Surfers to Paps: Peace, Man!

61. Hey carlos , a very stupid man once said " they hate us for our freedom" , freedom such as freedom of the press , little did he know that the "they" he was talking about were stupid people from malibu .If you people in malibu don't like america and the freedoms it give you maybe you should move . There are plenty of countries where the press could not take your photo. move there if you don't like it here. carlos b/t/w you remind me of that girl on the beach talking tough knowing that know one is going to hit her.

Posted at 4:53PM on Jun 29th 2008 by george

62. so much misinformation , here is a definition from a court ruling: The plane of mean high tide was defined as the average of all high water elevations observed over an 18.6 year period or Tidal Epoch.

Posted at 5:05PM on Jun 29th 2008 by joe public

63. This is NOT a public beach but PRIVATE owned land down to the water line. It has been this way for decades. It is for the use of homeowners in the area who pay HOA dues and have access to the HOA locked gates and to the public if they visit the restaurant at the south end or purchase a daily parking pass at the south end where the parking lot is located.
Again this is PRIVATE owned property so if you wish to visit PLEASE obey the rules and desires of people trying to enjoy the beach with their families.
If you think your going to be able to walk up and down the beach trying to sell hot dogs or other crap you’ll be run off as it’s not allowed, the same probably goes for a group of paparazzis with big conspicuous cameras and 2 ft telephoto lenses trying to photograph someone off guard. If there was one or two of you it probably wouldn’t of been such a big deal but when there is a group and you are all there for COMERCIAL reasons only, well that’s a problem for everyone, especially when there are bikini clad females and children in bathing suits being photographed against their knowledge or wishes.
NOTE: If there was a group of men pointing their 2 ft telephoto lenses in the direction of your 8 year old girls and boys…you too would be concerned.
If you really need to be there you probably should be regulated, licensed and registered with the City of Malibu and only 2 at a time on the beach.

This girl with the signs is trying to make it look like the public is locked out of a public beach which is not true. This is FALSE PROPAGANDA trying to stir up the media with falsehoods which is just plain IRRESPONSIBLE

Posted at 9:24PM on Jun 29th 2008 by TMZ = The Moron Zombies of Harvey Levin

64. Referring to paps as "press" or "jounalists" is like referring to drug dealers as "pharmacists".

Posted at 9:11PM on Jun 29th 2008 by TMZhires13yearolds

65. #63 ironically they said the same thing about porn when they attempted to jail hustler publisher larry flint. they said that the materials were obscene and did not fall w/in free speech and free press . People like you argued that this did not fall under journalistic practices . The supreme court disagreed . Secondly if this is a private beach then assume that the homeowners association would be liable for the action of the surfer. you can't have it both ways . either its public and therefore you have no liability or its private and you do ,
Lastly did you see a group of men pointing their cameras at 8 year old girls ? I saw the tape it appeared the surfer could care less about the 8 year old girls and were angry b/c they shot their boy Matt M.
Lastly if they were shooting 8 year old girls then it was not for commercial purposes and therefore could shoot as much as you want. At least according to your logic at least.

Posted at 9:39PM on Jun 29th 2008 by george

66. PUBLIC TRUST DOCTRINE

At the heart of beach-access cases is an ancient Roman law known as the public trust doctrine, which originally was intended to guarantee fishermen's rights and give stranded boaters or ships safe landing rights. But attorneys note that the doctrine has been expanded in recent years to apply to all water activities, including beach access.

"I think it's long gone from what the original intent was. It's now about the right to have a summer vacation," Sherwood said.

A key issue before judges is determining at what point along the shoreline does private property end and public access begin. Does the public doctrine cover just the water, or does it include the damp sand along the coastline, and some soft sandy parts?

In the Atlantis Beach Club case, New Jersey's high court ruled that the public must have access to the entire beach, from where the surf reaches at high tide to the high dunes between the beach and the condominium towers just west of it.

In Michigan, the Supreme Court limited public access to the shoreline, ruling that the public was free to stroll along any beach up to the high-water mark, which is where the water leaves a line. This means people don't have to stay in the water, but can walk along the damp shoreline as well. Glass v. Goeckel, No. 126409 (Mich. 2005).

"Millions of people were going to have to walk in the water," said attorney Pam Burt, who won the beach-access suit before the Michigan Supreme Court.

Burt of Weiner & Burt in Harrisville, Mich., believes that the public doctrine was applied properly in her case, saying that the ruling didn't grant the public any rights it didn't already have.

"Even before we were admitted to the union, it's always been the case that the public had rights to use these waters," said Burt. She said that public-access rights have increasingly been threatened in Michigan by private homeowner associations. "There's kind of been this landgrab push to narrow and confine the public's right [to beach access] ... it's fostered a 'Hey, this is all mine, you can't come near it' attitude.' "

The Michigan Supreme Court's ruling arose from a dispute between resident Joan Glass, who sued her neighbors Richard and Kathleen Goeckel over access to the couple's Lake Huron waterfront. The Goeckels claimed that Glass was trespassing and regularly congregated with friends on their property.

On July 29, the state Supreme Court ruled, 5-2, in Glass' favor, finding that "it is a tradition to walk on the beaches," and to change that would be in conflict with the public trust doctrine.

On Aug. 19, Scott Strattard, attorney for the Goeckels, asked the Supreme Court to reconsider its ruling, arguing that it was based on faulty legal reasoning and allows unconstitutional seizure of private land for public use.

"These people made purchases of beachfront property when the law said you have to the water's edge, and now they don't. And I don't know how you can call that anything other than a reduction in property rights, which in my view is a taking without any compensation," said Strattard of Braun Kendrick Finkbeiner in Saginaw, Mich.

Strattard also argued that many homes along the Great Lakes are close together and located just a few feet from the water. This could lead to public crowding on already cramped beach area, he said.

Strattard said he fears that the ruling will be widely misinterpreted by the public, leading some to believe they can "put their blanket down. I suppose they could put an umbrella in the sand, too."

For Ohio attorney James Lang, who represents the Ohio Lakefront Group in an ownership rights case where public access issues have been raised, the recent Michigan ruling doesn't hold much water.

Lang of Calfee, Halter & Griswold in Cleveland, represents lakefront residents who are suing the Ohio Department of Natural Resources, claiming that the state is working to strip them of property rights and to claim ownership of beach property that they say is rightfully theirs. Ohio Lakefront Group v. Ohio Dep't of Natural Resources, No 1:05-CV-0818 (N.D. Ohio.).

"The state is coming in and saying, 'That dry land over there. You don't own it,' " Lang said. "We're trying to push the state back to the water." As in Michigan, the Ohio case centers around where private property ends and where it begins on a beach. But Ohio law is different from Michigan law, noted Lang, who said, "Never in Ohio has the public trust ever extended beyond the water."

Not so in California, claimed Steve Hoye, whose nonprofit group Access for All has been in and out of court for several years fighting for public access to California's coastline.

"I'd like to see people being able to choose whatever coastal experience they want on a particular day," Hoye said. "The problem is the homeowners who simply don't want the public there at all."

One such homeowner who resisted public access is Geffen, Hoye said. He sued Access for All and the California Coastal Commission in 2002 over a public path that would lead to his beach. Geffen argued that public access to his Malibu estate represented an unconstitutional taking of his property. City of Malibu/Geffen v. Access for All/Costal Comm'n, No. BC277034 (Los Angeles Co., Calif., Super. Ct.).

But on April 15, after three years of litigation and daily fines of $1,000 a day, Geffen settled his suit and agreed to allow the public path.

ONGOING CALIFORNIA DISPUTES

Still, noted Hoye, much of California's coastline is tangled in legal disputes over public access, despite a state law that requires that all 1,160 miles of state shoreline be available to the public up to the mean high-tide line. He said that many wealthy homeowners have resisted letting the public onto their beaches, so lawsuits have ensued.

For example, the California Coastal Commission, which is charged with overseeing development and protecting public beach access along the coast, has been engaged in 21 legal fights over long-promised public access ways across private property. Most recently, on Aug. 12, the commission ordered homeowners on Broad Beach to stop posting no-trespassing signs and using motorized police patrols.

The commission also filed a lawsuit against a homeowners association along Broad Beach for building a sand berm without a permit that allegedly blocked public access. California Costal Comm'n v. Trancas Property Owners Assoc., No. SC 086150 (Los Angeles Co., Calif., Super. Ct.).

Attorney Kenneth Ehrlich of Jeffer, Mangels, Butler & Marmaro in Los Angeles, who is representing the Trancas Property Owners Association in that litigation, denied any wrongdoing on his clients' part. He said that the association was trying to repair erosion damage when it built the berm, and that it stopped posting no-trespassing signs many months ago. He also defended the group's right to protect its private property interests.

"The bottom line is that the private property rights that exist along the coast should be respected. And at the end of the day, typically those private rights don't impair the existing public access to our beaches," said Ehrlich. "I've lived in Southern California, close to the beach, my entire life. I find there to be ample public resources and public beaches."



Subscribe to The National Law Journal

Posted at 10:20PM on Jun 29th 2008 by Robert

67. to the poster known as TMZ = The Moron Zombies of Harvey Levin -why do you insist on posting lies??

Posted at 10:34PM on Jun 29th 2008 by joe public

68. To George and Joe Public...

My comment about pointing cameras "in the direction of" was a general statement of having paps on the beach pointing cameras in someones general direction and NOT a specific statement for a specific incident.

So take a deep breath and let's have a constructive conversation.

And PLEASE let's all stop trying to SPIN each others statements in the opposite direction of what that poster meant.

I don't post lies just FACTS...if you still think I posted lies then please list each one of them.

I take it by your reactions that you are both Paparazzi? or work for TMZ / X17? which is OK

Posted at 11:08PM on Jun 29th 2008 by TMZ = The Moronic Zombies of Harvey Levin

69. it is only "private" above the mean high tide line, to say it is a private beach is not the truth. period. it is not a private beach, a portion of it is private , but as a whole, the beach is not private. there is no debating this. It's California law.

Posted at 12:03AM on Jun 30th 2008 by joe public

70. to TMZ= ,the problem w/ asuming that I work as a pap or for tmz or x17 is that its wrong. My concern is when a group of people act as gang and cause violence and injury as well crimnal acts on a public beach. If these were black gansters I would say clean up that beach , these are white gansters , I say clean up that beach. To take someones camra by force is a robbery punishable by time in prison. I have different opinion than I think those who rob other are far more of a public danger than those who take photos. B/T/W what is the difference if a surf photographer is in the water taking shots or a tourist is taking shots of the beach as oppose to a pap. Its the same conduct. Now that being said if the paps were placing others lives in danger (and I live in belair so I see it regularly) then they should be charged and punished. But if a photo is going to set you off then there is other stuff going on in your head and the photographer is the straw that breaks the camel back.Remember "they hate us for our freedom" lets hope the "they" that was referred to wasn't ourselves.

Posted at 12:22AM on Jun 30th 2008 by george

71. Joe Public...so where are these lies you are accusing me of?

As I wrote in my original post that this is PRIVATE owned land down to the water line ( or tide line , wet sand etc) which goes in line with your interpretation of where the private portion of the beach ends and the public portion of our entire coast begins. The girl with the posters had LIES written all over her posters as there are public access to this area, one is at Point Dume, where you have to climb down to the beach and the other is through the parking lot I mentioned in the above post.

George - I never was discussing the fight between the first group of so-called local surfers and the paps. Starting a fight over the paps being there was wrong whether it was the surfers or the paps that started it.
BUT there was some video footage of Matt going to the paps prior to the day the first fight took place to ask the paps to cool it and warn them they were making people upset by photographing up the beach where Matt was hanging out. But it seems the paps didn't care and continued to aggravate the situation by continuingh to point their cameras towards that direction of the beach in the following days as the paps feel they have the right to do this and everyone else needs to accept them photographing whoever they want.
These new breed of paps are NOT artists trying to take beautiful photos that complement people, or news worthy photos in the traditional sense, they make their money taking COMPROMISING photos of their prey, and the more COMPROMISING the photo the MORE MONEY they can sell them for.
And the more paps there are in a group the more VICIOUS they become with each other in trying to be the first in the group to get the best shot etc and this causes a phyiscally DANGEROUS situation for innocent bystanders near by as they get pushed or trampled etc.
So to understand the paps for WHAT THEY ARE...they are NOT the type of so-called "photo-journalist" most families would want to have hanging around their family gatherings at the beach shooting photos at or nearby their kids and wives.
And this new breed of paps don’t seem to get it that most people including the stars DON’T LIKE THEM. And these paps need to get an EDUCATION on professionalism.

Hollywood, the studios, movies and TV make these people stars NOT the paps. The paps only help weak stars get a little more publicity so if the paps went away for good nobody would really care or be affected.

Sorry for the book but this is for the BONEHEADS that don’t get it

Posted at 3:00AM on Jun 30th 2008 by TMZ = The MORONIC Zombies of Harvey Levin

72. tmz= , lets change the hypo , let say you came to my starbucks up in bel air , and I walked over to you and said hey these other people from bel air don't like people from malibu in the hood so to speak , it best that you leave , Your presense is causing people to get upset and it may lead violence . What would you do ? your on a public piece of property and you are not doing anything illegal. Lets look at your example closer , were these paps in the face of M.M. ? apperantly not , he had to walk from where he was to to point out that those surfers way over there are pissed at them . The surfers then walked down from there beers and started the confrontation.
moreover its ok if guys gawk at your girlfriend as long as they don't take a photo ? tmz= , its a compliment , if you get pissed off at people checking out your girlfriend then you need to become a little more secure, if she hot guys will look ,
lastly we see the paps everyday at my local hang and much like the security check at the airport after 9/11 we may not like it but we have learned to live it. I suggest that you and the likes of you do the same , b/c they are not going away. Violence only begets violence .

Posted at 1:12PM on Jun 30th 2008 by george

73. It's not the wet send or water line. , it's the mean high tide line, which is further up than the water line. there is usually 15 to 20 feet of dry sand below the mean high tide line. IT IS NOT THE WATER LINE OR WET SAND LINE. Get the fact straight. Notice how nobody has been arrested or charged with trespassing???? That's because they are below the mean high tide line, on DRY SAND well above the so-called water line. Your are spreading disinformation. Typical elitist behavior.

Posted at 3:59PM on Jun 30th 2008 by joe public

74.
Joe Public,

We get it. The high tide line OK. Understood. Noted.

There is more at issue here than just the boundaries or is that all you want to go on an on about?

You must be Paparazzi (or mental) because you took one comment I made and spun that into I am making ELITIST LIED etc.

Let's get back on point otherwise no one will get anywhere.

Peace brother

Posted at 11:25PM on Jun 30th 2008 by TMZ = The MORONIC Zombies of Harvey Levin

75. most of the beach is a public beach, paps have a right to be there. end of discussion. btw, i'm not a pap, I am definitely not your 'brother" you idiot.

Posted at 2:00AM on Jul 1st 2008 by joe public