US Justice System Controlled by British Maritime Law ?

I am in the midst of reading a book called "Tales From the Time Loop", by David Icke. In it he speaks of the US Court system being operated under the UCC (Uniform Commercial Code), which is also known as British Maritime (Military) Law.

On the US Flag, Icke reveals that when said flag has a GOLD FRINGE, it is indeed a LEGAL symbol stating that the aforementioned court is sitting under British Maritime Law and the UCC.
Therefore NOT sitting under COMMON or CONSTITUTIONAL Law!

He states that under the Admiralty Law of Flags, a flag displayed indicates the law under which an entity is regulated.

So, if you appear in acourt with a gold fringed flag your constitutional rights are suspended in lieu of the UCC and BML!

Unfortuanately LEGALese is not one of my strong points.

Does anyone have any insight they might be able to share with me, as I literally have just read this and have not the faculties to read through LEGAL texts and research. Laws are worded in very complex terms and I admit I do not grasp law codes just by browsing them!

This seems HUUUUUUUUGGGGGGE 2 me.
A BIIIIIIIIIGGG deal!

[edit on 8-10-2005 by John bull 1]

This thread shed a lot of light on flags and their display for me a while back. There's a great link to Thomas Paine's "Introduction to Common Sense" in there, as well.

Flag Thread

I found it interesting to note that Pres. Bush had three US flags arrayed behind him in his speech from the rose garden this week. One had the gold fringe, and the other two, farther back, had no fringe. Does it mean anything? I don't know.

[edit on 8-10-2005 by Icarus Rising]

My roomate and I are investigating this.

I will disclose what we find; as we find it.

And keep this thread alive.

Just gonna take some time.

Yeah. I just watched XXX2. I'm a Tupac fan.

Darius Stone: Wars come and go, but my soldiers stay eternal.

Agent Gibbons: I like that. Who said it? Jefferson? Patton?

Darius Stone: Tupac

from XXX2

Raised as a youth
tell truth
I got tha scoop....

And it is the rich who control the British...

So even if it is true, it is still a loop with the same Big Business on top.

I have overlooked this post for some time now and just decided today to click on it and much to my surprise found your posting.

Very astute of you to mention the gold fringe on the flag. Yes... I have known about this for many years now. Also about Admiralty law enroaching on the land from the sea.
Admiralty Law is one of the facets of British Colonial rule which the Colonists found so objectionable. They would be tried before a council of hack Governor appointees many of them military appointees. No council or jury of ones peers to pass judgement on evidence presented.
Admiralty law today in our court system has alot to do with priveleges granted by the state or soverign unto thier subjects You are tried before a judge to make it look official. From a file folder ..no jury. Drivers licenses , Marriage licenses, fishing/hunting licenses etc etc etc...all Admiralty Law..no jurys. Now you can request a jury but most judges will not grant so as it takes up alot of time and moneys. You see...the way this basically works..is that if you dont have the license....you have "not" applied for the privelege...they have no jurisdiction over you. One of the main license numbers by which Government grants priveleges to subjects in America is your social security number. This is your official license number. It is in some states called your control number. This is not a knowlege made public to most of us.
Mind you now ..this is not a knowlege or education you will get in public school because the government pays for most of the schooling in this country. Why on earth would they create a system to let the subjects get out of the zoo. Why would they want you thinking and operating independently of thier control mechanism..in schooling, in the voting booth, in any public arena, in spending in earning..et al...etc etc etc. Governments do not like independents. Period.
Admiralty law is but one facet of this dependence on government as the solution to everything. This is why so few people can find this stone hidden among the stones. Its right in front of them.

Thanks,
Orangetom

To me this, along with things like the electoral college, are absolute, crystal clear facts showing the entire "Democracy" and political / judicial system is an absolute sham.

People tend to ignore things like the electoral college and instead embrace their illusions like a child embraces its favorite teddy bear or blanky.

Unequivocal proof...

I must say however, the omni-deception that I am becoming aware of, it is exquisite in its obviousness. In other words, as was just stated, these things are in front of everyone's nose, and I see this is almost exquisitely perfect manipulation in itself.

Fascinating...
It has to stop...

orangetom1999:
Do you know at what point the colonists adopted this that they found so objectionable, for their own courts?
Or are you implying the colonists never gained independence and Colonial rule has always ruled USA?
Interesting, either way...

What does that say about people like "the founding fathers"?
Who were these men?

UPDATE:
Had to go to traffic court last week...
Saw the fringe...
Chose a respectable demeanor instead of challenging the judge with my knowledge...
Not gonna lie...
But it would have been cool if I started grandstanding like Stephen Colbert, and exposed the travesties...
But I had enough fines to pay!

[edit on 10/24/2005 by theBLESSINGofVISION]

To my knowlege the founders found that they could not do away entirely with the concept of Admiralty courts. Their fear was that these type of courts would take over and do away with common law courts where one is gauranteed a jury of ones peers. This is in fact pretty much what has happened as the history of this country clearly indicates that in some cases it is possible to stack the jury or as in other cases to stack the judge. So you see there are times when even a jury is a moot point...especially in high profile political cases.
Since FDR more and more cases have taken place in admiralty courts and this mantra has been taken over by the state courts and finally the local courts. In addition to this since the Omnibus Crime act ..sometime back in the Reagan Administration many crimes that used to be state and local are now Federal in nature.
This is also the nature of the publics concerns with the Patriot Act...which may be a sleeping dog. Total Admiralty Law in matters of national security.No trial, no jury of peers, ...just a panel of Admiralty Judges functioning for the state.
So you see it is possible to keep the facade of legality while preserving the absolute power of the state. Not far from what happened in Ancient Rome.
After all ,Blessings of Vision, how many people would even know what the difference is in legal and lawful. How many people would know what is law or a legal fiction..sometimes called fiction of law??
Good post on your part. A concept hidden right in front of the public without them even knowing about it. This is sometimes called "occult".

Thanks,
Orangetom

Originally posted by theBLESSINGofVISION
I am in the midst of reading a book called "Tales From the Time Loop", by David Icke. In it he speaks of the US Court system being operated under the UCC (Uniform Commercial Code), which is also known as British Maritime (Military) Law.

On the US Flag, Icke reveals that when said flag has a GOLD FRINGE, it is indeed a LEGAL symbol stating that the aforementioned court is sitting under British Maritime Law and the UCC.
Therefore NOT sitting under COMMON or CONSTITUTIONAL Law!

He states that under the Admiralty Law of Flags, a flag displayed indicates the law under which an entity is regulated.

So, if you appear in acourt with a gold fringed flag your constitutional rights are suspended in lieu of the UCC and BML!

Unfortuanately LEGALese is not one of my strong points.

Does anyone have any insight they might be able to share with me, as I literally have just read this and have not the faculties to read through LEGAL texts and research. Laws are worded in very complex terms and I admit I do not grasp law codes just by browsing them!

This seems HUUUUUUUUGGGGGGE 2 me.
A BIIIIIIIIIGGG deal!

[edit on 8-10-2005 by John bull 1]

Well if your reading Icke you can not be very far considering you find THIS to be a "huge deal". This thus tie in perfectly with who really controls the Federal reserve and seems to make clear who owns who on the whole.....

Some good Quotes and if your really interested do read as much as you can on this page.

Was too much for me to really check for accuracy but it does mesh rather well with material i can and will vouch for....

Anyways!

Stellar

[edit on 29-10-2005 by StellarX]

I have bookmarked those two links for later reading having just skimmed over them briefly before this posting. Thanks for the links.

I have several of those publications from the Federal Reserve banks including the one mentioned

Modern money mechanics.

This one as I recall was originally published by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. Also I have " The National Debt" and Keys to the Gold Vault, Money in Colonial New England...also by various Fed Reserve Banks.
Very intresting publications.
The Federal Reserve Banks used to publish a catalogue which you can request by mail and they will send them to you. They used to be free. You then begin ordering thier publications from this catalogue which is obviously how I acquirred mine. Some of them are quite intresting and telling.

I have read several books on this subjet area going back to Tupper Saucys book Miracle on Main Street..published back in the late 1970s as i recall.

I am aware of the fiat money system also fractional reserves and also have read JOhn Maynard Keynes book Economic Consequences of the peace about the Versailles Treaty and inflation after WW!.

I am not a big John Maynard Keynes fan ..more of a Adam Smith ,Austrian School of Economics fan...but I am aware of some of what Keynes speaks about in his books.
Ironic that he made his millions on inflation and then wrote books against it.

Thanks for your post and the links,
Orangetom

Originally posted by orangetom1999
I have bookmarked those two links for later reading having just skimmed over them briefly before this posting. Thanks for the links.

Well mine are still bookmarked ( with a few thousand others) so that's why i can so readily find and pass them on.

I have several of those publications from the Federal Reserve banks including the one mentioned

Modern money mechanics.

This one as I recall was originally published by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. Also I have " The National Debt" and Keys to the Gold Vault, Money in Colonial New England...also by various Fed Reserve Banks.
Very intresting publications.
The Federal Reserve Banks used to publish a catalogue which you can request by mail and they will send them to you. They used to be free. You then begin ordering thier publications from this catalogue which is obviously how I acquirred mine. Some of them are quite intresting and telling.

Well i guess i would have to be very many years older to have gathered such great resources!

I have read several books on this subjet area going back to Tupper Saucys book Miracle on Main Street..published back in the late 1970s as i recall.

I am aware of the fiat money system also fractional reserves and also have read JOhn Maynard Keynes book Economic Consequences of the peace about the Versailles Treaty and inflation after WW!.

Well feel free to send some of the better links my way as everyone put their links together from a certain perspective and that makes for great reading.

I am not a big John Maynard Keynes fan ..more of a Adam Smith ,Austrian School of Economics fan...but I am aware of some of what Keynes speaks about in his books.

Well both of them ( especially Smith) would hate what their names have been used to sell to the public and i can but wonder what Smith would have had to say about global groups being able to control the local market in open contradiction to what he had in mind. The way their words have been twisted over the years is quite suprising and certainly took concerted effort...

Ironic that he made his millions on inflation and then wrote books against it.

Thanks for your post and the links,
Orangetom

Well you can fight the system but first you need the power and given you understand what your figthing you can likely first use it to make yourself rich and later use the power so gained for your own aims. While this is probably not something the weak minded should try we can all probably agree he was never that! That being said he could have probably gotten rich wichever way he wanted and it's hard to earn any easier than that.

"When I argued with him I felt that I took my life in my hands, and I seldom emerged without feeling something of a fool" -- Bertrand Russell

Always something special when a not-at-all average person calls another not at all average.

Glad you can use the links and if you keep posting i might very well be inspired go read a few dozen related links that's waiting for me...

Stellar

To my limited knowlege of history..the money powers ..or money changers going back in ancient history have been operating since before the time of
ancient Rome causing deficits and control over so called soverign governments. Thus getting them to do thier will.
Somewhere along the line they moved into the buisness of information gathering which also helped them control markets and hence other governments. They seem to constantly have advanced information as to the fates of governments. Their positions were secure before the governments fell and also they were often in a position to finance the government that took over. In otherwords they became a government by default. ONe not often seen by the public being ruled. They get thier people into the key government offices or become handlers for the people
who are in government offices.

The most important thing to note is that they always tend twords a phoney fiat money system and ultimately today twords a total electronic money system...total fiat.
Historically any leader or nation which tried to go back to a sound gold/silver money system found itself at war with the nations still using the phoney money systems. This is a curious fact missing from most history books. Gold/silver moneys reduces the influence of this type of banking and control and puts power back in the hands of the people. These people do not like a system of Just weights and measures..they prefer a phoney system...and getting away from a system of just weights and measures.
Nations using gold and silver moneys ..find themselves with people and nations wanting to trade with them ..because they have good money. The other way around you find people not wanting to hold phoney money especially when the value of the money goes through the bottom ...which is happening to our dollar here in the US. People dont want to hold dollars ..they would rather have anything but dollars. Hence the tendency of nations with dollars to buy up America..they want anything but the dollars. Notice ..our government and educational system dont inform us of what this means!!!! This is very telling ..notice this in the news occasionally....beware!!!

Thanks,
Orangetom

Well it would seem we are very much on the same page with the only unresolved question being wether we translated correctly and how many pages we missed.

If you ever find the time you HAVE to start reading Dr Peter Beter's work.

peterbeter.host.sk... If he was correct in even 10% of his claims (and according to my fact checking it's far far more accurate than that) it would make for a great learning experience. Let's just say i was stunned and i have read some of Icke's stuff!

Stellar

I guess I should help you all on this note.

According to the United States Constitution, Article 3, Section 2, Clause 1: "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of Admiralty and Maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States, between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects".

What is Admiralty: "The name of a jurisdiction which takes cognizance of suits or actions which arise in consequence of acts done upon or relating to the sea; or, in other words, of all transactions and proceedings relative to commerce and navigation, and to damages or injuries upon the sea. In the great maritime nations of Europe, the term 'admiralty jurisdiction,' is, uniformly applied to courts exercising jurisdiction over maritime contracts and concerns. It is as familiarly known among the jurists of Scotland, France, Holland and Spain, as of England, and applied to their own courts, possessing substantially the same jurisdiction as the English Admiralty had in the reign of Edward III.

The Constitution of the United States has delegated to the courts of the national government cognizance 'of all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;' and the act of September 24, 1789, has given the district court 'cognizance of all civil causes of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction,' including all seizures under laws of imposts, navigation or trade of the United States, where the seizures are made on waters navigable from the sea, by vessels of ten or more tons burden, within their respective districts, as well as upon the high seas"

Source

I suggest you read that link above there.

The British and our Legal Courts do not rule the United States. This arguement, primarily about the Gold Fringe, was first pushed forward by people wishing to stop paying tax to the Government. They argued that due to the 'Gold Fringe' they didn't have to listen to the legal system even though the constitution is against them.

Well thanks for the very specific information you provided; i know that took time.

However specific the constitution was when it was first drawn up do any of us really beleive that many laws have not allready been changed in practice? I there for instance any article in the constitution that allows the Federal government to pay interest on money printed by a private corporation for distribution or use? The constitution was obviously drawn up with very specific rules in mind but how does that prove what happens in reality today?

Thanks again for the post and i hope you can clarify as to why you think laws prevents the possibility of crime or dictates possibility. I guess it could be that you just see no evidence that this is in fact happening?

Stellar

Actually, StellarX, if you have seen any of my Op/Ed's, I think we are nearing a Police State. In fact, it is something which worries me however this thread is focusing on the wrong thing in my views and this only allows more harm to be done.

While we all stare at the 'Gold Fringe' at Maritime Law they are slipping the new patriot act through under the radar...

The British Government do not control the United States. I work in our legal system and I have seen cases which are related to the admiralty court [High Court of England and Wales].

This is another case of waving a red flag, in front of a bull. We are charging at the flag well the real crimes slip right passed us.

Originally posted by Odium
Actually, StellarX, if you have seen any of my Op/Ed's, I think we are nearing a Police State. In fact, it is something which worries me however this thread is focusing on the wrong thing in my views and this only allows more harm to be done.

snip - snip
.

Well i can see why your worried as most people tend to have short memmories and no attention spans to speak off! I guess what we were talking about is how most countries are not independent ( and have not been for thousands of years) and that a American police state would not be some isolated event but just part of a global movement towards a one world government of some nature.

We went far off topic and small matters like admirality courts is truly unimportant to me when the Federal reserve bank has so many foreign banks and money interest benefiting. What OT (hope you don't mind) and me seem to agree on is that America was not independant for very long, in any true sense of the word, and that the power centers are still where they have always been.

And here is why , once again, we should follow the money in the words of men who still knew how to use them.

"The money powers prey upon the nation in times of peace and conspire against it in times of
adversity. It is more despotic than a monarchy, more insolent than autocracy, and more selfish than
bureaucracy. It denounces as public enemies, all who question it's methods or throw light upon it's
crimes. I have two great enemies, the Southern Army in front of me and the Bankers in the rear. Of
the two, the one at my rear is my greatest foe..corporations have been enthroned and an era of
corruption in high places will follow, and the money powers of the country will endeavor to prolong
it's reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until the wealth is aggregated in the hands of
a few, and the Republic is destroyed. --Abraham Lincoln

"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies.
Already they have raised up a monied aristocracy that has set the government at defiance. The
issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly
belongs." -- Thomas Jefferson


"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of currency, first by
inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive
the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers
conquered."-- Thomas Jefferson

Do keep posting as i do think i understand your fears....

Stellar

Originally posted by theBLESSINGofVISION
orangetom1999:
Do you know at what point the colonists adopted this that they found so objectionable, for their own courts?

Or are you implying the colonists never gained independence and Colonial rule has always ruled USA?

I believe the US has been using its flags to send messages to the British for quite some time. Our first official flag, 1775-1777, didn't have stars in the blue field- it had the St. George and St Andrew's crosses which you see on a british flag. That' even after the declaration of independence remember. That flag was almost a dead ringer for the East India Company's naval jack.

After that, the Stars were arranged in the shape of the St George and St Andrew's crosses.

The last real hint of the British Union Jack didn't vanish from out flag until 1818, when the admission of 5 new states brought us to a simple 5x4 pattern of stars.

At first the message seemed to be "This is still British land, it's just rebelling". As we progressed the message came to be one of two things, and you'll have to decide which for yourself. Either 1. "We remember where we came from, and we're still Britain's friends". or 2. "This is still British land, it's just won its autonomy".

The British didn't have to give up the fight after Yorktown. They could have come back with more men and more ships to see to it that the French couldn't save our butt again. It's not impossible that our founding fathers offered the British certain assurances in exchange for peace. The war didn't begin being about independence, only about having certain aspects of our autonomy respected.
A rumor even circulated while the constitution was being drafted (it was done in secret) that perhaps the delegates were planning to make George III's second son President for life. That's why the deligates included the requirement that one must reside in America for 14 years and either be native or a citizen at the time of the constitution's adoption in order to become president. It's a persistent myth that this was included to screw Alex Hamilton out of the presidency, but actually he was eligible.

So there is some questionable reason to wonder if maybe we cut a deal just shy of independence.

UPDATE:
Had to go to traffic court last week...
Saw the fringe...
Chose a respectable demeanor instead of challenging the judge with my knowledge...
Not gonna lie...
But it would have been cool if I started grandstanding like Stephen Colbert, and exposed the travesties...
But I had enough fines to pay!

[edit on 10/24/2005 by theBLESSINGofVISION]

I remember the first time I noticed that flag in a traffic court too. Kinda unnerved me. I thought about making a scene. I knew i'd be fined for contempt, and I thought "well good- I don't recognize that judge's friggin rule against sedition, and i'll tell him so". Then I realized he'd probably have me held for a day or two if i said that. I was still kicking it all around in my head when I found out that the cop hadn't shown, so I just stayed very very quiet and let the judge dismiss my case.

I always have wanted to go nuts in a court room though. "I'm fining you 500 dollars for contempt!"
"$500 dollars wouldn't pay for half the contempt I have for this court!"
Yeah, that'd be sweet... except for the arresting, and the resisting, and the tazering, and the beating, and the soddomizing, and ultimately the jail sentence... and um... probably some more soddomizing then. Yeah I think maybe I'll just bite my tongue.

(Source)
The Internet contains many sites that claim that the fringe indicates martial law or that the Constitution does not apply in that area. These are entirely unfounded (usually citing Executive Order 10834 and inventing text that is not part of the order) and should be dismissed as urban legends.

The yellow fringe is meaningless. Please do your part to stop spreading this completely unfounded myth.

Zip

Well, I guess there's only one thing to do, given Zipdot's post, although I haven't the foggiest idea where I'll find the time in the immediate future.

I'll get back to you guys if I can locate a reliable copy of executive order 10834, and Army Regulation AR 840-10 (as of 1979). The second of those two items has been purported to state:

"the Flag is trimmed on three sides with Fringe of Gold, 2 1/2 inches wide," and that, "such flags are flown indoors, ONLY in military courtrooms." And that the Gold Fringed Flag is not to be carried by anyone except units of the United States Army, and the United States Army division associations."