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 5)
9 PagesFirst 3 4 5 6 7  Last
on Jun 10, 2004
A question then:

So, if a number of "the people" get together and draft a city or state law that flies in the face of the Constitution, the Supreme Court should just say "okey-dokey"?

IG
on Jun 10, 2004
Depends on whether or not the basis of the law was addressed by the Constitution. In matters not addressed by the Constitution, I think it should be left to the representives of the people to decide. The problem is the Consitution, like the Bible, can be twisted and interpreted to mean anything you would like it to.

Protecting one person's rights is generally thumbing your nose at someone else's. There's something to be said for a reasonable amount of majority rule. As of now it is meaningless.

on Jun 10, 2004

That's the problem Baker, certain areas are not specifically addressed in the Constitution, but they clearly fall under the same guidelines.  For one, Copyright laws shouldn't apply to Electronic software by your arguement, but I know that Brad would definitely back me up that copyrights should apply to software.


 


Cheers

on Jun 10, 2004
This is why I would never live in a neighborhood with a neighborhood association. The idea that you can't put a flag pole you like in your front yard is ridiculous. Never the less, the man had a contractual obligation which he violated. If the sanctity of his property is that important to him, he should move elsewhere.

VES

on Jun 11, 2004
Jeblackstar: "shouldn't" is term of certainty. I don't believe in natural certainty, only belief. I think that as far as copyrights and flagpoles go, representatives do a decent job. My belief is we needed new copyright laws for the broadened definitions required by new media, not patched old laws. We can't vote on everything, though.

If the guy violated his agreement to abide by the charter, then too bad for him, he should have read it better. If the charter was unclear on what constitues a structure or a visual nuisence, then they should have been more specific. In the end what bothers me is that this precedent is determined by some judge; a creature of whims and moods like any of the rest of us. The next time someone sues over a flagpole, his decision will be more definitive than the charter or the dissenting opinion.

This decision should be about one case, one charter, and one flagpole. Unfortunately we build piles of precedent up to create truth.

One guy, or a handful, hastily elected or appointed, cementing future "truth". That is what representitve government seeks to avoid. That is too much power, even for an honest person. Given that many aren't honest, and many want the job so they can change the world against its will, I find the system flawed.

This has leapt the bounds of the flagpole discussion, though. Sorry to hijack. My angst kind of bled over from an Abortion thread. My apologies.

on Jun 11, 2004
Protecting one person's rights is generally thumbing your nose at someone else's. There's something to be said for a reasonable amount of majority rule.


Which individual rights are in conflict here? Whose rights are being thumbed?

This guy chose to live in a "majority rule" situation, the neighborhood association. Its not the idea that other individual's rights are conflicting with his, it's that he was willing gave up some of his rights to the collective he chose to live around, and now he's regretting it. Tough cookies!

VES



on Jun 11, 2004
"shouldn't" is term of certainty. I don't believe in natural certainty, only belief.


Ahhh, that explains it. Perception is reality. No further explanation needed....

VES
on Jun 11, 2004
I want to say something here and I want you all to take it to heart. Although I may not agree with many of the points of view I want to say I am really impressed by the adult, rational, intelligent conversation/discussion going on here. Draginol, bakerstreet, kingbee, karmagirl, and all the rest (excuse me for not listing them all) have done a very nice job of explaining your side and point of view mostly in a rational adult way. I tip my hat to you all for this, its refreshing to be able to agree to disagree and talk about issues that sometimes are heated in this way.

Thank you all for reafirming my belief in peoples ability to discuss issues without resorting to curseing and such. I know someone will bring up my use of lefty and commie and such, those are not intended literally but emotional, so please don't be offended by them.

Again thank you for your points of view.

Now after reading all the post, my gosh there are a few. I have to say that I still feel that the homeowner association, and especially the judge made a mistake.

The law that was passed was intended to be applied to this case, the judge then decided to ignore it. In many law circles they will tell you that the "spirt" of the law is as important as the "letter" of the law. It was the intention of the "Law Makers" of that state to prevent the association from making this man take this pole and flag down.

Laws also a lot of times apply what is known a resonableness factor. Is the application of the law reasonable in this case and warranted on the grounds in which it is being applied? In this case the associations contention was that it was a visual detraction. But to who? The neighbooors (the ones that had to look at it) all agreed and signed a petition that it was not a problem with them. SO that kind of throws out the reason for bringing this to court. Then since it made it to court, the State Law Makers saw the un-reasonableness of this and passed a law specifically designed for this case and to prevent future issues like this. But the Judge refused to apply the law to the case. He in essence ignored the will of the very people that write and pass the laws he was asked to uphold.

So what was the final outcome? The man had to remove the flag and now has a hole in the ground where it once was. But the matter that makes this a incident/issue worth discussing is the fact the association tried to force its will where that will was not specifically spelled out on a person. And a judge used judicial descretion and power to ignore state law and ignore the will of hundreds of people. That in itself is not right. Thankfully you can vote a judge out also. I wonder if he was re-elected or even ran for re-election.

Thank you folks for the discussion. What is you overall summary of your point of view?

on Jun 11, 2004
In many law circles they will tell you that the "spirt" of the law is as important as the "letter" of the law.


And other law circles will tell you otherwise. This is because the "spirit" of the law can be a very subjective standard, if even a standard at all. That is why the proper crafting of the literal of the law is so important, and subject to adjustment with each legislative session.

My summary would be if you move to a housing area that has a neighborhood association which tends to exist for the purpose of uniformity, don't expect to be able to express a lot of individuality with you property. If one wishes to maintain as much control over their property as possible, avoid neighborhood associations like the plague.

Thankfully you can vote a judge out also


Not everywhere. In some jurisdictions, judges are appointed. And federal judges are appointed for life. They have to REALLY "screw the pooch" to be impeached.

Interesting thread ShadowWar.

VES
on Jun 11, 2004
i agree with you, but at the end of the day the law is the law, and breaking that law means comitting an offence.

as is the case, laws for freedom of speech and laws for housing associations contridict each other in every respect.
on Jun 11, 2004

Draginol,
I acquiesce on the definition of "structure" including flagpoles, although I don't care for the definition myself.
However, the law specified that covenants are not allowed to implicitly forbid flags or flagpoles:

In the quoted article it said:

"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."

He could have taken down his "structure" flagpole and flew a flag on a pole attached to his home.  Obviously he couldn't fly as big of flags, but he could still fly them.

on Jun 11, 2004
Then since it made it to court, the State Law Makers saw the un-reasonableness of this and passed a law specifically designed for this case and to prevent future issues like this. But the Judge refused to apply the law to the case. He in essence ignored the will of the very people that write and pass the laws he was asked to uphold.


Don't you think there is something wrong when lawmakers are starting to make laws to determine the outcome of specific courtcases?

We have the courts to decide what is and what is not according to the law. It is not the role of the lawmaker to decide courtcases.

It may sound harmless this time, but consider this: in a week or so, there might be a breaking case in which some guy killed a couple of kids. Naturally there's an outcry of rage and some lawmakers decide to score. They make a new law, especially for this case, to lynch the guy. It's passed on waves of emotions. What do you think, should it stand?
on Jun 11, 2004
this exerpt may help to clear up some questions about the timeline of events. i found the full article at : shaheenlaw.com

When Homeowners and Homeowners' Associations Clash
(This Article, authored by Victor A. Shaheen and originally published in the July 2002 Issue of Mobility Magazine, is re-printed, in an abridged format, with the Permission of the Publisher)
By: Victor A. Shaheen, J. D., CRP


Procedures for the approval of structures and variances will vary from association to association. In the Wyndham case, the Oultons first made an application to the "Modifications Committee," which rejected their application. The Oultons could have appealed to the board of directors, but they elected not to do so.

The Wyndham Community, consisting of 1,500 homes, is upscale, with a golf course and community center. The Oultons, whose 10,000 square foot house sits on a 1.7 acre lot, argued that a house-mounted flag would be "dwarfed."

Complex and lengthy litigation followed the Oultons’ decision to defy the board. In its June 11, 2001, written opinion, the Henrico Court initially found that the Wyndham covenants and restrictions did apply as they were a matter of public record at the time the Oultons purchased the property. Moreover, even though the Oultons claimed not to have read them, their purchase contract specifically stated that their property was subject to them.

The case then turned on whether the flagpole was a "structure" within the meaning of those covenants. The court, citing among other things Webster's Dictionary, concluded that Oulton's flagpole was a structure that is subject to regulation. The court ruled that notwithstanding the Oultons' good intentions, "the covenants are for the benefit of all property owners in the community, and at best it would be unfair to the other owners who purchased lots with the knowledge of these covenants if they were not enforced."

It was "Taps" for the Oultons' stars and stripes, but not for the controversy.

In a follow-up ruling on July 25, 2001, the same court ordered the Oultons to pay Wyndham its attorneys' fees and costs in the total amount of $87,858.58.

It is not uncommon for HOA covenants to contain provisions for fee awards such as the one relied on by this court. The Oultons appealed to the Virginia Supreme Court, where the case is still pending.

In the media and political circus that trailed the Oulton case, Virginia's General Assembly enacted a statute that generally prevents HOAs from prohibiting homeowners from displaying certain flags. However, the statute came too late to help Oulton, as the Henrico Circuit Court ruled that it had no retroactive effect to his case.
on Jun 11, 2004
think of them as "sensitive" folks who can't get survive out in the "wilderness" of society and are kept in closed groups for their own safety. Zoos for the anal-retentive.


My favorite quote of the week.

I was actually wondering about that one. I don't what the precise timeline was involving this, but if it weren't in effect, how could the judge have ruled that it "didn't apply" to this case???? Seems it must have been or he wouldn't have made such a ruling don't you think?
on Jun 11, 2004
Ah. Re-reading kingbee's layout of the timeline. Misunderstood the first time I read it. (Ok, skimmed it)

If that timeline is accurate, then the law did, in fact, come after the case and so would not have applied. Seems that perhaps it would have to be considered on appeal though, wouldn't it? I'm no lawyer so not sure about that one.

More information does help. Seems he asked, was told no, and then did it anyway. In that case, I would have to agree that while I think they're still wrong to not allow it, he was in the wrong for going ahead with it anyway if that's what actually happened. Amazing how a little more information can change one's perspective on it. Also seems that he never actually read the rules until after the problem arose if I'm reading that right.

I think if I were to move into one of the communites (will never happen), I would want to know what I was agreeing to before I did.
9 PagesFirst 3 4 5 6 7  Last