Philosophical Objectives Of The Representarian Party- Part Twenty-Four

Philosophical Objectives Of The Representarian Party- Part Twenty-Four

When an individual(s) chooses to present his own case, he/she must insist on the removal of the gold/yellow fringe flag in the court room. There are certain people who claim that the fringe on the flag has no meaning and it is in existence for decorative purposes only. That simply is not the case because this is not a conspiracy theory, it is an ironclad fact.

Read the following. Dwight Eisenhower signed Executive Order No.10834 on August 21, 1959 and recorded it in the Federal Register at Volume 24 F.R. Pages 6865 & 6867 pursuant to the law. That E.O. does not mention at all the gold/yellow fringe in its requirements for the flag.

Look at Title Four, U.S.C. Chapter One Section 1 & Section 2, It clearly states that this fringe is not authorized on the flag it depicts as the official U.S. flag. Furthermore, Section 3 in this title clearly stated that this fringe is a mutilation.

The yellow fringe is no decoration. It means individual(s) are in a jurisdiction that is foreign to the U.S. Constitution. It means unless there are specific laws that restrain a judge from certain conduct, he/she as de facto commander in-chief of that court can utilize his/her discretion in the adjudication of cases.

That is why individual(s) who present their case as Sui Juris must insist in the removal of that flag so that they can plead in a jurisdiction that respects their basic rights and sovereignty. It must be noted an attorney at-law is indeed an officer of this admiralty/maritime court and is in existence to uphold the administration of this admiralty/maritime court. An attorney at-law will never uphold the constitutionally-protected rights of a client because in these courts, those rights simply do not exist. Instead only privileges, as deemed by the court administration, exist.

The official flag as defines in the U.S. Constitution, E,O.10834, and Title 4 U.S.C. has no fringe. This jurisdiction must be challenged or individual(s) will considered a ward of the court. The courts become colorable and then they have basically de facto power under color of law.

In a de jure court, the courts are restricted by the rule of the law. In a de facto court, unless there is a specific law that restricts a specific act by the court administration, the court administration can function at its own discretion. Moreover, the written law and even common law are considered guidelines for the court administration but are not absolute mandates in de facto courts. In plain words, judicial discretion is above all written law.