphics look juvenile(shly) the same!!!!
Yep. I do expect "mistruths" (being nice for the moment) from Dave Rauschkolb and other CU supporters but not from a so-called "newspaper" or "journalist". I can truly start to see and understand the concept of "fake news" from a first hand and very informed basis.

Oh, and I'm confused a tad when you said, "The Walton PA given credit did not." Did not what?

Added....Nevermind. I see. "The Walton PA, given credit, did not produce this intentionally false image."
 
Last edited:

Stone Cold J

Beach Lover
Jun 6, 2019
150
171
SRB
Scj, the truth is I do not know the answer.

There is no such law that states that Walton County does not have authority to apply a general public recreational use

Actually, there is a Florida law that states Walton County does NOT have authority to apply a general public recreational use to private property. That is why the BCC is in court.

The court has no authority to create laws, but the court does have authority to make judicial rulings on existing laws. I assume your "laws of man" are the laws made by the legislative branch of the government and not along the lines of the recreational beach use "frisbee law".
 

mputnal

Beach Fanatic
Nov 10, 2009
1,889
466
SCJ, first let me state the obvious. Your group act like a bunch of know it all's but obviously you are not. You are here on this social media forum for an irresponsible, combative and deceiving purpose. Why is it so hard to be honest about your purpose?

You are wrong again about Florida Law. There is no law that states that Walton County has NO authority to declare general public recreational to the beach. The law states that there is a process that must first be followed and that is what they are doing. That is what I said before and what I have to keep saying only because you do not read very well. Sorry to say that but go back and reread what I said.

Again, the only reason we have a massive lawsuit is because elite wealth and power has convinced BPO's to exclude all people (including families throwing frisbee's) as a Constitutional right. The facts are that these beaches have been shared in the past with the public for general recreational use. The County is within their right to make the declaration of recreational beach use based on the evidence. That declaration is the truth and what your group is promoting is an irresponsible disassociation within this community and the truth that these beaches have always been shared. Eventually truth and justice will meet. Because of people like you and your group there will be a lot of money spent to finally arrive at truth and justice.

Laws are sometimes conflicting. If you were an attorney you would know this. Laws of nature are not conflicting. If you were part of this beach community you would know this. I am not a lawyer but if I were I would ask the court how general recreational beach use would NOT be considered "reasonable, ancient, uninterrupted and free of dispute"! The evidence would be in the fact that if you tried to fence the beach for the purpose of private use the laws of nature would remove it. There is no dispute of the power of nature over man. When this gets to the Supreme Court where there is creative non-linear thought toward the intent of the laws of man this will be the prevailing truth. "So go ahead and slice and dice but your purpose here is not nice" part of the lyrics to THE POWER BROKER TRAP...
 

FloridaBeachBum

Beach Fanatic
Feb 9, 2017
463
112
Santa Rosa Beach
I'm not an attorney either but I do take the time to study the facts. Not make up fake laws.

mputnal #1955 "There is no law that states that Walton County has NO authority to declare general public recreational to the beach."
That's like saying there is no law that says anybody can litigate a complaint against anybody else. Anybody can litigate anything against anybody. That's due process. But as a rule, not commenting about 2018CA547, any frivolous Plaintiff complaint will promptly be dismissed and the Plaintiff could be libel for Defendant legal expenses.

FLORIDA Statute 163.035 Establishment of recreational customary use.—
(1) DEFINITION.—The term “governmental entity” includes an agency of the state, a regional or a local government [Walton County] created by the State Constitution or by general or special act, any county or municipality, or any other entity that independently exercises governmental authority.
(2) ORDINANCES AND RULES RELATING TO CUSTOMARY USE.— A governmental entity may not adopt or keep in effect an ordinance or rule that finds, determines, relies on, or is based upon customary use of any portion of a beach above the mean high-water line, as defined in s. 177.27, unless such ordinance or rule is based on a judicial declaration affirming recreational customary use on such beach.

How else would you describe this law? No county has the authority to do what Walton commissioners did in 2016 and just declare by ordnance all private beaches are subject to public customary use without de novo due process as Plaintiff first.

Most of the south Walton "community" who have been here for a while (where do you reside?) know before 2016 Walton county's used it's Police POWER to prevent placing signs and "obstacles" (fences) on their littoral property. Until the Goodwins first amendment case prevailed Goodwin v. Walton County, Florida | Pacific Legal Foundation and Walton County had to revise it's ordinances to allow signs to mark property boundaries. FS 810.11 2.(b) does not require property to be fenced. The Walton Sheriff 2015 trespass SOP describes how lawfully recognized deeded beachfront to the MHWL can be identified with a survey and stakes to enforce trespass, if BPOs so choose. Because BPO have legally recognized private property rights to choose to share their beach property or not, out of grace, most BPOs have not enforce their Constitutional property rights (even if the Sheriff would enforce the law). Most BPO have choosen to not exercise their right to quiet uninterrupted enjoyment of their property. BPO grace may change if the Plaintiffs (Walton county and FBFA) with the CU burden of proof does not prevail. Easy to be creative and not credible with no private property skin in the game or your own money on the line.

Unsure what is "... irresponsible, combative and deceiving purpose." about stating credible facts? What is the CU believers response? Emotional lyrics and memes? Can't wait for the creative incredible Walton Commissioner's POLICE POWERS TRAP .... Hope it is better than the other vocal CU believers lyrics and memes. You keep posting your creative incredible CU beliefs and many will keep showing you why they are not credible?

Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine
(b) It shall not be necessary to give notice by posting on any enclosed land or place not exceeding 5 acres in area on which there is a dwelling house in order to obtain the benefits of ss. 810.09 and 810.12 pertaining to trespass on enclosed lands.
 

mputnal

Beach Fanatic
Nov 10, 2009
1,889
466
Fbb, THE POWER BROKER TRAP exactly describes your purpose. Bait, set and trap. Bait with bombastic statements. Set by dividing the community. Trap those that take the bait. Your personal questions to me have been asked an answered. You quote rules and laws to me that you think proves some point. We can go back and forth all day and forever. We humans do the best we can to define the parameters of behavior in a civil society. We would not need a Justice System if it were easy. For example: the beach is over 5 acres. Enclosed means enclosed. Beach sand has pretty much one use. Recreational beach user has no reasonable expectation to know or even not know where a private use would begin or end. You see not even a Perry Mason such as yourself have a complete understanding of the written law. Your purpose here is not about this community. Your purpose here is NOT to protect the BFO from anything. Your purpose here is to protect those you represent which are wealth and power.

You must think BPO's and non BPO's are not smart enough to know what community means. We all want a situation at the beach that remains recreational not confrontational. I do not think you have ever stepped foot on these beaches. Waiting for you to prove me wrong.

Your group is responsible for the lawsuit. The County had no choice. Your group all of a sudden made it clear that you wanted the power to exclude the public from the beach and have made statement after statement that you are no longer interested in sharing the beach. You never had any intention of compromise. Your intentions are clear. Your words are deceptive. Your Behavior is uncivil. Your identity has no shadow :)

No, you are not an attorney. You can't "affirm" a declaration if there is no declaration.

Evidence exist for general public recreational use. Where is your "physical" evidence of private beach use?

When you say "many" I think you mean the POWER BROKERS that just started posting recently...
 

mputnal

Beach Fanatic
Nov 10, 2009
1,889
466
Fbb, If you want fantasy here it goes.

If I were a Conservative Supreme Court Justice. I would interpret property rights as the right to apply the most "conservative" "use" for my property. So what does conservative mean and what does use mean. So for this lesson lets look at the definition of conservative: favoring traditional views and values, tending to oppose change. There is evidence to support a long history of recreational public beach use so why would I suddenly decide to exclude the public. Is it to protect my conservative use which includes public recreational use or is it because I an individual with elite wealth and power and I can do whatever I want to do suddenly or otherwise. Kind of has the smell of an abuse of power.

Okay now for use. Conservatively speaking land is owned for a specific use. What is the use. If it were quite, uninterrupted enjoyment then where are the enclosures that block out sounds and views of the general public enjoying the same thing as in a privacy fence. Even if you built such enclosure mother nature would remove it. Okay but the laws state that each parcel of sand should be given due process. It seems that the beach is not a normal parcel but a continuous dynamic flow of sand from the water to the dune systems and up and down the beach. The sand behind a BFO was likely owned by the State of Florida for most of it's life. Does that make the sand general in nature or specific in nature. I think the Conservative Justices will not give you what you want.
 

Dave Rauschkolb

Beach Fanatic
Jul 13, 2005
1,006
790
Santa Rosa Beach
Judge opts not to rule on customary use motion


Posted Nov 7, 2019 at 6:22 PM

Judge hears Edgewater owners argument for Walton County to be held in contempt over effort to declare customary use on its beach

DeFUNIAK SPRINGS — Circuit Court Judge Jeffrey Lewis opted not to rule Thursday on a motion by Edgewater condominium homeowners seeking to have Walton County held in contempt of court.

The homeowners contend that a 2009 order drawn up to resolve a legal dispute between the county and the condominium complex clearly stated that the beaches behind Edgewater are private property dedicated to “the exclusive use of Edgewater’s owners and guests.”

The claim for contempt alleges the county violated its own agreement when it began efforts to have the same beach opened to the public through a declaration of customary use.

Kay Simpson, the attorney representing Edgewater, said the county violated the terms of its agreement twice and interfered with the rights of the condominium owners when it notified them of the plans to seek a declaration of customary use and a third time by including Edgewater’s beaches within the lawsuit.

“The county contends that somehow filing a complaint does not constitute interference,” Simpson told the court. “The filing of the lawsuit has already impacted the way Edgewater’s residents can use the beach.”

Since the county filed the customary use lawsuit, Walton County law enforcement no longer responds to remove beachgoers from the beaches behind the complex, Simpson said, and the county’s action has impacted the homeowner association’s ability to borrow money.

David Theriaque, the attorney for the county, argued that to argue for an entity to be held in contempt, a petitioner must prove a direct violation of a specific court order. Lewis agreed with the assessment and requested that Bradshaw present evidence indicating how the county had violated a clear court directive.

Theriaque also argued that the county’s effort to receive a declaration of customary use — that the county’s beaches should be considered public by virtue of their having been accessed for time immemorial — wasn’t so much an action against Edgewater but an action “seeking a court order to affirm an existing use that’s been in place for hundreds of years.”

In taking the arguments presented under advisement, Lewis stated he recognized the impact his ruling could have on a broader legal action being considered by fellow county judge David Green. He gave the attorneys for each side until Tuesday to provide him further documentation supporting their side of the arguments presented Thursday.

Green will hear arguments from a host of attorneys Tuesday on motions to dismiss the county’s overarching lawsuit seeking the declaration of customary use on 26 miles of Walton County beach.
 

Reggie Gaskins

Beach Lover
Oct 4, 2018
153
259
58
Blue Mountain Beach
Thx Dave. Dave is reposting an article here referring to a court case heard yesterday that was a contempt of court charge against Walton County Officials in conflict from a case 10 years ago. That case result in effect granted a large private Walton Beach parcel; perpetual immunity from Customary Use claims because in BCC recorded meetings, depositions, TDC documents and edicts, legal agreements, and court findings, these property owners were repeatedly affirmed their constitutional private property rights of control and exclusion, and sole discretion in use of their private beach property to the water line.
We’ll stop there... for now. CU in court.
 
New posts