My Flag has Gold Fringe Big frekin Whoop

[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."

[tivodan1116]

I guess this thread is too outdated for a response. Nevermind then :-P

[Osborn F Enready]

Actually no Tivodan.

I plan on responding in full, but it will take some time and I thought you deserved an educated, well thought out response.

Haven't been in much lately, but I am answering you in wordpad a little per day, and will post when complete.

[Osborn F Enready]

Tivo said: At the risk of dredging up the past, i am resurrecting this old thread in an attempt to understand this argument better (the argument that there is something wrong with the type of flag in our courtrooms). I apologize if this argument is moot (because the arguers no longer believe it, or whatever)

I say:
No sweat. I apologize for the time it is taking to answer. Been sidetracked lately.

Tivo said: But military law and admiralty law are two different things.

I say:
Correct, part of the reason for the entire argument.

Tivo said: Furthermore, "admiralty" law is not a jurisdiction in and of itself. The Constitution gives the federal courts, among other things, the jurisdiction to hear admiralty cases among other things.

I say:
But what is and what is not an "admiralty law" case?

Is the government justified to hear a case under admiralty law, if the case itself is not "under jurisdiction" of admiralty law?

In other words....
If the local court wanted to treat my traffic ticket as a case under admiralty law, would it be legal? According to what? Where is the authority derived from?

You yourself say they are different, so why are they different?

Tivo said: Okay. So this flag can be flown in each military courtroom. So what? Just because it CAN be flown in a military courtroom doesn't mean that anywhere that flies it IS a military courtroom. You are making the logical mistake of assuming that "If A, then B" is necessarily equal to "If B, then A". For argumentum ad absurdum: If I hang up an American flag with gold fringe in my bathroom, does that mean I can hold maritime court on my can?

I say:
If you are a federal court judge, or a judge of any type, you may think so.

Are you saying the customs of our American flag in court is meaningless?

If so, attempt to remove it without permission, deface it or dispose of it properly by burning it.

Try telling that to a vet that faced armed combat against an enemy over it.

Try telling that to a Supreme Court justice, and see where the lawyer career goes.

Anyway.... the flag is more than just a "symbol", especially in a courtroom, and it has "customs" for its hanging, disposal and display, especially in a government workplace.

Tivo said: Sorry, but that is either lousy research, or serious intellectual dishonesty. You conveniently left off the rest of subclause 3. The entire thing is below:

I say:
I did leave it out on purpose. It wasn't pertinent.

It was clarifying where admiralty court could be convened.

Tivo said: Ok. So what? That doesn't have anything to do with the jurisdiction of courts. There is no statutory authority that says the flag can have a patch on the trim on the hoist side that says "this flag proudly union made in USA", but mine has that patch anyway

.

I say:
Yours, as in yours personally? What are you trying to say?

Are you disregarding all customs for the U.S. flag in government capacity?
Are you saying U.S. flags customs mean nothing?

The flag has a meaning, as does each item ON the flag, as does the customs for its OFFICIAL display and rendering on government soil.

Do you dispute that?

Tivo said: So which is it, marital law or military law or admiralty law? VERY different things.

I say:
I agree. Why then is this not clearly explained and debunked?
Why are there judges who "refuse to have the law heard in their court"?
Why are there judges who "refuse to have the Constitution brought into their courtroom?"

I am searching for excuses to JUSTIFY the actions of the judges, this was a grasp at an explanation, which seemed valid.

Tivo said: And? All this means is that if you proceed in a court you are agreeing to its jurisdiction... Which isn't even entirely true. To challenge jurisdiction, you can make a "special appearance" which maintains your objection to jurisdiction, and, if successful, completely removes the case from that court's jurisdiction.

I say:
Is the judge forced to allow this? Are people informed of their right to do such action?

Tivo said: If only it were that simple. Jurisdiction is not a matter of waving a flag in a courtroom. Courts often apply jurisdictions of many areas for which they might not have a flag. NY courts have applied Florida state law, Ontario Provincial law, and PA state law in cases that I know of. Do you think they have a collection of flags in the back that they whip out whenever they need to change what set of laws they are applying?

I say:
Again, are you saying flags and their customs have no meanings in government anymore? Can the government choose what it will and won't regard or disregard at whim?

Tivo said: But up above you said it represents military law (or that it was a military flag)... the two are quite different. At any rate, it does neither.

I say:
Since when?

When U.S. Flags and custom laws were created, how many types of law were there Tivo?

If the customs are so "meanigless" as you say, why have them at all?

Tivo said: Why not? It is meaningless what flag is standing in a courtroom to the jurisdiction. I've seen plenty of courtrooms with NO flag. Are they courts of anarchy?

I say:
Are you asking me, or being sarcastic?

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

I say:
When did the U.S. develop its "flag customs" in written word?
When did the official U.S. Military start?
What was military law before military law? Admiralty Law.

Tivo said: 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.

I say:
Just flags and customs....

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

I say:
Are you trying to tell me that U.S. courts can fly any flag they want in place of a U.S. flag?

Is a court an individual? Did I say individuals couldn't fly any flag they wanted?



This argument is dated, and I have long lost all of my bookmarks with my two computer swaps since the thread started. I am not saying I am wrong however, simply not fully armed with what I had when I wrote the replies.

I find it funny that customs for the flag mean so much when it is time to talk about Veterans Day, soldiers or liberty as a politician, but mean so little when discussing the legality of display in an official government structure, operated by government employees, doing government work.

Hope they don't try to burn one..... as required for flags past their useful life.
Suddenly, they may find those customs mean something...... to people that fight and die for them and what they stand for.

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready But what is and what is not an "admiralty law" case? Is the government justified to hear a case under admiralty law, if the case itself is not "under jurisdiction" of admiralty law? In other words... If the local court wanted to treat my traffic ticket as a case under admiralty law, would it be legal? According to what? Where is the authority derived from? You yourself say they are different, so why are they different?

There is a distinction that needs to be made here. "Admiralty law" is not actually a jurisdiction, in the common sense of the word. Admiralty law is a type of law - like environmental law, or criminal law, or LLC law, or tax law. These aren't true distinctions, they are artificial classifications based on a group of laws and made by Congress and law school registrar's offices. Courts can hear cases which deal with many types of laws.

An example - John Smith decides to kill someone. He kidnaps a woman from her house in NYC, drives her out to Long Island, and drowns her in a drum of toxic waste. Then deciding to dispose of the body, he rents a boat, takes the drum of toxic waste 20 miles out to sea, pokes a hole in it, and throws it overboard.
When he is captured, he will be tried under two different types of law - criminal law (kidnapping and murder) and admiralty law (dumping toxic waste into the ocean). He can be tried for both of these in a federal court, because federal courts would have jurisdiction (since they can hear cases in both criminal law and admiralty law) in this matter.

In your example above, the court cannot try your speeding ticket under admiralty law because speeding is not considered admiralty law, it is vehicle and traffic law (or penal law, depending on how fast you were going). At any rate, the JURISDICTION will be whatever jurisdiction you were speeding in - a town in a state in the United States.

"Admiralty" is a type of law. "New York" is a jurisdiction, "Federal" is a jurisdiction. Admiralty law deals with things that happen on the sea - and they are tried in the federal courts, using federal court rules. There are no "admiralty" courts in the United States. The point of "jurisdictional" statutes regarding admiralty law is to specify in what types of cases admiralty law will apply - and all of those types are clearly exclusive of things that happen on the normal lands of the United States.

There are "military" courts, but they are held under military court rules - i.e., not the FRCP, etc. Military courts have limited jurisdiction over certain military issues. You cannot convert a federal court to a military court simply by changing the flag.

Are you saying the customs of our American flag in court is meaningless?

The customs are not meaningless. I never said that. What I said is that merely hanging a certain type of flag does not establish jurisdiction.

Displaying a flag in a courtroom is a tradition and custom based upon respect and reverence for that country or state. It is not required by law. Likewise, merely displaying a particular flag in a courtroom does not establish anything. The jurisdiction of that court will depend on the laws that established that particular court. Supreme Court of Monroe County, Part 9, will hear cases in the jurisdiction of the Seventh Judicial District of New York, because that is what the NY Legislature decided when they created that court and its rules.

If so, attempt to remove it without permission, deface it or dispose of it properly by burning it.

While this is theft and arson, I don't see what it has to do with the jurisdiction of the court. A relatively similar consequence would happen if I attempted to remove the judge's chair from the courtroom and burn it.

Try telling that to a vet that faced armed combat against an enemy over it.

Again, a flag in a courtroom, while a nice thing and certainly respectful, does not establish jurisdiction.

Try telling that to a Supreme Court justice, and see where the lawyer career goes.

The Supreme Court has agreed with my position on several occasions, as have many other courts in hundreds of silly cases where people argue that the court is illegal because there is a certain decoration on the flag.

Anyway.... the flag is more than just a "symbol", especially in a courtroom, and it has "customs" for its hanging, disposal and display, especially in a government workplace.

I never said that it didn't. However, at the risk of sounding repetitive, those customs do not have anything to do with the jurisdiction or the type of laws and rules used in a court.

Yours, as in yours personally? What are you trying to say? Are you disregarding all customs for the U.S. flag in government capacity? Are you saying U.S. flags customs mean nothing? The flag has a meaning, as does each item ON the flag, as does the customs for its OFFICIAL display and rendering on government soil. Do you dispute that?

I don't dispute that. What I dispute is that those customs ESTABLISH anything remotely related to the jurisdiction of a court.

I agree. Why then is this not clearly explained and debunked?

It is clearly explained. There isn't a much clearer way to explain that admiralty and military law are different. They are different.

Why are there judges who "refuse to have the law heard in their court"? Why are there judges who "refuse to have the Constitution brought into their courtroom?"

I don't know what this means.

I am searching for excuses to JUSTIFY the actions of the judges, this was a grasp at an explanation, which seemed valid.

A likely valid explanation for the behavior of judges is a conspiracy theory that they are secretly operating under some other set of laws other than the United States and the various States, and this conspiracy hinges on a tiny decoration on the edge of a flag???
More of a valid explanation than that human beings sometimes make mistakes, and the mistakes get a lot of press because they are rare? Ockham's razor anyone?

Is the judge forced to allow this? Are people informed of their right to do such action?

Yes. Special appearances are quite common, and are the best way to challenge personal jurisdiction. The procedures authorizing special appearances are found in the FRCP and are taught in the first year of law school - Any lawyer knows that this can be done, and frankly the FRCP is one of the easiest parts of the code to understand, such that mostly anyone representing themselves could also understand it.

Again, are you saying flags and their customs have no meanings in government anymore? Can the government choose what it will and won't regard or disregard at whim?

A government is bound (or is bound but is violating, as you have argued) by its constitution, laws, and rules. A government is not bound by what piece of colorful cloth it hangs or does not hang on its wall. Is the law so weak that I could escape the jurisdiction of the courts by carrying in to my appearance the flag of another nation? Of course not.

Since when? When U.S. Flags and custom laws were created, how many types of law were there Tivo?

Well, your question at least partially proves my point. What U.S. Flag? The Betsy Ross? The 15/15? The 48-star? the 50-star?
Again, flags are a nice custom. They represent a lot of things to a lot of people. What they do NOT represent, however, is (to borrow from the Court) a "magical talisman" establishing the jurisdiction of a court.

Again - court jurisdiction is set by law, not flags. I have been in a New York courtroom that was hearing a case under the laws of the Province of Ontario - a jurisdiction in another country! I didn't see any Canadian flags anywhere.

Are you asking me, or being sarcastic?

It was a sarcastic question. As I said, I have been in courtrooms where no flag was flown. Hell, I was with a judge once who had to arraign someone in their jail cell because they wouldn't come down to the courtroom, there was no flag present there. A flag is a great decoration to have in a court, and is a symbol of respect for our country, it's history, veterans, etc.

Are you trying to tell me that U.S. courts can fly any flag they want in place of a U.S. flag?

Or none at all. While some people, including myself, would likely complain if some strange or foreign flags were present in the courtroom in place of the United States flag, it would not change the jurisdiction of the court. Those complaints would be towards the patriotic nature of the flag, and not to "why is this court trying me under some other law".

[Osborn F Enready]

Good answers Tivo, well thought out.

I will reply sometime today or tomorrow at length.