Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Ex-Marine's Fight to Fly the American Flag Becomes National Issue
NewsMax.com ^ | 9/16/03 | Phil Brennan

Posted on 09/16/2003 4:21:20 AM PDT by kattracks

PALM BEACH COUNTY, Fla. – Embattled ex-Marine George Andres, threatened with the loss of his home because of his refusal to stop flying the American flag, can breathe easier, thanks to Sean Hannity.

His homeowners association is threatening to foreclose on his house to collect legal expenses and fines it says he owes because of his defiance of association’s orders to remove his flagpole.

Hannity assured Andres on Friday night’s "Hannity & Colmes" show that he would raise the $25,000 Andres needs to pay the claim and promised to contribute the first $5,000 out of his own pocket. Moreover, he promised to raise more money to buy and install a second flagpole on the property.

Andres has attracted nationwide attention and the praise of scores of his fellow Americans for his courage in refusing to back down on his determination to proudly display Old Glory 24 hours a day. Gov. Jeb Bush visited Andres' Jupiter home last year on Flag Day and later signed a law that allows Florida residents to fly an American flag "in a respectful manner" regardless of busybodies' rules.

Bush has sent state Attorney General Charlie Crist to assist Adres by arguing that the ex-Marine’s home is constitutionally protected under the state's homestead law from foreclosure by a homeowners association.

Circuit Judge Edward Fine, who had earlier approved a foreclosure, agreed in May to reconsider his order. Two weeks ago, however, Fine rejected Crist’s homestead argument and found the association had a right to file a lien.

A foreclosure sale is scheduled for Oct. 9, but Andres' attorney has filed an appeal. Andres told NewsMax.com that Crist was also appealing. Under Florida's homestead law, a homeowner’s residence cannot be taken by foreclosure except to collect back taxes or mortgages, or bills owed contractors for work on the home.

What Happened

In an interview with NewsMax, Andres explained: "I went before the board of the homeowners association four years ago and asked for permission to put the American flag on a pole, and the board gave me permission because the state of Florida had a law that was written in 1995 that said homeowners associations are prohibited from banning the flying of the American flag regardless of any rules and regulations or bylaws except for size, safety and location which must be adopted into the bylaws.

"I put the flagpole up, and seven months later a new board came in and ruled that I had violated the homeowners statutes on the flag, and I said, ‘What homeowners statute?’ They said the one that says that you have to fly the flag from your building. I asked them, ‘Where does it say that?’

"The fact is there is nothing in the homeowners documents that say where or when and state law prohibits them from saying any such thing.

"They took me into court, and they got a judge who said that I was guilty of violating the homeowners documents for flying the American flag on a flagpole. He said that it made no difference what the state law said, the homeowners documents counted. But they never found the place in the documents where it said where to put the flag."

Andres said he appealed, but the appeals court affirmed the first judge’s ruling, and five or six months later "they took us into foreclosure, and because of the homestead law, which is very clear that the only thing they can foreclose on is for taxes, mortgages or contractors' liens. The homeowners association was, however, using legal fees and fines, which does not come under the provisions of the law.

"At that point the attorney general stepped in to defend the homestead law, which is 130 years old. The judge had taken away the foreclosure order at that time, so we had another hearing before the judge five weeks ago. We explained that we were homesteaded in 1989 and all the time that this was going on. The judge said it wasn’t clear that we were homesteaded.

"The attorney general told me yesterday that the judge was in error because first of all he said that there was no such thing as Title 36 US 10. I have now sent the judge a copy of that law."

Andres cited a ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court that says anything you do on your private property – signs, flags, and anything like that - is an expression of your feelings and is covered under the First Amendment of the Constitution. The judge doesn’t want to hear that either.

"Right now the attorney general has stepped in because they want to protect the homestead law and the state’s statutes on flying the flag. So right now my attorney Barry Silver and Attorney General Charlie Crist are readying an appeal."

The homeowners association refused to talk to NewsMax.

No matter what the outcome of the appeal, this courageous ex-Marine can be sure he won’t lose his home for flying the American flag, thanks to Sean Hannity. And the homeowners association can look foreward to continuing to learn what many of America’s enemies learned the hard way: what it’s like to go head to head with a U.S. Marine.

Semper Fi, George.



TOPICS: Culture/Society; Front Page News; News/Current Events; US: Florida
KEYWORDS: hoa; oldglory; purge; seanhannity
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-50 next last

1 posted on 09/16/2003 4:21:20 AM PDT by kattracks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: kattracks
Even Lou Dobbs on CNN came out for him.
2 posted on 09/16/2003 4:25:04 AM PDT by At _War_With_Liberals (Concerned about globalism? PLEASE read http://toogoodreports.com/spotlight/110100-td.htm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
Right.

Who cares what the law says. Since when did that matter to Democrats or Liberal Judges. Judges just rule with no consideration of the law just what makes them happy that day.

We are an Oligarchy not a democracy for the time being. This is why the Democrats will not confir Appeals Court Judges. They accomplish their agenda through these evil judges what they can't pass into law. We have no say in what the law is anymore just these wicked judges.
3 posted on 09/16/2003 4:40:28 AM PDT by ImphClinton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: At _War_With_Liberals
Give 'em hell George!!!
4 posted on 09/16/2003 4:42:00 AM PDT by el_texicano
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
I must say the specifics given here are completely different that what I've read before, and, if true, has me supporting the homeowner.

However, if this is true "The fact is there is nothing in the homeowners documents that say where or when and state law prohibits them from saying any such thing.", why did the homeowner continue to lose in court?

Anybody up on the specifics of this case?

5 posted on 09/16/2003 4:43:10 AM PDT by TomB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
George Andres will win this battle.

He and his [our] flag will become a symbol to us all.

6 posted on 09/16/2003 4:44:31 AM PDT by G.Mason (Lessons of life need not be fatal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
Andres cited a ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court that says anything you do on your private property – signs, flags, and anything like that - is an expression of your feelings and is covered under the First Amendment of the Constitution.

Yes, Andres, but the First Amendment only protects against government action that infringes upon our right to free speech and expression and not the actions of a private organizations. And while you are rabid about the so-called right to free speech that doesn't exist in this context, you are totally oblivious to the rights of individuals to form groups and enter into enforcable contracts that govern the behavior of those individuals who voluntarily joined the group and agreed to be governed by the terms of the private contract in the first place.

7 posted on 09/16/2003 4:51:20 AM PDT by Labyrinthos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
My wife and I lived in a Homeowners Association (townhome) community for eight years.
When we arrived a group of miserable, single, mid thirty types got control of the board.
They wanted the older people out so they made ridiculous rules to aggravate them (you couldn't plant a flower without board permission)and many left.
When we left the board members were in their forties and were pressuring the young families with children to move.
They limited the areas where children could play and imposed discretionary fines.
If you attended a meeting to complain they would insult you and brand you a troublemaker.
I'll live in a cardboard box before I ever sign another Homeowners' Association agreement.
8 posted on 09/16/2003 4:51:21 AM PDT by Ramcat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
"I put the flagpole up, and seven months later a new board came in and ruled that I had violated the homeowners statutes on the flag, and I said, ‘What homeowners statute?’ They said the one that says that you have to fly the flag from your building. I asked them, ‘Where does it say that?’

I hate homeowner association mini-nazis almost as much as megalomanic politicians who refuse to retire and shut up.
I say sue their butts individually. What would it take? I would chip in $5 a month forever to get a judgement against these smug cockroaches and get judgements against them.

9 posted on 09/16/2003 5:00:19 AM PDT by Publius6961 (californians are as dumb as a sack of rocks.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
why did the homeowner continue to lose in court?

You ask why he lost in a FLORIDA court?

10 posted on 09/16/2003 5:01:11 AM PDT by Tom Bombadil
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Who gives a damn about the anti American homeowners association. I don't care what their fascist by-laws state, keep the flag waving...
11 posted on 09/16/2003 5:01:50 AM PDT by At _War_With_Liberals (Concerned about globalism? PLEASE read http://toogoodreports.com/spotlight/110100-td.htm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Labyrinthos
A "private" suicide pact is enforceable?
As long as the parties are all bound by their agreement?

Is an agreement to abide by future unspecified changes without limit binding?

12 posted on 09/16/2003 5:04:12 AM PDT by Publius6961 (californians are as dumb as a sack of rocks.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Ramcat
Homeowners' Association - A group of little tin gods and an example of brains on vacation.
13 posted on 09/16/2003 5:05:54 AM PDT by chiefqc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Publius6961
A "private" suicide pact is enforceable?

Flying the flag vs. killing yourselfs.

Not a good analogy.

Is an agreement to abide by future unspecified changes without limit binding?

Depends upon whether the changes are reasonably foreseeable.

14 posted on 09/16/2003 5:08:29 AM PDT by Labyrinthos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Labyrinthos
"...you are totally oblivious to the rights of individuals to form groups and enter into enforcable contracts that govern the behavior of those individuals who voluntarily joined the group and agreed to be governed by the terms of the private contract in the first place.."

You obviously missed the point of there being NO SUCH RULES in the homeowners "contract" in the first place. "Homeowners Associations" rapidly become just another group of jack-booted thugs. Be damned to them.

15 posted on 09/16/2003 5:17:19 AM PDT by Wonder Warthog (The Hog of Steel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Labyrinthos
homeowners associations are prohibited from banning the flying of the American flag regardless of any rules and regulations or bylaws except for size, safety and location which must be adopted into the bylaws.

Seems like a slam dunk.

16 posted on 09/16/2003 5:21:43 AM PDT by tsmith130
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: chiefqc
You got the tin gods part right the brains on vacation part would assume they had brains to begin with.
17 posted on 09/16/2003 5:24:54 AM PDT by Ramcat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
AMEN!
18 posted on 09/16/2003 5:26:33 AM PDT by Quix (DEFEAT her unroyal lowness, her hideous heinous Bwitch Shrillery Antoinette de Fosterizer de MarxNOW)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Labyrinthos
"...you are totally oblivious to the rights of individuals to form groups and enter into enforcable contracts that govern the behavior of those individuals who voluntarily joined the group and agreed to be governed by the terms of the private contract in the first place."

What about the HO board changing the rules after you sign the agreement????


19 posted on 09/16/2003 5:30:37 AM PDT by Ramcat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: TomB
It is still my belief that the original issue was the flagpole and not the flag.
20 posted on 09/16/2003 5:31:54 AM PDT by verity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-50 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson