Backstreet Boys star Brian Littrell's bitter battle over private beach
The 50-year-old said that to protect the 'peaceful enjoyment' of his property in Walton County, Florida, on the Gulf Coast, his limited liability company, BLB Beach Hut LLC, has put up 'no trespassing' signs as well as tables, chairs and umbrellas showing where the property line starts on the beach, according to the lawsuit obtained by Fox News Digital and filed in a Florida court recently.
The pop star wrote that the efforts have been 'in vain, as numerous trespassers have set out to antagonise, bully and harass the Littrell family by regularly, every day, trespassing on BLB's beach, on the Subject Property, in open defiance of the law.'
The lawsuit seeks a writ of mandamus to require the sheriff's department to keep the alleged trespassers off of his beach.
Littrell wrote in the lawsuit that he has been forced to hire security to protect his land and family, and filled out a Walton County Trespass Authorization Form, authorising the sheriff's department to warn and prosecute trespassers on his property.
'Despite BLB's numerous requests and the execution of the required forms, the sheriff has refused to come to the Subject Property to enforce the law and remove the trespassers, to charge the trespassers, or to take any action, at all, thereby refusing to do their duty,' the lawsuit claims.
The lawsuit says that on May 4, a sheriff's deputy spoke to an alleged trespasser on Littrell's property, but didn't remove the trespasser or cite them, merely saying that the alleged trespasser ''doesn't agree with private beaches,' going on to characterise BLB's insistence that it's constitutional rights be upheld as 'lunacy,' to use one of the words used by a deputy of the Sheriff's Department.'
The lawsuit also claims that on June 5, an alleged trespasser grabbed legal documents related to the dispute out of the property manager's hand 'and scattered the papers into the wind across the beach.'
Littrel said BLB also contacted the sheriff's department twice that day regarding the 'aggressor,' but the department 'refused to send any officer.'
'When BLB personnel contacted the Sheriff for the third time to request an officer again, the 911 operator simply hung up on BLB personnel rather than dispatching the officer that was requested more than an hour prior,' the lawsuit states.
He claimed that the sheriff's department is now 'openly defying BLB's requests for assistance to protect its constitutionally protected property rights,' claiming that deputies were overheard on two separate occasions saying that the sheriff was 'proud of not issuing any citations for trespassing on the property.'
'Vitriol' against BLB 'has recently escalated,' the lawsuit says, claiming that a trespasser damaged a table on his property 'after being warned by a BLB employee.'
Littrell claimed that a deputy had come to the property, but hadn't taken any action against the alleged trespasser, and 'body camera footage shows multiple instances of disrespect against BLB's agents by the responding officer.'
Claiming the sheriff's department continues to 'shirk its duty,' the lawsuit added, 'These are unprecedented times, if the Sheriff continues to refuse to protect and uphold the rights of BLB and other community members, private property and other rights held by Florida citizens will only exist on paper.'
The Walton County Sheriff's Office told Fox News Digital the department doesn't 'comment on pending litigation,' adding it 'prides itself on handling every situation, call for service, or interaction with professionalism using a customer service approach.
'This has always been our philosophy and will continue to be moving forward.'
Littrell told Fox News Digital in a statement: 'We bought a home here on this private beach on the Gulf of America in order to be able to vacation in quiet, to be able to enjoy our time without any attention or drama.
'Unfortunately, we had no idea that there was already a battle which had been happening for years.'
He said that since buying the home, 'we have been targeted by people that don't normally frequent this beach or live in the area.
'These people, the ones who insist on trespassing in what is actually our backyard, who started this fight have to pass several scarcely populated public beach areas to get to our property.'
Littrell claimed that the alleged trespassers are 'people who believe that anyone who has succeeded and managed to live the American Dream must be bad people.
'They want it so no one owns anything, and everyone is happy, except it never works out that way.'
He added, 'The really scary thing is we have provided to law enforcement all the things they asked of all the private beach homeowners to enforce the law and they will not bother to do their duty to protect the homeowners.
'They will not do the job they were hired to do when hired and sworn in under oath to … protect the citizens and enforce the law.'
He claimed the sheriff's department has 'come against us and will not do their jobs. They allow people to harass and stalk us and the security people,' they hired, adding, 'They are MAD that we bought a home on a private beach.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Australian
11 hours ago
- The Australian
Annabel Digance found guilty of blackmailing Peter Malinauskas: court
A former Labor MP who has launched a $2.3m lawsuit against South Australian Premier Peter Malinauskas was earlier found guilty of blackmailing him, a court has been told. Annabel Digance is suing Mr Malinauskas for damages, claiming he orchestrated a 'malicious prosecution' against her to further his own political ambitions and crush a parliamentary inquiry into alleged bullying in the Labor Party. The former parliamentarian's civil lawsuit was heard for the first time in the South Australian Supreme Court on Wednesday. Justice Graham Dart revealed Mrs Digance and her husband Greg had been found guilty of blackmailing Mr Malinauskas before their charges were later dropped, according to court records. Justice Dart said he had an order from the lower District Court saying there had been a finding of guilt. 'There's a sealed order of a court saying , someone has pleaded guilty and ... this is the penalty, or these are the orders made as a consequence of that guilt,' he said. Annabel and Greg Digance were found guilty of blackmailing Mr Malinauskas before the charges were dropped. Picture: Naomi Jellicoe Mr Malinauskas has led South Australian since 2022. Picture: Martin Ollman Mrs Digance and her husband Greg were charged with blackmailing Mr Malinauskas in 2021, but the charges were dropped in 2023 after the couple agreed to refrain from contacting him. The alleged blackmail conduct centred on secret recordings between Mr Malinauskas and Mr Digance in February 2020 and Mr and Mrs Digance in March 2020. The pair were never sentenced and the case was dismissed by District Court Judge Paul Muscat. On Wednesday, Michael Abbott KC, appearing for Mr Malinauskas, spoke about how the Digances could have been found guilty but not sentenced, suggesting the DPP had 'interrupted' standard legal processes. 'Judge Muscat, when he entered the court, thought he was undertaking a directions hearing … it was then made clear to him, there were to be no directions made, but the matter was to be brought to a conclusion,' Mr Abbott said. 'The sentencing process, which took place, included the making of the (court) orders. After those orders were made, the sentencing process … was then brought to an end by the Director of Public Prosecutions, entering a nolle prosequi.' Nolle prosequi is a legal term that refers to a prosecutorial decision to bring a criminal proceeding to an end. 'The sentencing process, which took place, included the making of the (court) orders. After those orders were made, the sentencing process … was then brought to an end by the Director of Public Prosecutions. 'The sentencing process was not complete,' Mr Abbott said. 'The sentencing judge could have gone on to impose a sentence of imprisonment, or a fine, or a bond. 'However, apparently, the correspondence, presumably, and the arrangement was made with the DPP, was that the only penalty (was the court order). 'That's what the nolle prosequi did, it interrupted the sentencing process by bringing it to an immediate termination.' Martin Hinton KC is South Australia's DPP. Mr Abbott asked Justice Dart to order the South Australian Police and Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions to hand over documents explaining the agreement with the Digances. 'Given the outcome, there must have been an agreement reached that if they effectively agreed to (court) orders, the rest of the charges wouldn't be pursued,' Justice Dart asked. 'That's what we understand to be the effect of whatever communications occurred, but we of course were not party to any of that,' Mr Abbott said. Mrs Digance's Statement of Claim, submitted by Carroll and O'Dea Solicitors, argues her arrest and prosecution caused 'injury, loss, damage and harm' and that Mr Malinauskas conspired with the SA Police to pursue her. 'The circumstances giving rise to the causes of action immediately caused the cancellation of Mrs Digance's employment, permanently damaged Mrs Digance's prospects of further employment, required Mrs Digance to incur substantial legal expenses in defending herself against the prosecution and required Mrs Digance to incur medical expenses,' the claim states. Annabel Digance was a former Labor member of the South Australian parliament and a candidate for the federal seat of Boothby. Picture: Supplied The lawsuit is directed against both the premier and the state of South Australia, represented by the South Australian Police and the Director of Public Prosecutions. Mrs Digance is asking for $2.3m in damages. The claim references the issue of nolle prosequi and argues Mr Hinton's legal maneuver supported Mrs Digance's position. 'On April 21, 2023, the prosecution was terminated in favour of Mrs Digance when the Director of Public Prosecutions, Martin Hinton, entered a nolle prosequi,'the claim states. 'The entry of the nolle prosequi was, in practical effect, an acceptance that there were no prospects of the prosecution succeeding, it had been unreasonable to commence the prosecution and it had been unreasonable to maintain the prosecution.' Justice Dart spoke of the finding of guilt in reference to Mrs Digance's claim of 'malicious prosecution'. 'My understanding from malicious prosecution generally is, if there's some finding of anything approaching guilt, then the prosecution's not malicious,' he said. On Wednesday, Mr Abbott and lawyers representing the state of South Australia state indicated they would apply for summary judgement in relation to some of the claims, meaning they will argue the case should be thrown out without going to trial. Applications will be filed with the court by August 29, with a next hearing scheduled for September 4. Read related topics: Adelaide Duncan Evans Reporter Duncan Evans is a reporter for News Corp's NewsWire service, based in Adelaide. Before NewsWire, he worked as a resources and politics reporter for The Daily Mercury in Mackay, Queensland and as a reporter at CQ Today, an independent newspaper based in Rockhampton. He was raised in Emerald and Brisbane and studied English Literature and American Studies at the University of Sydney. He began his career in journalism working for the Jakarta Post in Indonesia for over two years as an editor, translator and writer. He is fluent in Indonesian. @Duncanevans01 Duncan Evans
News.com.au
2 days ago
- News.com.au
Annabel Digance launches $2.3m lawsuit against South Australian Premier Peter Malinauskas
Former Labor parliamentarian Annabel Digance has dropped a bombshell $2.3m lawsuit on South Australian Premier Peter Malinauskas, claiming he orchestrated a 'malicious prosecution' against her. The lawsuit, filed with the SA Supreme Court, alleges Mr Malinauskas conspired with the SA Police to prosecute Mrs Digance in order to crush her political future and prevent a parliamentary inquiry she supported on alleged bullying in the Labor Party. The police arrested and charged Mr and Mrs Digance for blackmail in April 2021 for alleged conduct against Mr Malinauskas. The conduct centred on secret recordings between Mr Malinauskas and Mr Digance in February 2020 and Mr and Mrs Digance in March 2020. The blackmail charge was dropped in 2023 after the Digances agreed to refrain from any further contact with Mr Malinauskas. The claim, submitted by Carroll and O'Dea Solicitors, states the arrest and prosecution caused Mrs Digance 'injury, loss, damage and harm'. 'The circumstances giving rise to the causes of action immediately caused the cancellation of Mrs Digance's employment, permanently damaged Mrs Digance's prospects of further employment, required Mrs Digance to incur substantial legal expenses in defending herself against the prosecution and required Mrs Digance to incur medical expenses,' the claim states. The lawsuit is directed against both the premier and the South Australian police. 'The members of SA Police conducting the arrest, the search and seizure, the detention, the first bail decision and pursuing the malicious prosecution knew each action was unnecessary, unjustified, unlawful,' the claim states. Mrs Digance is asking for $2.3m in damages. In separate defence claims, both Mr Malinauskas and the SA Police and Prosecution deny Mrs Digance is entitled to the relief claimed and request the court dismiss her suit and cover costs of the proceedings. Mr Malinauskas' defence statement flatly denies allegations that he 'requested' the police pursue a prosecution or that he was acting to suppress the parliamentary inquiry. 'The first respondent (Malinauskas) admits only that on or about April 9, 2021, he contacted SA Police and told them that if SA Police were of the view that a prosecution of the applicant (Digance) and or her husband was justified, he would co-operate to the extent necessary in that prosecution whenever it was to occur,' the defence claim states. The claim submitted on behalf of the SA Police also rejects Mrs Digance's assertions. 'The investigation undertaken by SAPOL into the blackmail offence was appropriate,' the claim states. The blackmail offence was laid based on information available to SAPOL including the complaint made by the first respondent, the recorded conversations … and other witness and documentary evidence obtained by SAPOL during the course of its investigation. 'The sole purpose for initiating and maintaining the blackmail offence was the proper invocation of the criminal law.' The matter will be heard at the South Australian Supreme Court on Wednesday.
ABC News
2 days ago
- ABC News
Donald Trump says he has not considered pardoning Ghislaine Maxwell
Donald Trump says he has not considered pardoning Ghislaine Maxwell, the longtime associate of convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. The US president is facing a political furore over the Epstein case and renewed questions about his past relationship with the disgraced financier. "It's something I haven't thought about," Mr Trump told reporters when asked about the possibility of a pardon for Maxwell. Maxwell is serving a 20-year sentence at a federal prison in Florida after being found guilty in 2021 of helping Epstein sexually abuse teenage girls. She is currently appealing against her sentence, arguing that a prior plea deal that Epstein took protected her from prosecution. Maxwell completed a second day of interviews with Deputy Attorney-General Todd Blanche on Friday, local time, after the Justice Department reached out to her lawyers to see if she had additional information about the case. David Markus, a lawyer for Maxwell, told reporters she answered questions truthfully but he declined to detail what was discussed. "The truth will come out about what happened with Mr Epstein and she's the person who's answering those questions," Mr Markus said. Mr Markus said Maxwell has not asked for anything from the US government in exchange for her testimony and had not held discussions about a pardon. But he added that Maxwell would "welcome any relief", deploring her treatment in federal prison. The role of Ms Blanche, the second-highest ranking official at the Justice Department and a former personal lawyer to Mr Trump, was unusual. Senior officials typically do not personally conduct investigative interviews. US Attorney-General Pam Bondi promised earlier this year to release additional materials related to Epstein's clients and the circumstances surrounding his death. However, the Justice Department reversed course this month and issued a memo concluding that there was no basis for continued investigations and no evidence of a client list. Those findings sparked an angry outcry from some of Mr Trump's supporters who long believed the government was covering up Epstein's ties to the rich and powerful. Asked about the meeting between the attorney-general and Maxwell, Mr Trump said on Friday he was not aware of the details, only that it was taking place. He then pivoted to other claims, suggesting other high-profile figures should face scrutiny over their ties to Epstein. Mr Trump appeared with Epstein at social events in the 1990s and early 2000s. Mr Trump's name, along with many other high-profile individuals, appeared multiple times on flight logs for Epstein's private plane in the 1990s. However, Mr Trump has denied ever being on the plane. Reuters
