Closing aquariusuno.com II

The present Board of Aquarius has hired a lawyer to close aquariusuno.com

I have consulted with several legal experts regarding the Board’s intention to effectively close AquariusUno.com. Their consensus is clear: this action lacks a legal foundation and runs counter to the principles of a healthy community.

Arkady Chase has compiled a thorough analysis that details these expert opinions, which I encourage you to review.

This situation raises a fundamental question: Shouldn’t the Board’s priority be to increase transparency and information sharing, rather than to suppress it?

Here is the work of Arkady Chase

Good morning,  Cecilio,

Are you here, or away.  I was unable to reach you by phone.

Please call me if you can.   Can you publish my letters?

Regards, Arkady 

On Sun, Jan 11, 2026, 22:21 <arkady.chase@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Cecilio,

I recently became aware that you received a letter from the Aquarius Association’s legal counsel threatening legal action if you do not remove your AquariusUno blog.

I conducted some research online, and the information I found indicates the following:

1. Florida Law Strongly Protects an Owner’s Right to Speak

A condominium association cannot prohibit an owner from:

• Sharing factual information
• Discussing association operations
• Criticizing board decisions
• Posting meeting summaries
• Sharing public records
• Commenting on community issues

These rights are supported by:

 First Amendment principles While a condominium is private property, the association functions as a corporate body and cannot silence lawful speech.

 Florida Statutes, Chapter 718 Nothing in Chapter 718 authorizes a board to censor owners or restrict their communications.

 Anti‑retaliation protections (Section 718.1224, Florida Statutes) Florida law prohibits retaliation against owners who:

• Complain about association operations
• Report violations
• Participate in investigations
• Exercise their statutory rights

A threat of legal action intended to silence an owner may itself constitute prohibited retaliation.

2. When a Board Cannot Sue

A board generally has no legal basis to sue an owner for:

• Posting opinions
• Sharing public information
• Sharing official association records
• Criticizing board members
• Reporting misconduct
• Discussing community issues
• Sharing meeting minutes or budgets (which are accessible records under Section 718.111)

Boards often object to scrutiny, but personal discomfort is not a legal cause of action.

3. When a BoardCould Sue (Rare and Limited)

A board’s legal claim would typically be limited to:

1. DefamationOnly if the owner publishes statements that are:

• False,
• Presented as fact, and
• Harmful to someone’s reputation.

Truth is a complete defense.

1. Disclosure of confidential informationExamples include:

• Attorney‑client privileged documents,
• Personal identifying information,
• Certain personnel records.

Most condominium records are not confidential.

1. Harassment or threatsOnly if the content includes targeted harassment, threats, or doxxing. Informational blogs rarely fall into this category.
2. Why Boards Make These Threats

Boards sometimes threaten legal action because they:

• Want to suppress criticism
• Misunderstand their authority
• Fear exposure of mismanagement
• Attempt to intimidate owners
• Misuse the term “defamation” to mean “speech they dislike”

Such threats are often unfounded.

5. How to Respond Strategically

A prudent, low‑risk approach includes:

Step 1 — Keep everything in writing If the threat was verbal, request written confirmation.

Step 2 — Ask for specifics A calm, appropriate response is:

“Please identify the specific statements you believe are false and the legal basis for your claim.”

This requires the board to articulate its position.

Step 3 — Continue posting factual, well‑documented information Focus on:

• Facts
• Official records
• Meeting summaries
• Statutory references
• Opinions clearly identified as opinions

Step 4 — Document the threat This may be relevant if retaliation becomes an issue.

Step 5 — Consider a DBPR complaint if the threats continue Attempts to silence an owner may constitute:

• Retaliation (prohibited under Section 718.1224)
• Abuse of authority
• Failure to maintain a civil environment

The DBPR has jurisdiction to review such conduct.

Best regards,

Arkady Chase

.o0o.