[tivodan1116]

[CONTINUING ABOVE POST]

Then why do you not question the fringe on the Flag, when it CLEARLY is only DEFINED in MILITARY,OR ADMIRALTY LAW?

Stop using these terms as though they are interchangeable. They aren't.

I listed the court cases, they are documented COURT CASES, which is a little bit more than opinion, thanks.

Which don't establish that our courts operate as anything but above board and proper laws of the land.

to dispute the COURT CASES, FLAG RESPECT RULES, COMMON ACCEPTED PRACTICES OF FLAG HANDLING, and other articles I have posted.

The court cases do not say that the courts operate under admiralty jurisdiction or anything else. All of the other "rules" you cite have nothing to do with establishing the jurisdiction of a court.

THE ONLY RECOGNIZED LAW REGARDING FLAGS FOR THE UNITED STATES:

These are the only laws regarding flags. Too bad they are not the laws that establish jurisdiction or operating rules of courts...

So then, since no where is there a (PROCLAMATION) of the new standard for all civillian courtrooms to fly the "Admiralty Law" Flag with Gold Fringe, would that not be technically ILLEGAL, as this is a given "modification" to the flag as is AUTHORIZED to be made in the case of the flag representing the Admiralty/Maritime Law. This significance is very important, as all people know there is a reason for a flag in a courtroom, correct?

Any law "preventing" anyone from flying a particular flag in the United States would violate the First Amendment, for starters.

FLAG. Martial Law—"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:" (Emphasis added)

That text, or anything resembling it (ANYTHING remotely like the words "yellow" or "fringe") is not found in Ex. Order 10834 OR 4 U.S.C. sections 1-5. I don't know where it came from.

FLAG. 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." 34 Ops. Atty. Gen. 483. Well that's just the Attorney General Saying the same thing the United States Code Says so how does this relate to Martial Law'?

No, it's the Attorney General saying the USC does not say anything about fringe on a flag, same as I just said. The AG could have just told the reader to ask me, but since Janet Reno the AG never calls me any more.

"The use of such a fringe is prescribed in current Army Regulation no. 260-10." 34 Ops. Atty. . Gen. 483, 485.

So what? The Army Regulations say a shitload of things, like that soliders have to keep their hair a certain length. Does that mean that if I shave my head i'm in the army? Again, you make the logical mistake of "If the sky is blue, then everything that is blue must be the sky."

c. Authorization for indoor display 4. "Each military courtroom." [Any courtroom that displays these flags behind the Judge is a military courtroom. You are under military law and not constitutional law, or common law, or civil law, or statute law.]

Clever trick, putting someone else's words after the statute like that. Again, merely because a fringed flag, or a flag of any type is authorized to be shown in a military courtroom does not make anywhere that displays it a military courtroom... Do you understand?

The other problem with this entire line of argument is that, even if this is true, so what? It's a FRCP 12(b)(6) problem - assuming arguendo that gold fringe on a flag magically makes it a military court, or "admiralty court" (which doesn't exist), there still has to be some sort of harm proved. The courts clearly use stare decisis, and every decision that is released contains numerous references to various statutes, cases, and regulations of the proper jurisdiction for each case. So if if they are hypnotized and magically transformed by some gold fringe into a military tribunal, they are still deciding cases based upon the law of the land. Yes, even cases where jurisdiction is at issue. The cases you cite are good examples, in fact. Read them over and see if any of them, even once, quote or refer to an "admiralty" law...

The judge in McCann v. Greenway, 952 F.Supp 647 summed up this entire argument best when he wrote, "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."