This is my personal view and comments on the issues and events that I feel a need to talk about or express my view. You don't have to agree, but lets carry on a adult, discussion and maybe you will see it the right way, mine. ;)
The death of freedom to fly the American Flag..
Published on June 9, 2004 By ShadowWar In Politics
This is the story of Richard Oulton, an American, a veteran, and a victim of the Ameircan Communist..the Leftys.

Richard Oulton put up a flag pole in his yard, and flew the American Flag and a purple heart flag. For those of you armchair libs, thats a medal you get for being wounded in time of war. Mr. Oulton was awared that medal while he was a member of the "Walking Dead Marines", the 1st BN, 9th Marine Regiment in Vietnam. His unit started out with 800 marines and lost 605 during the war. This unit suffered the highest casulty rate of any unit in the war. He has every right to be proud, and fly those flags, he earned it with his own blood.

In Richmond, Va., Richard Oulton's homeowner's association demanded his flagpole come down. But he said no way.

"To take it down now would be a total dishonor and an insult to everyone that has ever stood for the flag. If that flag comes down now, the next place it will fly will be over my coffin," Oulton said.

He's been raising the flag ever since he was a medic in Vietnam and flew the stars and stripes over his bunker. "I'm just trying to express my patriotism, my love for my country," he said.

Oulton is an attorney. When he moved into the Florida community he says he checked to see if there were any restrictions on flying the flag.

"There was no reference to flags or flagpoles anyplace," Oulton said.

So he put up a big flagpole next to the big home he built, on three lots. His neighbors say they don't object.

They say it's nice, it matches the house, and say it's an asset to the community.
(DID you get that, the neighbors had NO PROBLEM with the pole or the Flags, in fact they liked it!!))

Objection to Flagpole

But the homeowner's association board said the flagpole's too big.

"We had no idea someone would erect a flagpole that large when the guidelines were written," said Birdie Knuckols, former member of the association board.

Since the association guidelines did not mention flagpoles — the board instead ruled it was an unapproved structure. Later they adopted rules allowing flagpoles — but only small ones, no larger than 6 feet — and required them to be attached to the house.

"It's not an issue of patriotism. All we are asking Mr. Oulton to do is show his patriotism within the guidelines that everyone else in the community is willing to live by," Knuckols said.

Planned communities can set these rules because they're private, and many homeowners love the rules because they like the way the regulations make their communities look nice and uniform. They say this raises property values.

But sometimes the people on the boards of the homeowners' associations are very controlling. And the law is on their side. So, in 1999 the board took its complaint about Oulton's flagpole to court, and won. While he appealed, he was allowed to keep the flagpole up.

Oulton said, "I don't understand what the problem is. It's a property right that I have to fly this flag. It's a free speech right that I have to fly this flag."

He dedicated the flagpole to the Marine unit he served with in Vietnam, a unit dubbed the walking dead because three-quarters of its members were killed.

"I had a lot of guys die in my arms and once I put that plaque out there and said this flag will always fly because I owe it to my boys, my walking dead Marines … I owe it to my boys," Oulton said.

But it won't fly anymore. He took it down in March. All that remains is a hole in the ground, a broken plaque and mementos left by visiting veterans.

Oulton lost his case in local court, and then higher courts rejected his appeals. The presiding judge told Oulton, "You agreed not to erect a structure without prior approval. That's it. No more, no less. You violated that agreement." After a four-year battle, Oulton has lost his flag, and $150,000 to the association in legal fees.

Is this not a perfect example of the way in which the freaks, and deviants in this country take away our freedoms one at a time? Is this not a crime! Think about it, the neighbors LIKED the pole and flags, but some idiot with to much time on his hands and to little brain decided that he didn't like it, can this truely have been an American who felt that way? Does this not make your blood boil that they would go so far as to force him to remove them?? I can tell you where I would have told them to put the flag pole. Then they would have had to come take it down by force.

Another small part of American Freedom and the right to express your love of this Country died that day.
The like shows you pictures of this case and a little more in-depth info. I mistakingly said the ACLU was involved inthis case, they were not to my knowledge (now I know this) but this is just the type of thing thye would do. But this was just done by local idiots and leftys.. They must have had troubled childhoods and blame the USA for all the welfare checks they are forced to get.
Comments (Page 2)
9 Pages1 2 3 4  Last
on Jun 09, 2004
We have communities like that around here. The previous generation got uppity about your yard and spend untold hours in bermuda shorts and tall black socks pruning theirs. I used to think to myself how they must be trying to compensate for what the endless hours of being a drone had done to them.

Now, it is the opposite. Those communities are replaced with people who want every house to look alike so they don't have to worry about it. When they come out of their houses to get into their identical cars, they all look alike too. Drones, weird mammalian insect hybrids. I'd prefer neighbors with a rusty car up on blocks, but unfortunately I don't have the guts to completely shrug off this shroud of suburbia. At least I can set up a damn flagpole if I like.

Sad day when people appreciate uniformity over freedom and individuality. Maybe it does have a bit to do with the flag. This kind of anal retention seems to cross all political boundaries, though.


on Jun 09, 2004
You can see the flag pole and judge for yourself if you think its to big or not. Follow the link at the bottom of the article. I think the flag pole was very tastful myself. Another point that is missing from some of the comments is that there was no rule prohibiting the flag pole. Second the State in which this all occurred passed a law that prevented associations from forcing people to take down american flags. But the judge went on to rule that the LAW did not apply to this one case. So he was being selective. Read the web page link and it gives you a lot more insight in to just how screwed up this whol thing was.

SOME FACTS :

Judge Harris rules that: The "Wyndham Flag Law" does not apply to Wyndham.
In the January 2000 Virginia General Assembly: Senator Bolling sponsored the Wyndham Flag Bill to make the developer attempt to ban our American flag as a "Visual Nuisance" illegal. The bill passed the 2000 General Assembly on a unanimous vote and was later signed by Governor Gilmore and became "The Wyndham Flag Law."

Some people living in homeowners’ associations tend to have an unhealthy preoccupation with their neighbors and feel compelled to keep close tabs on them. Their justification for their officiousness and intrusion is to protect property values by ensuring conformity and uniformity. And so, having wrapped themselves in self righteousness, they proceed to turn these artificially uniform enclaves into mini war zones.

One such battlefield is Wyndham, an upscale development in the Richmond, Virginia suburbs. The object currently in the Wyndham association crosshairs happens to be the flagpole from which the Oultons fly an American flag, a flag meant to honor the 604 men in Richard’s battalion who were killed in action during the Viet Nam war. And because of the high casualties they sustained in combat, the battalion earned the nickname of “The Walking Dead”. The recipient of a Purple Heart and a Combat Action Ribbon, Richard was awarded a Congressional Veteran Commendation this past November for the honorable service he performed while a member of the Armed Forces.

But alas, homeowners’ associations are not known for their tolerance of patriots or flags, although the politically correct ones insist it is not the flag they object to per se, and omit any specific language relating to the flag.

Wyndham is no different.

As Richard tells it, being an attorney, he read all 250 pages of The Declaration of Covenants, Conditions & Restrictions prior to buying their house. Nothing he read caused him to rethink the purchase he was about to make. Nowhere in the “book of restrictions” were the words flag or flagpole to be found. “I took the CC&Rs at their word”, he said.


This outraged and upset many people, including members of the legislature who responded by unanimously voting in The Wyndham Flag Bill. This statute basically provides that no homeowners association can prohibit a homeowner from flying a flag unless they disclose it at the time of sale. Despite the fact that the new law was enacted specifically for the Wyndham flag case and was called the Wyndham Flag Law, the judge ruled that the law did not apply to the Oultons’ case. He ignored the



"Visual Nuisance" ?
Click on Picture to see big version!


law. He also dismissed the Oultons’ arguments claiming their defenses “complicated the case”. And, just for good measure, Judge Harris changed his mind at the last minute and denied them a trial by a jury of their peers. With no laws to protect them, no jury to decide the facts in their case, and with none of the facts “complicating the case”, the Oultons, predictably, lost.
After their attempts to appeal to both the Virginia and United States Supreme courts failed, they found themselves back in Judge Harris’ court room. With no higher authority left to turn to, the Oultons ultimately lost their battle. Judge Harris ordered them to remove their flagpole and the flag by March 1, 2003 or to be prepared to face the consequences.

Should the “consequences” include a stay in the county jail, as Richard suspects, they’ll have to make arrangements for their two small children. With no family in the area, they face some pretty tough decisions. They also face the possibility of losing the 6 month infant they are in the process of adopting.


At the base of the flagpole is an inscribed bronze plaque that starts with a promise,” I will always fly these flags, as “I owe it to my boys”, to my “Walking Dead Marines’”. Many of the men in Richard’s battalion died in his arms, and by taking down the flag he believes he would be betraying his men and betraying the ultimate price they paid to protect our right to fly the flag.
While their fellow homeowners in Wyndham do not object to the flagpole or the flag, and have signed petitions in support of the Oultons, once the board started beating the drums of war, and the attorneys got involved, the will of the members themselves seems to matter not a whit.

Wow this makes me want to kick some lawyers butt. The neighbors signed a petition in favor of the flag pole!!! And the judge still was an idiot. God help us..
on Jun 09, 2004
"This is the story of Richard Oulton, an American, a veteran, and a victim of the Ameircan Communist..the Leftys."

man, what are the odds he'd move into a town area run by a home owners' association composed entirely of lefties?

{i couldn't find a 1600x1400 pixel image of a rolly-eye emoticon. please use your imaginations instead. thank you.}
on Jun 09, 2004

I read the whole discussion up there.


It seems that this guy has the option of flying the flag(s) on a short pole off of his house.  He should do that.


If the homeowners association wanted a huge flagpole in the community they could either build one, or open up a Perkins in the middle of the neighborhood.

on Jun 09, 2004

Bakerstreet: As one of those "drones" I can assure you that where I live, each house looks quite different and our cars are quite different. We aren't robbed of individuality. Associations are in response to ineffectual city ordinances (or ones never enforced). 

There is nothing "individualistic" about the guy who leaves his boat parked on the street for 3 months.  There's nothing special about the guy who build a big half-assed wood fence around their yard.  There's nothing wonderful about the guy who builds a big old tool shed in his backyard that he rarely mows. And there's nothing wonderful about a guy who builds a 25 foot tall flag poll in their front yard.

Like I said, associations aren't for everyone.  People who live in them are people who have agreed to live by a specific set of rules because they awnt those rules. We don't go into other people's neighborhoods and demand they change the way they do things. Why should we be asked to change the rules after the fact.  You ever see a 25 foot flag pole up close? It's a pretty major structure.

Incidentally, we have plenty of houses in our neighborhoods that have flags out (including ours depending on the day). I believe there are also people with flag poles -- up to 12 foot.  12 foot is pretty tall too.  Go measure 25 foot sometime. That's how big this guy's flag pole was. Now imagine how big those flags were (two of them).

on Jun 09, 2004

flag

There's a picture of it. Get the picture. That's a pretty big flag pole. Now you say, what's the big deal. Fine, then why can't I build an above ground pool? Why can't I have a big old satellite dish on my roof to get in 450 channels? Why can't I park my motor home in my drive way all year round?  You know why? Because if you live in an association, you agreed not to build these things or do these things.

on Jun 10, 2004
"There is nothing "individualistic" about the guy who leaves his boat parked on the street for 3 months. There's nothing special about the guy who build a big half-assed wood fence around their yard. There's nothing wonderful about the guy who builds a big old tool shed in his backyard that he rarely mows. And there's nothing wonderful about a guy who builds a 25 foot tall flag poll in their front yard."


I should jot that down. Wouldn't want to make the leap and define "wonderful" for myself. Those all sound like personal choices made by individuals that harm no one... unless you are overly interested in "standards". Thus my point about standardization.

I concede the point. They are right, he is wrong. He shouldn't have moved into that sort of neighborhood to begin with. Much better to live among folks who have enough to occupy their minds without resorting to "Queer Eyeing" the neighbor's property. I can't imagine being bored enough to wonder how long my neighbor's boat was parked there or how long his pole is... ur, how tall it is. You know what I mean.

"We don't go into other people's neighborhoods and demand they change the way they do things."


If you don't, kudos. I live in a historical city with a lot of age and heaps of new money. Communities around here constantly "absorb" others, change zoning and impose neighborhood associations on people that have lived there a long time.

I have whitebread analville creeping up from Beaumont to the south and Latin America creeping down from the horse farms to the northwest. I drive through both neighborhoods regularly, and I am praying that the Mexicans get here first.




( P.S. Brad, I know I am venomous, look over it. Just old wounds that have nothing to do with you. Yours was the wrong post to read at the wrong time, no offense intended. Just venting. )

on Jun 10, 2004
It's very odd. While it may be a case of removal, the neighbors wanted it to stay up. Can't they just leave it up?

I would like to have a community of reasonable laws, such as no leaving a junk car out for years, but no control freak laws such as no displaying a "nuisance" American flag.
on Jun 10, 2004
Reply By: russellmz2Posted: Wednesday, June 09, 2004"This is the story of Richard Oulton, an American, a veteran, and a victim of the Ameircan Communist..the Leftys."man, what are the odds he'd move into a town area run by a home owners' association composed entirely of lefties?{i couldn't find a 1600x1400 pixel image of a rolly-eye emoticon. please use your imaginations instead. thank you.}


Actually it only took two leftys to screw this poor guy, the judge and the idiot that complained in the first place..
on Jun 10, 2004
There's a picture of it. Get the picture. That's a pretty big flag pole. Now you say, what's the big deal. Fine, then why can't I build an above ground pool? Why can't I have a big old satellite dish on my roof to get in 450 channels? Why can't I park my motor home in my drive way all year round? You know why? Because if you live in an association, you agreed not to build these things or do these things.


Actually I think if you check you will find that his association rules did not prohibit the flag pole. They may have rules against the above ground pool or other things. He argued from the what I can gather that the association rules did not say he could not do this. Its an issue of once he did some idiot (it only takes one) complained to the association. Then once in court the State passed a law that said no association could make someone take down an American Flag or prohibit the flying of one. Yet the Judge hearing this case said that did not apply to him, even though the Law that was passed was named after his cause. Go figure that out. The State Government says you can, the judge says you cant, your neighbors say you can, the complaining commie says you can't, 2 vs's 100's and they win. THAT SUCKS. Its because in this issue the Judge was very unreasonable and even refused to allow this guy a trial by jury. Ya lets deprive him of due process and a trial by his peers. The Judge did that because he knew he (the judge) would lose and the jury would say it was OK to fly the flag on the flag pole.

Plain and simple, the peverted view of one commie, and one lefty Judge overrides the wishes of hundereds of citizens. Of course, the left wins again..

on Jun 10, 2004

Plain and simple, the peverted view of one commie, and one lefty Judge overrides the wishes of hundereds of citizens.
 


  Just because people don't like a law doesn't mean they can just sign their names and have a judge change it.  That's not what Judges do.The Judge isn't there to represent the wishes of citizens, he is there to impartially uphold the law.  He did that.  There was a housing association regulation about 'unapproved structures' and this flagpole was deemed an 'unapproved structure'.  It's not about the flags that were flying from it, it's about the flagpole. 


Did you ask the Judge his political alliance before you labelled him a 'lefty'?  And I think you might want to re-think your definition of Communisim.

on Jun 10, 2004
Judging from the posts here ("commie"), I'm going to guess that there was some really serious peer pressure on the neighbors to support the flag. I don't even know that it's possible to judge their true intentions based on what's available on the web... I wouldn't be surprised if many neighbors complained privately, but didn't want to express that publicly.

ShadowWar, most of the people supporting the association in this thread are conservative, not liberal. It's ridiculous to call this a conservative/liberal issue, let alone "the peverted view of one commie."

As for the legal decisions, I'm going to guess that what the judge ruled is that, in general, you can't pass a law to retroactively punish someone. Without reading the decision, I can't be sure, but that seems plausible to me.
on Jun 10, 2004
dharmagrl,

I respectifully have to say, you have missed the whole ruling thing.

The flagpole issue....."This outraged and upset many people, including members of the legislature who responded by unanimously voting in The Wyndham Flag Bill. This statute basically provides that no homeowners association can prohibit a homeowner from flying a flag unless they disclose it at the time of sale. Despite the fact that the new law was enacted specifically for the Wyndham flag case and was called the Wyndham Flag Law, the judge ruled that the law did not apply to the Oultons’ case. He ignored the law."

You see he wasn't and couldn't change the law, he refused to follow the law..even him being a judge. Also:

"As Richard tells it, being an attorney, he read all 250 pages of The Declaration of Covenants, Conditions & Restrictions prior to buying their house. Nothing he read caused him to rethink the purchase he was about to make. Nowhere in the “book of restrictions” were the words flag or flagpole to be found. “I took the CC&Rs at their word”, he said. "

You see the whole point is there was nothing in the association rules that prohibited it (according to the stories published), the State Law Makers enacted a law to prevent Associations from being able to force residents to take down an American flag, yet the Judge in the case rufused to honor that LAW. OK so whos at fault??

As for the lefty and commie comments, just stiring the fire...


on Jun 10, 2004
A fine example of how judges are trying to make law instead of supporting or enforcing the law. The state legislature enacts a law that not only specifically addresses this specific case but is actually named for this specific case, and a judge completely ignores that law and rules that the law doesn't apply to this specific case? It isn't the role of the court to usurp the role of legislature. This judge should be removed from the bench for failing to uphold state law as he was sworn to do.

I understand the concept of Associations well enough and even why some people choose to live in these types of communities. But I think this is carrying the idea to an absurd extreme. There's a big difference between parking a camper in your drive for three months at a time, not mowing your lawn regularly, and erecting a flag pole.

This guy should simply have not bought a house in one.


I agree completely.
on Jun 10, 2004
If this thread proves anything, it is that it doesn't take a pack of liberal potheads to see a conspiracy in just about anything. a conservative pothead will also do just fine.

This is a complete non-issue, the only reason this is discussed is because someone decided to get all emotional over The Flag. Had the guy placed a 25 foot totempole in his backyard (which I doubt is specifically forbidden in the association's rules), I'm sure we'd be listening to Shadow furiously ranting on all those commie indians messing up our decent American backyards.
9 Pages1 2 3 4  Last