Are there any good lawyers out there who want to make National News defending me?
Led away in Handcuffs
- Thread starter rocket136
- Start date
-
Trouble logging in? Send us a message with your username and/or email address for help.
Lola,
I am so sorry your family, and especially your children, were treated this way in Walton County. This is not the way it used to be for sure, and many of us are trying to do something positive to change this ever-growing situation.
I am glad that you wrote the TDC and the Commissioners. You might think of sending your letter to the local newspapers, television stations, and the Chamber of Commerce as well.
Those of us who live here and want to preserve the beach for the enjoyment of all, need all the help we can get to stop this insanity.
I am so sorry your family, and especially your children, were treated this way in Walton County. This is not the way it used to be for sure, and many of us are trying to do something positive to change this ever-growing situation.
I am glad that you wrote the TDC and the Commissioners. You might think of sending your letter to the local newspapers, television stations, and the Chamber of Commerce as well.
Those of us who live here and want to preserve the beach for the enjoyment of all, need all the help we can get to stop this insanity.
SJ,
I am real close to making a go on this issue. We are working with attorneys and going to pop this one. Do you want in?
That's too bad. It seems to be an epidemic. Lola, please be sure you inform the owner of the house you rented. Property owners near but not on the beach have a lot to lose, and there are many more of them than beachfront owners.
It's my understanding that Tona-Rama is not the definitive legal case and it remains to prove it up on a case by case basis, or for someone to bring a case that will settle this once and for all. Lola has figured this out, it looks like.
If every beachfront owner starts asserting their "property rights" all of a sudden, well, that would be interesting. The sheriff would be very busy.
Anybody hear what happened to the guy who got arrested???
It's my understanding that Tona-Rama is not the definitive legal case and it remains to prove it up on a case by case basis, or for someone to bring a case that will settle this once and for all. Lola has figured this out, it looks like.
If every beachfront owner starts asserting their "property rights" all of a sudden, well, that would be interesting. The sheriff would be very busy.
Anybody hear what happened to the guy who got arrested???
Here is an interesting story that appeared in the Log. If you read it, it is obvious these "laws" are inforced or not inforced depending on what deputy shows up. Seeing that a deputy told these men they could only walk across the beach, but not stop, then the men called the Sheriff's office who confirmed they could use the 20 feet of dry sand, stop, fish, whatever..... Then you will see how insane some of the property owners are... read on...
Local News
Beach issues: Harassment? Public access?
By Fraser Sherman
June 24, 2007 1:15 AM
Destin beachfront resident Kathy Wright says allowing the public to walk across private beaches allows ?violent men? to threaten her family.
Wright and her husband, Mike, are now fighting in court to ban Jeffrey Reed and Bill Leech ? whom the Wrights say have trespassed on their property and intimidated their children ? from coming near their Gulf-front Destiny Shores home, claiming the two men trespassed on the Wright?s property and threatened their children.
Reed and Leech claim the Wrights are lying.
This week, Kathy Wright told Destin?s City Council that the two men had been on the brink of settling the court case until the city filed a brief in the case asserting the right of the public to walk and fish on private beaches up to 20 feet upland of the wet sand area.
?You gave these guys courage and confidence to go back to my property,? Wright told the council. ?If you don?t understand fear when your girls are in jeopardy, you don?t understand love.?
In an interview, Reed?s attorney, Glenn Swiatek, said Wright was wrong: Reed would never have accepted settlement terms that included staying 500 feet away from the entire Destiny Shores subdivision, even when out on the water.
About the only thing that isn?t in dispute is that everything began on April 21 when Reed and Leech set up fi shing poles behind the Wright?s house. Kathy Wright contacted an Okaloosa County sheriff?s deputy, who told the men that while they could walk across private beachfront, they couldn?t stop there.
The men subsequently contacted the sheriff?s office, which confi rmed that the city does allow beachgoers to walk, sit or fish up to 20 feet upland of the wet sand. The men resumed fi shing.
According to the Wrights, the men also threatened and harassed Kathy Wright and her children, and later returned and did so again. Swiatek, the attorney, said Reed and Leech never even saw the Wright?s children. In an e-mail on file at City Hall, Reed said Kathy Wright falsely claimed Reed had spent eight hours on the beach at the Wright property May 16 when his work records would prove he?d been on his job until 3 p.m.
Since then, the Wrights have fi led suit against the two men, and have received an initial restraining order against them. Kathy Wright told the City Council this week that the restraining order proves the suit has merit. Swiatek said issuing one in a case like this is routine, regardless of the merits.
On Monday, the Wrights told the City Council that the city had interfered with the case by fi ling its brief on the 20-foot rule.
?I was shocked and dismayed the city turned the safety of my family into a political issue,? Mike Wright said, ?to make a point about beach restoration. (You?re) opposing my wife?s efforts to protect my family.?
Wright said the city had been seduced into favoring tourists over residents, and that the issue was trespassing, not the 20-foot zone.
City Manager Greg Kisela said the Wright?s attorney had contacted the city with questions about the 20-foot rule, and the city had filed the brief to make the policy clear to the judge. Kisela said the brief hadn?t touched on the Wright?s allegations.
Councilor Dewey Destin said that even though the council would probably have supported fi ling the brief, Kisela should have obtained council approval before going ahead. The council voted unanimously that city attorneys should check with the council before making most court fi lings.
Councilor Cyron Marler asked if the Wrights were participants in a current lawsuit by beachfront owners opposed to the controversial beach restoration project under way in east Destin. Wright said he was not involved, but county court records list both Wrights as plaintiffs in the case as recently as May 7.
Mike Wright told the City Council that the merits of the 20-foot rule were irrelevant, since the court case ?is about bullying, it?s about harassment.?
In a letter to Mayor Craig Barker about the case last month, however, Kathy Wright said the city should abandon the 20-foot rule to protect her children.
?Authority has been given for violent and or sexual predators to sit within 50 feet of my children,? Wright wrote. ?If that rule is put in place, criminals will be able to sit on my back porch.?
Destin resident Bob Biel, a frequent critic of the lack of beach access in Destin, has also become involved, writing to City Hall in support of Leech and Reed and their right to use the beaches behind Destiny Shores.
The Wrights did not return The Log?s calls seeking comment for this article.
Local News
Beach issues: Harassment? Public access?
By Fraser Sherman
June 24, 2007 1:15 AM
Destin beachfront resident Kathy Wright says allowing the public to walk across private beaches allows ?violent men? to threaten her family.
Wright and her husband, Mike, are now fighting in court to ban Jeffrey Reed and Bill Leech ? whom the Wrights say have trespassed on their property and intimidated their children ? from coming near their Gulf-front Destiny Shores home, claiming the two men trespassed on the Wright?s property and threatened their children.
Reed and Leech claim the Wrights are lying.
This week, Kathy Wright told Destin?s City Council that the two men had been on the brink of settling the court case until the city filed a brief in the case asserting the right of the public to walk and fish on private beaches up to 20 feet upland of the wet sand area.
?You gave these guys courage and confidence to go back to my property,? Wright told the council. ?If you don?t understand fear when your girls are in jeopardy, you don?t understand love.?
In an interview, Reed?s attorney, Glenn Swiatek, said Wright was wrong: Reed would never have accepted settlement terms that included staying 500 feet away from the entire Destiny Shores subdivision, even when out on the water.
About the only thing that isn?t in dispute is that everything began on April 21 when Reed and Leech set up fi shing poles behind the Wright?s house. Kathy Wright contacted an Okaloosa County sheriff?s deputy, who told the men that while they could walk across private beachfront, they couldn?t stop there.
The men subsequently contacted the sheriff?s office, which confi rmed that the city does allow beachgoers to walk, sit or fish up to 20 feet upland of the wet sand. The men resumed fi shing.
According to the Wrights, the men also threatened and harassed Kathy Wright and her children, and later returned and did so again. Swiatek, the attorney, said Reed and Leech never even saw the Wright?s children. In an e-mail on file at City Hall, Reed said Kathy Wright falsely claimed Reed had spent eight hours on the beach at the Wright property May 16 when his work records would prove he?d been on his job until 3 p.m.
Since then, the Wrights have fi led suit against the two men, and have received an initial restraining order against them. Kathy Wright told the City Council this week that the restraining order proves the suit has merit. Swiatek said issuing one in a case like this is routine, regardless of the merits.
On Monday, the Wrights told the City Council that the city had interfered with the case by fi ling its brief on the 20-foot rule.
?I was shocked and dismayed the city turned the safety of my family into a political issue,? Mike Wright said, ?to make a point about beach restoration. (You?re) opposing my wife?s efforts to protect my family.?
Wright said the city had been seduced into favoring tourists over residents, and that the issue was trespassing, not the 20-foot zone.
City Manager Greg Kisela said the Wright?s attorney had contacted the city with questions about the 20-foot rule, and the city had filed the brief to make the policy clear to the judge. Kisela said the brief hadn?t touched on the Wright?s allegations.
Councilor Dewey Destin said that even though the council would probably have supported fi ling the brief, Kisela should have obtained council approval before going ahead. The council voted unanimously that city attorneys should check with the council before making most court fi lings.
Councilor Cyron Marler asked if the Wrights were participants in a current lawsuit by beachfront owners opposed to the controversial beach restoration project under way in east Destin. Wright said he was not involved, but county court records list both Wrights as plaintiffs in the case as recently as May 7.
Mike Wright told the City Council that the merits of the 20-foot rule were irrelevant, since the court case ?is about bullying, it?s about harassment.?
In a letter to Mayor Craig Barker about the case last month, however, Kathy Wright said the city should abandon the 20-foot rule to protect her children.
?Authority has been given for violent and or sexual predators to sit within 50 feet of my children,? Wright wrote. ?If that rule is put in place, criminals will be able to sit on my back porch.?
Destin resident Bob Biel, a frequent critic of the lack of beach access in Destin, has also become involved, writing to City Hall in support of Leech and Reed and their right to use the beaches behind Destiny Shores.
The Wrights did not return The Log?s calls seeking comment for this article.
this happened to our friends, too
We used to own a lot in the Retreat. Still own a house off Redfish Circle
in Blue Mountain Beach. Our friends are using our place this week. Just
got a phone call saying they had been threatened by a rent-a-cop from
the Inn at Blue Mountain Beach. They were kicked off the beach after
the security guard wanted to call the cops. My friends were harassed
and this was even after they told the guy that we belong the the Blue
Mountain Beach Club, etc., etc. We've owned there since 2001. Ironically,
when we had a lot in the Retreat we were never able to use the pool and
the other amenities for which we paid handsomely. The pool had lots of
problems and was always being repaired. I myself often sit on the Retreat
side of the signs just as a quiet protest. I may have to rethink that. I
have spent the last half-hour on the phone with different people at the
Village of Blue Mountain beach and I was told that we were perfectly
in the clear using that stretch of beach. And also that anyone can use
any beach within 15 feet of the water. What a nightmare, and how
pissy of the security people at the Inn. I'm going down next weekend
and will certainly be raising Cain about this. My friends were very
intimidated and said the 'security' this week had been very tight; they're
just looking for ways to get the law involved. Glad I found this thread
and now know what has happened to others
We used to own a lot in the Retreat. Still own a house off Redfish Circle
in Blue Mountain Beach. Our friends are using our place this week. Just
got a phone call saying they had been threatened by a rent-a-cop from
the Inn at Blue Mountain Beach. They were kicked off the beach after
the security guard wanted to call the cops. My friends were harassed
and this was even after they told the guy that we belong the the Blue
Mountain Beach Club, etc., etc. We've owned there since 2001. Ironically,
when we had a lot in the Retreat we were never able to use the pool and
the other amenities for which we paid handsomely. The pool had lots of
problems and was always being repaired. I myself often sit on the Retreat
side of the signs just as a quiet protest. I may have to rethink that. I
have spent the last half-hour on the phone with different people at the
Village of Blue Mountain beach and I was told that we were perfectly
in the clear using that stretch of beach. And also that anyone can use
any beach within 15 feet of the water. What a nightmare, and how
pissy of the security people at the Inn. I'm going down next weekend
and will certainly be raising Cain about this. My friends were very
intimidated and said the 'security' this week had been very tight; they're
just looking for ways to get the law involved. Glad I found this thread
and now know what has happened to others
Man, trouble in paradise. Did I miss something that explains the seemingly sudden onset of these troubling stories?
Bobby, on several occasions you mention Surfrider and its goals regarding beach access. I sense the passion (understatement?) in your posts. But let's look at the "Beach Access Goals" of Surfrider.
Beach Access Goals
- Free and uninterrupted access along the beach (at a minimum to the mean high water line, and ideally inland to the line of established upland vegetation).
- An access to the beach at least every half-mile in high population areas.
- A diverse range of access types (pedestrian, vehicular, view) with a range of amenities to meet user needs (parks, walkways/boardwalks, street ends) and minimize adverse environmental impacts.
- An accurate and up to date inventory of access sites.
- Dedicated funds for land acquisition.
- 'No net loss' of beach access.
- Regular collection of beach attendance records and analysis of supply and demand, including an economic evaluation of beaches.
- Public education about beach access, including customary or prescriptive right to beach access.
Summary: SURFRIDER does not appear to be advocating the taking of private property for the public's use. They want to make sure that surfers have reasonable access to the very environment needed (and entitled to) for their sport, the surf. They are not necessarily demanding "access" to the dry sand area of private property although they would love to have it.
Bobby J, I guess what I'm trying to say is that I understand your position with the current situation in Walton County. However, it seems to me that you should not be mixing Surfrider's goals with the general public's perception that ALL of the beach should be public.
We all clearly know tourism is the lifeblood of Florida. But that fact alone, in my opinion, should not give the public carte blanche to anyone's private property without reparation.
There is a problem and it is more than a poorly informed public. I am the husband of Lola above. We have vacationed at Seagrove for over 15 years and rented the same house for the past 10 years. We felt humiliated by the experience of being removed with our children by police from a beach that is marketed by the county and state as public. We were just building sand castles with our children at the same location we have for years. Our children's feet where on the wet sand with their bottoms in the dry sand. There is no notice at the Pelayo beach access or Jasmin Dunes beach front or any other public access stating that the beach is not public. I would propose that Walton County put up signs that say "Families with young children are subject to arrest and police sanctioned intimidation and harassment by property owners if they dare to venture out of the narrow undefined county access corridor". We have wonderful memories of Seagrove and its people and I really hate to see that you guys are losing the spirit that attracted us here many years ago.