I abide the law but I would not use it to take advantage of others, or use the law for cover for actions that are clearly wrong. That is what GREEDY and unethical people do. If you are trying to keep people off the beach behind your home, a beach that has been free and open for decades (actually centuries before white men) for millions of people, then the best word that applies is GREED.
Do you honestly believe that owners of over 600 parcels that actually represent many more individuals are "clearly wrong", "GREEDY and unethical?"
That is a very vicious remark to be throwing out at thousands of your neighbors. And its's remarks like that make us BFOs who are under attack so passionate about defending our property from the general public. You must understand that there is no going back with statements like that.
And it goes against the respect theme that I continuously remind those who just can't get a point across without insulting and demeaning their neighbors. More emotion, zero facts.
Just for the record, David Rauschkolb's good friend and attorney, David B. Pleat, is against customary use and is representing a multitude of BFOs against the county. BTW, Pleat used to be a committee member with
www.abettersouthwalton.com to incorporate South Walton along with Rauschkolb. I guess David Pleat is "clearly wrong, GREEDY and unethical" based on your yardstick. Oh and this goes for the dozens and dozens of other attorneys defending private property rights. On the other hand, maybe you're on to something regarding attorneys.
Just kidding! I love my attorneys.
What the hell did I just find???
The savior of the Customary Use movement and attorney,
Daniel Uhlfelder (you know, the one who has a way with words when demeaning BFOs in front of a town hall meeting in front of hundreds of people) has
filed a motion to intervene on behalf of a client on 2/8/2019 (document # 110 for those of you following the online filings).
Wait a minute! How can that be?
How can Daniel Uhlfelder be such a driving force for the Customary Use movement plaintiffs (County + FBFA) and then represent a client who wishes to intervene against (assume against like everyone else and not with) the county? Maybe his client is indigent and can't afford a real CU attorney and Uhlfelder feels compelled to help. Maybe Uhlfelder had a momentary lapse in judgement. Maybe Uhlfelder is guaranteed to be a winner by playing both sides. Or maybe it was simply for "GREED?" It does feel good to use that word. Thanks Buster.
Maybe I shouldn't be too hard on those who continue to use the word "GREEDY".
So by your own standards, Uhlfelder and his client must be "clearly wrong", "GREEDY and unethical?" Would that be a fair statement?
PLEASE anyone, if I'm reading the filing wrong please shine a light on it. As, unlike some others, I will admit my errors when the light of truth is unfiltered. Also, if anyone sees it the same way I do, please confirm. It's just very difficult to understand why Uhlfelder is representing a defendant.
ADDED.....And how in the hell can an attorney represent the plaintiff AND defendant in the SAME lawsuit anyway?
Please explain why anyone would want to own the beach, and to keep people off. Legal deed or not, there is no moral justification.
Perhaps you should make your request for explanation to Daniel Uhlfelder.