View Single Post
  #8  
Old 05-02-2008, 12:09 PM
Lawdog Lawdog is offline
Mental Jujitsu
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 578
preposterous argument

The argument that a flag with gold fringe in a courtroom means it's an admiralty court, or a court martial (i.e., military court), has been shot down in flames every time some nut argued it.

In the case of McCann v. Greenway (952 F. Supp. 647, W.D. Mo., 1997), McCann managed to combine the two crank theories by arguing that the gold fringed American flag was an "admiralty flag of war." The judge's comment when he dismissed that delusional argument bears repeating:

Quote:
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.

So if you think that whether a flag in a courtroom has gold fringe affects what type of court it is, you're giving into the same sort of childish, superstitious nonsense that makes primitive people believe in voodoo dolls.
__________________
We reject Skurdal's argument that he is a "free man" exempt from the laws because he has "no contracts" with either the state or federal governments...No persons in Montana may exempt themselves from any law simply by declaring they do not consent to it applying to them...Accepting Skurdal's assertion of exempt status is an invitation to anarchy. We decline that invitation. - State v. Skurdal, Supreme Court of Montana, 235 Mont. 291, 767 P.2d 304 at 308 (1988).
Reply With Quote