http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=90737

FIRST AMENDMENT UNDER FIRE
City: American flag OK, but Constitution illegal
Businessman fined $500 a day for displaying Bill of Rights, artwork

March 04, 2009 8:59 pm Eastern

By Joe Kovacs

CLEARWATER, Fla. – City officials here apparently don't have a problem with flying the American flag, but posting the text of the U.S. Constitution is a very different story.

A federal judge is now deciding if government officials are going overboard in fining a Florida bait and tackle shop owner $500 a day for displaying the First Amendment atop a mural of marine life on his building.

U.S. Magistrate Elizabeth Jenkins today heard initial arguments in a federal lawsuit as the American Civil Liberties Union is seeking an injunction to stop the city of Clearwater from fining businessman Herb Quintero.

Under questioning by Quintero's team, the city's lone witness, Planning Director Michael Delk, was forced to admit that if the business had posted a U.S. flag instead of a First Amendment banner, it's likely the Quintero family would not have been cited for violating the sign code.

Ironically, in 1993, Clearwater lost a case that began when it fined a car dealership for flying too many American flags. A federal appeals court ruled against the city, invalidating the city's sign ordinance as "facially unconstitutional."



WND first brought the plight of Herb Quintero to national attention last week, and the story struck an immediate chord with Americans fed up with what they perceive to be government overstepping its authority. Comments of outrage from across the nation and world have since been flooding in.

"They're very abusive, profane, insulting e-mails," City Manager Bill Horne told the St. Petersburg Times. "People are passionate about the First Amendment, and rightfully so. I happen to believe we did the right thing."

One letter from a U.S. captain serving in Iraq was read into the court record today, as he berated city officials: "You have no right to override the Constitution and the principals for which so many men and women have fought and died to uphold."


The tale began in December 2007 when Herb and Lori Quintero invested their life savings to purchase and renovate a dilapidated building they turned into the Complete Angler, a shop selling fishing accessories such as rods, reels and live and frozen bait.

To help spruce up the building's image, they hired an artist who began a giant mural of marine life featuring a half-dozen game fish such as snook, dolphin, grouper and sailfish. The artwork was halted, though, because the city claims it violates the strict sign code prohibiting murals on businesses that depict a product the company sells. However, the Complete Angler does not sell game fish.

According to the lawsuit, city spokeswoman Joelle Castelli was quoted as saying the artwork "depicts what he's selling and that's considered signage. If it was a mural of kids playing in a park, that would be acceptable."

Clearwater began to fine Quintero, and he initially pleaded no contest, agreeing to pay $690.

But the businessman refused the city's demand to paint over the fish, and in protest, he posted a giant banner with text of the First Amendment in front of the mural.

The large banner is what prompted the city to hook Quintero with fines of $500 a day.

How can Americans take back their nation? Learn how to revive freedom, decency and justice. Get Joseph Farah's "Taking America Back" – autographed exclusively at WND!

Among the ACLU attorneys on Quintero's side is James Green, perhaps best known for helping Donald Trump fight $1,250-a-day fines for flying a large American flag at his Mar-a-Lago Club in Palm Beach, Fla.

Early in today's proceedings, the judge did not appear to be impressed with attorneys from the city or the ACLU.

"I will say I'm somewhat disappointed in both sides by your arguments," Jenkins said. "I expected more."

After asking for a "higher level of advocacy," the magistrate said, "I just really don't feel that this case has been articulated very well."

Judge Jenkins said she'd take the matter under consideration before making her recommendation, though she didn't specify when that might be.

"We are hoping for a swift ruling that grants the Complete Angler's request for preliminary injunctive relief and confirms their First Amendment rights," ACLU spokesman Brandon Hensler told WND.

On the St. Petersburg Times website, news photographer Jim Damaske has posted a gallery of similar murals found throughout Clearwater.

Business owners and citizens in the Clearwater area have created a website called KeeptheFish.com to help Quintero. The site says in the wake of WND's exposure, it has been inundated with "tons of comments from all over the country" that were sent to Jeff Kronschnabl, the director of code enforcement, and other Clearwater officials.

Unbelievable. Let's hope Clearwater votes out (or impeaches) these imbeciles.

I hate it that these HOME OWNER ASSOCIATIONS or whatever have risen to power with nitwits in charge. The exersize of power should be a last resort, instead its the first and this sounds like a revenge thing.

Instead of paying the fine, he should have paid the artist to paint a mural of a giant mound of horse **** at City Hall, but that would have been in direct violation of the statute they are alleged to have violated.

Appears that the ACLU isn't against everyone as people like to claim... as usual, they are defending people based on their rights found in the constitution.

(03-06-2009 02:51 PM)mlb Wrote:  Appears that the ACLU isn't against everyone as people like to claim... as usual, they are defending people based on their rights found in the constitution.

BULLSHYTE



let me see...... with a name like.... Herb Quintero...... gotta be ........

(03-05-2009 07:53 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  The artwork was halted, though, because the city claims it violates the strict sign code prohibiting murals on businesses that depict a product the company sells. However, the Complete Angler does not sell game fish.

According to the lawsuit, city spokeswoman Joelle Castelli was quoted as saying the artwork "depicts what he's selling and that's considered signage. If it was a mural of kids playing in a park, that would be acceptable."

This makes absolutely zero sense.

(03-05-2009 07:53 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  Early in today's proceedings, the judge did not appear to be impressed with attorneys from the city or the ACLU.

"I will say I'm somewhat disappointed in both sides by your arguments," Jenkins said. "I expected more."

After asking for a "higher level of advocacy," the magistrate said, "I just really don't feel that this case has been articulated very well."

The city attorney was probably trying to lose on purpose because it's the right thing to do other than drop all the charges. The ACLU attorney is a lame ass dickwad just because he is an ACLU attorney.

(03-06-2009 02:57 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(03-06-2009 02:51 PM)mlb Wrote:  Appears that the ACLU isn't against everyone as people like to claim... as usual, they are defending people based on their rights found in the constitution.

BULLSHYTE



let me see...... with a name like.... Herb Quintero...... gotta be ........

gotta be what? Spit it out!

(03-06-2009 02:51 PM)mlb Wrote:  Appears that the ACLU isn't against everyone as people like to claim... as usual, they are defending people based on their rights found in the constitution.

Who ever said they were "against everyone"?

The ACLU often defies its raison d'etre with the cases it handles. But, sometimes it gets it right. Glad they got it right this time, but that doesn't erase their many errors.