New posts

Auburn Fan

Beach Lover
Oct 4, 2018
82
67
Auburn
... I think both sides of this issue in Walton County need to step back from their sacred principles and ask themselves about why we assume so much privilege. We all work hard. We all deserve to enjoy the beach. Why not just do the right thing?

Legally removing someone's constitutional rights is what this IS about. You do understand the county is suing thousands of beach property owners, right? With your tax dollars.

Whether or not any of those property owners generously welcome guests on their property is a completely separate issue, with a multitude of varied and site-specific circumstances.

Some principles are indeed sacred.
 

L.C. Bane

Beach Fanatic
Aug 8, 2017
492
162
Santa Rosa Beach
The same reason the Muscogee Nation doesn't have access to your deeded property and you don't have access to theirs. This is the United States of America, a civil nation with a constitution. We uphold and support private property ownership. Check out the 5th amendment.

The Ancient Muscogee tribes did not originally have written laws, and they were not even nation. In fact they didn't have anything written.

Also, native Americans lived by necessity near sources of freshwater. They primarily fished rivers and bays due to the relative and practical ease and abundance compared to fighting the waves. They were not maritime-oriented. Their crude water going vessels were not very suitable for the gulf. They did not build sail boats.They did not sunbathe. My ancestors are native American and I am extremely proud of many aspects of their culture and history. But let's not try to rewrite it.

Their ancient culture didn't have written language and they did not have deeds to property ownership. You and I are citizens of the United States. We do have deeds and recognize the rights of property ownership. In fact it's one of the cornerstones of the TRUE "customary use" of lands of our nation.

The native Americans did not build a string of micro hotel/homes behind private property and attempt to conduct commerce sending hordes of their customers to enjoy someone else's private property. The native Americans didn't build restaurants and conduct commerce on the beaches. Ancient Native Americans were not commercially oriented at all.

In America, private citizens should have the right to own private property, and be protected from the tyranny of majority rule, fueled by a propaganda machine instigated by greedy developers and realtors who wish to make billions of dollars by conducting commerce using the real estate deeded to those private citizens. THAT IS SO VERY FAR FROM NATIVE AMERICAN CULTURE I cannot believe we are still even discussing this. Utterly preposterous.

Our constitutional "CUSTOM" of recognizing deeds so trumps any fabricated hollywood "custom" of ancient Indians "recreating" on a beach.

The problem with socialistic customary use is eventually you run out of other people's private beaches.

I am against forced occupation of deeded private property, both yours and mine. And you should be too, if you stop and really think about it.


Since you disagree with the Muscogee Nation, perhaps your debate should be held with them. I encourage you to enlighten them on their their culture and history so they can better understand it.
 

Poppaj

SoWal Insider
Oct 9, 2015
9,794
5,164
Native Americans needed no legal documents to use the land for generations just as beach goers needed no legal documents for generations to enjoy the sand. Neither group felt they had or needed exclusive ownership.
 
Last edited:

FloridaBeachBum

Beach Fanatic
Feb 9, 2017
463
112
Santa Rosa Beach
In fact, I challenge any of the BFO that take issue with CU to take a ride up to Bruce and debate any member of the Muscogee Nation of Florida over the issue of CU and defend why they shouldn't have access to all of the beaches of Walton county.
LC, I accept your challenge. But we need some ground rules.
First, LIST and DEFINE the ancient English common law doctrine of custom criteria to have a valid claim of private property customary use that will be debated. Let me help you list the historical criteria; here is Dave Theriaque's, Walton's lead $425/hr land use attorney, list he cited last year 2018. Suggest you review British Sir William Blackstone's mid-1700s Commentaries as well. Or you can get FBFA attorney Ulhfelder to help you define the historical common law customary use criteria.
2018 Theriaque CU Criteria.jpg
Note, Custom is a background principle of Oregon, NOT Florida.

Second LIST and DEFINE the customary recreational uses of the Walton private beaches the Muscogee Nation of Florida will claim. Surfing included?

Third, list an impartial panel of 3 jurors. Might check somewhere in Siberia. If any one of the multiple customary use criteria can not be shown to satisfy, by a preponderance of the evidence, the claim of fee simple private property customary use -- it is defeated.

Forth, if you understand the old English doctrine of custom history and law, even if the Muscogee Nation of Florida prevails in the debate, only the Muscogee's are entitled to customary use of private property and only for the uses defined; excluding all non-Native American Mascogee people, including you, Dave Rauschkolb, Daniel Ulhfelder, and 99.9999999999% of the world's population - except maybe 2020 Democratic presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren.

You can get Dave Rasuchkolb to help you if you want too. If you dispute this information please be specific of your alternative(?) facts. I await your customary use criteria and use definitions with bated breath.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

FloridaBeachBum

Beach Fanatic
Feb 9, 2017
463
112
Santa Rosa Beach
Any sane person can see it is wrong in its current incarnation or any other for that matter.

Mr. Galloway made the above [FBFA meeting] photo showing the before and after of our beaches and allowed us to use it. He later posted some other bizarre posts shortly after that and I stopped communicating with him because I don't agree with his tactics. The moment I was critical of his posts he ignored me.
Dave, the point of the question was - you took at face value C.G. slide and presented to the public at the FBFA "informational meeting" Vizcaya private property has EVER (since US land patents) been legally public property?
Customary Use Will Destroy Our 30A Legacy
C.G. has ZERO credibility. You defined his FB posts as "bizarre". You presented C.G. misinformation to the public without fact checking it? Attorney Daniel Ulhfelder was at this FBFA meeting. He didn't fact check the legal claim of slide? If not does not give you or Ulhfelder much credibility either. Prove me wrong with alternative facts, not misdirection, or emotional shout downs please.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Dave Rauschkolb

Beach Fanatic
Jul 13, 2005
1,006
790
Santa Rosa Beach
No sense of humor I see.
Yes, this subject is so damn serious.
Dave, the point of the question was - you took at face value C.G. slide and presented to the public at the FBFA "informational meeting" Vizcaya private property has EVER (since US land patents) been legally public property?
Customary Use Will Destroy Our 30A Legacy
C.G. has ZERO credibility. You defined his FB posts as "bizarre". You presented C.G. misinformation to the public without fact checking it? Attorney Daniel Ulhfelder was at this FBFA meeting. He didn't fact check the legal claim of slide? Does not give you or Ulhfelder much credibility either. Prove me wrong with alternative facts, not misdirection, or emotional shout downs please.


No, I didn’t take the slide at face value. That is what those of us who support customary use believe. That the beach is depicted were public use beaches until July 1, 2018 when house bill 631 went into effect. That is at the core of this conflict. You folks believe that those are private beaches and you may exclude us from those beaches and we believe completely the opposite that since people began using the beaches they were shared. So I believe those images to be true and correct and that is a matter of opinion that most people agree with. The judges will decide. Tou just saying it doesn’t make it true. Anymore than you believe me just saying what I believe makes it true. See you in court.
 

L.C. Bane

Beach Fanatic
Aug 8, 2017
492
162
Santa Rosa Beach
FBB, I hope you didn't pass out holding your breath waiting for a response. I thought you'd be headed up to Bruce, not assigning me homework. That's what the attorneys get paid to do. How the hell am I suppose to know what the Muscogee Nation will claim? Go ask them yourself.

H.B. 631 defines the path. Why don't you acknowledge that?
 

FloridaBeachBum

Beach Fanatic
Feb 9, 2017
463
112
Santa Rosa Beach
No, I didn’t take the slide at face value. That is what those of us who support customary use believe. That the beach is depicted were public use beaches until July 1, 2018 when house bill 631 went into effect. That is at the core of this conflict. You folks believe that those are private beaches and you may exclude us from those beaches and we believe completely the opposite that since people began using the beaches they were shared. So I believe those images to be true and correct and that is a matter of opinion that most people agree with. The judges will decide. Tou just saying it doesn’t make it true. Anymore than you believe me just saying what I believe makes it true. See you in court.
Except I posted publicly available legal title documents (facts) to support my informed opinion that Vizcaya (all Walton private property without granted easements) private property rights has NEVER had a court determined public interest included and you just believe it did since 2009? Believe WHY? Repeating you believe it over and over again does not change the legal title of the private property and misinforms the public and property owners. That is not responsible credible public discourse.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
New posts