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 8)
9 PagesFirst 6 7 8 9 
on Jun 14, 2004
Sigh, no point in continuing this as people are no longer bothering to read the responses (there's 100+ now of them). Suffice to say, the flag POLE is the issue, not the flag.
on Jun 14, 2004
Your joking right??


No, I'm pointing out the difference. You are the one that brought up the murder case suggesting that a LEGAL defense of self defense flew in the face of the concept "the law is the law." The law recognizes self defense as a legal defense, so it doesn't contridict the idea "the law is the law". It's a poor example because in that case, the person WOULD be arrested and brought before a judge. We had been previously discussing when LEO's use discretion in NOT bringing a case before a judge.

If I was going to say something about you, I would say it more directly, not imply it. A simple following of logic....

Okay, now I'm really done....

VES
on Oct 16, 2004

Reply #2 By: Draginol - 6/9/2004 7:07:28 PM
I think I'm as patriotic as the next person. But I tend to agree with the association on this. It's not that his neighbors and association were unpatriotic or didn't respect the flag, it's that when you move into an association you agree to abide by a certain set of rules.


I'm sorry Drag but I have to disagree on this. Reread the post. There were *no* rules covering this when he moved in
I don't like when people try to play the patriotism flag to claim victimhood anymore than I like seeing people play the racism card to play victim. I would have objected to a huge flag pole and huge flag across the street from my house too.
That's the whole point. His neighbors were *not* complaining about it.
on Oct 16, 2004

Reply #3 By: jeblackstar - 6/9/2004 7:09:07 PM
Umm, they didn't want him to take down the flag, they wanted him to take down the flagpole. There are some important questions unasked here. How tall was the flagpole, is the most important one. Was it the standard height? 8-12ft?


Since *when* is there a standard height? Go to Home Depot and look. Their outside pole kit is 20'
on Oct 16, 2004

Reply #9 By: InfoGeek - 6/9/2004 8:31:19 PM
They didn't have a rule against it. That really is the point. They decided to MAKE a rule against it after the fact. A judge decided to back them on this. THAT is the real point.


So basically the governing body of the complex thought the overly tall flagpole did not "jive" with the complex aesthetic so they looked for a way to get rid of it. A normal response for the gated community.

Since they had no rules specifically about flagpoles, they determined it was a structure. Which it was,


Not. A flagpole is not cosidered a structure. Here is the dictionary meaning of the word structure. I f you notice they all have to do with "buildings" which a flagpole ain't!


Main Entry: 1struc·ture
Pronunciation: 'str&k-ch&r
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin structura, from structus, past participle of struere to heap up, build -- more at STREW
1 : the action of building : CONSTRUCTION
2 a : something (as a building) that is constructed b : something arranged in a definite pattern of organization
3 : manner of construction : MAKEUP
4 a : the arrangement of particles or parts in a substance or body b : organization of parts as dominated by the general character of the whole
5 : the aggregate of elements of an entity in their relationships to each other
- struc·ture·less /-l&s/ adjective
- struc·ture·less·ness /-n&s/ noun
on Oct 16, 2004

Reply #13 By: dharmagrl - 6/9/2004 9:57:28 PM
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."


The part about a flagpole being a structure. It's not! Definition follows.
Main Entry: 1struc·ture
Pronunciation: 'str&k-ch&r
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin structura, from structus, past participle of struere to heap up, build -- more at STREW
1 : the action of building : CONSTRUCTION
2 a : something (as a building) that is constructed b : something arranged in a definite pattern of organization
3 : manner of construction : MAKEUP
4 a : the arrangement of particles or parts in a substance or body b : organization of parts as dominated by the general character of the whole
5 : the aggregate of elements of an entity in their relationships to each other
- struc·ture·less /-l&s/ adjective
- struc·ture·less·ness /-n&s/ noun
on Oct 16, 2004

Reply #76 By: MasonM - 6/11/2004 7:57:06 AM
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


As a matter of fact yes it should have been considered on appeal.
on Oct 16, 2004
eply #93 By: Brad Wardell - 6/13/2004 6:00:09 PM
His neighbors liked it and wanted it there.

If his neighbors liked it, like the claim says, they would have simply modified the rules. In associations it only takes a simple majority to add/modify a rule. Standard procedure.


This partially incorrect. the majority can be over-ridden by the board of directors.
on Oct 16, 2004
how big is this thing???

whatever, the point is that they should leave it and not allow others to do it.

yes, lack of unifority and wierd housing designs can effect propetry values of other houses.

I say, leave his flag and write the rules so that others can not do it unless it is at the limited hieght.
on Oct 16, 2004
This is ridiculous. I rule in favor of the home owners assoc.
on Oct 16, 2004

Reply #118 By: joetheblow - 10/16/2004 2:33:03 PM
how big is this thing???

whatever, the point is that they should leave it and not allow others to do it.

yes, lack of unifority and wierd housing designs can effect propetry values of other houses.

I say, leave his flag and write the rules so that others can not do it unless it is at the limited hieght.


Can't do that. If it's okay for one, it has to be okay for all.
on Oct 16, 2004

Reply #119 By: sandy2 - 10/16/2004 2:52:14 PM
This is ridiculous. I rule in favor of the home owners assoc


Somehow I expected that coming from you.
on Oct 16, 2004
I live in Richmond, I met Rich just after this hit the news. Great guy, shafted (no pun intended) by the neighborhood association. Justified my reason for not moving into a community development.
on Oct 16, 2004
The same thing has happened here.

Communist Nazis called the Home Owners Association is threatening to foreclose on his house because he didn't get permission for his flag pole and he doesn't want to take it down. Not that he is behind in any payments.

People complain about their rights being taken away bt the Patriot Act, when in fact it is the Home Owners Association that has taken your rights away. They are Evil, EVIL I tell you!
on Oct 16, 2004
This is ridiculous. I rule in favor of the home owners assoc.


No that is ridiculous I rule in favor of individual rights, especially of one who has served his/her country and I also rule in the right of one's own personal property.

- Grimyn Xand
9 PagesFirst 6 7 8 9