From what I've seen by reading links mentioned throughout this thread & researching specific citations from court cases, the gold fringe doesn't indicate military jurisdiction...It's the Law that indicates jurisdiction. However, to further elaborate, I must also point out that the Constitution itself does establish military courts. However, in court citations where some people have tried to challenge the court's jurisdiction have run into one common flaw in their approach...They first off submit to the court's jurisdiction (become plaintiff or defendant) before they can bring suit to challenge that jurisdiciton! Some court citations are quoted at Court Cases on Yellow Fringed Flags However, I've also read a first-hand witness account posted at Man declares sovereignty, challenges jurisdiction of court, page 1\' where this man refuses to properly enter into the court's "enclave" of jurisdiction & successfully challenged the court's jurisdiction to attempt prosecution. This is quoted from the link in this paragraph in this post: "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." From this, it's not the gold fringe itself that designates any particular jurisdiction. The flag itself could merely be denoting the particular "enclave" in which it stands, which denotes the practical boundaries in which the court has jurisdiction. One of our Sovereign Citizens' Rights (not specifically enumerated in the Constitution itself, but upheld by the Supreme Court) is the unlimited ability to enter into contracts...But this also includes the Right to NOT enter contracts. The man's refusal to enter into the courtroom proper is a determination of his REFUSAL to enter into contract with the court & submit to its jurisdiction. So, this quote indicates that, not only are the courts exercising the Constitutionally-established jurisdictions, but also indicates that one cannot argue that jurisdiction after submitting oneself to that jurisdiction. The only successfully-challenged cases while inside the court's jurisdiction involve whether the specific charges brought to the defendant can be proscecuted under Common/Constitutional Law, Admiralty/International Law or Civil Law. Bringing suit to court cannot apply the laws of one jurisdiction to affect persons/properties under a different jurisdiction. In essence, the plaintiff/defendant can successfully challenge the charges if the precise jurisdiction is questionable. Civil cases cannot be tried as a Criminal case, because only Common Law has jurisdiction over Criminal cases: Criminal cases include only when one person has violated the Rights of another person or his property, whereas Civil cases fall under the UCC & other Laws of Equity & Admiralty cases are only concerned with Military & International Law. I may not be much in researching Flags...I haven't really spent much time on the topic of flags, but I have been researching law for the past several months. Between the links posted previously in this thread, plus looking into law is what got this info for me.