Golf Course Riding

[ltr450qr]

WTF? Are you retarded? Because permits are "revoked" doesn't make it "not a construction site". Also, the zoning board has nothing to do with issuing permits or reversing a decision once implemented. If they got permits to begin with, zoning has nothing to do with it now. You obviously have no idea what you're talking about and must be telling lies. I call BS out loud on this one.

Besides,  why would you want to ride on a construction site in a residential neighborhood? Just to make the rest of us look bad? You're an idiot.

Call BS if you want, doesn't matter. Am I an idiot? Maybe but I will get my 50k back. I own a construction company and know exactly who issues the permits. The zoning board was all that held that process up. So that they would not see litigation in the case is the only reason for allowing the "standard" zoning change. 2 of the board members live here and are cool. The developer is from out of town as are his attorneys. How did you think that would turn out? BTW, I don't ride to piss off my neighbors. The course is 114 acres well lined w/ trees and I'm not the only one who rides it. When others are on the course I can't even hear them in my house (yes, they are the same sound level as mine). Oh, and no permits for construction/no construction materials on site/no posting, means no construction site, idiot. Whens the last time you had $50,000 to lose? That's what I thought.
John W. Holliday #68

[Anoriginal]

WTF? Are you retarded? Because permits are "revoked" doesn't make it "not a construction site". Also, the zoning board has nothing to do with issuing permits or reversing a decision once implemented. If they got permits to begin with, zoning has nothing to do with it now. You obviously have no idea what you're talking about and must be telling lies. I call BS out loud on this one.

Besides,  why would you want to ride on a construction site in a residential neighborhood? Just to make the rest of us look bad? You're an idiot.

Call BS if you want, doesn't matter. Am I an idiot? Maybe but I will get my 50k back. I own a construction company and know exactly who issues the permits. The zoning board was all that held that process up. So that they would not see litigation in the case is the only reason for allowing the "standard" zoning change. 2 of the board members live here and are cool. The developer is from out of town as are his attorneys. How did you think that would turn out? BTW, I don't ride to piss off my neighbors. The course is 114 acres well lined w/ trees and I'm not the only one who rides it. When others are on the course I can't even hear them in my house (yes, they are the same sound level as mine). Oh, and no permits for construction/no construction materials on site/no posting, means no construction site, idiot. Whens the last time you had $50,000 to lose? That's what I thought.
John W. Holliday #68

The developers being out of town and the attorneys being out of town makes ZERO difference. Also, you've demonstrated your lack of knowledge on exactly how permits are issued and what constitutes a construction site. You're supposed to be a contractor?

If it's been permitted (which you said it was) it is a designated construction area. If it's posted, or if you've been warned once, the next time you get caught it's a felony. You should know that if you're as intelligent as you try to seem. (and you're calling me an idiot?......um, I think you demonstrated clearly who the idiot is)

You came on sounding like Mr. Big and now you're backing off your chest beating position. If the cops weere pansy enough to back off of you the first time you ran into them (which I think is a load of BS), it's only a matter of time. In the mean time, you're just making the rest of us look bad. Who cares if someone else rides it too? Doesn't make it right nor does it give you pseudo permission to ride as well.

Oh, and about your $50k blabber, ask around on this site about who I am, what I do and the type of numbers I play in financially. You'd be embarassed. Now go sit in the corner and but the dunce cap back on little man.

Matt Taylor  #1!


Git it rags!   

[predatorracer8]

WTF? Are you retarded? Because permits are "revoked" doesn't make it "not a construction site". Also, the zoning board has nothing to do with issuing permits or reversing a decision once implemented. If they got permits to begin with, zoning has nothing to do with it now. You obviously have no idea what you're talking about and must be telling lies. I call BS out loud on this one.

Besides,  why would you want to ride on a construction site in a residential neighborhood? Just to make the rest of us look bad? You're an idiot.

Call BS if you want, doesn't matter. Am I an idiot? Maybe but I will get my 50k back. I own a construction company and know exactly who issues the permits. The zoning board was all that held that process up. So that they would not see litigation in the case is the only reason for allowing the "standard" zoning change. 2 of the board members live here and are cool. The developer is from out of town as are his attorneys. How did you think that would turn out? BTW, I don't ride to piss off my neighbors. The course is 114 acres well lined w/ trees and I'm not the only one who rides it. When others are on the course I can't even hear them in my house (yes, they are the same sound level as mine). Oh, and no permits for construction/no construction materials on site/no posting, means no construction site, idiot. Whens the last time you had $50,000 to lose? That's what I thought.
John W. Holliday #68

The developers being out of town and the attorneys being out of town makes ZERO difference. Also, you've demonstrated your lack of knowledge on exactly how permits are issued and what constitutes a construction site. You're supposed to be a contractor?

If it's been permitted (which you said it was) it is a designated construction area. If it's posted, or if you've been warned once, the next time you get caught it's a felony. You should know that if you're as intelligent as you try to seem. (and you're calling me an idiot?......um, I think you demonstrated clearly who the idiot is)

You came on sounding like Mr. Big and now you're backing off your chest beating position. If the cops weere pansy enough to back off of you the first time you ran into them (which I think is a load of BS), it's only a matter of time. In the mean time, you're just making the rest of us look bad. Who cares if someone else rides it too? Doesn't make it right nor does it give you pseudo permission to ride as well.

Oh, and about your $50k blabber, ask around on this site about who I am, what I do and the type of numbers I play in financially. You'd be embarassed. Now go sit in the corner and but the dunce cap back on little man.

Matt Taylor  #1!


Git it rags!   

Hey if you got so much money ill slap a whole bunch of stickers on my quad and you can pay for me to do all the FTR and GNCC races how does a 3 year contract sound?

Jacob Fort # 8, 18

[ltr450qr]

Sure, you should pay for Jake to race Matt. As for now learn how to read:

810.09  Trespass on property other than structure or conveyance.--

2(d)  The offender commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084, if the property trespassed is a construction site that is:

1.  Greater than 1 acre in area and is legally posted and identified in substantially the following manner: "THIS AREA IS A DESIGNATED CONSTRUCTION SITE, AND ANYONE WHO TRESPASSES ON THIS PROPERTY COMMITS A FELONY."; or

2.  One acre or less in area and is identified as such with a sign that appears prominently, in letters of not less than 2 inches in height, and reads in substantially the following manner: "THIS AREA IS A DESIGNATED CONSTRUCTION SITE, AND ANYONE WHO TRESPASSES ON THIS PROPERTY COMMITS A FELONY." The sign shall be placed at the location on the property where the permits for construction are located. For construction sites of 1 acre or less as provided in this subparagraph, it shall not be necessary to give notice by posting as defined in s. 810.011(5).


In order to supply the Prima facie evidence, just as in the "smaller than 1 acre category", permits are what designate the existence of a "construction site". This prevents know it alls like you (Matt) from just arbitrarily posting their land as "construction sites" for the purpose of elevating the crime.

Here is the part dealing w/ "WHO" can "trespass someone from property other than structure or conveyance":
2(b)  If the offender defies an order to leave, personally communicated to the offender by the owner of the premises or by an authorized person,

In the case of "construction sites", which the property in question is not, precedent has given the authority for "authorized persons", which usually also means superintendants, not nosey neighbors. Learn how to read the Statutes before I need to school you some more Matt, you dummy. Now sit there in the corner w/ your dunce cap on.


John W. Holliday #68
"Bigger Money"

[predatorracer8]

Sure, you should pay for Jake to race Matt. As for now learn how to read:

810.09  Trespass on property other than structure or conveyance.--

2(d)  The offender commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084, if the property trespassed is a construction site that is:

1.  Greater than 1 acre in area and is legally posted and identified in substantially the following manner: "THIS AREA IS A DESIGNATED CONSTRUCTION SITE, AND ANYONE WHO TRESPASSES ON THIS PROPERTY COMMITS A FELONY."; or

2.  One acre or less in area and is identified as such with a sign that appears prominently, in letters of not less than 2 inches in height, and reads in substantially the following manner: "THIS AREA IS A DESIGNATED CONSTRUCTION SITE, AND ANYONE WHO TRESPASSES ON THIS PROPERTY COMMITS A FELONY." The sign shall be placed at the location on the property where the permits for construction are located. For construction sites of 1 acre or less as provided in this subparagraph, it shall not be necessary to give notice by posting as defined in s. 810.011(5).


In order to supply the Prima facie evidence, just as in the "smaller than 1 acre category", permits are what designate the existence of a "construction site". This prevents know it alls like you (Matt) from just arbitrarily posting their land as "construction sites" for the purpose of elevating the crime.

Here is the part dealing w/ "WHO" can "trespass someone from property other than structure or conveyance":
2(b)  If the offender defies an order to leave, personally communicated to the offender by the owner of the premises or by an authorized person,

In the case of "construction sites", which the property in question is not, precedent has given the authority for "authorized persons", which usually also means superintendants, not nosey neighbors. Learn how to read the Statutes before I need to school you some more Matt, you dummy. Now sit there in the corner w/ your dunce cap on.


John W. Holliday #68
"Bigger Money"

you should listen to him they say advertising for your business "i think your a lawyer rite?" is the best investment

thanks for the back up john

[ltr450qr]

You're welcome Jake. Not a lawyer, although I have paid them all several hundred thousand $'s cumulatively. I never just "listened" to a single lawyer I ever paid. I either learned from or questioned them. The State and Federal statutes are much more condensed than the Bible. If people can navigate that literature, then they can do the statutes. BTW, I can read, spell too. Matt, put is spelled w/ a "P", not a "B". I specialize in 4 letter words not 3 "but", I am well versed in them and feel obligated to help you (in a much different way than I have helped Jake). Like I said, "go put your dunce cap on". Jake only needs help w/ the questionable decision of riding a Polaris. You Matt, need help reading AND writing, much more difficult a task. With all your money, I bet Jake would be happy to ride any quad you pay him for. The ability to read, write and spell correctly are priceless.
John W. Holliday #68

[Ida_Mann]

and?

[ltr450qr]

I love that pic! Oh, BTW, I will show up and back it up. I didn't call anyone out but I won't be called out either. If I said I did it, I did, if I say I have it, I do. Not a poser online.

[predatorracer8]

You're welcome Jake. Not a lawyer, although I have paid them all several hundred thousand $'s cumulatively. I never just "listened" to a single lawyer I ever paid. I either learned from or questioned them. The State and Federal statutes are much more condensed than the Bible. If people can navigate that literature, then they can do the statutes. BTW, I can read, spell too. Matt, put is spelled w/ a "P", not a "B". I specialize in 4 letter words not 3 "but", I am well versed in them and feel obligated to help you (in a much different way than I have helped Jake). Like I said, "go put your dunce cap on". Jake only needs help w/ the questionable decision of riding a Polaris. You Matt, need help reading AND writing, much more difficult a task. With all your money, I bet Jake would be happy to ride any quad you pay him for. The ability to read, write and spell correctly are priceless.
John W. Holliday #68

lol riding a polaris was a great decision, youre rite if anyone wants to buy me another quad you can bet ill have no problem riding it.lol

jake

[Ida_Mann]

I love that pic! Oh, BTW, I will show up and back it up. I didn't call anyone out but I won't be called out either. If I said I did it, I did, if I say I have it, I do. Not a poser online.

hardly anyone on this site is, because of us all being in such a close community it's hard to get away with a lie for long in this crowd.

people also don't put up with childish games out in the open for long either, they usually take that into places others can't see.

Id@

[jrpro130]

I wouldn't be riding on a golf course.  Even if it's closed...too much to loose for me.  But if thats your thing, just do it, don't tlak about it on an open forum

[VForcedave]

WITH THE HOLEY LANDS CLOSING, WHERE ARE THE DADE COUNTY PEEPS GOING TO RIDE THAT DO NOT HAVE PROPERTY IN THE "CLUBS".

I SAY TAKE IT TO THE FIRST TEE AND GIVE IT HELL

[Anoriginal]

Sure, you should pay for Jake to race Matt. As for now learn how to read:

810.09  Trespass on property other than structure or conveyance.--

2(d)  The offender commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084, if the property trespassed is a construction site that is:

1.  Greater than 1 acre in area and is legally posted and identified in substantially the following manner: "THIS AREA IS A DESIGNATED CONSTRUCTION SITE, AND ANYONE WHO TRESPASSES ON THIS PROPERTY COMMITS A FELONY."; or

2.  One acre or less in area and is identified as such with a sign that appears prominently, in letters of not less than 2 inches in height, and reads in substantially the following manner: "THIS AREA IS A DESIGNATED CONSTRUCTION SITE, AND ANYONE WHO TRESPASSES ON THIS PROPERTY COMMITS A FELONY." The sign shall be placed at the location on the property where the permits for construction are located. For construction sites of 1 acre or less as provided in this subparagraph, it shall not be necessary to give notice by posting as defined in s. 810.011(5).


In order to supply the Prima facie evidence, just as in the "smaller than 1 acre category", permits are what designate the existence of a "construction site". This prevents know it alls like you (Matt) from just arbitrarily posting their land as "construction sites" for the purpose of elevating the crime.

Here is the part dealing w/ "WHO" can "trespass someone from property other than structure or conveyance":
2(b)  If the offender defies an order to leave, personally communicated to the offender by the owner of the premises or by an authorized person,

In the case of "construction sites", which the property in question is not, precedent has given the authority for "authorized persons", which usually also means superintendants, not nosey neighbors. Learn how to read the Statutes before I need to school you some more Matt, you dummy. Now sit there in the corner w/ your dunce cap on.


John W. Holliday #68
"Bigger Money"

John:

Nice cut and paste job. Now tell me something I didn't already know. If you look back at my prior posts and actually read them, you'll see that I'm steps ahead of you.

I need to learn how to read? That's too funny. School is in session little man, so pay attention. I'll try to spell it out as simple as I can because this might be over your feeble brain...

As far as what makes a site a construction site, here's a lesson for you Mr. Super Duper Contractor man. A construction site IS NOT defined only by a permit. Section 810.011 (5)(a)(13) Florida Statutes, (2008) generally defines Construction Site as:  "any property upon which there is construction that is subject to building permit posting requirements." {"subject to" not posted}  However, in applying this section, Florida's courts have interpreted it's meaning quite liberally. Floridas courts have interpreted construction site as follows: "As used by professionals in that industry, “construction” commences prior to site preparation; indicators of commencement of construction include the execution of a construction contract with the general contractor, the obtaining of a building or foundation permit, the ordering of building materials, or the signing of contracts with subcontractors. Any of these events may occur before clearing and preparing the site, the first on-site indicator of construction, but determine whether or not an area is indeed a 'construction site'" Westchester Gen. Hospital v. DHRS, 419 So.2d 705 (Fla. 1DCA 1982); opinion followed and upheld, Mabry v. Florida 858 So.2d 1156 (Fla. 2DCA 2003). So, your entire tirade about permits above is a complete load of uneducated crap.

With respect to authorized persons, Section 810.09(3) Florida Statutes, (2008) clearly defines who is "auhtorized" and it's much more defined than the piss poor opinion you gave in your last post. Here's what the law says: "As used in this section, the term “authorized person” or “person authorized” means any owner, his or her agent, or a community association authorized as an agent for the owner, or any law enforcement officer whose department has received written authorization from the owner, his or her agent, or a community association authorized as an agent for the owner, to communicate an order to leave the property in the case of a threat to public safety or welfare."

So, what does this mean to you Mr. Big Money Construction Contractor man? It means that if the cops are called out by one of those neighbor's of yours who happens to be a member of the community association (usually anyone living in a neighborhood with an association is a member of the association as most are mandatory, and the association MUST be approved by the original owner when turned over by the owner to the association.) or by the developer, construction contractor, etc.; who then fills out a simple trespass affidavit/form, that cop is authorized. If one of your neighbors tells you to leave, you've been properly warned. That's a bunch more than your authoratively spouted opinion given above and, quite frankly, DEFINITELY includes those nosey neighbors if they're part of any community association.

As an attorney who specializes in construction litigation for almost a decade, I've dealt with this EXACT issue many times. In addition, I am intimately familiar with (and obvioulsy more so than you) permitting, zoning, planning and the departments in each locale responsible for the same. I've got a complete understanding (unlike you) of what constitutes a "construction site", "trespass" and an "authorized person".

People like you are wonderful. Your ego and napoleonic attitude cause you to spout off diatribe that some people actually believe because you say it with such fevor. In reality, you've got no clue and think that just because you can direct a rudimentary google search on Florida Statutes you're suddenly brilliant. As a result, you're easy to dismantle and make great fodder for those on the other side.

Next time you try to go toe to toe with someone on matters such as these, you should check out your oppponent. This was like a battle of wits with an unarmed man. So, go ahead and ride, ignore the warnings and look like an ass to your neighbors. Maybe you'll get your $50k satisfaction and never have a problem. I honestly hope you have zero issues. However, in the meantime, you've now learned exactly what the potential rammifications are for your actions.

Oh, and the "Bigger Money" comment was funny but not unexpected.  And, yeah, I called you out and dominated you. It was fun, but way too easy. If you'd like to spar a little more, go ahead. You're easy to squash, but I do get a kick out of it along with the countless members who've PM'ed me about the same.

Guess you are the one who needs to read huh?

[ltr450qr]

See, This is what I'm talking about Matt. You can find a precedent, so can I. You can read and interpret the statutes, so can I. You actually took the time to write basically a brief for your position about which you don't have all the facts, dummy. Furthermore you make certain assumptions. You assume there is a homeowners association, which even if there was, the club itself is not a part of. You assume there is some sort of designation as a construction site (currently). As for any commencement of construction, the permits have been revoked and the order to cease any construction activity has been given. You make a lot more assumptions I won't get into, doesn't matter, they are all false assumptions and I have covered my bases. So I do get to stand on the principal of what I said. In any event you have still failed to realize (which you should) that the people who are in control of the decision making process will remain in control of that process and regardless of what they control, they have the ability to control issues beyond the scope of their own power. I don't need to go on and on as you have. Obviously you have more time than I do so I'll just say this, trust me when I tell you that I'm not "unarmed". BTW, fervor is still spelled f-e-r-v-o-r, not fevor. You still haven't mastered the basic skill of spelling. That's it, now I'm done talking to your ignorant a$$. Say anything else and I'll show you the real type of redneck I am.

[yfz122]

I want to see "the real type of redneck" he is.

[Anoriginal]

John:

So I missed one word's spelling...wow, thanks for catching it. You're now doing the normal shuffle the facts dance to try to grasp at what dignity you've left in this discussion. You've been dominated wee man. Just accept it.

As far a precedents, I've come up with basis for my opinions, you haven't. I don't assume there is a construction site, you said it was a site that had the permits revoked....under the current Florida law, that's still a construction site. It's not my interpretation... it's the Florida Courts interpretation. Revoked permits, ceased construction activities make no difference. I didn't write a brief, I merely told you exactly what the law was on construction sites and authorized persons. Not my opinion or interpretation; rather, a recitation of the law and how the courts see it. I never said I agree or disagree. It's the law, plain and simple (at least to some of us). Pay attention man.

My comments on there being an association were in response to your BS allegations as to what constituted an authorized person. I merely demonstrated that you've got no idea what you're talking about, in spades too. If there is an association, it's applicable, if not, it's not. Pretty simple even for someone like you.

Your run on sentence about people in control, being in control, remaining in control, etc. makes no sense whatsoever. Not unlike the remainder of your post. You stand on your principal of what you've said if you like. It's not legally correct nor does it provide adequate footing. But then again, I'm not surprised. Do what you want, I honestly hope you don't get in any trouble riding out there. I wouldn't do it.

Your last post solidified my comments very well. You are definitely unarmed in this discussion. Oh, and the whole showing me what "real type of redneck you are" is really funny. I actually had some folks come read your posts so they could laugh as loud as I did. You're fun to toy with. Sometimes nothings funnier than a person like you in these types of situations.

So, please show me what kind of redneck you really are. It should really be funny. I'm getting a lot of PM's and laughs about it already. Keep up the entertainment. I can't wait!! Ha ha ha!

[trx#9]

John:

So I missed one word's spelling...wow, thanks for catching it. You're now doing the normal shuffle the facts dance to try to grasp at what dignity you've left in this discussion. You've been dominated wee man. Just accept it.

As far a precedents, I've come up with basis for my opinions, you haven't. I don't assume there is a construction site, you said it was a site that had the permits revoked....under the current Florida law, that's still a construction site. It's not my interpretation... it's the Florida Courts interpretation. Revoked permits, ceased construction activities make no difference. I didn't write a brief, I merely told you exactly what the law was on construction sites and authorized persons. Not my opinion or interpretation; rather, a recitation of the law and how the courts see it. I never said I agree or disagree. It's the law, plain and simple (at least to some of us). Pay attention man.

My comments on there being an association were in response to your BS allegations as to what constituted an authorized person. I merely demonstrated that you've got no idea what you're talking about, in spades too. If there is an association, it's applicable, if not, it's not. Pretty simple even for someone like you.

Your run on sentence about people in control, being in control, remaining in control, etc. makes no sense whatsoever. Not unlike the remainder of your post. You stand on your principal of what you've said if you like. It's not legally correct nor does it provide adequate footing. But then again, I'm not surprised. Do what you want, I honestly hope you don't get in any trouble riding out there. I wouldn't do it.

Your last post solidified my comments very well. You are definitely unarmed in this discussion. Oh, and the whole showing me what "real type of redneck you are" is really funny. I actually had some folks come read your posts so they could laugh as loud as I did. You're fun to toy with. Sometimes nothings funnier than a person like you in these types of situations.

So, please show me what kind of redneck you really are. It should really be funny. I'm getting a lot of PM's and laughs about it already. Keep up the entertainment. I can't wait!! Ha ha ha!

Your messing with 1996 play girl man of the year!

[Anoriginal]

That's right! I've still got the t-shirt to prove it! 

[shogun323]

Your messing with 1996 play girl man of the year!

That was a great photoshoot you did Matt. I haven't looked at my copy of that issue in a while because the pages are all stuck together.

[rdm225]

I need a good lawyer to defend me for when my red neck azz gets caught destroying the 1st tee. please dont give me matt ####. thank you

[Anoriginal]

Your messing with 1996 play girl man of the year!

That was a great photoshoot you did Matt. I haven't looked at my copy of that issue in a while because the pages are all stuck together.

I probably have a few copies I can get you. If not, trx#9 has tons of copies. 

[Anoriginal]

I need a good lawyer to defend me for when my red neck azz gets caught destroying the 1st tee. please dont give me matt ####. thank you

Don't worry. I don't do criminal work. 

[Ida_Mann]

fer cryin out loud, will this thread die?

betchya I can pee further than you.

Id@

[dj_pizzim]

lol ID@ i need some popcorn. Or some beers if were gona see who can pee further.

John i have to tell you "case law" trumps all.  You statement that the statute can be read in many different ways is correct ... that is where case law comes into play and get you. Either way you look at it if you warned once the second time will be a ticket or arrest. If not for trespassing (which it can be if the land owners gave the police the right to issue trespass warrants) or disturbing the peace (bike being loud, even if it isn't the neighbors complained) Either way it just doesn't seam worth it.

In addition you made the statement of living in a neighborhood of several judges and congressman so again as Matt said

Thanks for making the rest of us look bad!

[budman]

THAT'S IT!!!  I AM TAKING MY CLUBS OUT TO HOLEY LAND THIS WEEKEND!!!!