The following court cases deal with objections to the court having a yellow fringed flag. In every case, the court ruled that it is frivolous to argue that there is a yellow fringed flag in the court. Many "'patriots" (for profit) have used these court cases to "prove" that it does not matter if the flag has a yellow fringe or not. But if it does not matter, why doesn't the court simply bring a non-fringed flag into the court like the accused asked them to? However, as will be seen, the reason for the courts ruling against these arguments was not because it is irrelevant as to what flag is flown, but because the accused used the wrong arguments and submitted themselves to the courts jurisdiction! [Richard's comments in brackets].
Remember, a court is not under military jurisdiction because of the yellow fringed flag, but the yellow fringed flag is there because the court is under military jurisdiction. Keep this in mind as you read these cases.
Slangal v. Cassel (D Neb 1997) 962 F.Supp 1214. "I find and conclude that any complaint predicated in whole or in part upon the allegation that jurisdiction is based upon the 'American Free Flag of Peace, title 4 USC 1'...or a similar allegation is frivolous, malicious and intended to harass. The plaintiff or anyone else who has filed...such a 'flag' suit is notified that any such suit filed after this date will be dismissed sua sponte without notice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction."
[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.
Schneider v. Schlaefer (ED Wisc 1997) 975 F.Supp 1160. Quoting McCann case and Atty-Gen Op and "from this day forward litigants...are put on notice that any claims or defenses based upon the alleged pre-eminence of the 'American Flag of Peace' over any other flag are frivolous and sanctionable."
[No flag has pre-eminence over any other flag. They are all equally 'idols' in God's eyes].
US v. G.D. Bell (ED Cal unpub 4/30/97) 79 AFTR 2d 2784 recons.den (ED Cal 1998) 27 F.Supp.2d 1191. "As to the physical composition of the flag in the courtroom, the General Services Administration Office of the Courts supply furnishings for the courtroom. Defendants should address any complaints about the form of the courtroom flag to the General Services Administration."
[Being a defendant also gives jurisdiction. The correct term to use is "accused"].
Jarboe v. Reichle (Conn.Super. unpub 11/10/86). Claiming that "the presence of an alleged gold fringed military flag in the courtroom indicates this [State] court is not a constitutional court."
[Since the constitution does establish military courts, it is a constitutional court. All military courts are constitutional.]
State v. Martz (Ohio App. unpub 6/9/97) app.dismissed 80 Ohio St.3d 1423, 685 NE2d 237. Appellant claims the trial court was without jurisdiction...because the courtroom displayed a military style US flag with gold fringe. We disagree."
[Again, flags do not determine jurisdiction, they only reveal the jurisdiction already present. And why did 'appellant' go to their jurisdiction to sue? By doing so, he again submitted himself to their military jurisdiction, voluntarily!]
Jarboe v. Reichle (Conn.Super. unpub 11/10/86). This one said that fringe on the flag made it a military court.
[The flag does not make it a military court, law does. The flag only shows what jurisdiction already exists.]
Dunkel v. McCloskey (ED Penn unpub 11/25/98). "This Court is persuaded that the American Flag statute cannot be relied on as a jurisdictional basis for a [civil rights] action." Rule 11 sanctions imposed.
[Civil Rights are governed by military law].
Wyatt v. Kelly, Chief Bankruptcy Judge (WD Texas unpub 3/23/98) 44 USPQ2d 1578, 81 AFTR2d 1463, 98 USTC para 50326. Tried to sue judge for not removing fringed flag nor installing "a flag that met plaintiff's specifications." Court imposed Rule 11 fine of $1000.
[This is like suing a police officer for not removing his badge. The decor does not determine jurisdiction, but only indicates what already exists.]
Ch.H. Cass v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co (MDNC unpub 10/1/98) 82 AFTR2d 6967. Suing federal judges, US Attorneys, county registrars, IRS agents, and some big corporations because of fringed flag. "The complaint will be dismissed not because this court operates under the regal splendor of a gold fringed flag but because the complaint is legally absurd."
[It is rather absurd to sue a military institution for displaying a military flag, isn't it?].
Marion v. Marion (Conn.Super. unpub 6/18/98). Trying to sue a town official and a judge for "accepting" a fringed US flag supposedly thereby "suppressing" the perp's rights.
[Followers of Christ have no "rights" in scripture, except the right to the tree of life - Revelation 22:14].
US v. Schiefen (D SoDak 1995) 926 F.Supp 877 aff'd 81 F3d 166 mand.denied 522 US 1074. "Federal jurisdiction is determined by statute, not by whether the flag flown is plain or fringed."
McCann v. Greenway (WD Mo 1997) 952 F.Supp 647. "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." And quoting the 34 Op.US Atty-Gen 483 (1925) that "in flag manufacture a fringe is not considered to be a part of the flag and it is without heraldic significance."
Lang v. Dieleuterio (D NJ unpub 2/17/99). "Such objections to the court's flag, or even to the absence of any flag, have uniformly been dismissed as meritless because the type of flag displayed does not effect federal jurisdiction."
City of Belton v. Horton (Mo.App 1997) 947 SW2d 104. Claimed the fringe on the American flag "the court was thus a foreign power, and the trial judge was the supreme ruler of a foreign power, devoid of any jurisdiction over him." Similarly in Wacker v. Crow (10th Cir unpub 7/1/99).
G.D. Fowler v. State (Ark.App 1999) 67 Ark.App 114, 992 SW2d 804. The defendant's objection to the fringe was emphasized by the prosecution during cross-examination, and similarly during the cross-examination of the defendant's fellow militia group members, and on appeal the exploitation of the defendant's objection to the courtroom flag was held to be so prejudicial, because it was calculated to arouse the jury's hostility to the defendant, that the conviction was overturned.
Dulisse v. Twardowski (ED Penn unpub 7/16/98). Suing federal judges, IRS agents and US Attorney for constructive treason, etc. because of fringed flag.
Haskins v. Wilbert (D Kan unpub 11/5/97). "Judge Wilbert's jurisdiction is in no way predicated on...the design of the US flag."
Murray v. State of Wyoming (10th Cir unpub 3/16/99) 176 F3d 489(t). "This argument is indisputably meritless."
Joyner v. Borough of Brooklyn (EDNY unpub 3/18/99).Claimed the presence of a fringed flag denied him a fair trial and constituted treason.
Vella v. McCammon (SD Tex 1987) 671 F.Supp 1128. "Not only without merit but also totally frivolous".
US v. Greenstreet (ND Tex 1996) 912 F.Supp 224. "Decor is not a determinant for jurisdiction."
Huebner v. State (Tex.App unpub 5/8/97).
State v. Martz (Ohio App unpub 6/9/97).
Moeller v. D'Arrigo (ED Va 1995) 163 FRD 489.
R.Jones v. T.G. Watson (ND Ohio) unpub 9/29/97).
Lee v. Maass (1992) 111 Ore App 412, 826 P2d 97 revw denied 313 Ore 210, 830 P2d 596.
State v. Whalen (Ariz.App 1997) 192 Ariz 103, 961 P2d 1051 app.denied (Ariz Supm unpub 9/10/98).
US v. Warren (NDNY unpub 1/22/98).
J. Rogers v. Borough of Manhattan (a person) (SDNY unpub 10/1/98).
Bartrug v. Rubin (Ed Va 1997) 986 F.Supp 332.
Commonwealth v. Appel (1994) 438 Penn.Super. 214, 652 A2d 341.
State v. Svee (unpub 1/12/88) 143 Wisc.2d 892 (t), 421 NW2d 117(t).
Sadlier v. Payne (D Utah 1997) 974 F.Supp 1411.
Hancock v. State of Utah (10th Cir unpub 5/10/99) 176 F3d 488(t).
R.Miller v. USA (ND Ohio unpub 2/6/98).
R.Miller v. Gallagher (ND Ohio unpub 12/17/96).
US v. Dunkel (ND IL unpub 8/30/96) 78 AFTR2d 6529 rev. in part on other grounds (7th Cir unpub 7/1/97) 80 AFTR2d 5148, 97 USTC para 50565.
Return to Christ's Lawful Assembly
|Home||Greetings||Who We Are||Helpful Info||Rest Room||Search||Contact Us|