New posts

bob bob

Beach Fanatic
Mar 29, 2017
501
255
SRB
Cute. The meaningless metrics distraction was fun (not) so lets get back to facts.
"... denying the public's right [Where is that public right? In the Constitution? Please provide credible facts to that public "right" to private property or the statement is legally false or wrong. Or do you mean, public privilege, like driving an automobile on Government property?] to use and enjoy our beach [Intentionally wrong again legally. Do you mean beach that private property owners' paid for the legal title to, pay annual property taxes on, that fund Walton schools?] as we have since time immemorial [is time the only CU criterion or can anyone name and define any other CU criteria?] are determined to paint this as a private property rights issue." [The legal paint brush is black and white. Because the Commissioners' CU litigation is ONLY about private property rights!]

I hear over and over CU emphasis "time immemorial", personal beach use for decades, and used for hundreds of years. The ancient English criteria describe by English aristocrat, jurist, judge Sir William Blackstone legal "Commentaries"... "that the memory of man runneth not to the contrary". In the ancient land of England, that "memory" went back as for as 1192 when the King William the Conqueror England by force. The USA is only 243 years old.

Florida courts have used the term "ancient" and FS163.035 uses "ancient". Can you educate us on what ancient means? What does time immemorial mean? As long as any Walton Commissioner has been alive?

2007 Fla: Dist. Court of Appeals, 5th Dist. Trepanier v. Volusia commented on the CU criteria of time; "If the only source of a right claimed as "custom," is that a certain thing has been done in a certain way in a certain place for so long that no one can remember when it wasn't done that way, the inability to offer evidence of the custom suggests the weakness of the claim."

"They [BFOs] can't build on the sand and there is no tax assessments directly attached to that sand." Patently, false, wrong, and untrue.
Or if you can not show any CREDIBLE facts for this false untrue CU belief why should anyone believe your in-credible statement?

"How can they [BFOs] claim ownership and exclusion on shifting sand they can't contain?" Ownership is in the title DEED to the MHWL, 0.74 foot elevation in Walton shown on a legal survey, survey monuments, and physical property boundary markers (like the TDC vendor zone markers on Walton owned beaches?) required by the Walton County Sheriff 2015 trespass Standard Operating Procedure (SOP). How? can BFOs claim ownership? Property RIGHT of private use and enjoyment protected by the Constitution. Where is that public RIGHT to use private property again?
You probably now have the record for words per post. Obviously a lawyer. Do you have a deed that says you own the beach?
 

BlueMtnBeachVagrant

Beach Fanatic
Jun 20, 2005
1,289
375
You folks seem to think this is a ground breaking "epic" thread.
I think thou protests too much about metrics, maybe for the reason previously given by @Auburn Fan post:

"The fact that you study these metrics so closely is quite revealing. The fact that you try to use the metrics to discount the facts is also revealing.
As if you are desperately afraid who might actually be reading the true facts that have been presented in this thread.”


It would be "epic" if you could convince the 600 give or take other beachfront owners to chime in. Nope.

Don’t tell me they are all over on your Facebook pages. Damn, am I missing a great party?

Those 600+ you mention are just motions to intervene. When you consider the number of people such as in Rosemary Beach, Watercolor, Seaside HOAs, Alys Beach, Watersound, mult-owner condominiums, each with only one motion PER PARCEL, it’s actually much much more than just 600+ people. Now that’s one metric that’s truly worth revealing and sharing.

But that’s your job as a chief CU spokesperson - skewing or obliterating facts.

I will say this thread has been useful or I should say "revealing" in that your strategies are wide open for all to see.

Thanks for the compliment. Didn’t realize there were any legal strategies presented here that revealed facts that any marginal attorney would not already know, including your attorney, chief antagonizer and Nazi analogizer.
 
Last edited:

FloridaBeachBum

Beach Fanatic
Feb 9, 2017
463
112
Santa Rosa Beach
Perhaps you can convince them at some point but really, as I have been saying "a handful" of you are active and vocal and I will give you credit, effective up to this point using your power, influence and money to tip the scales, legislatively speaking to your side but I promise that will change. I will say this thread has been useful or I should say "revealing" in that your strategies are wide open for all to see. Thanks for all the info.
Yes, Dave Rauschkolb, BFOs have revealed our secrete strategy. How could we be so ignorant revealing the facts?
Simple strategy. BFOs are defendants and don't have to prove anything. Only show that the Constitution rights are superior to archaic English custom common law. The Walton tax payer is the one who could be funding all the litigation and Commissioners' and your unfounded CU beliefs.

Me and the other "handful" including 650+ beach parcels (4,761 total) BFOs, are laypersons, but have studied the facts and the law, and hired, what 30(?), of the most experience legal professionals in Florida. I wonder what the legal professionals can do in court with all the property right facts and CU "evidence" I'm probability not even aware of. I'm sure the FBFA attorney will be a great help to the Walton $425/hr and County staff attorneys. Glad to help.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

FloridaBeachBum

Beach Fanatic
Feb 9, 2017
463
112
Santa Rosa Beach
You probably now have the record for words per post. Obviously a lawyer. Do you have a deed that says you own the beach?
There is soooo much CU posts to expose to the light of facts.
Yep, all the way back to the original Government land grant. Includes the MHWL. All on the Walton Clerk of Court public site. So do 1,193 other BFOs. But not one Seaside 30A business has a deed to the beach dunes much less the dry sand to the MHWL. It is an intentional untruth if any beach-view business claims to have a legal property interest to intervene in the Commissioners' litigation as a beachfront owner. Might read that again in case you hear it somewhere else.

Said it before, will say it again. I'm a layperson like you; well, not like you, I do my homework. And before you say it again, I'm not Huckabee. bob bob what have you contributed to the thread?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

FactorFiction

Beach Fanatic
Feb 18, 2016
494
409
In context, I was inspired by a private beach activist's interest in the number of posts made by a CU proponent earlier in this thread. You folks seem to think this is a ground breaking "epic" thread. I was merely pointing out most of the posts are coming from the same 8 to 10 Private beachfront advocates talking to yourselves; congratulating yourselves, whoever you are with an intermittent interjection from CU advocates. It would be "epic" if you could convince the 600 give or take other beachfront owners to chime in. Nope. Perhaps you can convince them at some point but really, as I have been saying "a handful" of you are active and vocal and I will give you credit, effective up to this point using your power, influence and money to tip the scales, legislatively speaking to your side but I promise that will change. We aim to stop that train and restore the balance of shared beaches for all. I will say this thread has been useful or I should say "revealing" in that your strategies are wide open for all to see. Thanks for all the info. Meanwhile intelligent, rational readers will focus on the "Shifting Sands."


Strategy? I suppose you are right if facts and the Constitution are "hidden" strategies.

Seems to me that focusing on shifting sand is another CU diversion since metes and bounds legal descriptions on deeds and surveys don't rely on where the sand shifts. I'll grant you that the MHWL is not visible with the naked eye and since it is a 19 year average, it does move slightly; however, the criteria for the line is well defined, clear and set in statute. As the CU advocates also like to pound into the sand, CU is NOT about who owns the property or whether sand shifts, it is about PROVING the legal criteria of customary use. Seems that the property rights advocates like dealing with facts and CU advocates like dealing with one emotional issue after another, while refusing to address the factual questions that the property rights advocates are asking.

Maybe intelligent, rational readers will step back and take a look at the discussion and information and have an informed discussion with some of the beachfront owners. I have and I've been pleasantly surprised that the mantra of "wanting to kick everyone off their property" is more fiction than fact.
 

Auburn Fan

Beach Lover
Oct 4, 2018
82
67
Auburn
You, BeachSandpiper, have made 20 posts, new member only on this thread, Reggie, 52, Florida Beach Bum wins the prize with well over 100 (140) all by him/herself. Virtually all of his/her posts are related to this issue as a new, Feb 19, 2018 member. I think MMB Vagrant, a SoWal veteran, is a semi close second at 107. Auburn Fan 41, He/she has only made one other post on a different thread. This one thread seems to be holding his/her interest the most as a new member. I'm at 31 if I counted right. Fishing Fool, 13 posts, new member, only posting on this thread.

Since you are apparently so interested in metrics, here's a few more:

Dave Rauschkolb has posted
33 comments on this thread alone, from April 27 - June 20, 2019, and yet...

In comparison, Dave Rauschkolb has posted 35 times TOTAL in the entire last YEAR anywhere on SOWAL forum, prior to Reggie's original post.

Prior to this thread of Reggie's, Dave Rauschkolb had posted a total of only 3 comments anywhere on the entire Sowal forum in 2019.

Since Reggie's original post, Dave Rauschkolb made a 3 other original posts on SOWAL, generating a combined total of only 5 replies from other members.

Any other metrics you want to discuss, Dave?
Better yet, now let's get back to the original discussion at hand.

Finally something we can agree on with LV2.
The horse is dead.
:banging:
 
Last edited:

Poppaj

SoWal Insider
Oct 9, 2015
8,923
4,215
Since you are apparently so interested in metrics, here's a few more:

Dave Rauschkolb has posted
33 comments on this thread alone, from April 27 - June 20, 2019, and yet...

In comparison, Dave Rauschkolb has posted 35 times TOTAL in the entire last YEAR anywhere on SOWAL forum, prior to Reggie's original post.

Prior to this thread of Reggie's, Dave Rauschkolb had posted a total of only 3 comments anywhere on the entire Sowal forum in 2019.

Since Reggie's original post, Dave Rauschkolb made a 3 other original posts on SOWAL, generating a combined total of only 5 replies from other members.

Any other metrics you want to discuss, Dave?
Better yet, now let's get back to the original discussion at hand.

Finally something we can agree on with LV2.
The horse is dead.
:banging:
Dave has been a member since 2005 and posted on a number of topics and has been active in giving back to the community including hosting the annual CVHN Hurricane Party. What’s your record?
 

Auburn Fan

Beach Lover
Oct 4, 2018
82
67
Auburn
Here's my new favorite metric:

5- 4

US Supreme Court
Knick v. Township of Scott, 17-647
June 21, 2019
This new ruling changes the way "takings claims" are litigated nationwide.
Property owners seeking just compensation now get the fast lane.
 

BlueMtnBeachVagrant

Beach Fanatic
Jun 20, 2005
1,289
375
Here's my new favorite metric:

5- 4

US Supreme Court
Knick v. Township of Scott, 17-647
June 21, 2019
This new ruling changes the way "takings claims" are litigated nationwide.
Property owners seeking just compensation now get the fast lane.

Interesting! Again, I believe CU will fall flat on its face forcing the county into their 3rd and final game plan (their 1st game plan was the rejected beach nourishment that would have resulted in the “new” part of the beach becoming public).

And the final game plan will be eminent domain.

Of course, as I’ve already mentioned, when (not if) the county pursues this course, they will offer pennies on the dollar on the truth worth of beach front property. It would appear, that this type of action by the county could end up in federal court rather than in state and local courts in a “fast track” way that @Auburn Fan mentions.

BTW, this is GOOD NEWS for ANYBODY who owns private property ANYWHERE.

From Wikipedia (confess I had to look it up):
Knick v. Township of Scott, Pennsylvania was a case before the Supreme Court of the United States dealing with compensation for private property owners when the use of that property is taken from them by state or local governments, under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The immediate question asks if private land owners must exhaust all state-offered venues for mediation before seeking action in the federal courts. The case specific addresses the Court's prior decision from the 1985 case Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City, which had previously established that all state court venues must be exhausted first, but which has since resulted in several split decisions among circuit courts. The Supreme Court ruled in June 2019 to overturn part of Williamson Countythat required state venue action be taken first, allowing taking-compensation cases to be brought directly to federal court.
 
Last edited:
New posts