Please, can we stick with the facts that establish credibility!? #1757 I don’t attack CU believers, only the notion of baseless CU beliefs and misinformation.
Customary Use and Our 30A Legacy
Fact. Ancient English common law public customary use of private beachfront property is a de novo legal process with from 4 to 7 CU criteria depending on which court or medieval English legal doctrine or statute the courts rely on. No dispute what the criteria is or what the criteria means so how can CU be in dispute (sarcasm). No public CU criteria includes polls(1), or number of anti-social media followers, or if enforcing American property rights affect the local economy. Only social media and politicians care about the number of followers - not the courts.
#2225 “house bill 631 set forth a procedure for counties to reaffirm customary” Again, FS163.035, not HB631, set forth a BPO due process “de novo” legal process to have a judge to make a declaratory judgment that old English public CU is superior to American Constitutional private rights. FS163.035 is not “a procedure for counties to reaffirm customary use” because FS163.035 is DE NOVO (2). The court starts “anew” like nothing happened before. Before FS163.035 NO other FL county had tried to unilaterally declare public CU on private property so there is NO other counties to “reaffirm” public CU in.
“always have without exclusion and offending private property signs.” Another unsubstantiated belief. The law of the land has been and is today that BPO can choose to allow others on their property to the MHWL or not. Most BPO have but fro how long if BPO prevail in the estimated up to $50,000,000 litigation? BPO signs have been around for decades and are protected by the Constitution First Amendment (see Goodwin
Goodwin v. Walton County, Florida | Pacific Legal Foundation ). Like this 2007 Seaside First Amendment protected sign.
View attachment 80635
The only thing NEW in the last few years is the past-and-present BCC Commissioner’s and Larry Jones’ inept management of Walton tax payer’s money. TDC spending $20,000,00 in tourist taxes annually to bring more tourist to private public and privately (BCC taxed) beaches, passing on to private property owners the public demand the BCC failed to manage. New, BCC willingness to spend up to $50,000,000 on CU and maybe get nothing. New, CU believer’s intentional social media misinformation about public CU on private property. Who wouldn’t want free beach use on social media; except the owner who has to pay for the property and clean up after the public customary use because their is no law enforcement? New, Quiet Title of private beaches for $400 were ever public property, or BPOs do not pay taxes or can build seaward of CCCL on their dry sand property, or that FS163.035 is anything other a BPO property due process law, or that the Walton tourist bed tax, property values have only increased with FL economy since FS163.035 or the Walton CU ordinance, or over 650+ of the 1,193 BPO parcels (about 2,500 BPOs), not a “handful” have hired about 34 of the best attorneys in FL to intervene for them collectively. BCC have cost Walton tax payers to date about a million dollars and BPOs in-total a guest-a-ment of about millions dollars, and after more than a year the Walton $425/hr attorneys can’t even get the BPO notifications right so the trial can start and the CU Plaintiff can prove their case. The first motion is if old English common law customary use is superior to American Constitution 5th and 14th Amendments. If affirmed that CU is unconstitutional no number of CU followers will matter. CUnCourt.
#2022 Why do BPOs feel compelled to use pseudonyms? Because of CU believers civil discourse like this Mike Huckabee’s F***ABEE Stickers and staged trespass on BPO property by CU believer attorney and others or frivolous police reports filed against BPO but not known CU believer active shooter videos.
Customary Use and Our 30A Legacy
(1) Who commissioned the partisan Sep 2018 Mason-Dixon poll? FBFA? An individual? If you know and will not say; why not? #86
Customary Use and Our 30A Legacy
(2) De novo
De Novo - FindLaw
