Andrew Cuevas, abogado de DI Community Association (DICA), en representación de DICA, me está enjuiciando por mas de $10,000 porque pedí ayuda al Department of Business and Professional Regulations (DBPR) para arbitraje de sospecha de fraude en elección de Board of Directors (BOD) 2016. Mi petición fue negada en base de tecnicalidades, el DBPR ni siquiera miro la evidencia. Yo presenté mas de 60 proxies y certificados de votos, que era clara su apariencia de fraude.
Yo presenté una queja similar al DBPR por sospecha de fraude en elección de BOD 2015 evidencia similar, y también fue negado en base de tecnicalidades, de nuevo el DBPR no miro la evidencia.
Ahora tenemos evidencia sugestiva de fraude en elección de BOD 2017.
Estos documentos están a su disposición. Las quejas fueron una labor conjunta de todos los miembros de Cambiemos.
Las elecciones fueron organizadas por Castle Group, el BOD y el abogado Andrew Cuevas y fue dirigida por el abogado Andrew Cuevas.
Urgimos a la comunidad a que se concientice acerca de estos abusos de nuestros derechos legales dirigidos a intimidarnos a todos y perpetuar gobiernos ilegales por ciertos individuos.
Andrew Cuevas attorney of DI Community Association (DICA), on behalf of DICA, is suing me for more than $10,000 for requesting assistance from the Department of Business and Professional Regulations (DBPR) for arbitration of suspected fraud of election of Board of Directors (BOD) 2016. My request was denied based on technicalities, the DBPR did not even look at the evidence. I presented more than 60 proxies and voting certificates, that clearly seem to be fraudulent.
I presented a similar complaint to the DBPR of suspected fraud on election of BOD 2015 with similar evidence, and was also denied based on technicalities, again the DBPR did not look at the evidence.
Now we have also similar evidence suggestive of fraud on election of BOD 2017.
These documents are at your disposal. In the processes of the complaints participated all members of Cambiemos.
The elections were organized by Castle Group, the BOD and attorney Andrew Cuevas and were directed by attorney Andrew Cuevas. I urge the community to be aware of these abuses of our constitutional rights that are intended to intimidate all of us and perpetuate illegitimate governance by some individuals.
This case involved efforts by a homeowners association (“Association”) to stop a homeowner (“Owner”) from utilizing the internet to voice his displeasure over the quality of life within the community governed by Association. Initially, Association filed a lawsuit against Owner which sought injunctive relief to prevent the posting, circulating, and publishing pictures or personal information about current or future residents, board members, management, employees or personnel of the management company, vendors of Association, or any other management company of Association, on any website, blog, or social media. Association contended that Owner’s conduct was intended to harass, intimidate, and threaten other residents of the community. After filing the action, Association obtained an ex parte preliminary injunction against Owner to prevent certain actions from continuing. Thereafter, the parties entered into a settlement agreement in which Owner agreed to cease certain actions. The court then entered a judgment against Owner enforcing the settlement agreement. Subsequent to entering into the settlement agreement, Association sought a contempt citation against a homeowner for alleged violations of the settlement agreement / judgment. The trial court found Owner in contempt and ordered Owner to stop posting, circulating, and publishing any pictures or personal information about residents, directors, and management on any website, blog, or social media. The trial court order also ordered Owner to take down information that was currently on his websites or blogs, and from starting any new blogs, websites or social media websites relating to Association. The trial court orders became amendments to the settlement agreement between Association and Owner. Owner appealed the trial court’s orders contending that they violated his constitutionally protected right to free speech. Owner contended that a blanket prohibition of his online speech was unconstitutional under both state and federal law because it constituted an impermissible prior restraint on free speech. On review, the appellate court stated that: (i) both the United States Constitution and the Florida Constitution prohibit laws that curtail either freedom of speech or freedom of the press; (ii) a prior restraint on publication is presumptively unconstitutional; (iii) court orders that forbid speech activities are classic examples of prior restraints; (iv) online speech is protected under the First Amendment; and (v) freedom of speech does not extend to obscenity, defamation, fraud, incitement, true threats, and speech that is integral to criminal conduct; (vi) the appropriate sanction for First Amendment misdeeds is a subsequent civil or criminal proceeding and not a prior restraint. The appellate court concluded that the trial court erred in prohibiting Owner from making any statements pertaining to Association on his websites, blogs, and social media without conducting a proper constitution inquiry to determine if the restriction served a compelling state interest. Thus, the appellate court remanded the case back to the trial court to make such a determination. The decision noted that prior case decisions have held that prohibiting use of the internet and other interactive computer services for the purpose of inflicting emotional distress on others is an example of a restriction that serves an important governmental interest. See case decision: Fox_v._Hamptons_at_MetroWest_Condo._Ass’n_Inc._(Fla._App._2017)1