Are U.S. Courts All Under Admiralty and does the Gold Fringed Flag Prove It?

Note: The “claim(s)” shown are those attributed to many adherents to a variety of theories, especially those who call themselves sovereign citizens. This blog is one of several used to address specific claims in detail, and the background and organization of my response to the movement begins at this link: http://wp.me/p3nYC8-fD

Shortlink to this blog http://wp.me/p3nYC8-fV

---

Claimed: ALL US Courts Are Admiralty Courts

Hold your hats folks! I have found three FOUR arguments made to prove/explain that the Courts of the U.S. operate only under Admiralty Law. I’m going to spend most of my time on the first one and the last, but I promise to hit the second others one over the head as well.

SPOILER: The Courts find these arguments ‘totally frivolous, preposterous, unintelligible, having no arguable basis in law or fact, and wholly without merit.’

What IS Admiralty Law?

….Admiralty and maritime jurisdiction comprises two types of cases: (1) those involving acts committed on the high seas or other navigable waters, and (2) those involving contracts and transactions connected with shipping employed on the seas or navigable waters.

http://law.justia.com/constitution/us/article-3/25-admiralty-maritime-jurisdiction.htm

Admiralty law or maritime law is a distinct body of law that governs maritime questions and offenses. It is a body of both domestic law governing maritime activities, and private international law governing the relationships between private entities that operate vessels on the oceans. It deals with matters including marine commerce, marine navigation, marine salvaging, shipping, sailors, and the transportation of passengers and goods by sea. Admiralty law also covers many commercial activities, although land based or occurring wholly on land, that are maritime in character.  Admiralty law is distinguished from the Law of the Sea, which is a body of public international law dealing with navigational rights, mineral rights, jurisdiction over coastal waters and international law governing relationships between nations.

Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Admiralty_law on 28 Sep 2014

And you may well ask, “So what?” 

So what?  Admiralty Court cannot hear a criminal case not covered under Admiralty Law, such as failure to pay taxes (hint hint) or robbing the 7-11 on the corner.

In my view that alone makes a shambles of the contention, if they were Admiralty Courts they would not hear the cases, simple, done. But they do. So they are not.
(What the purveyors would say is “aha! That’s why the rulings they produce are unlawful!!…)

Our courts use normal rules of civil and criminal procedure and hear all sorts of cases. Much of the question of what courts do and how they do it does evolve from English Statute Law and Common Law as that was the law of the nation before Independence and was familiar to the framers of the Constitution. Sovereign citizens maintain many theories about what cases they can hear and arguing they don’t have jurisdiction for various reasons, including that they are admiralty courts only able to hear commercial cases.

Well the Constitution disagrees (Article III):

Sec 1 The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish…

Sec 2 The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;–to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;–to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;–to controversies to which the United States shall be a party…

The jurisdiction extends to “all cases in law and equity“which means any case based upon statutory law, constitutional law, common law, case law, admiralty law, treaties and other types of cases as long as they are under Federal law, treaty, constitution.

Indeed, admiralty law cases can  be heard by the Federal Courts but nothing there makes those courts admiralty courts for any other purpose or makes them unable to hear the other kinds of cases.When they are actually hearing an admiralty case they are admiralty courts. But not at any other time.

I guess the thinking is “Admiralty – Admiral – Navy – Military – Military Court” but it just is not true. Admiralty courts are not military courts, they simply hear a limited sort of cases that grow out of sea-going issues.  But the basics of this delusion is that if they are Admiralty Courts they don’t hear criminal matters or anything but commerce issues and therefore all legal issues are commercial matters because, well, they are. Because we don’t use silver or gold in our coins. Because the King owns us. The Bankers own us. The Country is a Corporation.    -_-

On to the Claims made:

Claimed:The Admiralty Courts Exist Because The
U.S. is Under Martial Law

(because: this lunatic site says so)
[The site is full of information such as that the U.S. is a corporation under British Law and control. Won’t bother with that now]

In essence this is the argument: 

(1) The U.S. is in a state of emergency, (True) therefore
(2) martial law is in effect, (False) therefore
(3) the courts are suspended, (False) therefore
(4) any court that sits is an Admiralty court (False)
And perhaps therefore or not,
(5) any court that displays a gold fringed flag is showing that it is, or
alternatively by showing such a flag is creating, an admiralty or perhaps
some other jurisdiction (False)
(6) Admiralty Law is banking law, so we are all
owned by banks and courts are all about banks. (False)

Though the U.S. is legally in several states of emergency, each and every step beyond that in the chain of logic is completely wrong and unsupported and most are also complete non-sequitors. 

And Admiralty Law simply is not “Banking Law” in any sense whatever. Where did that come from? Admiralty has to do with cases involving events related to commerce and other matters on navigable waters. Banks are not navigable bodies of water!

Too, as noted above, Admiralty law has nothing to do with the military nor does it cover anywhere near all the subject matter that federal and state law covers.

Let’s look at how the myth is justified.

Courts are admiralty courts because the US is under Martial Law, The courts have been supplanted or restricted to Admiralty powers because the U.S. Is operating under martial law for which the following is offered as proof:

Since March 9, 1933, the United States has been in a state of declared national emergency. In fact, there are now in effect four presidentially-proclaimed states of national emergency: In addition to the national emergency declared by President Roosevelt in 1933, there are also the national emergency proclaimed by President Truman on December 16, 1950, during the Korean conflict, and the states of national emergency declared by President Nixon on March 23, 1970, and August 15, 1971.
http://www.rallye-pointe.com/em_powers.htm
(The link is not valid, and redirects to a menu page mostly linking to health care sites.)

Indeed it is true that the U.S. is operating under a number of declarations of emergency (those by Nixon and Roosevelt have long since been lifted, however). At least four or five different states of emergency, notably related to the events of 9/11 and the ensuing “Wars on Terror” currently exist. But note well: “State of Emergency” is not “Declaration of Martial Law.”

And again we have to go back to the basics of Admiralty law and ask
“What does this have to do with the high seas and navigable waters?” Nothing…

And just for your infotainment here is more of what that site says that I do not explore at the moment:

Thus Constitutional Rights only count when you get up into the Supreme Court, for there is a tendency to continue to use the Constitutional law in the Supreme Court because they do not want the people to know that the Constitution has been superseded by Admiralty Law. This Awareness indicates that therefore, the Supreme Court will often rule if there is a constitutional discrepancy, so that the lower laws are supposed to follow the Constitution, and yet, entering into a court of law, arguing with the Constitution, seldom is beneficial to an entity because they will say the entity is in the wrong jurisdiction in this court.

They do not recognize your Constitutional Law in the jurisdiction of an Admiralty setting or court, and therefore, they will rule against you, This is the purpose of lawyers. They are clearly aware of their role in the Admiralty court, because you are not in the right jurisdiction for such.

It is meaningless to say “the Constitution has been superseded by Admiralty Law,” for even in an Admiralty Court the Constitution applies; it applies to ALL US Courts; it is SUPREME law, superior to Admiralty Law. There is no exemption from the Constitution, how could there be? It is the Supreme Law of the Land and supplants ALL other law. The power of the courts to hear admiralty cases is give BY the Constitution!

---

U.S. Is NOT Under Martial Law and the Courts are Not Suspended,
Nor Acting in any Admiralty or Military Capacity

The assumption that a state of emergency is the same as a declaration of martial law, so we are under martial law. But it is not at all, we are not, and even if we were, it would matter as it does not do what they claim.  That may be seen as somehow allowing all or many rights of the courts and trial to be suspended, but in fact it allows only one right to be suspended and not in martial law but in ‘cases of rebellion or invasion’ only, not in martial law.

The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.
Article I Sec 9

In a true case of martial law, military courts may indeed try people, and I’m not clear on all the limits to that, but there is no general authorization in the Constitution for it.
There is no martial law unless there is a Declaration of Martial Law, which has occurred nationally only once, under President Lincoln during the rebellion known as the Civil War.
That is not the same thing as a state of emergency.

In United States law, martial law is limited by several court decisions that were handed down between the American Civil War and World War II. In 1878, Congress passed the Posse Comitatus Act, which forbids military involvement in domestic law enforcement without congressional approval.
Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martial_law#United_States
(downloaded 27 Sep 2014)

But all that doesn’t matter unless martial law has actually been declared. It has not. States of emergency do not count.

Martial Law Does Not Suspend the Courts

As it turns out even under Martial Law, if the Courts can operate they operate as regular judicial courts under the Constitution. The distinction must be made as clear as that between martial law and military justice: deployment of troops does not necessarily mean that the civil courts cannot function, and that is one of the keys, as the Supreme Court noted, to martial law…

…Another act-that of March 3d, 1863,  2 ‘relating to habeas corpus, and regulating judicial proceedings in certain cases’- an act passed in the midst of the Rebellion-makes various provisions in regard to the subject of it…. By proclamation 3 dated the 15th September following [71 U.S. 2, 6]   the President reciting this statute suspended the privilege of the writ in the cases where, by his authority, military, naval, and civil officers of the United States ‘hold persons in their custody either as prisoners of war, spies, or aiders and abettors of the enemy…’”
Ex Parte Milligan 71 U.S. 2 (1866) 71 U.S. 2 (Wall.) December Term, 1866

Well that limited the jurisdiction of the military to hold people for only those offenses to start with. If you are charged with other offenses such as tax evasion, this would not apply anyway.

But it doesn‘t apply. The Supreme Court held that Lincoln’s imposition of martial law (by way of suspension of habeas corpus) was unconstitutional. It held that as long as the Federal District and Circuit Courts were available they had the right to try civilian offenses, and in the Milligan case, to try even military or war matters alleged to have been committed by a civilian. And even in the case of a state of emergency the President is still bound by the Constitution. (As are the Courts, of course…)

The Supreme Court established, in 1952, that presidents may not act contrary to Acts of Congress during an emergency. On December 16, 1950, during the Korean War, President Truman issued Presidential Proclamation No. 2914 declaring a state of national emergency.

Held:…
2. The Executive Order was not authorized by the Constitution or laws of the United States, and it cannot stand. Pp. 343 U. S. 585-589….
(c) Authority of the President to issue such an order in the circumstances of this case cannot be implied from the aggregate of his powers under Article II of the Constitution. Pp. 343 U. S. 587-589.
(d) The Order cannot properly be sustained as an exercise of the President’s military power as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. P. 343 U. S. 587.
(e) Nor can the Order be sustained because of the several provisions of Article II which grant executive power to the President. Pp. 343 U. S. 587-589….
(g) Even if it be true that other Presidents have taken possession of private business enterprises without congressional authority in order to settle labor disputes, Congress has not thereby lost its exclusive constitutional authority to make the laws necessary and proper to carry out all powers vested by the Constitution “in the Government of the United States, or any Department or Officer thereof.” Pp. 343 U. S. 588-589.
Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer 343 U.S. 579 (1952)

So we cannot find any authority which suspends the Courts, or makes the courts into military or admiralty courts nor any court decisions that recognize that they are; and surely martial law is not in effect; nor if it were does it have the effect of changing the jurisdiction of U.S. Courts.

And finally there is simply no support offered to show that Admiralty Law is all about banking. It simply is not. If you have an “authoritative” source I’d like to see it.
(For more on Martial Law see http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_mlaw.html )

And yet again we look back to the basics of Admiralty law and say “What does this have to do with the high seas and navigable waters?” Nothing.

---

Not one point in the chain of logic asserted after the first turns out to hold water.

(1) The U.S. is in a state of emergency, <== True so
(2) martial law is in effect <== False,  so
(3) the courts are suspended, <== False,  so
(4) any court that sits is an Admiralty court <== False, and
(5) any court that displays a gold fringed lag is showing that
it is an admiralty court in some way <== False,  so
(6) Admiralty Courts are all about banking.<== False

I will address point (5) after all the other arguments offered for Admiralty Law to apply.

---

Does The Jones Act Put Us Under Maritime/
Admiralty Law By Our Birth Certificate?
Why Is Your Name Spelled In CAPITALS?

Found this at Maritime Law: The Jones Act 

This author never actually answers his question nor does he tell us what the Jones Act is, nor what provision applies Admiralty Law; Wikipedia explains:

Jones Act  The Merchant Marine Act of 1920 (P.L. 66-261), also known as the Jones Act, is a United States federal statute that provides for the promotion and maintenance of the American merchant marine. Among other purposes, the law regulates maritime commerce in U.S. waters and between U.S. ports. Section 27 of the Jones Act, deals with cabotage (i.e., coastal shipping) and requires that all goods transported by water between U.S. ports be carried on U.S.-flag ships, constructed in the United States, owned by U.S. citizens, and crewed by U.S. citizens and U.S. permanent residents.

This law is mostly about establishing a Merchant Marine, a commercial fleet and sailors under U.S. Control, not much about Admiralty Law though I have not read the whole law. 

I will answer the Question…“Does the Jones Act Put Us Under …Law?”
as a big fat NO unless someone reads all of it and points to a provision that does that exactly.

The Proposition here goes like this (I’m not kidding, honestly):

(1) you had a birth (berth) and
(2) a Doc (dock) signed your “berth” certificate which named you in CAPITAL LETTERS and
(3) therefore you are a Maritime product because of your mother’s water
               and
(4) You have a social security card with numbers in red and that makes  you
(5) a stock market commodity and so
(6) Admiralty courts.

See how simple that is?
See how ridiculous that is?

Well our sovereign continues:

There are two different kinds of law on the planet. The first is known as COMMON LAW, which is law of the land. The other is maritime admiralty, which is also known as the law of water, it can also be referred to as banking law.

There is simply no source that makes Admiralty Law in any sense about banking. And common law is not the “law of the land” in the U.S. nor many other places.

“It can also be referred to as banking law,” is exactly as persuasive as
“It can also be referred to as an elephant.” And as meaningful.

---

But let us continue with this remarkable explanation:

Maritime admiralty law considers you a maritime admiralty product, simply because you were birthed out of your mother’s water. A ship sits in its birth until the captain gives a certificate of manifest to the port authorities.

[So birth = berth? REALLY?? Do you ever get DRY after you are born? Just wondering.]

The reason you are required to have a Birth Certificate is because at the time of your birth there is an exchange of money to cover hospital costs. The dock signs your birth certificate simply because that is what the ship is tied to, you will need a dock to sign your birth certificate.

The dock = the Doc?? You cannot be serious!
[What if you weren’t born in a hospital? Just wondering.]

>.<

“It still does not make sense, more clarification please?”
[bold in original]

“Let’s go over this again, when you came down your mother’s birth canal you came out of her water, making YOU a maritime admiralty PRODUCT. That is right you became a PRODUCT of commerce at the time of your birth. Your mother also needs to sign your birth certificate. If you notice on your birth certificate where your mother signed, she is not listed as parent, nor is she listed as mother. Where your mother signed your birth certificate she is known as informant!
(many similar claims at Jordan Maxwell’s blog and he also makes very boring YouTube Videos.)

Actually on my birth certificate my name is not in capital letters.It is hand written in as Proper Nouns. Just so you know. But if it were as described, this is, I hope, obvious rubbish to any reasonable person.  “It still does not make sense” – I agree!!   I offer elsewhere a discussion of the ridiculous notion that CAPITAL LETTERS mean something else.

It all comes down to this; YOU ARE A MARITIME ADMIRALITY [sic] PRODUCT! YOUR BODY IS OWNED BY THE BANKS! If you look at your social security card, you will see numbers in red on the back of the card. The front of the card will be printed in either blue or black, but the numbers on the back will be in RED.[bold in original]

These numbers which appear in red on the back of your social security card represent your body. Your body is bought and sold on stock markets. The numbers In red on the back of the card is the serial number of your stock. Poor people are considered common stock and the wealthy is known as preferred stock.

I still do not believe it. Why wasn’t this taught in school?  [bold in original]

I know it sounds insane but please be patient.

Yes, it does sound insane because it is quite literally nonsense in every way. The asserted chain of “logic” that purports to explain it is not only almost entirely false, even if it were true it would make no sense!  

Are we done with this idea? No?

Admiralty Law requires at a minimum a navigable waterway. A navigable waterway would have to be able to carry a boat at least. No matter how eager your mother is, she can’t take that many sailors for a ride at once! 

(But the response to that was “if you realize ejaculate is seamen you will see that you are wrong.  Yes really!! The lunacy never ends with these people. Does her canal literally have a BOATLOAD of semen?)

U.S. original social security cards have the numbers on the FRONT and yes they were red in 1964. I don’t know about today.

And now I think we are done with this site and its suggestions.  Except, by the way, he touches on how we all work for the Queen and of course is big on CAPITALIZATION COUNTS.

But in fact none of that counts or even makes the least bit of sense, as this case demonstrates:

“Plaintiff Brandon Shane Gravatt, a federal prisoner appearing pro se, alleges that through a convoluted series of events, the United States was made the trustee of an account created for his benefit and is now required to disburse to him the funds in that account. In support of his claims, plaintiff submits a vast array documents, including Uniform Commercial Code… and his birth certificate. The court finds that summary adjudication is appropriate in this matter and dismisses plaintiff’s complaint for lack of jurisdiction. The court further finds plaintiff’s complaint to be frivolous.”

“Neither Birth Certificates nor social security numbers recognize or impose contractual rights, obligations, or duties.”

Brandon Shane Gravatt v The United States (pdf only) United States Court of Federal Claims No. 11-592C (Filed: September 27, 2011)  also reported in the press.

But you must go to the other blogs to further explore those exciting ideas!
You can read up on the Uniform Commercial Code.

The Currency Proposition

Claimed: The US No Longer circulates Gold and Silver Based Currency and/or Coin,
Therefore We Are Governed by The Law Of The Sea?
The nub of the argument is this:

“We” still had Law of the Land after the gold was sucked out of the system, because we still had silver in general circulation.  However, after they assassinated Kennedy, they sucked the silver out of circulation, as well, which change Kennedy adamantly opposed.  It was either 1965 or 1969 when the silver was finally sucked out of the  system, but at that instant, the fundamental “choice of law” changed from Law of the Land to Law of the Sea.  To take 1965 as the year of transition, America went to bed 31 December 1964 under a Law of the Land system, and  woke up 1 January 1965 on the deck of a barge anchored in the middle of the Rhine River in Germany, i.e., under a  Law of the Sea system.
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/drivers-license-scam.htm

Credit where credit is due, there is a certain clarity to this one that other justifications may lack. You don’t get berthed by your doc at least…This idea makes no sense whatever to me, but none of the others do either.

However, what is missing is any citation to anything that actually changed the “applicable Law” or any authority to show that the Law of the Sea CAN be made to apply to when nothing relevant to sea is involved. And of course the Law of the Sea part is nonsense.

In other words, there’s an assertion but no connection between “no silver in the coins” and “Law of the Sea” beyond the bare assertion. Oh and if you look back at the section on What Is Admiralty Law? you find it is “distinguished from the Law of the Sea, which is a body of public international law dealing with navigational rights, mineral rights, jurisdiction over coastal waters and international law governing relationships between nations.”

The law that made the change, PL 89-81The Coinage Act of 1965 took silver out of the coins but doesn’t say a word about change of law, law of the sea, or anything even remotely related. We are to believe the the coinage is so intricately interwoven with applicable law that it didn’t need to be noted… 

And of course there is not one case that shows any Courts agree; and many to show that they don’t. So it flunks the utility test — you can claim it but the Court won’t let you win with it, and to me that’s useless theory not Law.

I found that quote on a page related to the right of the States to require Driver licenses, I’ve edited out the specifics to that issue in the rest that follows. This is the explanation of why all relations with government are corporate, commercial and/or governed by the Uniform Code of Commerce. All because we didn’t keep any silver in the dimes, understand? How obvious?

The currency changes have no such effect and why would they?

And now we come to this masterful paragraph:

Once the Law of the Sea system started, ALL commerce became “fair game” for regulation…Under a Law of the Land system, we can argue “law.” This is where the vast, vast, vast majority of the patriot community is still stuck, namely arguing “law.” That fails in the Law of the Sea system, because the Law of the Sea system operates “federally,” as in “by private obligation.”

[I have no idea what this means or how the author makes those connections…Law of the Sea does not apply to “All commerce” under any scenario. If the Law of the Sea and the Law of the Land are parallel structures in some way then you can talk about law and argue law n matter which is involved. And how is it that the Law of the sea operates “federally? And how on earth does “federally” mean or apply “as in” “by private obligation”?

That is utter non sequitor and evidence of nonsense, drivel. They do not square with any other description of the Law of the Sea I’ve found but hey, when you’re making things up they may as well agree with you…]

So, what you see in my materials isn’t argument on “legal” points, but rather argument on “commercial nexus” points. To argue the “law” is basically to confess the existence of the agreement, which is about all that matters. It’s NOT all that matters, but it’s about 90% of it. So, where my materials and approaches are different, it’s in the focus on getting to the bottom line on the basis for that obligation. Either there’s an agreement to be enforced or there isn’t. Since I have no license, there is already no agreement, and STATE’s burden to prove a commercial nexus is impossible… And, commercial activity is all that any STATE may regulate… All that any STATE may regulate is “commerce.” Thus, for there to be basis for any STATE participation / regulation, there must first be an agreement for STATE to enforce…. There being no commercial activity at issue, there is no authority for STATE to regulate anything.

Well there you have it, we took the silver out of the dimes and lost our governments and now all we have is commercial law. No driver license requirement for private drivers. No state power to try criminals, collect taxes, or treat citizens without a contract to do so.

Of course, the states have nothing whatever to do with the currency, they are actually prohibited from doing that, so we are given no clue why this would affect state authority. It might make some kind of sense if you were talking Federal authority because in the Constitution the Federal government is given the power to regulate currency, and it did so — but not the States.

So the argument is lacking in persuasion, logic, or evidence to back it up. No court rulings are offered to show the state is no longer a sovereign entity, or that the Law of the Sea applies, nor is it consistent with the actual law of the sea, nor any statute or other enactment to make it so…just words.

What relationship exists; where it sources; that is fundamental to coinage metals and the Law of the Sea is simply inexplicable. You can say all the words but they are so much air.

The Flag Fringe Proposition

Claimed: The Gold Fringe on the Flag Shows
That The Court is An Admiralty/Military Court

The third last rationale is the claim that the ceremonial gold fringe found on flags in courtrooms is evidence that they are in an admiralty court –or actually makes the court into an Admiralty court– and only admiralty law applies.

A 1925 Attorney General’s Opinion (34 Op. Atty. Gen 483) states:

“The fringe does not appear to be regarded as an integral part of the flag, and its presence cannot be said to constitute an unauthorized addition to the design prescribed by statute. An external fringe is to be distinguished from letters, words, or emblematic designs printed or superimposed upon the body of the flag itself. Under the law, such additions might be open to objection as unauthorized; but the same is not necessarily true of the fringe.”

It is customary to place gold fringe on silken (rayon-silk-nylon) National flags that are carried in parades, used in official ceremonies, and displayed in offices, merely to enhance the beauty of the flag. The use of fringe is not restricted to the Federal Government. Such flags are used and displayed by our Armed Forces, veterans, civic and civilian organizations, and private individuals. However, it is the custom not to use fringe on flags displayed from stationary flagpoles and, traditionally, fringe has not been used on internment flags.

Or….

If the previous sections showed no authority to turn the courts into admiralty or military courts then just putting up the flag apparently is enough. 

I suppose this would make my classrooms in elementary school Admiralty Courts. Or only Maritime Subjects may be taught…who knew?

 In fact the proposition is just that silly. It is utterly dismissed and  rejected by the Courts.

Defendant Greenstreet’s response…identifies this Court as an “Admiralty Court” without further discussing his allegation…Others have attempted to persuade the judiciary that fringe on an American flag denotes a court of admiralty. … To think that a fringed flag adorning the courtroom somehow limits this Court’s jurisdiction is frivolous…Unfortunately for Defendant Greenstreet, decor is not a determinant for jurisdiction… This Court will also reject Mr. Greenstreet’s coinage arguments. The Court believes that Defendant’s position is simply irrational.
United States v. Greenstreet, 912 F. Supp. 224, 229 (N.D.Tex. 1996)

“Mr. McCann feels that the fringed flag in some way restricted the state court’s jurisdiction to hold a custody hearing that disadvantaged him. He stakes his suit against these Defendants upon such a claim, because this is his sole argument against dismissal… Nor are the fringe or the eagle of any legal significance. Even were Mr. McCann to prove that yellow fringe or a flagpole eagle converted the state court’s United States flag to a maritime flag of war, the Court cannot fathom how the display of a maritime war flag could limit the state court’s jurisdiction… 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….In flag manufacture a fringe is not considered to be a part of the flag and it is without heraldic significance.... Furthermore, Mr. McCann is hereby warned that the Court will reward future frivolous arguments with monetary sanctions. 
McCann  v. Greenway

The remaining claims that Petitioner has asserted by way of motion to dismiss, e.g. Court lacking jurisdiction because the Court’s flag has yellow fringes on it, were denied and the Court considers them to have not only been without merit but also to have been totally frivolous. Petitioner’s claims have no arguable basis in law or fact and the appeal is not taken in good faith.
Vella v. McCammon (SD Tex 1987) 671 F.Supp 1128.

… Appellant argues that the gold fringe adorning the American flag displayed in the district justice’s courtroom conferred Admiralty/Maritime jurisdiction…this is a preposterous claim...
Commonwealth v. Appel 438 Pa. Super. 214 (1994) 652 A.2d 341

“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.”
Slangal v. Cassel (D Neb 1997) 962 F.Supp 1214.

any claims or defenses based upon the alleged preeminence of the American flag of peace over any other flag are frivolous and sanctionable.
Schneider v. Schlaefer, 975 F. Supp. 1160 – Dist. Court, ED Wisconsin 1997 

…Petitioner has asserted by way of motion to dismiss, e.g. Court lacking jurisdiction because the Court’s flag has yellow fringes on it, were denied and the Court considers them to have not only been without merit but also…totally frivolous. Petitioner’s claims have no arguable basis in law or fact and the appeal is not taken in good faith.
Vella v. McCammon, 671 F. Supp. 1128, 1129 (S.D.Tex. 1987)

Asserts both flag and capitalization defenses:

Apparently the plaintiff believes that when a court flies a yellow-fringed flag, it has created a new “foreign state/power” within the “sanctuary” or “territory of the bar” within the courtroom…For reasons discussed at length…it is obvious that the mere display of a yellow fringed flag does not have the conversionary effect the plaintiff claims...as for the core proposition asserted in the complaint that yellow fringe on the flag somehow converted the jurisdiction of the state court into a “foreign state/power” thus denying the Plaintiff his contracted rights to due process under the United States Constitution…the District Court for the Western District of Missouri has recently and thoroughly examined this theory and found it wholly without merit.
Sadlier V. Payne 974 F. Supp. 1411 (D. Utah 1997)

“Other Courts have considered [the “fringed flag” argument]. Those courts have labeled the position as “frivolous” [United States v. Greenstreet, 912 F.Supp. 224, 229 (N.D.Tex.1996)], “totally frivolous” [Vella v. McCammon, 671 F.Supp. 1128, 1129 (S.D.Tex.1987)], “preposterous” [Commonwealth v. Appel, 438 Pa.Super. 214, 218, 652 A.2d 341, 343 (1994)], and “a. . . really unintelligible assertion” [Leverenz v. Torluemlu, 1996 WL 272538 (N.D.Ill.1996) (not reported in F.Supp.)]. This Court agrees.
McCann v. Greenway 952 F.Supp. 647, 650 (W.D.Mo.1997)

…Defendant’s claims challenging the flag in the courtroom are without merit… Around the country, courts have dealt with disgruntled litigants who have argued that their respective proceedings were illegal or unconstitutional because the court displayed a flag with yellow or gold fringe in the courtroom …All the courts addressing arguments that yellow or gold fringe on a courtroom-displayed flag affects a court’s jurisdiction have explicitly rejected those arguments. These cases have gone so far as to label such arguments as “frivolous,” “totally frivolous,” “preposterous,” and “indisputably meritless.” …The fringe is not regarded as an integral part of the flag and its presence does not constitute an unauthorized addition to the design prescribed by statute. The placing of a fringe on the flag is neither required nor prohibited by law. From a historical and legal standpoint, the use of the fringe on the flag has no inherent or established symbolism. It has nothing to do with the jurisdiction of the court. It is purely a decorative addition to enhance the appearance of the flag. …Even if the military does display United States flags surrounded by yellow fringe, the presence of yellow fringe does not necessarily turn every such flag into a flag of war. Far from it. In flag manufacture a fringe is not considered to be part of the flag, and it is without heraldic or legal significance …. 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. The flag displayed in the courtroom did not affect the validity or legality of Defendant’s plea and/or sentence.
State Of Delaware V. Saunders

So what is missing in this argument? Well any sort of rationale and any sort of support.

WHY does a fringe mean this is a Court of Admiralty??

What historic usage of the flag leads to that idea?

What law makes it so?

What legal tradition?

What treaty?

What is lacking in support is any rational explanation and any support in law. NO court has ruled that it is true or ever was.

There you have it: ‘having no arguable basis in law or fact; totally frivolous, preposterous, unintelligible, and wholly without merit.’ What more can I say about the validity of the arguments?

=====

Here is a nonsense video that explains all that stuff… Maritime Admiralty Law – your red pill  –how you are a slave, don’t have to follow the law,  your birth certificate is an warehouse receipt giving your value to the US which is bankrupt… of course none of it is factual or correct.

Some of the information on a Birth Certificate is the same information as a warehouse receipt, like the date and a description. Of course any document you deal with is likely to have similar information. It brings up the fake “Capital Letters” and corporate/artificial person/strawman arguments too. It says entering the bar is entering the bridge and of course the judge is the “Captain or banker” of the ship…just as on any ship where a banker is the senior officer in charge …errr…..

Of course you cannot be imprisoned if the case is only about contracts and money. That alone is proof enough of the absurdity.

 

=                                  More Blogs by Philipem 1000                                       =

Sovereign Citizens and the Jurisdictional Gambit:
You Can’t Touch Me!
https://wp.me/p3nYC8-1q5
Sovereigns inaccurately cite Court Cases,
in their effort to show the courts
have no jurisdiction.