With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". With no other valid instrument from which to infer the intent of the parties, this court cannot create an easement by implication; notwithstanding the temptation to do so in view of the circumstances involved in this case. One Harbor urges this court to employ its equitable powers to give effect to the intent of the parties in view of fifteen years of uncontested use of the property, and to declare the easement valid, but such remedy is beyond this court’s power. Courts of equity simply have no power to issue rulings which they consider to be in the best interest of justice without regard to established law. E.g., Flagler v. Flagler, 94 So.2d 592 (Fla.1957); see also Florida High School Athletic Ass’n v. Melbourne Central Catholic High School, 867 So.2d 1281 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004) (<HOLDING>). We share the trial court’s reservations

A: holding that when information which potentially undermines the best interest of the child as well as the interest sought to be protected by the legitimation statutes and the policy of this state it must first be tested in light of the best interest of the child standard
B: recognizing that a citizen has a legitimate expectation that the government should deal fairly with him or her that thus the governing body should not give inaccurate or misleading advice to the public and that when they do courts have inherent power to seek and to do equity
C: recognizing the inherent power of the courts to issue warrants
D: recognizing that courts of equity do not have any right or power to issue such orders as they consider to be in the best interest of social justice at the particular moment without regard to established law
D.