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

FactorFiction

Beach Fanatic
Feb 18, 2016
494
409
What if people aren't trying to keep people off the beach, but just wanted enforcement and weren't getting it? What if people just don't want the county to be in charge of their property? What if people just want respectful behavior? Is it ok for someone to set up a daycamp from sun up to sun down and come and go as they please on property that is deeded to someone else? Is it ok to leave trash or broken tent frames for someone else to clean up? Is it ok to use dunes for bathrooms? Is it ok for people to let their dogs go in the dunes or leave "gifts" on the beach or in the dunes? Take a good look and see whether people are really keeping others off the beach or if they are just trying to have some say in what happens on their deeded property. It might be eye opening.
 
Last edited:

FloridaBeachBum

Beach Fanatic
Feb 9, 2017
463
112
Santa Rosa Beach
This thread started asking questions to understand WHY anyone is for property rights or customary use of private property. Many beachfront owners just know Walton commissioners are costing them a lot of money on attorneys and the majority of the public that have no real-property skin in the game are attacking them as greedy, privileged, carpet baggers for the private property they own, pay taxes on and want to enjoy for themselves if they choose to.

Verifiable opinions and facts about the doctrine of customary use, quiet title, and private property easements where presented. No one has disputed that information yet with contrary variable facts- including leading CU authority David Rauschkolb. Others have resorted to posting over and over childish disrespectful images of a military hero John McCain’s grave site, others shout “Alternative facts” whatever those are, greedy, nameless, rich, privileged, interlopers, portrayed as murderers, and many other names much worse. I just want to know your facts why you believe the way you do other than Dave Rasuchkolb said so.

This is a long term political problem by inept past and present Walton commissioners looking for an easy (relative to a political solution) legal solution. A legal solution designed as an adversarial process, where one side wins and one side looses. Now that Walton Commissioners have drawn a line in the sand and litigated against 4,500 citizens that have legal title to the land they earned; beachfront owners are angry and do not want to share anymore. The judge will rule on the LAW of private property customary use. Not anything else but the law. Not alternative facts or unsubstantiated opinions of Walton economic melt down.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

FloridaBeachBum

Beach Fanatic
Feb 9, 2017
463
112
Santa Rosa Beach
So Dave refuses to discuss the many CU facts proven false here. So Dave refuses to meet in public forum to have an adult discussion to help heal our community. So it appears the online personal attacks against innocent beach property owners has escalated. A great recap of historical TRUE facts can be followed here at the blog Dave recommended earlier in this thread:
FloridaBeachBum: CU Timeline
Walton Watchdog
The Walton Commissioner Larry Jones’ 2008 Master Thesis on customary use quoted Theriaque; on page 70 of Larry’s thesis; “… the local government should present their [customary use] ordinance to a judge for judicial review asking for a declaratory judgment (personal communication, Theriaque, D., 2008).” Otherwise, “Absent this judicial review and a supporting judgment, sustaining such and ordinance will be expensive and difficult (personal communication, Theriaque, D., 2008).”

WOW Theriaque, Walton's $425/hr, land use attorney just described HB631! A bill that a super-majority of 2018 FL House and Senate passed, including local FL Rep Brad Drake, to become FL Statute 163.035 to ensure any local Government affords property owners due process of law first.

Surely the Walton BCC would not ignore Theriaque’s legal advice given to then Commissioner, now County Administrator Larry Jones? “sustaining such and ordinance will be expensive and difficult”. A recent public records request shows that Walton Commissioners have expended $757,747 of tax payers dollars. Should the beachfront property owners prevail; that’s less than half the costs to the Walton tax payer and we just started the litigating. What do the commissioners care; it's not their personal money. CUnCourt.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

FloridaBeachBum

Beach Fanatic
Feb 9, 2017
463
112
Santa Rosa Beach
Oh I completely agree with you in regards to the customary use of our beaches
Dave Rausckolb can you please explain just ONE of the four or more criterion of ancient English customary use and what evidence you think applies to any of the 1,192 Walton private beach parcels to justify your positions?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

FloridaBeachBum

Beach Fanatic
Feb 9, 2017
463
112
Santa Rosa Beach
David Rauschkolb, seriously, have you filed a police report on the CUer C.G. threatening, malicious, and violent Facebook video? Same Sheriff’s number you filed the complaint against the anonymous property rights blogger you reported to be threatened by.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

BlueMtnBeachVagrant

Beach Fanatic
Jun 20, 2005
1,289
375
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. :lol: 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.
 
Last edited:

BlueMtnBeachVagrant

Beach Fanatic
Jun 20, 2005
1,289
375
Hey I'm chillin out with a glass of ice water. Can someone please provide a link to this infamous video? I feel left out.
 

FloridaBeachBum

Beach Fanatic
Feb 9, 2017
463
112
Santa Rosa Beach
So, I watch the “sniper“ video and it’s Clint Eastwood shooting a streaker. That means someone naked running through Seaside. How exactly does that translate into a beachfront owner? Waiting for your answer. Thank you. Love and kisses.
Dave, look closely. The text is Private Beaches Solved! Chuck Norris (not Client Eastwood) is pointing a hunting rifle at the camera.
Below the image "Chuck Norris has a solution to the Private Beaches!!" To make it clear the video shows; a private beachfront owner with a hunting rifle and scope shooting a (nude) male from the public on private property as the "Solution to the Private Beaches!!"
And that does not concern you? This was filmed near your beach side business on private property. Why would you not call the Sheriff if you reported you felt threatened by a much less malicious anonymous blogger?
Will you do more than scoff and distance yourself and CU supporters and use your CU leadership to disavow the video and demand the video be taken down? Even if C.G. does not, you have made your position clear this is not acceptable and should be removed because it is more than just tasteless.
If not you are a hypocrite.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
New posts