common-law legal-concepts theory-of-law opca
What is the &quot;fringe on the flag&quot; argument?
<p>Another answer on <a href="https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/119/does-the-gavel-have-a-legal-significance-or-is-it-purely-ceremonial?rq=1">this question</a> refers to the &quot;fringe on the flag&quot; category of arguments. What is the &quot;fringe on the flag&quot; argument?</p>

<p>See <em>Meads v. Meads</em>, <a href="https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abqb/doc/2012/2012abqb571/2012abqb571.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">2012 ABQB 571</a>, para. 272</p>
<blockquote>
<p>OPCA litigants who advance these schemes will often focus on certain aspects of court formalities. Like Mr. Meads, they may scrutinize the court for some hidden indication of its true nature. <strong>A strange but common belief is that a flag with yellow or gold thread ‘fringes’ “denotes a military jurisdiction, not common law”</strong>. In <em>R. v. J.B.C. Securities Ltd.</em>, 2003 NBCA 53 at para. 2, 261 N.B.R. (2d) 199, Chief Justice Drapeau of the New Brunswick Court of Appeal rejected a motion by Lindsay “... removing the gold‑fringed Canadian flag that has adorned the Court of Appeal’s hearing room for years ...”. This motion, and the argument that “[t]here is no lawful reason for a Canadian flag to be present other than the regular statutory authorized flag” was frivolous and vexatious: para. 9.</p>
</blockquote>
