Ryan Watson

Analyst. Troubleshooter. Finder of things. Tweeting about religion, wrasslin, and politics. Mostly Wrasslin'.

[VisionaryVoid @VisionaryVoid]

He Was First a Victim. Then He Ran the Con for 15 Years.

In 1915, an Iowa farmer named Oscar Hartzell let a pair of grifters talk his mother out of $6,000. The pitch: her money would secure a share of the unclaimed estate of Sir Francis Drake, 300 years compounded, worth millions. When Hartzell realized it was a scam, he didn't go to the police. He fired the con artists and took over the operation himself.

He contacted every Iowan with the surname Drake and told them they were heirs to a fortune. He claimed the estate, which he valued at $100 billion, had been suppressed by the British government for centuries and all it needed was a proper legal campaign. Every dollar donated would return $500. The inheritance package would include the entire city of Plymouth, Devon. Tens of thousands of ordinary Midwesterners sent him everything they had.

Around 1924, Hartzell moved to London to "negotiate" with the Crown and lived like a lord. His agents in Iowa collected the donations and wired them over. When the British Home Office formally told the American Embassy in 1922 that no unclaimed Drake estate existed, Hartzell simply invented a fictional Colonel Drexel Drake as the true heir, and the money kept coming. The FBI then confirmed that Drake's widow had inherited his estate in 1597, the year after he died. The donations accelerated during the Depression. Desperate investors sent more, not less.

When John Maynard Keynes published an article in 1930 noting that Elizabeth I had once invested Drake's plunder for the benefit of the Crown, Hartzell's agents reprinted it as official confirmation of the whole scheme.

Scotland Yard and the US Postal Service eventually collaborated to bring him down. He was deported, tried in Sioux City in 1933, convicted, and sentenced to ten years at Leavenworth.

His followers raised $68,000 for his defense. After his conviction, his Iowa agents collected another $500,000 in donations, from people who believed the verdict was a British conspiracy to suppress the Drake heirs. Hartzell died in a federal prison hospital in 1943, still insisting he was innocent. No one ever got their money back.

He proved that the best insurance against disbelief is a story people want too badly to be true.

[Ryan Watson @boogdoc7]

@jeretics God did something amazing with Paul's conversion. He turned probably the brightest Jewish star to His side. Paul was both zealous AND genius in the OT.

[Ryan Watson @boogdoc7]

@redbeard172023 In other words, you can't prove anyone actually achieved it.

Make a claim, back it up.

[Ryan Watson @boogdoc7]

@redbeard172023 Prove someone even got that done. Prove someone got the money moved for any reason.

[Ryan Watson @boogdoc7]

@redbeard172023 Doesn't answer the question. I'll even expand it. Has anyone drawn on or used it to balance as you say?

[Pr0ve Me Wrong @Exiting12DJail]

Gold Fringe Flag = Admiralty / Maritime Jurisdiction.

This is False

This post will address the admiralty claim in detail—starting with how jurisdiction actually works, then examining the official authorities, and finally reviewing what federal courts have said.

The claim that a gold-fringed American flag in a courtroom means the court is operating under admiralty or maritime law is by far the most common and most believed myth about the gold fringe flag.

Because this claim is so widespread and so damaging, I have decided to dedicate a standalone post to debunking it.

The next post will address the remaining 9 myths about the gold fringe flag, but this claim deserves its own treatment.

Here is the truth about the admiralty/maritime claim.

1. Subject Matter Jurisdiction: How the Plaintiff, Not the Flag, Sets the Court's Authority

Before we even talk about admiralty or maritime law, we need to understand the most basic structural principle of any court:

The subject matter of the case — not the flag, not the judge, not the room — determines the court’s jurisdiction.

For a court to have authority over a case, it must possess what the law calls "subject matter jurisdiction."

This simply means the court must have the legal power to hear the specific type of case you are bringing. Until a case is filed, the court has no jurisdiction. The action itself establishes it.

This is the first crucial point—and the simplest way to understand jurisdiction.

A court's jurisdiction is not determined by whether a flag has gold fringe. It is not determined by any decoration in the courtroom. It is determined entirely by what the subject matter of a case is about.

Now, here is the second crucial point—and one of the most important facts to understand.

Courts have subject‑matter limits set by law, but they do not 'switch' jurisdictions based on symbols or decorations. The jurisdiction applied in any given case depends entirely on the subject matter of the filing.

No court has a fixed, permanent jurisdiction.

It is not something a court possesses inherently. A court is a blank slate until an action is filed. Then, and only then, does the court's jurisdiction become established—based entirely on what the plaintiff has alleged and the type of controversy presented.

Let me say that one more time:

The jurisdiction is triggered by the nature of the controversy alleged by the plaintiff, not by the court's preference.

The plaintiff chooses the forum. The plaintiff chooses the claim. The plaintiff sets the subject matter. The court does not choose its jurisdiction—it responds to what the plaintiff brings.

2. Jurisdiction Comes From Law — Not Decorations

Jurisdiction is created by the Constitution and statutes passed by Congress or state legislatures. It is not created — or changed — by decorations hanging in a courtroom.

The courtroom, the judge, and the court itself were created by law. A piece of decorative fringe on a flag cannot override or change the jurisdiction that the Constitution and statutes established.

So even if a courtroom had:

- 10 gold‑fringe flags

- anchors on the walls

- a ship’s wheel behind the judge

It still would not be an admiralty court unless the case itself was maritime.

The created cannot override the creator. The Constitution is the creator of the court.

3. One Courtroom. One Flag. Multiple Jurisdictions

A judge can hear ten different cases in a single day, and each one may be filed under a different jurisdiction:

- One case may involve a violation of federal law (federal question jurisdiction)

- Another may involve a contract dispute between citizens of different states (diversity jurisdiction)

- Another may involve a collision at sea (admiralty jurisdiction)

- Another may involve a state law claim (state court jurisdiction)

If a plaintiff files a case involving a car accident, a contract dispute, a criminal charge, or a civil rights violation, the court is not sitting in admiralty.

The subject matter of the case does not support it.

The gold fringe on a flag does not change the subject matter of the case. It does not transform a car accident into a collision at sea. It does not turn a criminal charge into a maritime claim.

Jurisdiction follows the subject matter of a case, not the decorations being displayed in a courtroom.

If you can understand this fact, then you can understand that a court is only an admiralty or maritime court if the controversy being filed by the plaintiff contains an admiralty or a maritime claim.

The gold fringe on a flag cannot change that.

4. What Admiralty Jurisdiction Actually Is

Now that we understand jurisdiction follows the case, let’s define what admiralty jurisdiction actually requires by law.

Admiralty jurisdiction is not determined by decorations. It is established by statute and by the substance of the case.

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1333, federal district courts have original jurisdiction over:

- "Any civil case of admiralty or maritime jurisdiction"

- "Any prize (captured enemy ships during war) brought into the United States and all proceedings for the condemnation of property taken as prize"

Admiralty cases involve "maritime contracts, collisions at sea, and similar naval questions"—not normal civil and criminal cases.

5. There Is No Symbol for Jurisdiction

This is the point that makes the gold fringe claim collapse completely.

If gold fringe indicated admiralty jurisdiction, then courts without gold fringe would have to indicate something else—but they do not.

- There is no flag that signals "civil jurisdiction."

- There is no flag that signals "criminal jurisdiction."

- There is no flag that signals "domestic relations" or "probate" or "contracts."

The same courtroom—with the exact same flag—can hear a criminal case in the morning, a civil case in the afternoon, and an admiralty case the next day. The flag does not change. The fringe does not change. The jurisdiction changes because the subject matter of the case changes, not because someone swapped flags.

There is no symbol in the United States which indicates an admiralty court. While international treaties require that ships display the national flag, maritime flags never have fringe.

6. The Practical Impossibility

If the gold fringe truly indicated that a court was operating under admiralty or military jurisdiction, the legal system would face a logistical impossibility.

Judges with general jurisdiction hear criminal, civil, family, and probate cases daily—sometimes back-to-back in the same courtroom.

Does the court swap the flag for every case?

Does a judge remove the fringed flag to hear a criminal murder trial and replace it with a 'civil' flag for a contract dispute?

Of course not.

The flag remains static because it is merely decor.

Jurisdiction is determined by the law and the judge's authority, not by the tassels on a piece of cloth. The idea that a single static symbol could dictate the changing legal landscape of a courtroom is logically flawed.

7. What Jurisdiction Actually Is

The Cornell Legal Information Institute explains that jurisdiction is the power of a court to adjudicate cases, and it is "granted to it by the Constitution, and/or legislation of sovereignty on behalf of which it functions."

In other words:

"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." — State v. Saunders

Jurisdiction is determined by law, not by decorations. There is no symbol that announces the jurisdiction of a court. The claim that gold fringe announces admiralty jurisdiction has no basis in law or history.

Now that we’ve established how jurisdiction actually works, let’s look at what the official authorities say about gold fringe.

8. What Official Authorities Say About Gold Fringe

U.S. Army Institute of Heraldry (the official authority on U.S. flag design and etiquette):

"Gold fringe is used on the National flag as an honorable enrichment only. It is not regarded as an integral part of the flag and its use does not constitute an unauthorized addition to the design prescribed by statutes."

The Institute also makes it clear that gold fringe is proper for indoor display (ceremonial and indoor flags). It is generally not used for outdoor flags. This is a matter of display etiquette, not law or jurisdiction.

American Legion (in their official Flag Code FAQs):

"The courts have deemed without merit and frivolous, lawsuits that contend that the gold fringe adorning the flag conferred Admiralty/Maritime jurisdiction."

Flag Research Center (founded by renowned vexillologist Dr. Whitney Smith):

"Fringe is and always has been a purely decorative addition. It is an optional enhancement chosen for aesthetics, similar to choosing nylon over cotton fabric. From the standpoint of history and law, fringe on a flag has no symbolism."

"Admiralty courts deal only with maritime contracts, collisions at sea, and similar naval questions, not with normal civil and criminal cases."

U.S. Marine Corps Flag Manual (MCO P10520.3B):

The Marine Corps Flag Manual, which sets forth policies and procedures for the "design, acquisition, display and use of flags" in the Marine Corps, explicitly distinguishes between outdoor and indoor/ceremonial flags .

The manual's Table of Contents includes a section on "USE OF FRINGE" under "SECTION D: THE NATIONAL COLOR OR NATIONAL STANDARD" .

The Marine Corps' organizational battle standard is "trimmed on three sides with 2 1/2 inch golden yellow fringe" . General officers' distinguishing flags are also "trimmed with golden yellow fringe" for indoor display and ceremonial occasions.

This is purely a matter of display protocol and tradition—not a jurisdictional marker. The Marine Corps uses fringe on its own flags because it is a decorative, ceremonial addition.

If fringe truly indicated admiralty or military jurisdiction, the Marine Corps would have to explain why its own ceremonial flags are not under martial law. It does not. Because the fringe has no legal significance.

Additional observations:

A gold-fringed flag still contains the full constitutional design — 50 stars and 13 stripes. The fringe is simply an optional decorative border and does not "capture," "desecrate," or change the flag's legal status.

If you look at actual maritime flags used on ships, none of them have gold fringe. The fringe is strictly an indoor ceremonial addition, not a maritime symbol.

9. The U.S. Flag Code and 1925 Attorney General Opinion

The U.S. Flag Code (4 U.S.C. Chapter 1) does not mention gold fringe anywhere. Fringe is neither approved nor prohibited by law.

A 1925 U.S. Attorney General's opinion stated:

"The fringe does not appear to be regarded as an integral part of the Flag, and its presence cannot be said to constitute an unauthorized addition to the design prescribed by statute."

10. Federal Courts: Unanimous Rejection

Every court that has considered the admiralty claim has rejected it.

United States v. Greenstreet:

The court summarized its finding:

"Unfortunately for Defendant Greenstreet, decor is not a determinant for jurisdiction."

Leverenz v. Torluemlu (N.D. Tex. 1996):

U.S. District Judge Mary Lou Robinson dismissed the argument as "frivolous" and "without merit," writing:

"Unfortunately for [the] Defendant, decor is not a determinant for jurisdiction."

State v. Saunders (Del. Super. Ct. 2011):

The court stated:

"All the courts addressing arguments that yellow or gold fringe on a courtroom-displayed flag affects a court's jurisdiction have explicitly rejected those arguments."

The court further held:

"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."

Darrell Brooks Trial (Waukesha County, WI 2022):

When defendant Darrell Brooks argued that a gold-fringed flag indicated a military or admiralty court, Judge Jennifer Dorow responded:

"Mr. Brooks, I'm frankly not going to address these nonsense legal theories of yours. I'm muting you. They have been debunked. They are typical sovereign tactics that have no place in our judicial system."

This case proves that even in the most serious criminal trials, the gold fringe argument is recognized by judges not as a valid legal defense, but as a frivolous distraction that holds no sway over the law.

11. The Bottom Line

The gold fringe on a courtroom flag is purely decorative. It does not change the jurisdiction of the court, it does not suspend the Constitution, and it does not convert a civilian court into an admiralty or maritime court.

- Admiralty jurisdiction is determined by the subject matter of the case—not by a decorative trim on a flag.

- The claim that gold fringe indicates admiralty jurisdiction has been unanimously rejected by every court that has considered it.

The flag with gold fringe is still the constitutional flag of the United States with its 50 stars and 13 stripes intact. The fringe is for traditional, honorable enrichment, and indoor displaying of the flag only.

If a simple decorative trim on a flag could transform a court's jurisdiction, every court would need an entire closet of flags to cover every type of case. But they do not. The same flag covers criminal, civil, and admiralty cases. Because the flag has nothing to do with jurisdiction.

This is one of the most thoroughly debunked claims in this area. The actual law, history, and official sources are much simpler than the myth.

Know Thyself. Free Thyself.

P.S. The next post will address the remaining 9 myths about the gold fringe flag—including claims about the Constitution being suspended, martial law, and the flag's meaning. Stay tuned.

[Ryan Watson @boogdoc7]

@igypham @PatrickHeizer Distance, yes. In town, no.

[Ryan Watson @boogdoc7]

@FixTheCourt @DrSarteschi @uscourts Fee for service is fine. The taxpayer shouldn't bear the burden for individual usage.

[Ryan Watson @boogdoc7]

@KeithManleyjr Paul met the risen Christ personally and directly received his calling.

Thats a main criteria to be called apostle.

[Ryan Watson @boogdoc7]

@mclovenxoxo Nope. It's often rooted in selfishness and pride.

Habitual lateness prioritizes the self above others.

It goes directly against the golden rule.

[Ryan Watson @boogdoc7]

@Primary_Pianist At its core, its an affirmation of the whole counsel of scripture.

It's not a call to understand. It's a call to believe what the Bible says about the nature of God.

[Ryan Watson @boogdoc7]

@RealWokeRight @PCAByFaith That's not kinism as it's understood by its opponents (like me).

Kinism makes anything outside of that affection sinful (such as interracial marriage).

[Ryan Watson @boogdoc7]

@TheCigarDeacon Probably. Usually venues and / or city ordinances require police at gatherings over a certain size.

[Ryan Watson @boogdoc7]

@4Dupont @redeemed_zoomer It doesn't mean they're any good.

[Ryan Watson @boogdoc7]

@Primary_Pianist Not unfamiliar.

Unbiblical in a plain reading.

[Ryan Watson @boogdoc7]

@Davis_Carlton84 @ostrachan Not in the light of the new testament. What do you do with Peter's vision?

[Ryan Watson @boogdoc7]

@TribeRuffner None of that gives it salvific value.

[Ryan Watson @boogdoc7]

@owenthcarey Nope. Baptism is a work.