In making his final jurisdictional argument, Harding points to the fringe on an American flag that stands in the corner of the courtroom and asserts this court is one of admiralty. Harding is not the first to raise such an argument; "[o]thers have attempted to persuade the judiciary that fringe on an American flag denotes a court of admiralty." United States v. Greenstreet, 912 F. Supp. 224, 229 (N.D. Tex. 1996). The concept behind this theory "is that if a courtroom is adorned with a flag which happens to be fringed around the edges, such décor indicates that the court is one of admiralty jurisdiction exclusively." Id. This argument has been uniformly rejected by courts, which have held that "[t]o think that a fringed flag adorning the courtroom somehow limits this Court's jurisdiction  is frivolous." Id. (citing Vella v. McCammon, 671 F. Supp. 1128, 1129 (S.D. Tex. 1987)); see also United States v. Montgomery, No. 10-00187-01-CR-W-ODS, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32926, 2011 WL 976555, at *6 (W.D. Mo. Feb. 22, 2011) (rejecting argument that the American flag in the courtroom had been replaced with a military admiralty flag, noting similar arguments had been raised and dismissed in previous cases), adopted by 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27509, 2011 WL 941336 (W.D. Mo. Mar. 17, 2011); Joyner v. Borough of Brooklyn, No. 98 CV 2579 (RJD), 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5721, 1999 WL 294780, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 18, 1999) ("The yellow fringe trim on the American flag has no effect on a court's jurisdiction or a defendant's constitutional or statutory rights."); United States v. Schiefen, 926 F. Supp. 877, 884 (D.S.D. 1995) ("Federal jurisdiction is determined by statute, not by whether the flag flow is plain or fringed."), aff'd, 81 F.3d 166 (8th Cir. 1996) (unpublished table decision).
The court rejects this jurisdictional argument.
United States v. Harding, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 62471, 13-14, 2013 WL 1832564 (W.D. Va. May 1, 2013)