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
ABC News
15 hours ago
- ABC News
Emmanuel and Brigitte Macron sue US influencer Candace Owens for defamation
Emmanuel Macron and his wife, Brigitte, have filed a defamation lawsuit on Wednesday against a right-wing US podcaster who claimed the spouse of the French president used to be a man. The 218-page complaint against Candace Owens, who has millions of followers on X and YouTube, was filed by the Macrons in Delaware Superior Court and seeks a jury trial and unspecified punitive damages. In a statement released by their lawyer, the Macrons said they filed the lawsuit after Owens repeatedly ignored requests to retract false and defamatory statements made on an eight-part YouTube and podcast series called "Becoming Brigitte." "Owens' campaign of defamation was plainly designed to harass and cause pain to us and our families and to garner attention and notoriety," they said. "We gave her every opportunity to back away from these claims, but she refused. "It is our earnest hope that this lawsuit will set the record straight and end this campaign of defamation once and for all." The suit accuses Owens of using her popular podcast to spread "verifiably false and devastating lies" about the Macrons including that Brigitte Macron was born a man, that they are blood relatives and that Macron was chosen to be France's president as part of a CIA-operated mind control program. "If ever there was a clear-cut case of defamation, this is it," Tom Clare, a lawyer for the Macrons, said in a statement. "Owens both promoted and expanded on those falsehoods and invented new ones, all designed to cause maximum harm to the Macrons and maximise attention and financial gain for herself." Brigitte Macron, 72, has also taken to the courts in France to combat claims she was born a man. Two women were convicted in September of last year of spreading false claims after they posted a YouTube video in December 2021 alleging that Brigitte Macron had once been a man named Jean-Michel Trogneux -- who is actually her brother. The ruling was overturned by a Paris appeals court and Macron appealed to the highest appeals court, the Court de Cassation, earlier this month. AFP
ABC News
a day ago
- ABC News
Woman pepper sprayed by police during mental health welfare check says officers 'should have just left'
A woman who is suing the State of NSW over the actions of police officers who pepper sprayed her during a welfare check has insisted she did not act aggressively towards them "in any way". Police attended the then-48-year-old's Western Sydney home in September 2021 after they were alerted to a reference to self harm she made on the phone to an insurance company. The NSW District Court has heard that after being told she may be liable for $150,000 in damages from a police pursuit involving her son, she told a representative words to the effect of "I might as well just kill myself". But she has given evidence that she called back and told the representative she did not mean it. In footage from police body-worn cameras, the officers are heard telling the woman's ex-partner, who was at the house at the time, that they might need to take her to hospital under the Mental Health Act. They tell the man that if they are not able to speak with her at the door, they will force entry. The woman's lawyers say that from a balcony above, she had told them she was fine and to "f*** off". Some officers entered by kicking the front door, while others scaled the balcony and went in through an unlocked bedroom, tasering her American Staffy. That began a search which ultimately lasted for some 45 minutes and at one point involved a police helicopter. The court heard she had run through a back door and was hiding in a neighbour's garden shed. In defence documents, the State argues "no more than reasonable force was used during and following the plaintiff's detention", and barrister Matthew Gollan has told the judge the officers held a genuine belief the woman may have attempted to kill or injure herself. Today, he cross-examined the plaintiff about the immediate lead-up to a burst of pepper spray — which was not recorded on the bodycam footage. "Before the spray was used, when you pushed open the [shed] door, did you do that because you wanted to hide somewhere else?" he asked. "No, I think I went into distress … I just wanted to be left alone, I was not suicidal in any way," the woman replied. When asked whether police told her to get on the ground, she replied: "I think so". Mr Gollan: "And you didn't?" Plaintiff: "I don't recall that, I don't remember that." Mr Gollan: "You stood your ground, somewhat defiantly?" Plaintiff: "I was never aggressive to them." Mr Gollan: "You weren't responsive to them, were you?" Plaintiff: "Because I was in distress." Mr Gollan: "You defiantly stood your ground, didn't you?" Plaintiff: "No, I didn't." During the cross-examination, the woman said that to have multiple police officers and a helicopter involved in the incident meant "all my neighbours looked at me like I was a murderer". "Someone with mental health [issues], and you're supposed to trust the people in blue, why would they pepper spray me?" she said. The woman has also expressed that she was fearful of police as a result of previous interactions, and felt that they had not "helped me much". Large parts of the cross-examination involved detailed questions about the woman's mental health, which she said she was aware of as an issue since 2016. But she told the judge that before the welfare check incident: "I was pretty good, like I was sad, but I was pretty good". Mr Gollan suggested that as early as 2016, she had been urged to seek psychiatric help, but she disagreed that she had ever received a referral. The hearing continues on Thursday.
ABC News
2 days ago
- ABC News
Legal experts cast doubt on Donald Trump's defamation case against Rupert Murdoch over alleged Epstein letter
US law experts say Donald Trump faces significant hurdles in his $10 billion case against Rupert Murdoch's Wall Street Journal over reports he sent a birthday message to Jeffrey Epstein with a sexually suggestive drawing. The lawsuit, filed in the Florida Supreme Court, claims the Wall Street Journal "failed to show proof that President Trump authored or signed any such letter and failed to explain how this letter was obtained". But experts say defamation cases, brought forward by public figures, are notoriously hard to prove in the US, and they rarely make it to a jury. The paper has said it was prepared to "vigorously" defend its journalism. If the case does go to trial, Mr Trump may be forced to provide information about the nature of his relationship with the convicted paedophile and billionaire, and the Journal may be asked to show how it obtained the letter or proved its existence. So, how likely is it Mr Trump will get his day in court? Winning or settling a defamation case in the US can be difficult, mostly due to the Supreme Court's interpretation of the First Amendment in the US Constitution. The First Amendment protects freedom of speech, religion, press, assembly, and petition. It is even more difficult for a public figure like Donald Trump to win a defamation lawsuit, said Harry Melkonian, a media lawyer and honorary associate at the United States Studies Centre. "It is extremely difficult and intentionally made so for public figures to bring defamation claims in the US," he said. "By definition, the US president is the most public of public figures." Shawn Trier, a constitutional law expert at Australian National University, agreed. "A case in the early 1960s during the civil rights movement found that even if you have factual information that's incorrect, unless you prove a term called actual malice — that you knew it was wrong or didn't care — it would be really hard for that to be proven," he said. Actual malice is knowledge that the material published was false, or reckless disregard of whether it was false or not. "In the case of the Wall Street Journal, it would literally have to be the case that they knew the letter was false or knew it didn't exist or they had a really good reason to suspect it was forged but ignored it," Dr Tier said. Dr Melkonian said the Supreme Court set this standard for public figures to prevent self-censorship by the media. "They also felt that public figures are pretty well equipped to respond publicly to undo any harm, and Trump can get on TV any night and say this story is false, they made it up," he said. "So when you combine all those things, it makes for an extremely difficult case, and quite honestly, I've read the complaint and I think they will have difficulties even getting this complaint to court." In Australia, defamation law is "relatively straightforward", Dr Melkonian said. If a publisher prints something that a person says isn't true, the publisher must prove on the balance of probabilities that it is. But American law is the opposite, Dr Melkonian said; the public figure has to prove the story is false. "Trump has to prove they either knew it was false or they harboured serious doubts and did it anyway," Dr Melkonian said. "And he has to prove that by an exaggerated standard of proof." But US courts rarely find that actual malice exists, and there has only been one case, which was between Time Magazine and the Israeli defence minister in 1984. Court documents show that Mr Trump will argue that such a letter did not exist and the two journalists who wrote the story "possessed information and had access to information that showed their statements were false." It does not say, however, what that information was. "The mere fact that he told them 'it's false' before they printed it isn't enough because if that was, you could stop anything from being printed," Dr Melkonian said. From the legal documents, it appears Mr Trump will also argue that the circulation of the story created further damage to his reputation. "And given the timing of the defendants' article, which shows their malicious intent behind it, the overwhelming financial and reputational harm suffered by President Trump will continue to multiply," the court documents said. But Dr Melkonian said, "he's already said it's false, and he certainly has made more publicity saying it's false than the Wall Street Journal got with the article." Dr Melkonian said public figures sometimes took steps like Mr Trump's to "make it clear to the public that they believe the article is a falsehood". "Donald Trump has gotten a lot of publicity out of filing this case, and that may be the vindication that he wants now the public knows he is taking it to court to prove he didn't do it," he said. A $10 billion award would be the largest finding of defamation damages in history, dwarfing already-massive cases in recent US proceedings. These include a $1.5 billion judgement against conspiracy theorist Alex Jones, and Fox News's settlement with Dominion Voting Systems for $787.5 million. "It's unlikely he has a legal case against the Wall Street Journal, but it probably helped him politically," Dr Trier said. "He likes to do this a lot, to say 'look how I've been treated, it's so bad I'm suing.'" The Wall Street Journal has indicated it will defend itself. "We have full confidence in the rigour and accuracy of our reporting, and will vigorously defend against any lawsuit," a spokesperson for publisher Dow Jones said in a statement. Yesterday, the White House removed the Wall Street Journal from the pool of reporters covering Trump's upcoming weekend trip to Scotland. "As the appeals court confirmed, the Wall Street Journal or any other news outlet are not guaranteed special access to cover President Trump in the Oval Office, aboard Air Force One, and in his private workspaces," White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said in a statement to various US media outlets. "Due to the Wall Street Journal's fake and defamatory conduct, they will not be one of the 13 outlets on board. Every news organisation in the entire world wishes to cover President Trump, and the White House has taken significant steps to include as many voices as possible." While the Murdoch-owned media company has the power to fight such a case, many do not. "It could have an insidious effect on journalism and free speech," Dr Trier said. "There should be early dismissals [in defamation cases like these], but there are still costs, and smaller organisations that get threats like this are more likely to back down. "It raises a lot of concerns, and Trump has been very unique in using his office to carry out these retributions against the media."
