HistorianDude

Then prove I'm wrong.

If I am just a shill and full of shit, it should be easy for you to show me the laws that declare fringed flags to mean admiralty law. You should be able to link me to this imaginary "British Accreditation Registry" so I can look up the accreditation of all the lawyers and judges I know. You should be able to show me the commercial articles of incorporation for the alphabet agencies.

If you are right, that should all be easy.

Chop-chop! Go prove it.

Turk182

YEP IT IS EASY.

https://www.usa.gov/federal-agencies/f
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/admiralty
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/master_file/martiallaw.htm
http://www.apfn.net/Messageboard/07-19-05/discussion.cgi.16.html
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/secretoath.htm
https://mail.aol.com/webmail-std/en-us/suite

The term “BAR” is an acronym for British Accredited Registry [see comments below]. These snakes are in fact working for the Crown of England. And that is why the gold fringed flags are in the courtrooms. It signifies admiralty jurisdiction* [maritime law], which is another way of saying British jurisdiction [England is a maritime nation]. When you cross the bar in a courtroom, you are entering a British colonial forum.

HistorianDude

Then why do you keep failing to do so? A list of random links is neither evidence nor argument. Especially links to websites that are no better at proving their claims than you are.


You keep saying that. But you have yet to show that there is even any such thing as the "British Accredited Registry."

Or that fringes on flags are anything more than a pretty decoration.

Or that admiralty courts even exist.

okie don

Historian,
I think you've got some homework to do pardner.
This is all 'COMMON KNOWLEDGE'.

HistorianDude

It's all a bilious lie... only idiots believe it.

Turk182

You are a shill and full of shit.
You want me to waste my time when it is you that needs to prove me wrong.

HistorianDude

You are unclear on the concept. You are the one trying to tell everybody that what they actually personally experience every day is somehow all a great big hoax. The burden of poof is entirely on you.

But how's this on the whole Fringey Flag silliness?

The American Legion explains

Fringing of the flag is neither approved of nor prohibited by the Flag Code. The American Legion considers that fringe is used as an honorable enrichment to the Flag. Additionally the courts have deemed without merit and frivolous, lawsuits that contend that the gold fringe adorning the flag conferred Admiralty/Maritime jurisdiction.

The courts themselves have consistently ruled that such claims are without legal merit.

McCann v. Greenway, 952 F. Supp. 647 – Dist. Court, WD Missouri 1997:

Other Courts have considered Mr. McCann’s argument or arguments similar in nature or effect. Those courts have labeled the position as “frivolous”,[2] “totally frivolous”,[3] “preposterous”,[4] and “a … really unintelligible assertion[]”.[5] This Court agrees. But in the interest of killing this argument for good, and to facilitate appellate review, the Court will examine the law of the flag.

US v. Mackovich, 209 F. 3d 1227 – Court of Appeals, 10th Circuit 2000:

First, Mackovich’s “flag fringe” argument — though indisputably frivolous — was not indecipherable. Litigants 1234*1234 in this circuit and elsewhere assert with some frequency that a flag adorned with yellow fringe is “foreign” and thus robs the trial court of jurisdiction. See Wacker v. Crow, No. 99-3071, 1999 WL 525905, at *1 (10th Cir.1999) (unpublished disposition) (deeming “frivolous” the argument that the presence of a flag with yellow fringe precluded jurisdiction and “effectively commuted the district court into a foreign power”); Hancock v. Utah, No. 98-4139, 1999 WL 288251, at *1, *2, *3 (10th Cir.1999) (unpublished disposition) (rejecting a plaintiff’s argument that state officials “violated his right to due process by placing yellow fringe around the American flag”); Murray v. Wyoming, No. 98-8095, 1999 WL 140517, at *1 (10th Cir. 1999) (unpublished disposition) (dismissing as “meritless” a plaintiff’s argument that the district court and a state penitentiary lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate his claims “on the ground that both institutions display a flag with yellow fringe”).[2]

Footnote [2] reads

[2]See also Joyner v. Borough of Brooklyn, No. 98 CV 2579(RJD), 1999 WL 294780, at *1, *2 (E.D.N.Y. Mar.18, 1999) (holding that “[t]he yellow fringe trim on the American flag has no effect on a court’s jurisdiction or a defendant’s constitutional or statutory rights“); Cass v. Richard Joshua Reynolds Tobacco Co., No. 1:97CV01236, 1998 WL 834856, at *2 (M.D.N.C. Oct. 1, 1998) (rejecting the “phantasmal” claim that flags adorned with fringe are “instrumentalities of a foreign sovereign” and noting that “[f]ringed flagged jurisprudence flourishes, though frequently found frivolous”); United States v. Warren, No. 91-CR-226, 1998 WL 26406, at *1-*2 (N.D.N.Y. Jan.22, 1998) (restating the plaintiff’s position that a “foreign yellow fringe flag” is illegal and concluding that “one could rightly call” such an argument “gibberish”); Sadlier v. Payne, 974 F.Supp. 1411, 1415-16 (D.Utah 1997) (repudiating a plaintiff’s claim that “yellow fringe on the flag somehow converted the jurisdiction of the state court into a `foreign state/power'”); Schneider v. Schlaefer, 975 F.Supp. 1160, 1161-64 & n. 1 (E.D.Wis. 1997)(noting a plaintiff’s attempt to invoke “Army Regulation 840-10” and stating that “flag fringe” jargon is “regrettably familiar to … federal courts around the country”); McCann v. Greenway, 952 F.Supp. 647, 649-51 (W.D.Mo.1997) (discussing army regulations and holding that “[e]ven if the Army or Navy do display United States flags surrounded by yellow fringe, the presence of yellow fringe does not necessarily turn every such flag into a flag of war”); United States v. Greenstreet, 912 F.Supp. 224, 229 (N.D.Tex. 1996) (recognizing that a number of litigants have “attempted to persuade the judiciary that fringe on an American flag denotes a court of admiralty” and thereby limits federal jurisdiction);United States v. Schiefen, 926 F.Supp. 877, 884 (D.S.D.1995) (concluding that “[f]ederal jurisdiction is determined by statute, not by whether the flag flown is plain or fringed”); Vella v. McCammon, 671 F.Supp. 1128, 1129 (S.D.Tex.1987) (rebuffing as “totally frivolous” the argument that a court lacks jurisdiction because “[a] flag has yellow fringes on it”).

trucksterbud

Hmmmm, seems that if you really were soooo intelligent you could have found this. Is straight off the pages available to all on the internet, and explains EXACTLY what and how all this came about. Do you really think this all popped up in the past ten years or so. I mean really....???? you're that shallow....???

Our legal terms and advocacy of law began as far back as ancient Greece. Wanna tell me I'm full of shit about that o' wise one....??? Our present day legal system began in ernest in England in the late 1500's and 1600's.... Wanna tell me I'm full of shit about that one o' wise one.....???

So instead of attempting to provide you a link, which you won't research, and you WILL simply post some form of assinine belittlement about, here is the page off the internet as found with just a LITTLE research.

And, yes, the BAR means exactly what I said it did.. British Accredited Registry. It was only later on that the term was modified to mean "the railing separating the spectator area of a court to the the area of legal counsel".. Simple enough for ya..?? The BAR was later modified to IBA - as you will see in the post - which stands for "International Bar Association"..... From the late 1600's. What is a Barrister...?? A beginning Attorney who is still in training - according to English Law... Where do we get our legal system today, TOADIE.....??? England.


Hiding Behind the BAR Why Attorneys are not Lawyers


Author Unknown
http://educate-yourself.org/cn/attorneysarenotlawyers13mar05.shtml
Posted March 13, 2005

Forward courtesy of Dr. Kanya < DRKANYA@aol.com>

In the U.S., they're collectively called everything from "attorney" to "lawyer" to "counselor." Are these terms truly equivalent, or has the identity of one been mistaken for another? What exactly is a "Licensed BAR Attorney?" This credential accompanies every legal paper produced by attorneys - along with a State Bar License number. As we are about to show you, an ‘attorney’ is not a ‘lawyer,’ yet the average American improperly interchanges these words as if they represent the same occupation, and the average American attorney unduly accepts the honor to be called "lawyer" when he is not.

In order to discern the difference, and where we stand within the current court system, it’s necessary to examine the British origins of our U.S. courts and the terminology that has been established from the beginning. It's important to understand the proper lawful definitions for the various titles we now give these court related occupations.

The legal profession in the U.S. is directly derived from the British system. Even the word "bar" is of British origin:

BAR. A particular portion of a court room. Named from the space enclosed by two bars or rails: one of which separated the judge's bench from the rest of the room; the other shut off both the bench and the area for lawyers engaged in trials from the space allotted to suitors, witnesses, and others. Such persons as appeared as speakers (advocates, or counsel) before the court, were said to be "called to the bar", that is, privileged so to appear, speak and otherwise serve in the presence of the judges as "barristers." The corresponding phrase in the United States is "admitted to the bar". - A Dictionary of Law (1893).

From the definition of ‘bar,’ the title and occupation of a "barrister" is derived:

BARRISTER, English law.

1.A counselor admitted to plead at the bar.

2. Ouster barrister, is one who pleads ouster or without the bar.

3. Inner barrister, a sergeant or king's counsel who pleads within the bar.

4. Vacation barrister, a counselor newly called to the bar, who is to attend for several long vacations the exercise of the house.

5. Barristers are called apprentices, apprentitii ad legem, being looked upon as learners, and not qualified until they obtain the degree of sergeant. Edmund Plowden, the author of the Commentaries, a volume of elaborate reports in the reigns of Edward VI., Mary, Philip and Mary, and Elizabeth, describes himself as an apprentice of the common law. - A Law Dictionary by John Bouvier (Revised Sixth Edition, 1856).

BARRISTER, n. [from bar.] A counselor, learned in the laws, qualified and admitted to please at the bar, and to take upon him the defense of clients; answering to the advocate or licentiate of other countries. Anciently, barristers were called, in England, apprentices of the law. Outer barristers are pleaders without the bar, to distinguish the from inner barristers, benchers or readers, who have been sometime admitted to please within the bar, as the
king's counsel are. - Webster's 1828 Dictionary.

Overall, a barrister is one who has the privilege to plead at the courtroom bar separating the judicial from the non-judicial spectators. Currently, in U.S. courts, the inner bar between the bench (judge) and the outer bar no longer exists, and the outer bar separates the attorneys (not lawyers) from the spectator's gallery. This will be explained more as you read further. As with the word ‘bar,’ each commonly used word describing the various court officers is derived directly from root words:

1). From the word "solicit" is derived the name and occupation of a ‘solicitor’; one who solicits or petitions an action in a court.

SOLICIT, v.t. [Latin solicito]


1. To ask with some degree of earnestness; to make petition to; to apply to for obtaining something. This word implies earnestness in seeking ...

2. To ask for with some degree of earnestness; to seek by petition; as, to solicit an office; to solicit a favor. - Webster's 1828 Dictionary.

2). From the word "attorn" is derived the name and occupation of an ‘attorney;’ one who transfers or assigns property, rights, title and allegiance to the owner of the land.

ATTORN / v. Me. [Origin French. atorner, aturner assign, appoint, f. a-torner turn v.]

1. v.t. Turn; change, transform; deck out.

2. v.t Turn over (goods, service, allegiance, etc.) to another; transfer, assign.

3. v.i. Transfer one’s tenancy, or (arch.) homage or allegiance, to another; formally acknowledge such transfer. attorn tenant (to) Law formally transfer one’s tenancy (to), make legal acknowledgement of tenancy ( to a new landlord). - Oxford English Dictionary 1999.

ATTORN, v.i. [Latin ad and torno.] In the feudal law, to turn, or transfer homage and service from one lord to another. This is the act of feudatories, vassels or tenants, upon the alienation of the estate. - Webster's 1828 Dictionary.

ATTORNMENT, n. The act of a feudatory, vassal or tenant, by which he consents, upon the alienation of an estate, to receive a new lord or superior, and transfers to him his homage and service. - Webster's 1828 Dictionary.

ATTORNMENT n. the transference of bailor status, tenancy, or (arch.) allegiance, service, etc., to another; formal acknowledgement of such transfer: lme. - Oxford English Dictionary 1999.

3). From the word advocate comes the meaning of the occupation by the same name; one who pleads or defends by argument in a court.

ADVOCATE, v.t. [Latin advocatus, from advoco, to call for, to plead for; of ad and voco, to call. See Vocal.]
To plead in favor of; to defend by argument, before a tribunal; to support or vindicate. - Webster's 1828 Dictionary.

4). From the word "counsel" is derived the name and occupation of a ‘counselor’ or ‘lawyer’; one who is learned in the law to give advice in a court of law;

COUNSEL, v.t. [Latin. to consult; to ask, to assail.] 1. To give advice or deliberate opinion to another for the government of his conduct; to advise. - Webster's 1828 Dictionary.

LAWYER. A counselor; one learned in the law. - A Law Dictionary by John Bouvier (Revised Sixth Edition, 1856).

Although modern usage tends to group all these descriptive occupational words as the same, the fact is that they have different and distinctive meanings when used within the context of court activities:

Solicitor - one who petitions (initiates) for another in a court

Counselor - one who advises another concerning a court matter

Lawyer - [see counselor] learned in the law to advise in a court

Barrister - one who is privileged to plead at the bar

Advocate - one who pleads within the bar for a defendant

Attorney - one who transfers or assigns, within the bar, another's rights & property acting on behalf of the ruling crown (government)

It's very clear that an attorney is not a lawyer. The lawyer is a learned counselor who advises. The ruling government appoints an attorney as one who transfers a tenant's rights, allegiance, and title to the land owner (government).

Feudal Tenancy

If you think you are a landowner in America, take a close look at the warranty deed or fee title to your land. You will almost always find the words "tenant" or "tenancy." The title or deed document establishing your right as a tenant, not that of a landowner, has been prepared for transfer by a licensed BAR Attorney, just as it was carried out within the original English feudal system we presumed we had escaped from in 1776.

A human being is the tenant to a feudal superior. A feudal tenant is a legal person who pays rent or services of some sort for the use and occupation of another's land. The land has been conveyed to the tenant's use, but the actual ownership remains with the superior. If a common person does not own what he thought was his land (he's legally defined as a "feudal tenant," not the superior owner), then a superior person owns the land and the feudal tenant - person pays him to occupy the land.

This is the hidden Feudal Law in America. When a person (a.k.a. human being, corporation, natural person, partnership, association, organization, etc.) pays taxes to the tax assessor of the civil county or city government (also a person), it is a payment to the superior land owner for the right to be a tenant and to occupy the land belonging to the superior. If this were not so, then how could a local government sell the house and land of a person for not rendering his services (taxes)?

We used to think that there was no possible way feudal law could be exercised in America, but the facts have proven otherwise. It's no wonder they hid the definition of a human being behind the definition of a man. The next time you enter into an agreement or contract with another person (legal entity), look for the keywords person, individual, and natural person describing who you are.

Are you the entity the other person claims you are? When you "appear" before their jurisdiction and courts, you have agreed that you are a legal person unless you show them otherwise. You will have to deny that you are the person and state who you really are. Is the flesh and blood standing there in that courtroom a person by their legal definition?

British Accredited Registry (BAR)?

During the middle 1600's, the Crown of England established a formal registry in London where barristers were ordered by the Crown to be accredited. The establishment of this first International Bar Association allowed barrister-lawyers from all nations to be formally recognized and accredited by the only recognized accreditation society. From this, the acronym BAR was established denoting (informally) the British Accredited Registry, whose members became a powerful and integral force within the International Bar Association (IBA). Although this has been denied repeatedly as to its existence, the acronym BAR stood for the British barrister-lawyers who were members of the larger IBA.

When America was still a chartered group of British colonies under patent - established in what was formally named the British Crown territory of New England - the first British Accredited Registry (BAR) was established in Boston during 1761 to attempt to allow only accredited barrister-lawyers access to the British courts of New England. This was the first attempt to control who could represent defendants in the court at or within the bar in America.

Today, each corporate STATE in America has it's own BAR Association, i.e. The Florida Bar or the California Bar, that licenses government officer attorneys, NOT lawyers. In reality, the U.S. courts only allow their officer attorneys to freely enter within the bar while prohibiting those learned of the law - lawyers - to do so. They prevent advocates, lawyers, counselors, barristers and solicitors from entering through the outer bar. Only licensed BAR Attorneys are permitted to freely enter within the bar separating the people from the bench because all BAR Attorneys are officers of the court itself. Does that tell you anything?

Here's where the whole word game gets really tricky. In each State, every licensed BAR Attorney calls himself an Attorney at Law. Look at the definitions above and see for yourself that an Attorney at Law is nothing more than an attorney - one who transfers allegiance and property to the ruling land owner.

Another name game they use is "of counsel," which means absolutely nothing more than an offer of advice. Surely, the mechanic down the street can do that! Advice is one thing; lawful representation is another.

A BAR licensed Attorney is not an advocate, so how can he do anything other than what his real purpose is? He can't plead on your behalf because that would be a conflict of interest. He can't represent the crown (ruling government) as an official officer at the same time he is allegedly representing a defendant. His sworn duty as a BAR Attorney is to transfer your ownership, rights, titles, and allegiance to the land owner. When you hire a BAR Attorney to represent you in their courts, you have hired an officer of that court whose sole purpose and occupation is to transfer what you have to the creator and authority of that court. A more appropriate phrase would be legal plunder.

The official duties of an Esquire

Let's not forget that all U.S. BAR Attorneys have entitled themselves, as a direct result of their official BAR license and oaths, with the British title of "esquire." This word is a derivative of the British word "squire."

SQUIRE, n. [a popular contraction of esquire] 1. In Great Britain, the title of a gentleman next in rank to a knight. 2. In Great Britain, an attendant on a noble warrior. 3. An attendant at court. 4. In the United States, the title of magistrates and lawyers. In New-England, it is particularly given to justices of the peace and judges. - Webster's 1828 Dictionary.

ESQUIRE n. Earlier as squire n.1 lme. [Origin French. esquier (mod. écuyer) f. Latin scutarius shield - bearer, f. scutum shield: see - ary 1.] 1. Orig. (now Hist.), a young nobleman who, in training for knighthood, acted as shield-bearer and attendant to a knight. Later, a man belonging to the higher order of English gentry, ranking next below a knight. lme. b Hist. Any of various officers in the service of a king or nobleman. c A landed proprietor, a country squire. arch. - Oxford English Dictionary 1999.

During the English feudal laws of land ownership and tenancy, a squire - esquire - was established as the land proprietor charged with the duty of carrying out, among various other duties, the act of attornment [see definition above] for the land owner and nobleman he served. Could this be any simpler for the average American to understand? If our current U.S. BAR Attorneys were just lawyers, solicitors, barristers, advocates or counselors, then they would call themselves the same. They have named themselves just exactly what they are, yet we blindly cannot see the writing on the wall.

The BAR Attorneys have not hidden this from anyone. That's why they deliberately call themselves "Esquires" and "Attorneys at law." It is the American people who have hidden their own heads in the sand.

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?

We must all refuse to recognize their royal position as Squires and refuse to hire them as our representatives and agents. They can't plead or argue for you anyway; all they can do is oversee the act of attornment on behalf of the ruling government whom they serve as official officers. Nothing stops your neighbor from being a barrister or lawyer. No real law prohibits any of us from being lawyers! Even Abraham Lincoln was a well-recognized lawyer, yet he had no formal law degree. Let the BAR Attorneys continue in their jobs as property transfer agent-officers for the State, but if no defendant hires them, they'll have to get new jobs or they'll starve. Fire your BAR Attorney and represent yourself as your own lawyer, or hire any non-BAR-licensed lawyer to assist you from outside the courtroom bar.

Refuse to acknowledge all judges who are also licensed BAR Attorneys. Every judge in Florida State is a member of the Florida BAR. This is unlawful and unconstitutional as a judge cannot be an Esquire nor can he represent any issue in commerce, such as that of the State. Every Florida State judge has compromised his purported neutral and impartial judicial position by being a State Officer through his BAR licensure. This is an unlawful monopoly of power and commerce.

The Unauthorized Practice of Law

Fire your BAR Attorney. Refuse to acknowledge their corrupt inner-bar courts of thievery. Formally charge them with the illegal act of practicing law without lawful authority. Why? A BAR Attorney is not a lawyer by lawful definition. An Esquire is an officer of the State with the duty to carry out State activities, including "attornment."

State officers have no constitutional authority to practice law as lawyers, barristers, advocates, or solicitors. Americans should begin formally charging these false lawyers with unlawfully practicing the profession of law since their BAR licenses only give them the privilege to be Attorneys and Squires over land transfers.

Related

The Treasonous International Bar Association (Feb. 26, 2005)

(But ya, HostileDude, I can hear your assinine comments now. Go ahead, post more minutia. Seems you've made an ass of yourself since comment one.... Everything I've posted has been done with research of at least two other sites. How many times here have you even bothered to post anything of value...?? NEVER.. In all my posts did you ever once - POST ANYTHING OF VALUE OR PROVIDE ACCURATE INFORMATION FROM A VALID SOURCE...?? No, never. Wanna argue about that one o' wise one, go back and look at your posts and replies.. I don't see even one link or copy / paste of an article in all your bullshit.. Even one other poster here has agreed that the banning of lawyers from government - by constitutional amendment - is still there. At least he PROVIDED information - that if you have the smallest amount of research skills - you could look it up for yourself.. Soooo, go ahead, make my day. I'll be around. ........t)

trucksterbud

Yr welcome. In an effort to assist your search for truth, be advised that you have to look past the smoke and mirrors. Have you ever researched the Accepted 4 Value concept..?? In it, you learn the true meaning of all this fake and fictitous system we live in. In reality, its all a lie. Based on debt and service to our English masters.

Sometimes, it is necessary to compile information from several sources. Into one collosal jumble, and then make sense of it for yourself.

Sources:

31 Questions and Answers about the IRS
Why Hillary Clinton is aligned with the UN Gun Grabbing Treaty
Agents of a Foreign Government - A Bizarre Saga
www.UNITEDSTATESINCORPORATED.htm (I think this is the right one. If not, send me a post and I'll find the right one..)
DeFacto Law and The Great Lie

HistorianDude

Hint #1: There is no more certain demonstration of ignorance, than when a person suggests that because something is on the Internet, it must be true.

trucksterbud

Really..?? And because you said it, it makes it "Ignorance..??" How - stupid, ignorant, etc. - is that..?? Are you related to Glaucon or JMHO....?? Just as small minded.

Hey stick around awhile.. You may actually learn something. If you have conflicting or altering information on the facts as presented, please, enlighten me...

trucksterbud

This has nothing to do with the original argument, does it...?? Oh, and BTW, by your own quote, "just because something is available on the internet doesn't make it absolute truth." (your quote delusionaldude. I love it. Keep posting, you keep proving how absolutely strange you really are. Here's a hint. Help the conversation, provide additional information, supportive information, or GTF out... (GTF = Get The Fuck ))

HistorianDude

Really.


Use your words. I think you're confabulating your "its" there.


Hard to tell. Your comment was about as clear as mud.


Could be. I come from a very large family.


It's one thing to have an open mind. It's another to let your brains fall out on the floor.


Okay... everything in your post was fiction. There is no need to provide evidence to refute it, since no evidence exists for it in the first place. Every time those silly claims have been attempted in a court of law, they have failed. That alone poves them to be stupid.

HistorianDude

Actually, yeah, it does.

And court decisions are not just something "available on the Internet." They are binding legal precedent, actually available directly from the court.

trucksterbud

Ceretainly in awe of your supreme intellect. Perhaps you should refrain from posting here as you are soooo intellectually superior to EVERYONE else here... Just sayin