My Flag has Gold Fringe Big frekin Whoop

[sixmillman]

In a post retort recently someone told me that the Gold Fringe on the US flag in courts was further evidence that the entire US Constitution had been subverted since some time in the around 1857. I have a hard time believing that the US constitution has been subverted for the last 147 years so I research charges like this.
I followed this posters link to a web site which had a long essay boldly headlined "GET THAT GOLD FRINGE OFF MY FLAG"
The author of this web site posts:

“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”

The WARNING should have been about the web site I was entering.
He then goes on to cite some statues and Federal Orders.

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.

Well those are very specific claims. So I started by verifying the information he gave to support his accusation that we were no longer living under constitutional law but Admiralty law and that the Gold Fringe around the edge of flags in courtrooms throughout the land was “proof” that the US Constitution was being subverted.

My first task was to go to the local courthouse and ask around if anyone was aware of the meaning of the Gold Fringe that sure enough was on the flag in the courtroom. No one seemed to know. Clerks, bailiffs, lawyers, even the judge could not express any knowledge that there was any meaning to the fringe on the flag. One lawyer however anticipated what I was questioning and told me it was “nonsense”.

I researched the specific statues and Executive Orders used in the argument.I find the first misdirection in this essay when I read Executive Order 10834

The web essay claims:

“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.

Good luck to anyone who thinks they can find some connection to the validity of the authors assertion and either one of the official statues or orders given as “proof”.

The other document stated as “proof” to this preposterous idea is 24 F.R.6865. So I went to the Federal Register and looked it up.Federal Register Homepage

It is “Manual for Courts-Martial; Proposed Amendments” I read a lot of it. I was not impressed. What is the news here? Does anybody not know that military law as implemented thru a Court Marshall is not the same as civil law? A competent military is not a democracy. No proof here that our courts are acting under Military Law.

So it all starts with a major premise that is simply wrong. Not an opinion, but factually in error. The author continues to weave a vast government conspiracy against the citizens. He goes on to fuel his paranoid readers by stating:

Government officials and judges adamantly refuse requests to remove the gold fringed flag and replace it with the constitutional flag of the United States as defined in 4 U.S.C. Section 1,2, and 3 - which has NO fringe.”

"4 U.S.C. Section 1,2, and 3" reads as follows"

Part I -- Design of the Flag Section 1. The flag of the United States shall have thirteen horizontal stripes, alternate red and white, and a union consisting of white stars on a field of blue. Sec. 2. The positions of the stars in the union of the flag and in the union jack shall be as indicated on the attachment to this order, which is hereby made a part of this order. Sec. 3. The dimensions of the constituent parts of the flag shall conform to the proportions set forth in the attachment referred to in section 2 of this order.

Further reading of the etiquette of the US flag would have found these words:

Title Four of the United States Code which defines the Stars and Stripes neither prescribes nor proscribes the use of cords and tassels, heading, sleeve, fringe, and other accessories to the flag. It is universally recognized that the symbolic aspect of the flag is inherent in its colors and symbols, not in the physical characteristics of the flag or the things (like fringe) added to it when it is displayed.

So the truth of the matter is that fringe is and always has been a purely decorative addition -- an optional enhancement of the beauty of a flag, added on a discretionary basis when the flag is purchased. In the private sector and for non-military government uses, use of fringe is like the choice of polyester or nylon over cotton or wool for the flag itself -- simply a matter of enhancing the appearance of the flag.

[Scribbler1]

Originally posted by sixmillman, So the truth of the matter is that fringe is and always has been a purely decorative addition -- an optional enhancement of the beauty of a flag, added on a discretionary basis when the flag is purchased. In the private sector and for non-military government uses, use of fringe is like the choice of polyester or nylon over cotton or wool for the flag itself -- simply a matter of enhancing the appearance of the flag.

It sounds like the writer may be technically correct about the fringe not belonging there, but the connection with subverting the Constitution is quite a stretch, IMO. What gets me is when people deface the flag, and still feel proud when they fly it. On a number of occasions I had asked people who fly the flag on their cars' radio antennas were they aware that they were trating it horribly. Blank stares or arguments, of course. The question was why they fly a tattered, threadbare piece of cloth after it was flapped to bits and faded by sunlight and rain, at all hours of the day and night?

I'm not implying these people don't believe they are acting properly, but I have to point out that there are SPECIFIC rules to fly the flag. Rules like, fly it only during the day and in good weather (unless it is lit at night) and not to allow it to become worn or dirty. The fun starts when I mention when it is in the sorry state most antenna-flags are in, they should burn it! (why, yes sir, I DO believe myself to be a patriotic American. Why do you ask?). Of course I then suggest they contact the VFW and get a pamphlet on flag protocol, and mention they will even burn the flag FOR them if they can't do it themselves.

I do believe these people are sincere, just ignorant of the proper procedures concerning flag etiquette. I also think the person who wrote what you quoted is sincere himself in his patriotism. (well, he didn't blame BUSH, did he :) )
The only thing that bugs me about this scenario is that most people at least have a LITTLE knowledge of proper flag handling, or at least that there ARE rules. If they don't know them they should at least ask.

Inbteresting side note: I visited the WW2 memorial in Washington last weekend and although it rained the whole day (and the night before) the flag remained on the pole. Of course there were prominent speakers there that day (D-Day rememberance) so I guess the etiquette takes a back seat for the TV cameras.

[Compugasm]

That was interesting actually. I never noticed it before. Ok, case closed, purely optional.

[Comrade]

While we're on the subject of wierd things about our country's official stuff that (I) didn't know, I had no idea there was more than the one stanza that everyone knows to our national anthem.

http://www.purewatergazette.net/asimov.htm

That looks helluva hard to sing, though.

[Osborn F Enready]

It seems rather obvious to me you paraphrased and skipped much of the content in that site, as well as the other numerous sites on the net about that. Also, as Scribbler stated above, there are RULES pertaining to what flag, where and how it will be hung. This is not to be taken lightly, and people have died over abusing the flag in front of the wrong people, at the wrong time. The point is this, the rules are there for a reason, and if they refuse to comply with the rules, why should the people comply with their "judgement"?

Much more here, than our thread starter states, which is mostly opinion. I saw no proof or links to disprove, or references to disprove any of what he was attempting to disprove in the first place.

[Seeker_Of_Sins]

The article posted noted many important issues, the fringe around the flag is important when you consider the siiues surrounding the discussion.

Anxious to discover what her own legal position would be when the Revenue finally came calling, Lynne Meredith consulted legal advisors and the statute books. What they came up with in the US Constitution – the founding document of the American states – was a discovery that the "United States of America" is not the same as the "united States of America" referred to in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

Following the War of Independence, England’s King George III ceded full sovereignty to the American people, in the first instance. It was the American people, exercising their sovereignty, who then adopted the Constitution laying down the rules by which any future Government must work.

To ensure that the federal government remained a servant of the people, US lawmakers granted the official, United States Government (note the capital ‘U’), only limited powers. The US Government would have exclusive sovereignty only over territories that were not states of the Union in their own right. This includes, for example, Guam, Puerto Rico, American Samoa and Washington DC, but the federal government has no jurisdictional power over the individual states like California or Nebraska.

Within those territories it controls, however, the federal US Government has complete power to impose whatever laws or taxes it chooses: the US Supreme Court has ruled that people living in those territories do not have the constitutional protections enjoyed by citizens of the other 50 states.

"The laws of Congress in respect to those matters do not extend into the territorial limits of the states, but have force only in the District of Columbia, and other places that are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the national government," ruled the US Supreme Court in Caha v US.

In 1945, the Supreme Court issued what it said would be its last ever definition of the term "United States", in the court case Hooven and Allison Co v Evatt. Their analysis, summarised by writer George Bancroft, was "Our Union in its foreign relations presents itself with all its states and territories as one and indivisible, a garment without a seam; But at home we are separate sovereign states of the union. Within the limits of the states the government of the United States has no powers but those that have been delegated to it."

US Government law enforcement officers, for example, can take criminal proceedings against citizens of the 50 states in only five areas: espionage, sabotage, interference with the mails, destruction of federal property or frauds on the federal government.

Of course, the US Government did have the power to levy an income tax to pay for military action, provided such compulsory tax only lasted for two years. They introduced a nationwide income tax in 1942 to pay for the war effort, promoted in cinemas around the country in a Donald Duck cartoon featuring the Disney character paying income tax for the good of the nation. Although the tax was quietly repealed when its two years were up on May 29, 1944, nobody bothered to tell the public. After all, the war was still on and the D-Day invasion hadn’t even begun. Uncle Sam needed dollars, and people in the habit of paying tax kept on paying and have done ever since. Only those who invoked their constitutional rights have managed to legally avoid it.

The United States Government legally creates legislation, which may be unconstitutional for the 50 states, under the authority and guise of legislating for the citizens and residents of the territories and possessions ‘belonging to’ the United States, over which the United States has exclusive authority.

"Such federal legislation is made applicable only to the citizens born and residing in territories, possessions, instrumentalities and enclaves under the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States.

"These ‘individuals’ are called ‘US citizens’ or ‘citizens of the United States, subject to its jurisdiction’ in such legislation. The average American, of course, believes he or she is such a citizen (because it was never disclosed to them that our Congress legislates for two different types of citizens

But if you thought that kind of government subterfuge was big enough on its own, Meredith and her researchers discovered even more when they examined the federal court system. Remember that the public are presumed to know the law, and that a person who voluntarily consents to something unconstitutional must wear the consequences. So what extra trick does the federal government have up its sleeve?

Meredith found out when she noticed the federal courts always have a US flag in the room, fringed with yellow braid around the edges. What could possibly be significant in that? In short: everything.

Heres where it gets interesting.............

The US Government’s 34 Opin Atty Gen, which lists legal opinions from the Attorney General’s office, notes that "there is no statutory authority for the ‘yellow fringe’ around the flag. The use of such a fringe is prescribed in current Army Regulations No. 260-10. The yellow-fringed flag is, therefore, a military flag."

Curious, Meredith dug deeper – only to discover the federal court system is based in military law, under the aegis of US Code Title 18 s7: Admiralty Jurisdiction is applicable to the following areas:

"The High Seas; Any American ship; Any lands reserved or acquired for the use of the United States, and under the exclusive or concurrent jurisdiction thereof."

"It is an elementary rule of pleading," US courts have already ruled, "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."

In other words, if as a Californian resident you get taken to a federal court over an IRS tax bill, you are giving the court carte blanche to treat you as a ‘US citizen’ unless you challenge the court’s jurisdiction to hear the case.

If you’ve ever left a federal court feeling that you have been to a Court-Martial rather than a court of law, this is the reason," says Meredith. "Don’t be deceived by the pretty yellow fringe, it is your warning that you have submitted yourself to the ‘rule of the master’ and are under the jurisdiction of that flag. If you enter a court room and enter a plea in the presence of a military flag, you have acquiesced (consented without protest) to federal military jurisdiction. It is your warning that you are leaving the majority of your fundamental rights, as protected by the Constitution, at the door."

A similar situation exists in Canada, where tax researchers have also discovered Admiralty Law is at the heart of Canadian federal courts, primarily because of its status as a former colonial outpost of Britain

The majority of Lynne Meredith’s client victories over the IRS have come in direct correspondence with the agency itself. A simple letter from the taxpayer, telling the IRS they are not a US citizen as defined by the Supreme Court, do not do business with the US Government and are not a federal employee, is usually sufficient to have all taxes refunded – even for previous years – which can result in six figure returns to ordinary Americans.

[Osborn F Enready]

Excellent post, and reference use. Thank you SoS.

[dirishb]

I am sure You can explain this. http://www.atgpress.com/kifap/know0004.htm
Some more food for thought. http://www.geocities.com/dirishb/patriotact.html
I know, it is bunk.I have been researching the NWO, for 7 years now. They exist.

[Compugasm]

Ok, so the fringe is still optional because it has a different use. It signifies a military court?

This a load of bullplop. It is another rabbit hole for 'patriots' to fall into while chasing their own tails.

[Seeker_Of_Sins]

Originally posted by Compugasm, Ok, so the fringe is still optional because it has a different use. It signifies a military court?

My understanding of what I have read is that the yellow fringe around the flag enables the state to try citizins not governed by its laws under the Constitution. Because most people are unaware of this fact they allow themselves to be tried in a court that actually has no legitimate reason to try them at all.

If you do not question the courts authority over you then you give up your rights under constitutional law.

The court therefore declares its intentions by flying a yellow tinged flag thereby allowing them to try you legally through a system that isn't legally applicable to you otherwise.

[Osborn F Enready]

Well said SoS. Once again you have eloquently stated my words before I could even type them, and did it with less words than I would have used TOO! Good post.

[Milton Bradley]

My post from the other thread on this topic.


The American Bar Association was founded by the Rothschild banking family in 1870, in Indiana. All members of the Judiciary and 71% of all legislatures, federal, state and local, are Bar Association members. This places at least two branches of our government under their control. This is a conflict of interest. Lawyers have a stake in writing bad laws, because good laws don't make them much money, for the simple reason that good laws tend to be obeyed. Bad laws are not.

Where lawyers go, crime follows

The very first law passed by the Indiana legislature, after its takeover by the Bar Association, was to prohibit private citizens (laymen) from practicing law. This was an unconstitutional ruling designed to create a monopoly over the interpretation of law and the manner of its practice.

Even before the founding of the American Bar Association, lawyers were granted a title of nobility, "Esquire", by the Rothschild family. This was so scandalous in the early 1800's that an amendment was ratified to make it a felony for anyone in government to hold a title of nobility. Efforts were promptly made, however, to bury the new amendment and destroy all traces of it from the law books and history books. Evidence has since surfaced on this, but lawyers continue to deny its existence. Proof that this amendment had, in fact been ratified, have surfaced in a sufficient number of states, but lawyers continue to deny it, for the reason that it threatens to expose every single lawyer in the United States, as a traitor to the United States. Every lawyer bears a title of nobility. Every lawyer is party to imposing a foreign jurisdiction in almost every courtroom in the country, making the United States Constitution unavailable, and our Constitutional Rights inaccessible to americans. This is treason against the people and Constitution of the United States. There is no longer any room for doubt:


ALL LAWYERS ARE TRAITORS!

All Lawyers are beholden to, and are licensed to operate under, the same jurisdiction complained about in the Declaration of Independence, that King George was imposing a "jurisdiction foreign to our soil".

All Lawyers are in the business of taking away Constitutional Rights from sovereign citizens and giving their power to a foreign banking family.

Now, before you think to go out and shoot lawyers, realize that the vast majority of them wear heavy blinders. They have been brainwashed in law school to think they are performing a public service. They no more think themselves traitors than do Fundamentalists think themselves unChristian when they justify violations of Christ's commandments on quotes from the Old Testament or Paul's Epistles. Both groups are unconscious of their crimes. Persecuting either misses the point and would only create worse crimes. What is needed is to expose these blinders and the hidden agendas of those who seek to impose them.

Violence only begets violence.

Ends cannot justify Means, because Ends always reflect their Means.


Terms and examples:

Interpretation of law means many real laws, like 18 USC 241-242, which are supposed to protect us from violations of our Constitutional Rights, are made unenforcable. You can't find lawyers who will prosecute such cases, even though they pay well, IF you can fight it to a high enough court where the Constitution actually means something. At the local and state level, civil rights cases are usually thrown out as "frivilous". Usually, that's because the state's case is frivilous, but they can't afford to let anyone know that. At the Supreme Court level, you are lucky if it gets heard. The Supreme Court can chose not to look at it. Consequently, even in areas where the state or local governments have already been shown to be in violation, as with professional licensing, and with licensing and registration for passenger cars and drivers, no charges get enforced and the responsible agencies continue violating the law with impunity.

The manner of practice, means that we no longer have access to true Common-law trials. The Bill-of-Rights was not new; it largely codified rights traditionally covered under Common Law. Common Law also included an approach to court procedure which put the jury, and not the judge, in charge. The jury could ask the questions. The jury could decide what evidence was admissible. The jury was supposed to judge BOTH the law and the defendant. The judge was merely a referee and legal consultant. This had the advantage that the first priority in the proceedings was to find the truth. No longer. The Bar Association has corrupted it, substituting more and more elements of Law in Equity, Merchantile Law, Admiralty, Maritime Law, Law Merchant, Military Law, but usually known as Civil Law. This system places the judge in the position of being a dictator in the court. The judge is still technically bound by the decision of the jury, if you can get one, but they can now dictate what evidence may or may not be admissible, and may even lie to jurors about their responsibilities. The result is an adversarial system, a gladiatorial contest in which champions of the two sides fight with words, writs, and procedures. The defendants are completely at the mercy of lawyers whose competence they are allowed little or no foreknowledge of. In most types of cases, like traffic courts, the jurisdiction and manner of practice are wholly Civil/Equity/Maritime. As such, you do not have any rights; you have no power over your circumstances; you are reduced to a mere pawn in the hand of petty tyrants.

Examples:


Driver's licensing and Auto registration
Marriage Licensing and Children's Services
Gun Licensing and Registration



Non-Law:
Then there is the non-laws. Many which admit not having been
passed, like Aliens and Nationality (title 8), Internal Revenue Code (title 26), Food and Drugs (title 21), and more, are enforced at the point of a gun. Less than half of the titles of United States Code have been passed into positive law. Many are enforced anyway. Others, which have been enacted (like parts of title 18, Crimes and Criminal Procedure), are only enforced when it is convenient, if at all.

In addition to the laws never passed into positive law, there are also innumerable agencies writing codes and regulations for every imaginable aspect of our lives. Few, if any, of these agencies submit their regulations to proper legislative procedure (Voting-in and enactment by voters or the proper elected officials). Instead, they are simply written by committees of appointed bureaucrats, who then proceed to enforce them, like petty dictators, often with criminal penalties. Since these are not usually subject to enactment by proper legislative procedure, they are, by the Bar Association's own definitions, non-laws and enforcement of them is a crime. Lawyers, however, having conspired to create these non-laws and the incomes they generate, likewise also conspire to prevent enforcement against them.

In every instance, when the enforcement of non-law involves the collection of money, involuntarily, such enforcement fits precisely the definition of extortion, as given by federal law.

The Bar Association is also charged with generating laws and codes which serve Rothschild interests, which include a number of large corporations and whole industries, in which the Rothschilds and their associate bankers have invested. These include drug companies, oil companies, insurance companies, auto and munitions manufacturers, and the mass media.

Professional Licensing:
Many of the laws they create set up licensing systems, ostensibly to protect the public, but in practice only protect the licensed professionals, reducing their liability, making them less accountable in case of misconduct. Such accountability is usually better served by Common Law torts, than by a system that places it primarily in the hands of peers who stand to lose if misdeeds are publicized. Licensing can also make it harder to get into a field you feel qualified for, in violation of the Constitutional protection of Right to Work (1). It also places whole professions under foreign jurisdiction, allowing lawyers to impose regulations prohibited under the Constitution, reducing our Rights to privileges. Privileges are easily revocable.

Examples:


Architectural licensing
Builder's licensing
Physician's licensing
Psychologist and Psychiatrist licensing



Regulatory Agencies:
Still other laws, and non-laws, create regulatory agencies, ostensibly to protect the public, but in practice only protect the industries they are supposed to regulate. These agencies tend to get staffed by lawyers who know little about the industry they are charged with regulating, so they go to the very industry which they have been charged with. The industrialists tell the regulators what they want to hear, and hold out prospects of juicy retirement positions for regulators who serve their profits. If a regulatory director does not cow-tow to the suggestions of industry, then the industry can lobby to Congress to have him replaced. Hence, congressmen, to maximize campaign contributions, place directors who cheerfully sell out every principle the agency was ostensibly built on.

Examples:


Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA)
City Planning
Government Employment Practices
Com'on, how many do you need? If you are in denial, no number of examples will be enough.


Lawyers have subsequently taken every measure to obfuscate the law, creating a whole new language, which although it sounds, superficially, like english, the definitions of words may differ tremendously. They have created non-laws outside the scope of the Constitution, and often enforced with more vigor and stiffer penalties than legitimate law. They have even conspired to change laws by changing existing legal definitions, without legislation. For this reason, old editions of Black's Law Dictionary from prior to 1930, have become extremely valuable. Words like "income", which previously excluded wages ("compensation") now include wages, thereby expanding the scope of tax codes without benefit of legislation.

We are left with a real dilemma. Because the Bar Association has established a total monopoly over the interpretation and manner of practice of law, they can, as an organization, commit any crimes, perpetuate any scams, upon the american public with total impunity. They need only put a plausible face on it. If anyone sees through it, they are impotent to act, as all avenues of redress and correction are sealed or removed. Is this not high treason against the people and Constitution of the United States? Can It possibly be anything but?

(1) ref: Murdock vs. Pennsylvania, 1943

source:
http://www.soveriegn.freeservers.com/

[Osborn F Enready]

Milton, another great post. I didn't mind the repost, I enjoyed the read again. Thanks.

[sixmillman]

Milton Bradly and OsBourn
I think that is about the funniest thing I have read from you two yet. Your desperate attempts to "prove" desperate arguments of your enslavement just grow more ludicris.
ALL lawyers are traitors!! I love it. Shakespere wasn't it.
I am a pawn of tyrants because I regester my car. Randy Weaver

It just gets better and better

[Osborn F Enready]

As does your inadmission of facts, that you can't seem to refute with any credibility. Want to try?

[sixmillman]

Your "facts" are good enough. Please post more

Besides my facts and links for this thread were all there in the premier post. If you can post anything close to a coherent rebuttal perhaps I will respond with more. But this post was about Gold Fringe on the American Flag.

Not weather the Gubmint should be involved with Physician's licensing.

But you go ahead with your own thoughts, they are quite entertaining. Irrelevant to the original thread but entertaining

[Osborn F Enready]

Well, if that wasn't an insult, I don't think I know what an insult is!

Is it my fault you cannot see the forest for the trees?

Is it my fault you have some synapses not making contact in that grey matter container?

Is it my fault history has been clearly written for all to understand who wish to investigate what I speak of?

You made the STATEMENTS OF OPINION in the title thread starter.

There have been several people who have eloquently, and almost completely spoken my side of the issue here, is there a reason I need to clarify their statements in my words for you to address them?

Do you not agree there is a such thing as both Constitutional or Common Law, and Admiralty or Maritime Law?

Do you know what the rules of the flag for each are?

Do you still not understand the point?

[sixmillman]

I researched the specific statues and Executive Orders used in the argument.I find the first misdirection in this essay when I read Executive Order 10834

I provide a link to Executive order 10834. After reading it I was unable to find the part that was quoted as "proof" that the Gold Fringe had something to do with anything.
Quite frankly whoever claimed that 10834 says

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.

Is simply wrong. Something is screwed up and I don't believe it is the Gubmint.
More likely Jeff RENSE got his facts wrong again
That is NOT opinion it is fact.

Do you not agree there is a such thing as both Constitutional or Common Law, and Admiralty or Maritime Law?

I don't deny that there are these things, but I do question from your posts your ability to apply them, define them, or use them. Like an infant with car keys.

[Osborn F Enready]

So if I am the infant, school me Mr Adult. Lets see how I am wrong in thinking the Admiralty Flag flying in a court of COMMON LAW, is more than just a coincidence.

You refuted one site, out of HOW MANY AVAILABLE on the subject? You choose to refute certain things, but leave all the others just hanging in the wind.

School me, school me Mr Teacher, I want to learn.