Posted on 12/07/2004 7:38:13 PM PST by Pharmboy
Patriots are subjected to much ridicule when they object to [Admiralty flag] the flag that appears in every government office and courtroom in the land. That flag is the United States flag... with one seemingly minor cosmetic difference - a knotted golden fringe on three sides.
Government officials and judges adamantly refuse requests to remove the gold fringed flag and replace it with the constitutional flag of the United States as defined in 4 U.S.C. Section 1,2, and 3 - which has NO fringe.
Why should anyone be concerned about this apparently innocent decorative feature? What difference does it make?
The difference is that the flag that is displayed is legal notice, to all who enter, of the type of law that holds jurisdiction. The constitutional United States flag signifies common law jurisdiction.
The gold fringed United States flag is the Admiralty or War flag which denotes Admiralty or martial law.
Hogwash, you say? Is there no Admiralty Court claiming jurisdiction in America except in matters that occur on the high seas? Think again! Just as the founders of this country railed against the King for extending Admiralty law to the lands of the Colonies, so are those few patriots who have paid attention to the corruption of our legal system, raising a hue and a cry over the current usurpers of jurisprudence.
Rocky Mountain News Wed. May 22, 1996 Legal Notices Section The legal notices here displayed concern property seized by Federal agents as booty under Admiralty law. Notice is required so that anyone who might have an interest in the property seized has opportunity to seek to protect his interest.
One would not be wise to attempt this, though. Most likely, any excuse will be used to allege that the party claiming interest in the property was a party to the alleged offense that resulted in the original seizure.
The allegation is enough to justify the taking of property - under Admiralty law guilt is presumed. The claimant might well lose other property not yet in the hands of these landgoing pirates, even though no actual conviction of any offense is ever entered. Check your local paper's legal notices. Look into the cases cited and see if any conviction occurs - or if any charges were even filed - against the persons whose property was seized.
Colorado is a long ways from the ocean. Admiralty law is farther still from the common law recognized under Federal and State constitutions.
You decide... are these patriots kooks? Or have we been blind to the tyranny that is even now upon us?
More Evidence on the Flag Issue Our official courts today are all operating under admiralty jurisdiction, except the court of Claims in Washington D.C. which remains under the common law...You can easily identify an admiralty court by noting the presence of a gold fringed flag in the court room. This is a military flag which denotes admiralty jurisdiction within that court... " Sizes and Ocassions for Display
National flags listed below are for indoor display and for use in ceremonies and parades. For these purposes the United States flag will be rayon banner cloth, trimmed on three sides with golden fringe, 2.5 inches wide. It will be the same size as the flags displayed or carried with it.
Aurthorization for indoor display. Each military courtoom." Army Regulation 840-10, October 1 1979
Admiralty and Maritime, Military Law
At the time, I had run-ins with him on several threads (as in this Post 64).
I claimed that the most likely cause of the Kursk's demise was an onboard torpedo accident as they used highly dangerous hydrogen peroxide as propellant fuel.
But, what did I know. :-)
The Michael Rivero standard conspiracy theory was that, if something blew up or sank, it was the fault of the U.S. Government.
If it is purely decorative and holds no "significance" then the court should have no problems with replacing it with a non-fringed flag if a defendent so chooses (he brings his own American flag), no?
Odd that the "fringe" would push for a flag with "no fringe".
I know that Dale Gribble has brought this up in at least one episode of King Of The Hill. I can't recall what he was in court for.
Dale Gribble, King of the Hill, Episode KH203
'nuff said
In that same diatribe, Gribble said something to the effect that he would not be court-martialed AGAIN. Funny stuff.
There's the "U word". It's the most reliable kook indicator.
Court Cases on Yellow Fringed Flags
Richard Anthony
http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/flags.html
The following court cases deal with objections to the court having a yellow fringed flag. In every case, the court ruled that it is frivolous to argue that there is a yellow fringed flag in the court. Many "'patriots" (for profit) have used these court cases to "prove" that it does not matter if the flag has a yellow fringe or not. But if it does not matter, why doesn't the court simply bring a non-fringed flag into the court like the accused asked them to? However, as will be seen, the reason for the courts ruling against these arguments was not because it is irrelevant as to what flag is flown, but because the accused used the wrong arguments and submitted themselves to the courts jurisdiction! [Richard's comments in brackets].
Remember, a court is not under military jurisdiction because of the yellow fringed flag, but the yellow fringed flag is there because the court is under military jurisdiction. Keep this in mind as you read these cases.
Slangal v. Cassel (D Neb 1997) 962 F.Supp 1214. "I find and conclude that any complaint predicated in whole or in part upon the allegation that jurisdiction is based upon the 'American Free Flag of Peace, title 4 USC 1'...or a similar allegation is frivolous, malicious and intended to harass. The plaintiff or anyone else who has filed...such a 'flag' suit is notified that any such suit filed after this date will be dismissed sua sponte without notice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction."
[Jurisdiction is based upon Law, and not upon flags or 'signs.' In addition, "the plaintiff or anyone else who has filed" an action in a military court, is voluntarily submitting himself to the court's jurisdiction. To go to a military court, and enter into a 'contract' with that court, then argue one is not under its jurisdiction, is, of course, frivolous. Since scripture forbids going to courts of law, plaintiffs and litigants are forsaking God's Law, and are thus under man's law. "It is an elementary rule of pleading, that a plea to the jurisdiction is... a tacit admission that the court has a right to judge in the case, and is a waiver to all exceptions to the jurisdiction." 6 Bush Ky.8.
Schneider v. Schlaefer (ED Wisc 1997) 975 F.Supp 1160. Quoting McCann case and Atty-Gen Op and "from this day forward litigants...are put on notice that any claims or defenses based upon the alleged pre-eminence of the 'American Flag of Peace' over any other flag are frivolous and sanctionable."
[No flag has pre-eminence over any other flag. They are all equally 'idols' in God's eyes].
US v. G.D. Bell (ED Cal unpub 4/30/97) 79 AFTR 2d 2784 recons.den (ED Cal 1998) 27 F.Supp.2d 1191. "As to the physical composition of the flag in the courtroom, the General Services Administration Office of the Courts supply furnishings for the courtroom. Defendants should address any complaints about the form of the courtroom flag to the General Services Administration."
[Being a defendant also gives jurisdiction. The correct term to use is "accused"].
Jarboe v. Reichle (Conn.Super. unpub 11/10/86). Claiming that "the presence of an alleged gold fringed military flag in the courtroom indicates this [State] court is not a constitutional court."
[Since the constitution does establish military courts, it is a constitutional court. All military courts are constitutional.]
State v. Martz (Ohio App. unpub 6/9/97) app.dismissed 80 Ohio St.3d 1423, 685 NE2d 237. Appellant claims the trial court was without jurisdiction...because the courtroom displayed a military style US flag with gold fringe. We disagree."
[Again, flags do not determine jurisdiction, they only reveal the jurisdiction already present. And why did 'appellant' go to their jurisdiction to sue? By doing so, he again submitted himself to their military jurisdiction, voluntarily!]
Jarboe v. Reichle (Conn.Super. unpub 11/10/86). This one said that fringe on the flag made it a military court.
[The flag does not make it a military court, law does. The flag only shows what jurisdiction already exists.]
Dunkel v. McCloskey (ED Penn unpub 11/25/98). "This Court is persuaded that the American Flag statute cannot be relied on as a jurisdictional basis for a [civil rights] action." Rule 11 sanctions imposed.
[Civil Rights are governed by military law].
Wyatt v. Kelly, Chief Bankruptcy Judge (WD Texas unpub 3/23/98) 44 USPQ2d 1578, 81 AFTR2d 1463, 98 USTC para 50326. Tried to sue judge for not removing fringed flag nor installing "a flag that met plaintiff's specifications." Court imposed Rule 11 fine of $1000.
[This is like suing a police officer for not removing his badge. The decor does not determine jurisdiction, but only indicates what already exists.]
Ch.H. Cass v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co (MDNC unpub 10/1/98) 82 AFTR2d 6967. Suing federal judges, US Attorneys, county registrars, IRS agents, and some big corporations because of fringed flag. "The complaint will be dismissed not because this court operates under the regal splendor of a gold fringed flag but because the complaint is legally absurd."
[It is rather absurd to sue a military institution for displaying a military flag, isn't it?].
Marion v. Marion (Conn.Super. unpub 6/18/98). Trying to sue a town official and a judge for "accepting" a fringed US flag supposedly thereby "suppressing" the perp's rights.
[Followers of Christ have no "rights" in scripture, except the right to the tree of life - Revelation 22:14].
US v. Schiefen (D SoDak 1995) 926 F.Supp 877 aff'd 81 F3d 166 mand.denied 522 US 1074. "Federal jurisdiction is determined by statute, not by whether the flag flown is plain or fringed."
McCann v. Greenway (WD Mo 1997) 952 F.Supp 647. "Jurisdiction is a matter of law statute, and constitution, not a child's game wherein one's power is magnified or diminished by the display of some magic talisman." And quoting the 34 Op.US Atty-Gen 483 (1925) that "in flag manufacture a fringe is not considered to be a part of the flag and it is without heraldic significance."
Lang v. Dieleuterio (D NJ unpub 2/17/99). "Such objections to the court's flag, or even to the absence of any flag, have uniformly been dismissed as meritless because the type of flag displayed does not effect federal jurisdiction."
City of Belton v. Horton (Mo.App 1997) 947 SW2d 104. Claimed the fringe on the American flag "the court was thus a foreign power, and the trial judge was the supreme ruler of a foreign power, devoid of any jurisdiction over him." Similarly in Wacker v. Crow (10th Cir unpub 7/1/99).
G.D. Fowler v. State (Ark.App 1999) 67 Ark.App 114, 992 SW2d 804. The defendant's objection to the fringe was emphasized by the prosecution during cross-examination, and similarly during the cross-examination of the defendant's fellow militia group members, and on appeal the exploitation of the defendant's objection to the courtroom flag was held to be so prejudicial, because it was calculated to arouse the jury's hostility to the defendant, that the conviction was overturned.
Dulisse v. Twardowski (ED Penn unpub 7/16/98). Suing federal judges, IRS agents and US Attorney for constructive treason, etc. because of fringed flag.
Haskins v. Wilbert (D Kan unpub 11/5/97). "Judge Wilbert's jurisdiction is in no way predicated on...the design of the US flag."
Murray v. State of Wyoming (10th Cir unpub 3/16/99) 176 F3d 489(t). "This argument is indisputably meritless."
Joyner v. Borough of Brooklyn (EDNY unpub 3/18/99).Claimed the presence of a fringed flag denied him a fair trial and constituted treason.
Vella v. McCammon (SD Tex 1987) 671 F.Supp 1128. "Not only without merit but also totally frivolous".
US v. Greenstreet (ND Tex 1996) 912 F.Supp 224. "Decor is not a determinant for jurisdiction."
Similar Cases
Huebner v. State (Tex.App unpub 5/8/97).
State v. Martz (Ohio App unpub 6/9/97).
Moeller v. D'Arrigo (ED Va 1995) 163 FRD 489.
R.Jones v. T.G. Watson (ND Ohio) unpub 9/29/97).
Lee v. Maass (1992) 111 Ore App 412, 826 P2d 97 revw denied 313 Ore 210, 830 P2d 596.
State v. Whalen (Ariz.App 1997) 192 Ariz 103, 961 P2d 1051 app.denied (Ariz Supm unpub 9/10/98).
US v. Warren (NDNY unpub 1/22/98).
J. Rogers v. Borough of Manhattan (a person) (SDNY unpub 10/1/98).
Bartrug v. Rubin (Ed Va 1997) 986 F.Supp 332.
Commonwealth v. Appel (1994) 438 Penn.Super. 214, 652 A2d 341.
State v. Svee (unpub 1/12/88) 143 Wisc.2d 892 (t), 421 NW2d 117(t).
Sadlier v. Payne (D Utah 1997) 974 F.Supp 1411.
Hancock v. State of Utah (10th Cir unpub 5/10/99) 176 F3d 488(t).
R.Miller v. USA (ND Ohio unpub 2/6/98).
R.Miller v. Gallagher (ND Ohio unpub 12/17/96).
US v. Dunkel (ND IL unpub 8/30/96) 78 AFTR2d 6529 rev. in part on other grounds (7th Cir unpub 7/1/97) 80 AFTR2d 5148, 97 USTC para 50565.
BUT... GOOGLE SEARCH: "Michael Rivero" site:www.freerepublic.com (1,110 results)
Sounds like a raving nutter.
Good post. True. It's all about procedure. Some people never learn.
>>The Internet contains many sites that claim that the fringe indicates martial law or that the Constitution does not apply in that area.<<
I, myself, heard a Reno, Nevada Federal judge say to a defendant,"The Constitution does not apply in this courtroom. Do not mention it again or I will hold you in contempt of court."
So, all of you who think the fringe is just decoration better do some research because evidently it does have a meaning in Federal courtrooms.
Well, the second time around for an "official" grassy knoll investigation they decided that nobody could have seen gunsmoke from the knoll because any shooter would have used smokeless powder, and there would have been no smoke, so there was no shooter there.
But that was decided in a room with a fringed flag, so Admiralty Law applies, and no naval muzzleloading cannon would have used smokeless powder (2230, 6000 grains), so Ruby was the shooter. Or Oswald's wife, or Johnson.
I once signed a skeptic into a DCM match so he could actually see smoke from smokeless powder. He got a 300, not bad for a first try. His second match he got 380, with an M1 Garand including 600 yds. He reread both "official reports".
But I drift from Michael and his many posts. Fringed flags are intended to be pretty.
"The Title IV, USC 1 flag (described in E.O. 10834) is the official flag of our country. It is the civilian flag and has very precise specifications based on ratios relative to hoist and fly."
The President wears two hats. One, as the elected chief executive of our Constitutional Republic, and the other as Commander-in-Chief of the United States Armed Forces. In that the military and the federal government are subservient to We the People, the civilian flag should always be displayed in the superior position.
Someday I'd like to walk in the Oval Office and see that statement confirmed by seeing the Title IV USC I flag of our country displayed in the superior position to the federal/military flag. The former on the left of the President's desk, the latter on the right
The United States district courts are the trial courts of the federal court system. Within limits set by Congress and the Constitution, the district courts have jurisdiction to hear nearly all categories of federal cases, including both civil and criminal matters. There are 94 federal judicial districts, including at least one district in each state, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. Three territories of the United States -- the Virgin Islands, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands -- have district courts that hear federal cases, including bankruptcy cases.
There are two special trial courts that have nationwide jurisdiction over certain types of cases. The Court of International Trade addresses cases involving international trade and customs issues. The United States Court of Federal Claims has jurisdiction over most claims for money damages against the United States, disputes over federal contracts, unlawful "takings" of private property by the federal government, and a variety of other claims against the United States.
The court case I am thinking about either was the Wayne Hage case or another one that had to do with BLM land taking.
Two words....venue and jurisdiction.
It is a secret symbol used by the "Enlightened Ones" who have taken over the Federal Reserve and are slowly turning all money production to the "U.S. Treasury" which these EO's have taken over during the Klinton Admin. What they intend to do is back our New Colored Money by 50% Gold, thus stabilizing the Almighty U.S. Dollar. With that stability, they will entice everyone around the world to invest in the U.S. Dollar, and give up their own currency which will lead to World Domination by these Alien Enlightened Ones who feel this is the best way to force mankind into willfull slavery, thinking that these Enlightened Ones came to save the World from total anhilation. Of course, this is exactly what they wanted "Earthlings" to believe. They will have conquered mankind without firing a shot. Their ultimate goal is of course slavery in every part of the Universe that they have set up colonies, so the less people killed, the more slaves they have for their alien colonies. They will expose their true physical appearance when the Earth is safely in their hands. They came from the 12th Planet which circles the Sun in a very elongated ellipse, making it's complete revolution of the Sun every 40,000 years, and will come very close to Earth in the near future, and so their task to take over the Earth is of the highest priority. They have exponentially stepped up their takeover of world governments through the individual country's treasury depts. They call themselves the Nephilim, and are similar in appearance to what mankind calls Angels except they do not have halos over their heads, but they do have angelic wings or so it is supposed.
There is no use getting anxious about what is happening. It cannot be thwarted in any way. They are far, far superior in intelligence and technology than mere mortal man. How do I know about this..............because I are one. BWAHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!
I knew it all along...;-)
(snip)
Just as the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure placed law and equity under the same jurisdiction in 1938, the 1966 rules subsumed admiralty. Nonetheless, the Supplemental Admiralty Rules take precedence over the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in the event of conflict between the two.
http://lii.law.cornell.edu/topics/admiralty.html
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.