In the Town of Porter, Indiana, three homeowners whose properties are on
the Lake Michigan shoreline demanded exclusive access to Lake Michigan
and that everybody else must keep out. But the state of Indiana owns
the lake bottom and the beach and they never had such property rights to
begin with.

A California law firm, Pacific Legal Foundation, represented the
homeowners.

Gunderson v. State of Indiana

In 2018, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled 4-0 against the homeowners. In
2020, the state legislature codified the state supreme court opinion in
statute. Per tradition, the ordinary high water mark is the line of
demarcation. On the state-owned side of the lakefront, the public as the
legal right to walk, fish, boat, or swim, or any other purpose.

Yesterday, 11/1/2022, the U.S. Supreme Court denied cert. Yay!

In article <tjuhtq$18589$1@dont-email.me>,
"Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

> In the Town of Porter, Indiana, three homeowners whose properties are on
> the Lake Michigan shoreline demanded exclusive access to Lake Michigan
> and that everybody else must keep out. But the state of Indiana owns
> the lake bottom and the beach and they never had such property rights to
> begin with.
>
> A California law firm, Pacific Legal Foundation, represented the
> homeowners.
>
> Gunderson v. State of Indiana
>
> In 2018, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled 4-0 against the homeowners. In
> 2020, the state legislature codified the state supreme court opinion in
> statute. Per tradition, the ordinary high water mark is the line of
> demarcation.

Are there really significant tides on Lake Michigan such there'd be
distinct high and low water marks?

I don't recall high and low tides on our beach when I lived on Fort
Sheridan. The water line always seemed mostly in the same place.
>
> Yesterday, 11/1/2022, the U.S. Supreme Court denied cert. Yay!

Why would they have granted cert? What federal issue is there here?

We have our own richy-riches in Malibu who also like to pretend the
beach outside their back door is their private property.

To this day if you take a long walk up the Malibu beachfront, you stand
good odds of being harassed by private security employed by studio
moguls and our precious, precious celebrities to keep your dirty
unwashed prole ass off 'their' beach. This is especially true if they're
having one of their glitzy catered soirees, where they put tables and
chairs out on the sand for the guests. During those parties, the
security guards are actually posted up out on the beach and turn around
anyone who tries to walk past, as if they actually have the authority to
do it.

Several years ago, a group of folks put together an app for smartphones,
which details exactly where all the state-mandated beach access points
are, notes if they happen to be (coincidentally) hidden by shrubbery or
other landscaping tricks, and also points out where property owners have
constructed fake driveways and other schemes to discourage the riff-raff
from parking on PCH.

It also has copies of the California statutes and court decisions that
guarantee public access to all beaches, from the Mexican to the Oregon
borders, in case you're approached and harassed by someone's private
security guards.**

When the app came out, it absolutely infuriated all the 1%-ers in Malibu
and there was even an ill-fated attempt at legal action to prevent its
release, citing 'security concerns'. The plaintiff's claims went over
like a whore farting in church with the court. Since then, the L.A.
Times has reported that use of Malibu beaches by non-Malibu residents
has skyrocketed, which I'm sure is giving all those folks out there a
serious case of red-ass.

**I had my own amusing encounter with private security on a beach in
Malibu about a year after I first moved out here. The girlfriend at the
time and I were walking along the surf line when these two guys in suits
came down off the deck of one the houses and ran down to intercept us.
They told us the beach was private and we couldn't go any further. I
said that it was my understanding that all beaches in California were
public, to which one of the goons replied that "there's the law and
there's reality," while subtlety letting his coat hang open to let me
see he was armed. I said, "Oh, I have one of those, too!" and lifted my
shirt so he could see it and the badge right next to it. I said, "You
wouldn't be threatening people with violence for walking on a beach
which they have every right to use, would you? 'Cause that would kinda
be a felony. How does five years in Chino sound to you? Matter of fact,
whoever your boss is in that big ol' house over there could also be
civilly liable for whatever you do next, and it's obvious he has deep,
deep pockets, so please, keep trying to stop us from walking down the
beach. And if you put hands on us, that'll really make my day. I'll get
to arrest you *and* retire 10 years early. How's that for reality,
chief?"

They backed off so fast you'd have thought their asses were on fire and
we decided to not only keep going across their 'private' beach, but we
stopped and sat down for about a half hour to enjoy the view, too.

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>"Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

>>In the Town of Porter, Indiana, three homeowners whose properties are on
>>the Lake Michigan shoreline demanded exclusive access to Lake Michigan
>>and that everybody else must keep out. But the state of Indiana owns
>>the lake bottom and the beach and they never had such property rights to
>>begin with.

>>A California law firm, Pacific Legal Foundation, represented the
>>homeowners.

>>Gunderson v. State of Indiana

>>In 2018, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled 4-0 against the homeowners. In
>>2020, the state legislature codified the state supreme court opinion in
>>statute. Per tradition, the ordinary high water mark is the line of
>>demarcation.

>Are there really significant tides on Lake Michigan such there'd be
>distinct high and low water marks?

>I don't recall high and low tides on our beach when I lived on Fort
>Sheridan. The water line always seemed mostly in the same place.

>>Yesterday, 11/1/2022, the U.S. Supreme Court denied cert. Yay!

>Why would they have granted cert? What federal issue is there here?

The lake bottom was owned by the federal government. It was transferred
to the states carved out of the Northwest Territory in a bizarre manner,
and there was centuries of common law in which sovereign rights extended
to the middle and meant that if there was a concave shoreline adjacent
landowners had overlapping rights. With a body of water as large as a
great lake, extending rights to the MIDDLE was absurd. "Middle" had to
do with how English landlords claimed rights to the center of streams,
not major rivers and certainly not major lakes. What would the claim
have been in the North Sea or the Atlantic Ocean?

Congress left the whole thing a massive mess by not writing a statute
that made a lot more sense than common law. I've got a legal history
book that I've tried to read a few times that's way over my head.

You must have learned about some of this.

>We have our own richy-riches in Malibu who also like to pretend the
>beach outside their back door is their private property.

I have a feeling it's the same law firm.

>To this day if you take a long walk up the Malibu beachfront, you stand
>good odds of being harassed by private security employed by studio
>moguls and our precious, precious celebrities to keep your dirty
>unwashed prole ass off 'their' beach. This is especially true if they're
>having one of their glitzy catered soirees, where they put tables and
>chairs out on the sand for the guests. During those parties, the
>security guards are actually posted up out on the beach and turn around
>anyone who tries to walk past, as if they actually have the authority to
>do it.

>Several years ago, a group of folks put together an app for smartphones,
>which details exactly where all the state-mandated beach access points
>are, notes if they happen to be (coincidentally) hidden by shrubbery or
>other landscaping tricks, and also points out where property owners have
>constructed fake driveways and other schemes to discourage the riff-raff
>from parking on PCH.

>It also has copies of the California statutes and court decisions that
>guarantee public access to all beaches, from the Mexican to the Oregon
>borders, in case you're approached and harassed by someone's private
>security guards.**

>When the app came out, it absolutely infuriated all the 1%-ers in Malibu
>and there was even an ill-fated attempt at legal action to prevent its
>release, citing 'security concerns'. The plaintiff's claims went over
>like a whore farting in church with the court. Since then, the L.A.
>Times has reported that use of Malibu beaches by non-Malibu residents
>has skyrocketed, which I'm sure is giving all those folks out there a
>serious case of red-ass.

I'm so happy to hear all this!

>**I had my own amusing encounter with private security on a beach in
>Malibu about a year after I first moved out here. The girlfriend at the
>time and I were walking along the surf line when these two guys in suits
>came down off the deck of one the houses and ran down to intercept us.
>They told us the beach was private and we couldn't go any further. I
>said that it was my understanding that all beaches in California were
>public, to which one of the goons replied that "there's the law and
>there's reality," while subtlety letting his coat hang open to let me
>see he was armed. I said, "Oh, I have one of those, too!" and lifted my
>shirt so he could see it and the badge right next to it. I said, "You
>wouldn't be threatening people with violence for walking on a beach
>which they have every right to use, would you? 'Cause that would kinda
>be a felony. How does five years in Chino sound to you? Matter of fact,
>whoever your boss is in that big ol' house over there could also be
>civilly liable for whatever you do next, and it's obvious he has deep,
>deep pockets, so please, keep trying to stop us from walking down the
>beach. And if you put hands on us, that'll really make my day. I'll get
>to arrest you *and* retire 10 years early. How's that for reality,
>chief?"

>They backed off so fast you'd have thought their asses were on fire and
>we decided to not only keep going across their 'private' beach, but we
>stopped and sat down for about a half hour to enjoy the view, too.

Hehehehe

On Wednesday, November 2, 2022 at 3:27:24 PM UTC-5, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
> >"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>
> >>In the Town of Porter, Indiana, three homeowners whose properties are on
> >>the Lake Michigan shoreline demanded exclusive access to Lake Michigan
> >>and that everybody else must keep out. But the state of Indiana owns
> >>the lake bottom and the beach and they never had such property rights to
> >>begin with.
>
> >>A California law firm, Pacific Legal Foundation, represented the
> >>homeowners.
>
> >>Gunderson v. State of Indiana
>
> >>In 2018, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled 4-0 against the homeowners. In
> >>2020, the state legislature codified the state supreme court opinion in
> >>statute. Per tradition, the ordinary high water mark is the line of
> >>demarcation.
>
> >Are there really significant tides on Lake Michigan such there'd be
> >distinct high and low water marks?
>
> >I don't recall high and low tides on our beach when I lived on Fort
> >Sheridan. The water line always seemed mostly in the same place.
>
> >>Yesterday, 11/1/2022, the U.S. Supreme Court denied cert. Yay!
>
> >Why would they have granted cert? What federal issue is there here?
> The lake bottom was owned by the federal government. It was transferred
> to the states carved out of the Northwest Territory in a bizarre manner,
> and there was centuries of common law in which sovereign rights extended
> to the middle and meant that if there was a concave shoreline adjacent
> landowners had overlapping rights. With a body of water as large as a
> great lake, extending rights to the MIDDLE was absurd. "Middle" had to
> do with how English landlords claimed rights to the center of streams,
> not major rivers and certainly not major lakes. What would the claim
> have been in the North Sea or the Atlantic Ocean?
>
> Congress left the whole thing a massive mess by not writing a statute
> that made a lot more sense than common law. I've got a legal history
> book that I've tried to read a few times that's way over my head.
>
> You must have learned about some of this.
> >We have our own richy-riches in Malibu who also like to pretend the
> >beach outside their back door is their private property.
> I have a feeling it's the same law firm.
> >To this day if you take a long walk up the Malibu beachfront, you stand
> >good odds of being harassed by private security employed by studio
> >moguls and our precious, precious celebrities to keep your dirty
> >unwashed prole ass off 'their' beach. This is especially true if they're
> >having one of their glitzy catered soirees, where they put tables and
> >chairs out on the sand for the guests. During those parties, the
> >security guards are actually posted up out on the beach and turn around
> >anyone who tries to walk past, as if they actually have the authority to
> >do it.
>
> >Several years ago, a group of folks put together an app for smartphones,
> >which details exactly where all the state-mandated beach access points
> >are, notes if they happen to be (coincidentally) hidden by shrubbery or
> >other landscaping tricks, and also points out where property owners have
> >constructed fake driveways and other schemes to discourage the riff-raff
> >from parking on PCH.
>
> >It also has copies of the California statutes and court decisions that
> >guarantee public access to all beaches, from the Mexican to the Oregon
> >borders, in case you're approached and harassed by someone's private
> >security guards.**
>
> >When the app came out, it absolutely infuriated all the 1%-ers in Malibu
> >and there was even an ill-fated attempt at legal action to prevent its
> >release, citing 'security concerns'. The plaintiff's claims went over
> >like a whore farting in church with the court. Since then, the L.A.
> >Times has reported that use of Malibu beaches by non-Malibu residents
> >has skyrocketed, which I'm sure is giving all those folks out there a
> >serious case of red-ass.
> I'm so happy to hear all this!
> >**I had my own amusing encounter with private security on a beach in
> >Malibu about a year after I first moved out here. The girlfriend at the
> >time and I were walking along the surf line when these two guys in suits
> >came down off the deck of one the houses and ran down to intercept us.
> >They told us the beach was private and we couldn't go any further. I
> >said that it was my understanding that all beaches in California were
> >public, to which one of the goons replied that "there's the law and
> >there's reality," while subtlety letting his coat hang open to let me
> >see he was armed. I said, "Oh, I have one of those, too!" and lifted my
> >shirt so he could see it and the badge right next to it. I said, "You
> >wouldn't be threatening people with violence for walking on a beach
> >which they have every right to use, would you? 'Cause that would kinda
> >be a felony. How does five years in Chino sound to you? Matter of fact,
> >whoever your boss is in that big ol' house over there could also be
> >civilly liable for whatever you do next, and it's obvious he has deep,
> >deep pockets, so please, keep trying to stop us from walking down the
> >beach. And if you put hands on us, that'll really make my day. I'll get
> >to arrest you *and* retire 10 years early. How's that for reality,
> >chief?"
>
> >They backed off so fast you'd have thought their asses were on fire and
> >we decided to not only keep going across their 'private' beach, but we
> >stopped and sat down for about a half hour to enjoy the view, too.
> Hehehehe

Plenty of beach parking on PCH without trudging to Streisand compound,
typically contrived Hollywood fiction.

On Nov 3, 2022 at 4:27:33 PM PDT, ""Bering Sea Bar & Brig""
<jgrove24@hotmail.com> wrote:

> On Wednesday, November 2, 2022 at 3:27:24 PM UTC-5, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>> BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
>> >"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>>
>> >>In the Town of Porter, Indiana, three homeowners whose properties are on
>> >>the Lake Michigan shoreline demanded exclusive access to Lake Michigan
>> >>and that everybody else must keep out. But the state of Indiana owns
>> >>the lake bottom and the beach and they never had such property rights to
>> >>begin with.
>>
>> >>A California law firm, Pacific Legal Foundation, represented the
>> >>homeowners.
>>
>> >>Gunderson v. State of Indiana
>>
>> >>In 2018, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled 4-0 against the homeowners. In
>> >>2020, the state legislature codified the state supreme court opinion in
>> >>statute. Per tradition, the ordinary high water mark is the line of
>> >>demarcation.
>>
>> >Are there really significant tides on Lake Michigan such there'd be
>> >distinct high and low water marks?
>>
>> >I don't recall high and low tides on our beach when I lived on Fort
>> >Sheridan. The water line always seemed mostly in the same place.
>>
>> >>Yesterday, 11/1/2022, the U.S. Supreme Court denied cert. Yay!
>>
>> >Why would they have granted cert? What federal issue is there here?
>> The lake bottom was owned by the federal government. It was transferred
>> to the states carved out of the Northwest Territory in a bizarre manner,
>> and there was centuries of common law in which sovereign rights extended
>> to the middle and meant that if there was a concave shoreline adjacent
>> landowners had overlapping rights. With a body of water as large as a
>> great lake, extending rights to the MIDDLE was absurd. "Middle" had to
>> do with how English landlords claimed rights to the center of streams,
>> not major rivers and certainly not major lakes. What would the claim
>> have been in the North Sea or the Atlantic Ocean?
>>
>> Congress left the whole thing a massive mess by not writing a statute
>> that made a lot more sense than common law. I've got a legal history
>> book that I've tried to read a few times that's way over my head.
>>
>> You must have learned about some of this.
>> >We have our own richy-riches in Malibu who also like to pretend the
>> >beach outside their back door is their private property.
>> I have a feeling it's the same law firm.
>> >To this day if you take a long walk up the Malibu beachfront, you stand
>> >good odds of being harassed by private security employed by studio
>> >moguls and our precious, precious celebrities to keep your dirty
>> >unwashed prole ass off 'their' beach. This is especially true if they're
>> >having one of their glitzy catered soirees, where they put tables and
>> >chairs out on the sand for the guests. During those parties, the
>> >security guards are actually posted up out on the beach and turn around
>> >anyone who tries to walk past, as if they actually have the authority to
>> >do it.
>>
>> >Several years ago, a group of folks put together an app for smartphones,
>> >which details exactly where all the state-mandated beach access points
>> >are, notes if they happen to be (coincidentally) hidden by shrubbery or
>> >other landscaping tricks, and also points out where property owners have
>> >constructed fake driveways and other schemes to discourage the riff-raff
>> >from parking on PCH.
>>
>> >It also has copies of the California statutes and court decisions that
>> >guarantee public access to all beaches, from the Mexican to the Oregon
>> >borders, in case you're approached and harassed by someone's private
>> >security guards.**
>>
>> >When the app came out, it absolutely infuriated all the 1%-ers in Malibu
>> >and there was even an ill-fated attempt at legal action to prevent its
>> >release, citing 'security concerns'. The plaintiff's claims went over
>> >like a whore farting in church with the court. Since then, the L.A.
>> >Times has reported that use of Malibu beaches by non-Malibu residents
>> >has skyrocketed, which I'm sure is giving all those folks out there a
>> >serious case of red-ass.
>> I'm so happy to hear all this!
>> >**I had my own amusing encounter with private security on a beach in
>> >Malibu about a year after I first moved out here. The girlfriend at the
>> >time and I were walking along the surf line when these two guys in suits
>> >came down off the deck of one the houses and ran down to intercept us.
>> >They told us the beach was private and we couldn't go any further. I
>> >said that it was my understanding that all beaches in California were
>> >public, to which one of the goons replied that "there's the law and
>> >there's reality," while subtlety letting his coat hang open to let me
>> >see he was armed. I said, "Oh, I have one of those, too!" and lifted my
>> >shirt so he could see it and the badge right next to it. I said, "You
>> >wouldn't be threatening people with violence for walking on a beach
>> >which they have every right to use, would you? 'Cause that would kinda
>> >be a felony. How does five years in Chino sound to you? Matter of fact,
>> >whoever your boss is in that big ol' house over there could also be
>> >civilly liable for whatever you do next, and it's obvious he has deep,
>> >deep pockets, so please, keep trying to stop us from walking down the
>> >beach. And if you put hands on us, that'll really make my day. I'll get
>> >to arrest you *and* retire 10 years early. How's that for reality,
>> >chief?"
>>
>> >They backed off so fast you'd have thought their asses were on fire and
>> >we decided to not only keep going across their 'private' beach, but we
>> >stopped and sat down for about a half hour to enjoy the view, too.
>> Hehehehe
>
> Plenty of beach parking on PCH without trudging to Streisand compound,
> typically contrived Hollywood fiction.

Who said anything about Streisand, kook?

On Thursday, November 3, 2022 at 8:07:23 PM UTC-5, BTR1701 wrote:
> On Nov 3, 2022 at 4:27:33 PM PDT, ""Bering Sea Bar & Brig""
> <jgro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Wednesday, November 2, 2022 at 3:27:24 PM UTC-5, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> >> BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
> >> >"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >>In the Town of Porter, Indiana, three homeowners whose properties are on
> >> >>the Lake Michigan shoreline demanded exclusive access to Lake Michigan
> >> >>and that everybody else must keep out. But the state of Indiana owns
> >> >>the lake bottom and the beach and they never had such property rights to
> >> >>begin with.
> >>
> >> >>A California law firm, Pacific Legal Foundation, represented the
> >> >>homeowners.
> >>
> >> >>Gunderson v. State of Indiana
> >>
> >> >>In 2018, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled 4-0 against the homeowners. In
> >> >>2020, the state legislature codified the state supreme court opinion in
> >> >>statute. Per tradition, the ordinary high water mark is the line of
> >> >>demarcation.
> >>
> >> >Are there really significant tides on Lake Michigan such there'd be
> >> >distinct high and low water marks?
> >>
> >> >I don't recall high and low tides on our beach when I lived on Fort
> >> >Sheridan. The water line always seemed mostly in the same place.
> >>
> >> >>Yesterday, 11/1/2022, the U.S. Supreme Court denied cert. Yay!
> >>
> >> >Why would they have granted cert? What federal issue is there here?
> >> The lake bottom was owned by the federal government. It was transferred
> >> to the states carved out of the Northwest Territory in a bizarre manner,
> >> and there was centuries of common law in which sovereign rights extended
> >> to the middle and meant that if there was a concave shoreline adjacent
> >> landowners had overlapping rights. With a body of water as large as a
> >> great lake, extending rights to the MIDDLE was absurd. "Middle" had to
> >> do with how English landlords claimed rights to the center of streams,
> >> not major rivers and certainly not major lakes. What would the claim
> >> have been in the North Sea or the Atlantic Ocean?
> >>
> >> Congress left the whole thing a massive mess by not writing a statute
> >> that made a lot more sense than common law. I've got a legal history
> >> book that I've tried to read a few times that's way over my head.
> >>
> >> You must have learned about some of this.
> >> >We have our own richy-riches in Malibu who also like to pretend the
> >> >beach outside their back door is their private property.
> >> I have a feeling it's the same law firm.
> >> >To this day if you take a long walk up the Malibu beachfront, you stand
> >> >good odds of being harassed by private security employed by studio
> >> >moguls and our precious, precious celebrities to keep your dirty
> >> >unwashed prole ass off 'their' beach. This is especially true if they're
> >> >having one of their glitzy catered soirees, where they put tables and
> >> >chairs out on the sand for the guests. During those parties, the
> >> >security guards are actually posted up out on the beach and turn around
> >> >anyone who tries to walk past, as if they actually have the authority to
> >> >do it.
> >>
> >> >Several years ago, a group of folks put together an app for smartphones,
> >> >which details exactly where all the state-mandated beach access points
> >> >are, notes if they happen to be (coincidentally) hidden by shrubbery or
> >> >other landscaping tricks, and also points out where property owners have
> >> >constructed fake driveways and other schemes to discourage the riff-raff
> >> >from parking on PCH.
> >>
> >> >It also has copies of the California statutes and court decisions that
> >> >guarantee public access to all beaches, from the Mexican to the Oregon
> >> >borders, in case you're approached and harassed by someone's private
> >> >security guards.**
> >>
> >> >When the app came out, it absolutely infuriated all the 1%-ers in Malibu
> >> >and there was even an ill-fated attempt at legal action to prevent its
> >> >release, citing 'security concerns'. The plaintiff's claims went over
> >> >like a whore farting in church with the court. Since then, the L.A.
> >> >Times has reported that use of Malibu beaches by non-Malibu residents
> >> >has skyrocketed, which I'm sure is giving all those folks out there a
> >> >serious case of red-ass.
> >> I'm so happy to hear all this!
> >> >**I had my own amusing encounter with private security on a beach in
> >> >Malibu about a year after I first moved out here. The girlfriend at the
> >> >time and I were walking along the surf line when these two guys in suits
> >> >came down off the deck of one the houses and ran down to intercept us.
> >> >They told us the beach was private and we couldn't go any further. I
> >> >said that it was my understanding that all beaches in California were
> >> >public, to which one of the goons replied that "there's the law and
> >> >there's reality," while subtlety letting his coat hang open to let me
> >> >see he was armed. I said, "Oh, I have one of those, too!" and lifted my
> >> >shirt so he could see it and the badge right next to it. I said, "You
> >> >wouldn't be threatening people with violence for walking on a beach
> >> >which they have every right to use, would you? 'Cause that would kinda
> >> >be a felony. How does five years in Chino sound to you? Matter of fact,
> >> >whoever your boss is in that big ol' house over there could also be
> >> >civilly liable for whatever you do next, and it's obvious he has deep,
> >> >deep pockets, so please, keep trying to stop us from walking down the
> >> >beach. And if you put hands on us, that'll really make my day. I'll get
> >> >to arrest you *and* retire 10 years early. How's that for reality,
> >> >chief?"
> >>
> >> >They backed off so fast you'd have thought their asses were on fire and
> >> >we decided to not only keep going across their 'private' beach, but we
> >> >stopped and sat down for about a half hour to enjoy the view, too.
> >> Hehehehe
> >
> > Plenty of beach parking on PCH without trudging to Streisand compound,
> > typically contrived Hollywood fiction.
> Who said anything about Streisand, kook?

Point being that North PCH has so much beachfront with free parking, why trudge somewhere that will video one peeing?

On Thursday, November 3, 2022 at 8:07:23 PM UTC-5, BTR1701 wrote:
> On Nov 3, 2022 at 4:27:33 PM PDT, ""Bering Sea Bar & Brig""
> <jgro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Wednesday, November 2, 2022 at 3:27:24 PM UTC-5, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> >> BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
> >> >"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >>In the Town of Porter, Indiana, three homeowners whose properties are on
> >> >>the Lake Michigan shoreline demanded exclusive access to Lake Michigan
> >> >>and that everybody else must keep out. But the state of Indiana owns
> >> >>the lake bottom and the beach and they never had such property rights to
> >> >>begin with.
> >>
> >> >>A California law firm, Pacific Legal Foundation, represented the
> >> >>homeowners.
> >>
> >> >>Gunderson v. State of Indiana
> >>
> >> >>In 2018, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled 4-0 against the homeowners. In
> >> >>2020, the state legislature codified the state supreme court opinion in
> >> >>statute. Per tradition, the ordinary high water mark is the line of
> >> >>demarcation.
> >>
> >> >Are there really significant tides on Lake Michigan such there'd be
> >> >distinct high and low water marks?
> >>
> >> >I don't recall high and low tides on our beach when I lived on Fort
> >> >Sheridan. The water line always seemed mostly in the same place.
> >>
> >> >>Yesterday, 11/1/2022, the U.S. Supreme Court denied cert. Yay!
> >>
> >> >Why would they have granted cert? What federal issue is there here?
> >> The lake bottom was owned by the federal government. It was transferred
> >> to the states carved out of the Northwest Territory in a bizarre manner,
> >> and there was centuries of common law in which sovereign rights extended
> >> to the middle and meant that if there was a concave shoreline adjacent
> >> landowners had overlapping rights. With a body of water as large as a
> >> great lake, extending rights to the MIDDLE was absurd. "Middle" had to
> >> do with how English landlords claimed rights to the center of streams,
> >> not major rivers and certainly not major lakes. What would the claim
> >> have been in the North Sea or the Atlantic Ocean?
> >>
> >> Congress left the whole thing a massive mess by not writing a statute
> >> that made a lot more sense than common law. I've got a legal history
> >> book that I've tried to read a few times that's way over my head.
> >>
> >> You must have learned about some of this.
> >> >We have our own richy-riches in Malibu who also like to pretend the
> >> >beach outside their back door is their private property.
> >> I have a feeling it's the same law firm.
> >> >To this day if you take a long walk up the Malibu beachfront, you stand
> >> >good odds of being harassed by private security employed by studio
> >> >moguls and our precious, precious celebrities to keep your dirty
> >> >unwashed prole ass off 'their' beach. This is especially true if they're
> >> >having one of their glitzy catered soirees, where they put tables and
> >> >chairs out on the sand for the guests. During those parties, the
> >> >security guards are actually posted up out on the beach and turn around
> >> >anyone who tries to walk past, as if they actually have the authority to
> >> >do it.
> >>
> >> >Several years ago, a group of folks put together an app for smartphones,
> >> >which details exactly where all the state-mandated beach access points
> >> >are, notes if they happen to be (coincidentally) hidden by shrubbery or
> >> >other landscaping tricks, and also points out where property owners have
> >> >constructed fake driveways and other schemes to discourage the riff-raff
> >> >from parking on PCH.
> >>
> >> >It also has copies of the California statutes and court decisions that
> >> >guarantee public access to all beaches, from the Mexican to the Oregon
> >> >borders, in case you're approached and harassed by someone's private
> >> >security guards.**
> >>
> >> >When the app came out, it absolutely infuriated all the 1%-ers in Malibu
> >> >and there was even an ill-fated attempt at legal action to prevent its
> >> >release, citing 'security concerns'. The plaintiff's claims went over
> >> >like a whore farting in church with the court. Since then, the L.A.
> >> >Times has reported that use of Malibu beaches by non-Malibu residents
> >> >has skyrocketed, which I'm sure is giving all those folks out there a
> >> >serious case of red-ass.
> >> I'm so happy to hear all this!
> >> >**I had my own amusing encounter with private security on a beach in
> >> >Malibu about a year after I first moved out here. The girlfriend at the
> >> >time and I were walking along the surf line when these two guys in suits
> >> >came down off the deck of one the houses and ran down to intercept us.
> >> >They told us the beach was private and we couldn't go any further. I
> >> >said that it was my understanding that all beaches in California were
> >> >public, to which one of the goons replied that "there's the law and
> >> >there's reality," while subtlety letting his coat hang open to let me
> >> >see he was armed. I said, "Oh, I have one of those, too!" and lifted my
> >> >shirt so he could see it and the badge right next to it. I said, "You
> >> >wouldn't be threatening people with violence for walking on a beach
> >> >which they have every right to use, would you? 'Cause that would kinda
> >> >be a felony. How does five years in Chino sound to you? Matter of fact,
> >> >whoever your boss is in that big ol' house over there could also be
> >> >civilly liable for whatever you do next, and it's obvious he has deep,
> >> >deep pockets, so please, keep trying to stop us from walking down the
> >> >beach. And if you put hands on us, that'll really make my day. I'll get
> >> >to arrest you *and* retire 10 years early. How's that for reality,
> >> >chief?"
> >>
> >> >They backed off so fast you'd have thought their asses were on fire and
> >> >we decided to not only keep going across their 'private' beach, but we
> >> >stopped and sat down for about a half hour to enjoy the view, too.
> >> Hehehehe
> >
> > Plenty of beach parking on PCH without trudging to Streisand compound,
> > typically contrived Hollywood fiction.
> Who said anything about Streisand, kook?

Did I hit a nerve with a Funny Girl fan?
how many times did you catch Babs at Dorothy Chandler Pavilion?
Or maybe a Brolin ROSE live show?

On Wed, 02 Nov 2022 13:18:16 -0700, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

>In article <tjuhtq$18589$1@dont-email.me>,
> "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>
>> In the Town of Porter, Indiana, three homeowners whose properties are on
>> the Lake Michigan shoreline demanded exclusive access to Lake Michigan
>> and that everybody else must keep out. But the state of Indiana owns
>> the lake bottom and the beach and they never had such property rights to
>> begin with.
>>
>> A California law firm, Pacific Legal Foundation, represented the
>> homeowners.
>>
>> Gunderson v. State of Indiana
>>
>> In 2018, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled 4-0 against the homeowners. In
>> 2020, the state legislature codified the state supreme court opinion in
>> statute. Per tradition, the ordinary high water mark is the line of
>> demarcation.
>
>Are there really significant tides on Lake Michigan such there'd be
>distinct high and low water marks?
>
>I don't recall high and low tides on our beach when I lived on Fort
>Sheridan. The water line always seemed mostly in the same place.

That was my initial response too. While it's been 30 years since I've
driven the entire north shore of Lakes Superior and Huron I don't
recall significant tides there - certainly nothing on the scale of the
Pacific or Atlantic or significant tides on any other fresh water lake
I've seen (which is dozens)
>> Yesterday, 11/1/2022, the U.S. Supreme Court denied cert. Yay!
>
>Why would they have granted cert? What federal issue is there here?
>
>We have our own richy-riches in Malibu who also like to pretend the
>beach outside their back door is their private property.
>
>To this day if you take a long walk up the Malibu beachfront, you stand
>good odds of being harassed by private security employed by studio
>moguls and our precious, precious celebrities to keep your dirty
>unwashed prole ass off 'their' beach. This is especially true if they're
>having one of their glitzy catered soirees, where they put tables and
>chairs out on the sand for the guests. During those parties, the
>security guards are actually posted up out on the beach and turn around
>anyone who tries to walk past, as if they actually have the authority to
>do it.

In our area we have restaurants near the beach with extended patios
going into sandy areas but those fences end well above the high water
mark. (And the ocean beyond is definitely salt water) They will
generally leave you alone unless you do something really egregious
like standing just beyond the fence with a boom box at max volume.

There is lots of public access between the end of their fence and the
beach even at high water.

On the other hand there are designated port lands where the public
does NOT have free access to the water's edge even at high tide and in
most cases employees of the freight companies using the port have to
undergo security checks as a condition of employment.

On Wed, 2 Nov 2022 20:27:19 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
<ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

>The lake bottom was owned by the federal government. It was transferred
>to the states carved out of the Northwest Territory in a bizarre manner,
>and there was centuries of common law in which sovereign rights extended
>to the middle and meant that if there was a concave shoreline adjacent
>landowners had overlapping rights. With a body of water as large as a
>great lake, extending rights to the MIDDLE was absurd. "Middle" had to
>do with how English landlords claimed rights to the center of streams,
>not major rivers and certainly not major lakes. What would the claim
>have been in the North Sea or the Atlantic Ocean?
>
There are plenty of areas in the Great Lakes that are more than 3
miles from shore. (Especially on Lake Superior) With the exception of
Lake Michigan (considered enclosed US territory) all the Great Lakes
are fully divided between the US and Canada along the mid-lake lines
with no 'international waters'

Things are murkier in the Arctic which if global warming continues may
become an ice-free route through the Canadian Arctic. The US claims
these are international waters while Canada claims them as internal
waters and the US would probably do well to take Canada's position
since whatever the US would get in an international tribunal, China
and Russia would get as well.

One has to wonder how the US Navy would feel about Russian and Chinese
ships (particularly the latter which are USUALLY carrying large
amounts of electronic mapping equipment) in the Canadian Arctic
Archipelago. It is already claimed that the Russian navy has better
maps on the ocean floor than Canada in these waters.

The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>Wed, 2 Nov 2022 20:27:19 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

>>The lake bottom was owned by the federal government. It was transferred
>>to the states carved out of the Northwest Territory in a bizarre manner,
>>and there was centuries of common law in which sovereign rights extended
>>to the middle and meant that if there was a concave shoreline adjacent
>>landowners had overlapping rights. With a body of water as large as a
>>great lake, extending rights to the MIDDLE was absurd. "Middle" had to
>>do with how English landlords claimed rights to the center of streams,
>>not major rivers and certainly not major lakes. What would the claim
>>have been in the North Sea or the Atlantic Ocean?

>There are plenty of areas in the Great Lakes that are more than 3
>miles from shore. (Especially on Lake Superior) With the exception of
>Lake Michigan (considered enclosed US territory) all the Great Lakes
>are fully divided between the US and Canada along the mid-lake lines
>with no 'international waters' . . .

I'm not discussing national claims to substantial portions of oceans and
seas that are no where near the coastline.

In land title, there is an original recording of title as property of
the sovereign, in this case, literally the English king. All subsequent
title transfers are based on this original title recording. Note that
this was done to wipe out any land claims of indigenous peoples prior to
the establishment of the monarchy, such as the native Britons, or in the
New World, to wipe out any land claims of Indians.

Any sovereign claims of water rights "to the middle of the body of
water" were transferred to subsequent land owners.

This is all based on common law. While federal law did not incorporate
common law and the First Congress was therefore required to adopt
specific provisions of common law into federal statutory law, common law
(with the exception of James II and until a specific year in the 18th
century) was adopted into the law of every state but one.

But there is a lot of weirdness in which federal courts apply common law
regardless in circumstances in which Congress failed to enact its own
statute. At both state and federal levels, common law applies till
another statute is passed to address the issue.

That's how this huge mess was created with water rights.

In the case of these homeowners, federal interest was conveyed to the
states and the state at no point transferred lake bottom to the
adjoining land owner. These homeowners had no legitimate claims.

The high tide-low tide applies. It's lake bottom up to the typical high
water mark.

A park district board serving an elite Chicago suburb agreed to swap
lakefront land with a billionaire land owner.

But then, the public learned that the billionaire wanted to build steel
louvered walls into the lake and it might affect a dog park. The article
doesn't say anything about whether the billinaire would cut off public
use of the lakefront at low tide (private ownership doesn't begin till
the high water mark). There's also concern about a stormwater outfall
pipe that might lead to contamination.

Quick history: When Chicago was initially settled, the north lakefront
north of the city, where the land was full of ravines, was considered
undersireable and wasn't farmed. Then develpers of housing for upper
middle class and wealthy sold the land on natural beauty and exclusivity
created by the ravines, which created natural pockets of privacy.

The ravines, which feature unstable soils, were poorly treated and
stormwater from above was deliberately routed into the ravines, which
made the unstable soil situation worse. I have a feeling that the
stormwater pipe in question is from drainage through a ravine.

Plans submitted to the state and Army Corps of Engineers for the
lakefront redesign have been withdrawn. Will the park board attempt to
rescind the land swap?

https://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/winnetka/ct-wtk-wpd-update-tl-1124-20221121-ovjqbopw5rambn7tx5cfy4sbku-story.html

On Sunday, November 20, 2022 at 3:38:01 PM UTC-6, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> A park district board serving an elite Chicago suburb agreed to swap
> lakefront land with a billionaire land owner.
>
> But then, the public learned that the billionaire wanted to build steel
> louvered walls into the lake and it might affect a dog park. The article
> doesn't say anything about whether the billinaire would cut off public
> use of the lakefront at low tide (private ownership doesn't begin till
> the high water mark). There's also concern about a stormwater outfall
> pipe that might lead to contamination.
>
> Quick history: When Chicago was initially settled, the north lakefront
> north of the city, where the land was full of ravines, was considered
> undersireable and wasn't farmed. Then develpers of housing for upper
> middle class and wealthy sold the land on natural beauty and exclusivity
> created by the ravines, which created natural pockets of privacy.
>
> The ravines, which feature unstable soils, were poorly treated and
> stormwater from above was deliberately routed into the ravines, which
> made the unstable soil situation worse. I have a feeling that the
> stormwater pipe in question is from drainage through a ravine.
>
> Plans submitted to the state and Army Corps of Engineers for the
> lakefront redesign have been withdrawn. Will the park board attempt to
> rescind the land swap?
>
> https://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/winnetka/ct-wtk-wpd-update-tl-1124-20221121-ovjqbopw5rambn7tx5cfy4sbku-story.html

I don't see Ravines south of Highland Park. If they existed when the land was stolen from the Blackhawks then they were filled in. As for their beaches, the Cook County Forest Preserve should gather up ALL the park beaches from north of Howard St. and end the silly resident only access. GRU Posters should check google maps first!

Bering Sea Bar & Brig <jgrove24@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Sunday, November 20, 2022 at 3:38:01 PM UTC-6, Adam H. Kerman wrote:

>>A park district board serving an elite Chicago suburb agreed to swap
>>lakefront land with a billionaire land owner.

>>But then, the public learned that the billionaire wanted to build steel
>>louvered walls into the lake and it might affect a dog park. The article
>>doesn't say anything about whether the billinaire would cut off public
>>use of the lakefront at low tide (private ownership doesn't begin till
>>the high water mark). There's also concern about a stormwater outfall
>>pipe that might lead to contamination.

>>Quick history: When Chicago was initially settled, the north lakefront
>>north of the city, where the land was full of ravines, was considered
>>undersireable and wasn't farmed. Then develpers of housing for upper
>>middle class and wealthy sold the land on natural beauty and exclusivity
>>created by the ravines, which created natural pockets of privacy.

>>The ravines, which feature unstable soils, were poorly treated and
>>stormwater from above was deliberately routed into the ravines, which
>>made the unstable soil situation worse. I have a feeling that the
>>stormwater pipe in question is from drainage through a ravine.

>>Plans submitted to the state and Army Corps of Engineers for the
>>lakefront redesign have been withdrawn. Will the park board attempt to
>>rescind the land swap?

>>https://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/winnetka/ct-wtk-wpd-update-tl-1124-20221121-ovjqbopw5rambn7tx5cfy4sbku-story.html

>I don't see Ravines south of Highland Park.

They are impossible to miss in Glencoe and Winnetka.

>If they existed when the land was stolen from the Blackhawks then they
>were filled in.

The Indians didn't generally live on the North Shore proximate to Lake
Michigan. C'mon.

>As for
>their beaches, the Cook County Forest Preserve should gather up ALL the
>park beaches from north of Howard St. and end the silly resident only
>access. GRU Posters should check google maps first!

On Sunday, November 20, 2022 at 4:22:28 PM UTC-6, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> Bering Sea Bar & Brig <jgro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >On Sunday, November 20, 2022 at 3:38:01 PM UTC-6, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>
> >>A park district board serving an elite Chicago suburb agreed to swap
> >>lakefront land with a billionaire land owner.
>
> >>But then, the public learned that the billionaire wanted to build steel
> >>louvered walls into the lake and it might affect a dog park. The article
> >>doesn't say anything about whether the billinaire would cut off public
> >>use of the lakefront at low tide (private ownership doesn't begin till
> >>the high water mark). There's also concern about a stormwater outfall
> >>pipe that might lead to contamination.
>
> >>Quick history: When Chicago was initially settled, the north lakefront
> >>north of the city, where the land was full of ravines, was considered
> >>undersireable and wasn't farmed. Then develpers of housing for upper
> >>middle class and wealthy sold the land on natural beauty and exclusivity
> >>created by the ravines, which created natural pockets of privacy.
>
> >>The ravines, which feature unstable soils, were poorly treated and
> >>stormwater from above was deliberately routed into the ravines, which
> >>made the unstable soil situation worse. I have a feeling that the
> >>stormwater pipe in question is from drainage through a ravine.
>
> >>Plans submitted to the state and Army Corps of Engineers for the
> >>lakefront redesign have been withdrawn. Will the park board attempt to
> >>rescind the land swap?
>
> >>https://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/winnetka/ct-wtk-wpd-update-tl-1124-20221121-ovjqbopw5rambn7tx5cfy4sbku-story.html
>
> >I don't see Ravines south of Highland Park.
> They are impossible to miss in Glencoe and Winnetka.
> >If they existed when the land was stolen from the Blackhawks then they
> >were filled in.
> The Indians didn't generally live on the North Shore proximate to Lake
> Michigan. C'mon.
> >As for
> >their beaches, the Cook County Forest Preserve should gather up ALL the
> >park beaches from north of Howard St. and end the silly resident only
> >access. GRU Posters should check google maps first!

Rolling google streetview down Tower rd. to Sheridan shows flatland. The beach may be down a cliff.

Bering Sea Bar & Brig <jgrove24@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Sunday, November 20, 2022 at 4:22:28 PM UTC-6, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>> Bering Sea Bar & Brig <jgro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >On Sunday, November 20, 2022 at 3:38:01 PM UTC-6, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>
>> >>A park district board serving an elite Chicago suburb agreed to swap
>> >>lakefront land with a billionaire land owner.
>>
>> >>But then, the public learned that the billionaire wanted to build steel
>> >>louvered walls into the lake and it might affect a dog park. The article
>> >>doesn't say anything about whether the billinaire would cut off public
>> >>use of the lakefront at low tide (private ownership doesn't begin till
>> >>the high water mark). There's also concern about a stormwater outfall
>> >>pipe that might lead to contamination.
>>
>> >>Quick history: When Chicago was initially settled, the north lakefront
>> >>north of the city, where the land was full of ravines, was considered
>> >>undersireable and wasn't farmed. Then develpers of housing for upper
>> >>middle class and wealthy sold the land on natural beauty and exclusivity
>> >>created by the ravines, which created natural pockets of privacy.
>>
>> >>The ravines, which feature unstable soils, were poorly treated and
>> >>stormwater from above was deliberately routed into the ravines, which
>> >>made the unstable soil situation worse. I have a feeling that the
>> >>stormwater pipe in question is from drainage through a ravine.
>>
>> >>Plans submitted to the state and Army Corps of Engineers for the
>> >>lakefront redesign have been withdrawn. Will the park board attempt to
>> >>rescind the land swap?
>>
>>
>>>https://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/winnetka/ct-wtk-wpd-update-tl-1124-20221121-ovjqbopw5rambn7tx5cfy4sbku-story.html
>>
>> >I don't see Ravines south of Highland Park.
>> They are impossible to miss in Glencoe and Winnetka.
>> >If they existed when the land was stolen from the Blackhawks then they
>> >were filled in.
>> The Indians didn't generally live on the North Shore proximate to Lake
>> Michigan. C'mon.
>> >As for
>> >their beaches, the Cook County Forest Preserve should gather up ALL the
>> >park beaches from north of Howard St. and end the silly resident only
>> >access. GRU Posters should check google maps first!
>
>Rolling google streetview down Tower rd. to Sheridan shows flatland. The
>beach may be down a cliff.

I live here. Ravines are a feature whether Google acknowledges them or not,

On Mon, 21 Nov 2022 20:16:36 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
<ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

>I live here. Ravines are a feature whether Google acknowledges them or not,

I once had an out of town customer call for street directions to our
store and he happened to be about 12 blocks away on the same street
and I gave him directions that took him 6-7 blocks out of the way and
he got all irate with me for doing so.

I told him there was a 100' high cliff between where he was and I was
and that that's why it wasn't a through street "and that I assumed you
wouldn't want to drive over it!" (naturally I didn't tell him that
until after I had made the sale - I also walked him outside to look up
the street to the drop off)

On Monday, November 21, 2022 at 2:16:40 PM UTC-6, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> Bering Sea Bar & Brig <jgro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >On Sunday, November 20, 2022 at 4:22:28 PM UTC-6, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> >> Bering Sea Bar & Brig <jgro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >On Sunday, November 20, 2022 at 3:38:01 PM UTC-6, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> >>
> >> >>A park district board serving an elite Chicago suburb agreed to swap
> >> >>lakefront land with a billionaire land owner.
> >>
> >> >>But then, the public learned that the billionaire wanted to build steel
> >> >>louvered walls into the lake and it might affect a dog park. The article
> >> >>doesn't say anything about whether the billinaire would cut off public
> >> >>use of the lakefront at low tide (private ownership doesn't begin till
> >> >>the high water mark). There's also concern about a stormwater outfall
> >> >>pipe that might lead to contamination.
> >>
> >> >>Quick history: When Chicago was initially settled, the north lakefront
> >> >>north of the city, where the land was full of ravines, was considered
> >> >>undersireable and wasn't farmed. Then develpers of housing for upper
> >> >>middle class and wealthy sold the land on natural beauty and exclusivity
> >> >>created by the ravines, which created natural pockets of privacy.
> >>
> >> >>The ravines, which feature unstable soils, were poorly treated and
> >> >>stormwater from above was deliberately routed into the ravines, which
> >> >>made the unstable soil situation worse. I have a feeling that the
> >> >>stormwater pipe in question is from drainage through a ravine.
> >>
> >> >>Plans submitted to the state and Army Corps of Engineers for the
> >> >>lakefront redesign have been withdrawn. Will the park board attempt to
> >> >>rescind the land swap?
> >>
> >>
> >>>https://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/winnetka/ct-wtk-wpd-update-tl-1124-20221121-ovjqbopw5rambn7tx5cfy4sbku-story.html
> >>
> >> >I don't see Ravines south of Highland Park.
> >> They are impossible to miss in Glencoe and Winnetka.
> >> >If they existed when the land was stolen from the Blackhawks then they
> >> >were filled in.
> >> The Indians didn't generally live on the North Shore proximate to Lake
> >> Michigan. C'mon.
> >> >As for
> >> >their beaches, the Cook County Forest Preserve should gather up ALL the
> >> >park beaches from north of Howard St. and end the silly resident only
> >> >access. GRU Posters should check google maps first!
> >
> >Rolling google streetview down Tower rd. to Sheridan shows flatland. The
> >beach may be down a cliff.
> I live here. Ravines are a feature whether Google acknowledges them or not,

Maybe Glencoe. And plenty of Blackhawk, potowatamy and golden nuggets tribes roamed New Trier.