[Peter Ansoff]

Hi, USNavy IO,

"Pursuant to 4 U.S.C. chapter 1, §§1, 2, & 3; Executive Order 10834, August 21, 1959; 24 F.R.6865; a military flag is a flag that resembles the regular flag of the United States, except that it has a YELLOW FRINGE border on three sides. The President of the United States designates this deviation from the regular flag, by executive order, and in his capacity as Commander-in-Chief of the military.

Please do us all a favor -- read the documents that you cite before you quote them. Both 4 USC 1 and E.O. 10834 are available online. If you read them, you will find out that neither one says anything about a fringe. "24 F.R. 6865" is not a separate document; that's just the location in the Federal Register where the E.O. was published in 1959.

The placing of a fringe on the national flag, the dimensions of the flag and the arrangement of the stars in the union are matters of detail not controlled by statute, but are within the discretion of the President as Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy."

This is a more-or-less accurate quote from a 1925 Attorney General's opinion. It says that the President can specify whether fringes are to be used on flags used by the armed forces, just as he can specify the proportions and other details of the flags that they use. The President could say that flags used by the military must have fringes, but no president ever has. And, even if one had, it would not mean that the fringe had any symbolic meaning. The fringe is decoration, period.

The rest of your post is, to put it bluntly, a lot of silly nonsense. I know that you didn't make all this up, because I have seen the same identical words over and over on many web sites. Please, let's stop cutting-and-pasting the same old garbage.

Peter Ansoff

[Nathaniel_Austin_Sr.]

sure I can show you where and how the gold fringes came from and what they mean....


I would like you to show me where it says they are "just decorative", fair trade right? Yes I have heard a lot of things, and don't believe anything until I read or see or re-duplicate what I heard....


AMERICA IS BANKRUPT
Later, when I went to visit the judge, I told him of my problem with the supreme Court cases dealing with Public Policy rather than Public Law. He said, "In 1938, all the higher judges, the top attorneys and the U.S. attorneys were called into a secret meeting and this is what we were told: America is a bankrupt nation--it is owned completely by its creditors. The creditors own the Congress, they own the Executive, they own the Judiciary and they own all the state governments. Take silent judicial notice of this fact, but never reveal it openly. Your court is operating in a Admiralty Jurisdiction--call it anything you want, but do not call it Admiralty.
ADMIRALTY COURTS
The reason they cannot call it Admiralty Jurisdiction is that your defense would be quite different in Admiralty Jurisdiction from your defense under the Common Law. In Admiralty, there is no court which has jurisdiction unless there is a valid international contract in dispute. If you know it is Admiralty Jurisdiction, and they have admitted on the record that you are in an Admiralty Court, you can demand that the international maritime contract, to which you are supposedly a party, and which you supposedly have breached, be placed into evidence. No court has Admiralty/Maritime Jurisdiction unless there is a valid international maritime contract that has been breached. So you say, just innocently like a lamb, "Well, I never knew that I got involved with an international maritime contract, so I deny that such a contract exists. If this court is taking jurisdiction in Admiralty, then place the contract in evidence, so that I may challenge the validity of the contract. What they would have to do is place the national debt into evidence. They would have to admit that the international bankers own the whole nation, and that we are their slaves.

JURISDICTION
The Constitution of the united States mentions three areas of jurisdiction in which the courts may operate:
Common Law
Common Law is based on God's Law. Anytime someone is charged under the Common Law, there must be a damaged party. You are free under the Common Law to do anything you please, as long as you do not infringe on the life, liberty, or property of someone else. You have a right to make a fool of yourself provided you do not infringe on the life, liberty, or property of someone else. The Common Law does not allow for any government action which prevents a man from making a fool of himself. For instance, when you cross over state lines in most states, you will see a sign which says, "BUCKLE YOUR SEAT BELTS--IT'S THE LAW.' This cannot be Common Law, because who would you injure if you did not buckle up? Nobody. This would be compelled performance. But Common Law cannot compel performance. Any violation of Common Law is a CRIMINAL ACT, and is punishable.
Equity Law
Equity Law is law which compels performance. It compels you to perform to the exact letter of any contract that you are under. So, if you have compelled performance, there must be a contract somewhere, and you are being compelled to perform under the obligation of the contract. Now this can only be a civil action--not criminal. In Equity Jurisdiction, you cannot be tried criminally, but you can be compelled to perform to the letter of a contract. If you then refuse to perform as directed by the court, you can be charged with contempt of court, which is a criminal action. Are our seatbelt laws Equity laws? No, they are not, because you cannot be penalized or punished for not keeping to the letter of a contract.
Admiralty/Maritime Law
This is a civil jurisdiction of Compelled Performance which also has Criminal Penalties for not adhering to the letter of the contract, but this only applies to International Contracts. Now we can see what jurisdiction the seatbelt laws (and all traffic laws, building codes, ordinances, tax codes, etc.) are under. Whenever there is a penalty for failure to perform (such as willful failure to file), that is Admiralty/ Maritime Law and there must be a valid international contract in force. However, the courts don't want to admit that they are operating under Admiralty/Maritime Jurisdiction, so they took the international law or Law Merchant and adopted it into our codes. That is what the supreme Court decided in the Erie Railroad case--that the decisions will be based on commercial law or business law and that it will have criminal penalties associated with it. Since they were instructed not to call it Admiralty Jurisdiction, they call it Statutory Jurisdiction.

This was posted just a few mesasges back and is SPOT ON! At least SOMEONE is awake in here!!!




"As to the yellow fringe on our flags, APFN states, The flags displayed in State courts and courts of the United States have gold or yellow fringes. That is your WARNING that you are entering into a foreign enclave, the same as if you are stepping into a foreign embassy and you will be under the jurisdiction of that flag. The flag with the gold or yellow fringe has no constitution, no laws, and no rules of court, and is not recognized by any nation on the earth, and is foreign to you and the United States of America. more information

MILITARY FLAG WITH THE GOLD FRINGE

Martial Law Flag "Pursuant to 4 U.S.C. chapter 1, §§1, 2, & 3; Executive Order 10834, August 21, 1959; 24 F.R.6865; a military flag is a flag that resembles the regular flag of the United States, except that it has a YELLOW FRINGE border on three sides. The President of the United States designates this deviation from the regular flag, by executive order, and in his capacity as Commander-in-Chief of the military. The placing of a fringe on the national flag, the dimensions of the flag and the arrangement of the stars in the union are matters of detail not controlled by statute, but are within the discretion of the President as Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy." 34 Ops. Atty. Gen. 83.

President, Dwight David Eisenhower, by Executive Order No.10834, signed on August 21, 1959 and printed in the Federal Register at 24 F.R. 6865, pursuant to law, stated that: "A military flag is a flag that resembles the regular flag of the United States, except that it has a yellow fringe border on three sides"

It is after all a battle in the "court" (games are played on courts"

Get all that Peter???

[Peter Ansoff]

Hello, again, Nathaniel!

I would like you to show me where it says they are "just decorative", fair trade right?

Absolutely! Here is what the Attorney General of the United States said in a 1925 opinion:

"In flag manufacture a fringe is not considered to be part of the flag, and it is without heraldic significance . . . The fringe does not appear to be regarded as an integral part of the flag, and its presence can not be said to constitute an unauthorized addition to the design prescribed by statute." (34 US Op. Atty. Gen 483, 1925) (emphasis added)

The US Army Institute of Heraldry web site (FRINGE ON THE AMERICAN FLAG) quotes from the 1925 opinion, and then explains further:

"It is customary to place a 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." (emphasis added)

"As to the yellow fringe on our flags, APFN states, . . ."

Who or what is "APFN"? What document is this quotation from?

Martial Law Flag "Pursuant to 4 U.S.C. chapter 1, §§1, 2, & 3; Executive Order 10834, August 21, 1959; 24 F.R.6865; a military flag is a flag that resembles the regular flag of the United States, except that it has a YELLOW FRINGE border on three sides."

Please, read 4USC Ch. 1 and Executive Order 10834. (They're both available online.) When you do, you will find that this quotation is fake -- it does not appear in either of these documents. Neither of them says anything at all about fringes or martial law.

The placing of a fringe on the national flag, the dimensions of the flag and the arrangement of the stars in the union are matters of detail not controlled by statute, but are within the discretion of the President as Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy."

I've already addressed this quotation in an earlier post (it's from the same 1925 opinion that I quoted above. Your post incorrectly cites it as "83" instead of "483.") This says that the President can, if he wishes, direct that flags used by the armed forces should or should not have fringes. No president has ever done this. Even if one had, it would not mean that the fringe had any symbolic significance.

President, Dwight David Eisenhower, by Executive Order No.10834, signed on August 21, 1959 and printed in the Federal Register at 24 F.R. 6865, pursuant to law, stated that: "A military flag is a flag that resembles the regular flag of the United States, except that it has a yellow fringe border on three sides"

No, he didn't. Again, please read Executive Order 10834, and see what he really stated.

Best regards,

Peter Ansoff

[MidnightDStroyer]

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.

[Peter Ansoff]

Dear fellow forum members,

Several posters in this thread have cut-and-pasted and paraphrased material from web sites dealing with the so-called "Sovereign Citizen" movement. This material is apparently designed to show why "sovereign citizens" don't have to obey laws, have drivers' licenses, pay taxes, etc. It consists mostly of incoherent, pseudo-legalistic gobbledygook and document citations that are faked or taken out of context. Needless to say, people who have tried to use such "arguments" in real court cases have not had very much luck.

More to the point, most of the stuff in these posts has nothing to do with the purpose of this forum, which is to discuss the American flag, other flags and related topics. We welcome all points-of-view here, and we've had some pretty lively discussions, which is good. However, there is no purpose to be served by endless regurgitation of the same nonsense, and there are plenty of other web sites where folks can go if they enjoy that sort of thing. Any future posts that include this kind of material will be deleted or edited as appropriate.

And -- PLEASE don't keep posting that fake quote from Executive Order 10834 about the gold fringe on US flags! There is NOTHING in that E.O. that says anything about fringes, military courts or martial law. You don't have to take my word for it -- you can read the document yourself online in several places.

There an article on the ADL web site here:

Sovereign Citizen Movement -- Extremism in America

that gives some background on the movement.

Regards to all,

Peter Ansoff
Forum Admin

[Nathaniel_Austin_Sr.]

That didn't give ANY background info on the movement but only talked of a couple "persons"..... take 10 minutes and watch this.... "US Citizen" means freed slave ... 14th amendment citizens are what you all are... I am a sovereign American tracing my roots back to the 1700 here in AMERICA.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4xV4MTnCdc


you can delete my words but you can not delete me....

Michael Badnarik.... google him get informed. wake up.

[Flaguser]

Originally Posted by Nathaniel_Austin_Sr.

"US Citizen" means freed slave ... 14th amendment citizens are what you all are... I am a sovereign American tracing my roots back to the 1700 here in AMERICA.
you can delete my words but you can not delete me....

HA! Thats what you think! You are all secretly controlled by the old wise ones, from their hidden base in Atlantis! They get orders from their masters on Mars who make crop circles when their invisble ships land. They can "delete" you any time they want to, just by focusing their incoherance ray at you. This is true, because it is written on the back of the Constitution in disappearing ink. Beware the wise ones!

[Peter Ansoff]

Dear fellow forum members,

I think that it's time to close this thread. If anyone disagrees, please post a note in the admin section, or send me a private message, and we can discuss it.

Best,

Peter Ansoff
Forum Admin

[american_flag_uk]

i agree.... i must have read this the same moment as you did!

This thread died and then died again !