What does it mean when the American flag is bordered in gold finge?

allegedly means the ruling system of law is one called 'admiralty law' - i dont do legalese so you'll have to take it from there

not sure that is a good thing.

Gold is often associated with ... well you know.

does the fringe go all the way around the flag? Ie could it be interpreted as being enclosed/controlled by the gold border.

Just making some free associations here.

in checking into it more, I found this:



[link to www.apfn.org]

It doesn't mean anything at all.

For at least twenty years, conspiracists have made a big deal out of the gold fringe as being part of some other system of laws, in particular, "admiralty law", but I never saw any evidence of that.

Of course, if you google US flag gold fringe, you'll see a lot of references to admiralty law, but they're just from one conspiracy site or another, and they reference each other like a cat chasing its tail.

The way the hoax got started is because President Eisenhower issued a proclamation saying that an American flag with gold borders was a "military flag".

Well, a lot of other places started flying the "military flag" because it looks nice.

Where the conspiracists go off track is when they say that "anywhere there is a military flag, you are in a military court, and thus under martial law". That's the crap portion. Being near a military flag does not place you under Martial Law any more than passing a soldier in the hallway mean that the hallway is under Martial Law. Martial Law is implemented only under rare terms, and usually by the President.

The martial law concept in the U.S. is closely tied with the writ of Habeas Corpus, which is in essence the right to a hearing on lawful imprisonment, or more broadly, the supervision of law enforcement by the judiciary. The ability to suspend habeas corpus is often equated with martial law. Article 1, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution states, "The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion; the public Safety may require it."

My church flies a gold-fringed flag, because when a bunch of us were looking at flags, we settled on the latter because it looked cool. For some reason, I don't think that made Spirit of Hope Lutheran into an exemplar of Martial LAW LOL!!!

I was the one who put it there. :) Here is the best explanation of that monster flag that adorns our courts:

The United States did not start putting flags with a yellow fringe on them in government buildings and public buildings until 1959. Of course the question you would ask yourself; why did it change and are there any legal meanings behind this? Oh yes!
First the appearance of our flag is defined in Title 4 sec. 1. U.S.C..

"The flag of the United States shall be thirteen horizontal stripes, alternate red and white; and the union of the flag shall be forty-eight stars, white in a blue field." (Note - of course when new states are admitted new stars are added.)

A foot note was added on page 1113 of the same section which says:

"Placing of fringe on the national flag, the dimensions of the flag, and arrangement of the stars are matters of detail not controlled by statute, but within the discretion of the President as Commander-In-Chief of the Army and Navy." - 1925, 34 Op.Atty.Gen. 483

The president as military commander can add a yellow fringe to our flag. When would this be done? During a time of war. Why? A flag with a fringe is an ensign, a military flag. Read the following.

"Pursuant to U.S.C. Chapter 1, 2, and 3; Executive Order No. 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, bordered 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 Armed forces."

From the National Encyclopedia, Volume 4:

"Flag, an emblem of a nation; usually made of cloth and flown from a staff. From a military standpoint flags are of two general classes, those flown from stationary masts over army posts, and those carried by troops in formation. The former are referred to by the general name flags. The latter are called colors when carried by dismounted troops. Colors and Standards are more nearly square than flags and are made of silk with a knotted Fringe of Yellow on three sides...........use of the flag. The most general and appropriate use of the flag is as a symbol of authority and power."

The reason I started with the Flag issue is because it is so easy to grasp. The main problem I have with the yellow fringe is that by its use our Constitutional Republic is no more. Our system of law was changed without the public's knowledge. It was kept secret. This is fraud. The American people were allowed to believe this was just a decoration. Because the law changed from Common Law (God's Law) to Admiralty Law (the kings law) your status also changed from sovereign to subject. From being able to own property (allodial title) to not owning property (tenet on the land). If you think you own your property, stop paying taxes, it will be taken under the prize law.

When you walk into a court and see this flag you are put on notice that you are in a Admiralty Court and that the king is in control. Also, if there is a king the people are no longer sovereign. You're probably saying this is the most incredible thing I have ever heard. YOU have read the proof, it will stand up in court. But wait, there is more, you probably would say, how could this happen? Here's how. Admiralty law is for the sea, maritime law govern's contracts between parties that trade over the sea. Well, that's what our fore-fathers intended. However, in 1845 Congress passed an act saying Admiralty law could come on land. The bill may be traced in Cong. Globe, 28th Cong., 2d. Sess. 43, 320, 328, 337, 345(1844-45), no opposition to the Act is reported. Congress held a committee on this subject in 1850 and they said:

"The committee also alluded to "the great force" of "the great constitutional question as to the power of Congress to extend maritime jurisdiction beyond the ground occupied by it at the adoption of the Constitution...." - Ibid. H.R. Rep. No. 72 31st Cong., 1st Sess. 2 (1850)

It was up to the Supreme Court to stop Congress and say NO! The Constitution did not give you that power, nor was it intended. But no, the courts began a long train of abuses, here are some excerpts from a few court cases.

It would be in the power of Congress to confer admiralty jurisdiction upon its courts, over the cars engaged in transporting passengers or merchandise from one State to another, and over the persons engaged in conducting them, and deny to the parties the trial by jury. Now the judicial power in cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, has never been supposed to extend to contracts made on land and to be executed on land. But if the power of regulating commerce can be made the foundation of jurisdiction in its courts, and a new and extended admiralty jurisdiction beyond its heretofore known and admitted limits, may be created on water under that authority, the same reason would justify the same exercise of power on land." -- Propeller Genessee Chief et al. v. Fitzhugh et al. 12 How. 443 (U.S. 1851)

When you enter a court room and come before the judge and the U.S. flag with the yellow fringe flying, you are put on notice of the law you are in. American's aren't aware of this, so they continue to claim Constitutional rights. In the Admiralty setting the constitution does not apply and the judge, if pushed, will inform you of this by placing you under contempt for continuing to bring it up.

[link to www.barefootsworld.net]

There you have it in easy-to-understand English. You can visit the website for the rest of it. Also, it would be a good thing to visit the entire articles presented at Barefoot's World. He is one smart dude!

[link to www.barefootsworld.net]
.

Folks: sorry if this is waaay off-topic, but I'd like to ask a question.

Kathleen Siebelius, the Governor of Kansas just signed an order that states whenever a member of the Kansas National Guard, or Kansas Air National Guard or a Kansas resident who is on active duty in the armed forces dies in action the flags of the United States and State of Kansas are to be flown at half-staff. The first time this is going to be done will be this Thursday.

I've always understood that only the President could order the American flag to fly at half-staff for dignitaries.

Now: don't get me wrong- our military personnel deserve all the respect we can give them... but there may easily come a time when our flags NEVER fly in the uppermost position again!

Any thoughts on this? Have other states enacted such regulations?

it means "like, this a really, really serious american flag, sucker - it's not just yer everyday one, it's special - it cost more than the other one - more man-hours went into making it, and if you think we're putting up expensive flags for the fun of it - think again - because this one is 10 times more american than the plain-jane one ... whatever it is that the regular one means - this one means far more - and then some ... they didn't even plant a fringed one on the moon, so that gives you an idea of the importance of any event where this here fringed one is flying , doesn't it "

Our court systems dont operate on the constitution anymore, judges will tell you 'no constitution allowed in court', that's because we operate on "statutes and ordinances".

To tell the judge you ant the constitution is like telling them you dont respect their law.

Making martial law easier
February 19, 2007

A disturbing recent phenomenon in Washington is that laws that strike to the heart of American democracy have been passed in the dead of night. So it was with a provision quietly tucked into the enormous defense budget bill at the Bush administration's behest that makes it easier for a president to override local control of law enforcement and declare martial law.

The provision, signed into law in October, weakens two obscure but important bulwarks of liberty. One is the doctrine that bars military forces, including a federalized National Guard, from engaging in law enforcement. Called posse comitatus, it was enshrined in law after the Civil War to preserve the line between civil government and the military. The other is the Insurrection Act of 1807, which provides the major exemptions to posse comitatus. It essentially limits a president's use of the military in law enforcement to putting down lawlessness, insurrection and rebellion, where a state is violating federal law or depriving people of constitutional rights.

The newly enacted provisions upset this careful balance. They shift the focus from making sure that federal laws are enforced to restoring public order.

Beyond cases of actual insurrection, the president may now use military troops as a domestic police force in response to a natural disaster, a disease outbreak, terrorist attack or to any "other condition."

Changes of this magnitude should be made only after a thorough public airing. But these new presidential powers were slipped into the law without hearings or public debate. The president made no mention of the changes when he signed the measure, and neither the White House nor Congress consulted in advance with the country's governors.

There is a bipartisan bill, introduced by Senators Patrick Leahy, Democrat of Vermont, and Christopher Bond, Republican of Missouri, and backed unanimously by the nation's governors, that would repeal the stealthy revisions. Congress should pass it. If changes of this kind are proposed in the future, they must get a full and open debate.
[link to www.iht.com]


Olbermann: the beginning of the end of America

Olbermann takes Bush on for the "Military Commissions Act" and the death of Habeas Corpus. "

gsbltd
User ID: 274436
7/31/2007 9:52 PM

I don't think you are too far off topic. We discussed the way the flag is mounted on the uniforms of the military on another thread. The way that a flag is presented is a kind of sign of whatever the gov't decides. Accoording to Barefoot's world, the President decides...the decider. :)

I don't think flying the flag at half mast is necessarily reserved for the President to decide. It has been lowered many times in remembrance when one of the elite have died or, in this case, a soldier's death. Wasn't it lowered after the shooting deaths at Virginia Tech?
.

It means the fabric edges won't fray

Hiding Behind the BAR

Why Attorneys are not lawyers

[link to www.angelfire.com]

THANKS[!] for your prompt answer; you in turn prompted me to do some research and I was SHOCKED to learn the following...

...even the Mayor of a city [such as Modesto, CA] can declare when the flag should fly at half-staff...and, it doesn't even have to be an elected official; there is a USDA webpage that states REGIONAL DIRECTORS of the DEPT of AGRICULTURE[!] can do the same thing.

It would seem there are MANY things we take for granted that are anything BUT what we've come to realise!!!

BTW: when I saw GWB's motorcade whiz past last month his SUV was flying a flag with -you guessed it- gold fringe. I, in turn was holding an American flag upside down as there's NO mistaking what THAT gesture means!!

Thanks, AC. Attorneys are not in court to fight for us, but for the "king". From the website:

"...If our current U.S. BAR Attorneys were just lawyers, solicitors, barristers, advocates or counselors, then they would call themselves the same. ..........

Knowing these simple truths, why would anyone consider the services of BAR Attorney-Esquire as his representative within the ruling courts of America? Their purposes, position, occupation, job, and duty is to transfer your allegiance, property, and rights to the landowner, a.k.a. STATE. They are sworn oath officers of the State whose sole authority is to transfer your property to their landowner-employer. Think about this the next time you enter their courtrooms. From now on, all Americans should refuse to enter past the outer bar when they are called. Who would voluntarily want to relinquish all he has by passing into their legal trap that exists inside that outer bar? ............."

The legal trap that exists inside that outer bar is adorned with the gold-fringed flag, which says you are now under Admiralty Law, not under Constitutional Law. Good website.
.