Purpose of this Website:

As you saw in the above video, Shauna Belles Flores reported to Deputy Michael Raiche, of the Okaloosa County Sheriff's Department, that Shannan approached her unprovoked as she walked past Shannan’s home. However, it would appear that was a lie. Through surveilence, it can be observed it was in fact Shauna who crossed the street and walked up Shannan's driveway. One can see by Shannan's hand movements that she is pointing for Shauna to leave her property.

Following Shauna’s refusal to vacate the premises, she proceeded to make disparaging and inappropriate remarks directed toward Shannan, including comments of a personal and demeaning nature regarding Shannan’s physical appearance. Additionally, Shauna directed inappropriate verbal comments toward Shannan’s minor daughter, who was in the garage. As a result of these provocations, Shannan responded with aggressive volume and explicit language, as a reaction to the ongoing verbal harassment in an effort to compel Shauna to leave the property. *This footage takes place during the time Shauna and Shannan walk out of frame in the previous surveillance* 

During the course of the investigation, Andre Belles Flores appeared to take command of the interaction with law enforcement, despite not being present during the incident in question. When Deputy Michael Raiche inquired whether Shauna wished to press charges, she deferred to her husband’s wishes, stating she would only pursue charges if he wanted to proceed. Deputy Raiche clarified that the decision to initiate criminal charges rested solely with her, as the alleged victim.

Shauna reiterated that she had not entered Shannan Pelkey’s property and claimed that Shannan had approached and pushed her. However, Andre stated they would delay any decision to pursue charges until after the resolution of his officer candidate application within the U.S. military. This delay raises serious questions about the credibility and motivation behind the complaint. If Shauna were a legitimate victim of battery, the timing of Andre’s military career should be irrelevant—particularly as he was not directly involved in the incident.

Following his statement regarding delaying charges, Andre remarked that he was struggling to remain composed and stated, "if I was still ole Bel Flo of the E-4 mafia I wouldn't give a shit," a comment that may be interpreted as a veiled threat toward Shannan and/or her husband, Eric. Deputy Raiche appeared to find the comment amusing and agreed that maintaining composure must have been difficult for Andre.

Deputy Raiche informed the couple that he would not be contacting or interviewing Shannan unless or until they elected to pursue charges—a statement of note, as Deputy Raiche never, at any time, conducted an interview with Shannan. The interaction concluded with Andre continuing to direct the conversation. Deputy Raiche then suggested that Shauna consider filing an injunction against Shannan and assured Andre that doing so would not adversely affect his officer candidacy. Once again, this interaction suggests the investigatory process was being inappropriately influenced by Andre’s career aspirations rather than the merits of the alleged offense.

As a final note, Shannan ultimately filed an injunction against Shauna prior to any filing by Shauna. Subsequent law enforcement interactions suggest that this legal action by Shannan is what prompted Andre to become agitated and ultimately influenced his wife to pursue criminal charges.

When the Belles Flores family initially contacted law enforcement, Deputy Michael Raiche filed a report with the Department of Children and Families (DCF) against Ms. Shannan Pelkey, based on allegations of a battery purported to have occurred in the presence of her minor children. However, upon conducting a home visit and reviewing surveillance footage, the DCF investigator determined that it was, in fact, Shauna Belles Flores who was the primary aggressor, and did so in the presence of minors. As a result, DCF opened a case against Shauna—not Ms. Pelkey—based solely on the agency’s independent findings and not at Shannan's behest.

Had Deputy Michael Raiche taken the time at any stage to speak directly with Shannan, he would have been given access to the same surveillance footage which directly contradicts Shauna and Andre Belle Flores' claims.

Following this, Shauna expressed the belief that Shannan had filed the DCF report and the accompanying injunction out of retaliation. According to Shauna’s own statements, this belief appears to be a driving factor in their decision to pursue continued legal action. Although Shauna initially claimed she did not want to press charges, she later stated that Shannan “needs to pay,” appearing to reference the involvement of DCF and the injunction filing. These statements suggest the possibility that the legal action pursued by the Belles Floreses may be motivated, at least in part, by retaliation.

Andre Belles Flores also made representations to law enforcement regarding his background, stating that he served in the military and was currently working in quality assurance with experience in cyber operations. However, at the time of these statements, Andre was enrolled in a cybersecurity college class(es) and did not appear to possess the formal credentials required to perform forensic analysis. He claimed to have submitted messages to his professors for review, yet the only evidence presented was a printed copy of text messages that Shannan had submitted to the court. It remains unclear how any analysis could have been conducted on a physical document alone. 

During their interactions with Officer Shelley, both Shauna and Andre made several statements that conflict with the available surveillance footage. Andre claimed that Shannan knocked Shauna’s hat off and muted the footage, both of which are false. Since Andre was not present during the incident, his account raises questions about the accuracy of his statements. Shauna also told Officer Shelley that she was standing on the sidewalk and that Shannan approached and struck her, though video footage  contradicts that version of events. At one point, Shauna misidentified the timing of a video clip, claiming it was recorded prior to the alleged incident, only to be corrected by Andre—who again, was not present—raising further concerns about possible coaching or influence over her statements.

Okaloosa County Deputy Michael Raiche secured a warrant for the arrest of Shannan Pelkey on a charge of misdemeanor battery. The basis for this warrant? The sworn statement by Shauna Belles Flores, alleging that Shannan Pelkey “poked” her in the chest, causing her to stumble backward and her hat to fall off. However, this account is directly contradicted by the Ring doorbell footage from above, which clearly depicts Shauna voluntarily removing her own hat.

Moreover, the custodial interview referenced in the warrant includes a material misrepresentation. While Shannan did acknowledge that she “physically moved” Shauna away from her due to concerns for her personal safety arising from Shauna’s close physical proximity, she did not, at any time, state that she “physically removed” anyone from her property. This distinction is significant, and the conflation of these statements mischaracterizes both Shannan’s actions and her intent.

It should also be noted that the referenced “non-custodial” interview occurred when Shannan voluntarily visited the Okaloosa County Satellite Office to seek guidance regarding Shauna’s alleged trespassing. At no point was Shannan read her Miranda rights, nor was she informed that she was the subject of an investigation. She briefly described the incident but did not provide any physical evidence. When she asked the officer whether she should submit a written statement or share video documentation, she was advised not to do so.

Accordingly, the issuance of the arrest warrant appears to be predicated on statements that are either demonstrably false or grossly misrepresented. These inconsistencies raise significant concerns about the integrity of the warrant and the fairness of the proceedings against Shannan Pelkey.

At the time of her arrest, Shannan served as a Child Advocate Manager for the Florida Guardian ad Litem Office in Walton County, where she worked to represent the best interests of children in the foster care system. Due to the criminal charges against her, she was forced to resign from her position, unable to say goodbye to the children for whom she had been a consistent and trusted presence. She also had no ability to secure new employment due with current charges on file.

Since stepping away from her career, Shannan has embraced her role as a devoted wife and mother. With her inability to return to the professional world, she has found fulfillment in living life on her own terms, prioritizing peace, family, and joy. When reflecting on the incident, Shannan expresses disappointment that Shauna and Andre Belles Flores appeared willing to jeopardize someone’s livelihood for the sake of personal ego. However, she also acknowledges that the experience led her to rediscover what truly matters. Today, Shannan considers herself a "woman of leisure," grateful for the opportunity to spend meaningful time with her loved ones.

It would appear that Andre signed certified legal documents that the videos on this website are his and are copyright protected against their use by others.

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) is a U.S. federal law (17 U.S.C. §512) that outlines the process for handling copyright infringement claims online. It allows copyright owners to request the temporary removal of material they believe infringes upon their rights while also giving content creators the opportunity to challenge incorrect or abusive claims.

In the DMCA notices section (as shown in the attached image), Andre Belles Flores submitted two takedown requests. Under the Status column, both claims were ultimately resolved in favor of reinstating the videos. This outcome indicates that Vimeo did not find sufficient grounds to uphold Andre’s copyright claims.

When submitting a DMCA takedown notice, the filer is required by federal law to sign a legally binding declaration under penalty of perjury.

The DMCA requires the claimant to affirm the following statements in writing:

• Good Faith Belief
  “I have a good faith belief that the use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law.”
• Ownership or Authorization
  “I am the owner, or am authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed. 
• Accuracy and Perjury Clause
  “The information in this notice is accurate, and under penalty of perjury, I am authorized to act on behalf of the owner of the exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.”
• Signature Requirement
  The claimant must electronically or physically sign the notice to certify its validity.
   

After each takedown, a counter-notification was submitted to Vimeo and to Andre Belles Flores. This response affirmed that:

• The material was removed or disabled due to mistake or misidentification;
• The sender consents to the jurisdiction of the appropriate federal court;
• The sender agrees to accept legal service from the original claimant; and
• The counter-notification was signed under penalty of perjury, affirming the accuracy of all statements made.
   

**Following this process, Vimeo reinstated all videos without violations on the account. **

If a person submits a DMCA takedown notice for content they do not own or have rights to, federal law provides remedies under 17 U.S.C. §512(f) for material misrepresentation.

Section 512(f) states:
“Any person who knowingly materially misrepresents that material or activity is infringing shall be liable for any damages, including costs and attorneys’ fees, incurred by the alleged infringer…” 

In practical terms, if someone knowingly submits an inaccurate claim of copyright ownership, they may be held liable for resulting damages.
In this case, the content in question consisted of law enforcement body-worn camera footage, which is generally classified as public record and not subject to private copyright ownership.

Beyond §512(f), submitting inaccurate or bad-faith DMCA claims may also have further implications:

1. False Declaration / Perjury (18 U.S.C. §1621 / §1746)
   DMCA filings are made under penalty of perjury. Knowingly making false statements in such a filing may constitute a false declaration under federal law.
2. Abuse of the DMCA Process
   Platforms such as Vimeo reserve the right to suspend or permanently remove accounts that misuse the DMCA process. Submitting repeated or unsupported claims violates both the platform’s Terms of Service and federal copyright law.
    

In summary:
The DMCA records show that both takedown attempts submitted by Andre Belles Flores were overturned, and the videos were reinstated without violation. This outcome indicates that Vimeo found no valid basis for the removal and that the content did not infringe upon any proven copyright ownership.

Staff Sergeant Andre Belles Flores appears to have done the following:

1. Interfering in a civilian matter for personal gain:
   Andre’s involvement in a civilian dispute where he was not present—yet sought to control the narrative and delay criminal proceedings based on his officer candidate application—could be interpreted as an attempt to manipulate the legal system to protect his career.
2. Exerting undue influence:
   By controlling whether his wife pressed charges based on his military goals, he potentially used his influence and perceived authority (including references to his service and “E-4 mafia” status) to direct a legal matter for self-serving reasons. This could be seen as using his military status to improperly influence civil outcomes.
3. Discrediting the military ethos:
   The military places a strong emphasis on honor, integrity, and accountability. Acting in a way that raises doubts about those values for personal protection or advancement could reflect poorly on him and may be frowned upon by military leadership.
4. Undermining legal processes:
   Stating that they would wait to press charges until after his officer packet was accepted suggests a willingness to delay justice or use legal proceedings as leverage or retaliation—another potential ethical violation.
5. Misuse of civilian legal mechanisms:
   Andre filed two DMCA takedown notices attempting to remove publicly available video evidence, both of which were overturned after review. Submitting such claims under penalty of perjury without demonstrable copyright ownership could be seen as an effort to suppress factual information rather than protect legitimate intellectual property. This misuse of a federal legal process for personal or retaliatory purposes may raise concerns regarding honesty and integrity.

A DEEPER LOOK:

1. Article 133- Conduct Unbecoming an Officer and a Gentleman- Example violation: Seeking to delay criminal charges in a civilian case or filing misleading legal claims to ensure the success of an officer application.
2. Article 107- False Official Statements- Example violation: Telling law enforcement that surveillance footage was altered without evidence and implying military cyber expertise to add credibility.
3. Article 92- Failure to Obey an Order or Regulation-Example violation: Misusing rank or military association to interfere in civilian matters or undermine the perception of impartiality expected of service members.
4. Article 134- General Article (The "catch-all")- Example violation: Filing unsupported copyright claims, misrepresenting military authority, or invoking the SCRA as a shield against civilian accountability.

Pattern of Misrepresentation and Ethical Concern

The combination of interfering in a civilian legal dispute, submitting questionable DMCA takedowns, and inaccurately invoking the SCRA reflects a broader pattern of misrepresentation, manipulation, and self-interest.
Such conduct—if verified—could erode confidence in both his personal integrity and the reputation of the armed forces, running contrary to the military’s core values of honor, courage, and commitment.