, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


(For Frank ‘Austin’ England III) 
(Blog Master’s Note:  I searched for the cases that Austin used but only found this )



 CAPTURE, war. [Title 50 USC] [Lieber Code of 1863 ] goes to “Reprisal.” Reprisal is being upon the Land.

The taking of property by one belligerent [The U.S. corporation moves as a belligerent as against] The American people and are in fact, presumed to be the enemy of the state of the forum and thereby, presumed to be “treated” as a belligerent enemy.

2. To make a good capture of a ship, it must be subdued and taken by an enemy in open war, or by way of reprisals, or by a pirate [being “Policy” Officers, also termed “Police”]and with intent to deprive the owner of it.

3. Capture may be with intent to possess both ship . . . [NOTE: the creation by a “Berthing of a ” VESSEL” aka “Estate” in duality and the same time with the live Borne child and registration (of the VESSEL) thereby] . . . and cargo, or only to seize the goods of the enemy, or contraband goods which are on board: The former is the capture of the ship in the proper sense of the word; the latter is only an arrest and detention, without any design to deprive the owner of it.

Capture is deemed lawful, when made by a declared enemy, lawfully commissioned and according to the laws of war; and unlawful, when it is against the rules established by the law of nations.  Marsh. Ins. B. 1, c. 12, s. 4.See, generally, Lee on Captures, passim; 1 Chitty’s Com. Law, 377 to 512; 2 Woddes. 435 to 457; 2 Caines’ C. Err 158; 7 Johns. R. 449; 3 Caines’ R. 155; 11 Johns. R. 241; 13 Johns. R.161; 14 Johns. R. 227; 3 Wheat. 183; 4 Cranch, 436 Mass. 197; Bouv. Inst. Index, h.t.

A Law Dictionary, Adapted to the Constitution and Laws of the United States. By John Bouvier. Published 1856.

The above is why the corporate “State” of the corporate forum must remain in a continuous state of war.


Sec. 196
Note: the use of the term “she” is in reference to the vessel or ship in question.
A prize is lost . . .

(1) When the captor intentionally abandons her,
(2) When she escapes through being rescued,
(3) When she is recaptured

The property is a prize according to international law, the belligerent whose forces made the capture, acquires, provided a prize court confirms the capture, is lost when the prize is lost; and it seems to be obvious, and everywhere recognized by Municipal law, that as soon as a captured enemy merchantman succeeds in escaping the Title of the former owners revives ipso facto.

But the case is different when an abandoned prize, whose crew have been taken on board the capturing vessel, is afterward met, and taken possession of by a neutral vessel, or by a vessel of her home State.
It is certainly not for International Law to determine, whether, or not, the original ownership revives through abandonment; this is a matter of municipal law.

The case is likewise different from escape. Here to Municipal law has to determine whether, or not, the former ownership revives, since only international law lays down the rule that by recapture the property in the vessel reverts to the belligerent whose force made the recapture.

Municipal Law in different States has settled the matter in different ways. Thus for Great Britain sec 40 of the Naval Prize Act, 1864, enacts that the recaptured vessel, except when she has been used by the captor as a ship of war, shall be restored to her former owner on his paying one-eighth to one-fourth of her value as the prize court may award, as prize salvage, whether the capture is made before the enemy prize court had confirmed the capture.

Other States restore the recaptured vessel only when the recapture is made within twenty-four hours after the capture, or before the captured vessel is conducted into an enemy port, or before she is condemned by an enemy Prize Court.

Sec. 197

Through being captured, and afterwards being condemned by a Prize Court, a captured enemy vessel and captured enemy goods become as already explained, the property of the belligerent whose forces made the capture.

But according to the Declaration of Paris, neutral goods, contraband excepted, found on enemy ships may not be condemned. Nevertheless goods found on enemy vessels are presumed to be enemy unless claimed as neutral by neutral owners; more-over only neutral merchandise is exempt is exempt from confiscation, and not neutral goods other than merchandise.Further neutral mortgagees or pledges of enemy vessels, or enemy cargoes, have no claim to be indemnified out of the proceeds of their sale.

What becomes of the prize after condemnation is not for international law, but for Municipal Law, to determine. A belligerent can hand the prize over to the captors or keep her for himself, or sell her and divide the whole or part of the proceeds among the captors or among the members of the naval forces generally.

For Great Britain the Naval Prize Act of 1918 . . . [Being timely enacted to set up the American People as the “Enemy” beginning with the “Trading with the Enemy Act of 1917 and thereby, applying this act to move to plunder and pillage the said American People by marquee and reprisal, through the crafting first circa 1900, the beginning of the issue of the “Birth aka Berth registration and moving on to the “Berthing” of an “Estate Vessel” in conjunction with the live Borne child and said Estate attaching thereto circa 1935. The aforesaid process setting up the American People for summary process within Courts of the United States, while at all times, sitting as Municipal Prize Courts to condemn said Peoples property interests and for other purposes and as clearly defined above by operation of law, terms of art employing color of mercantile law and proceedings to accomplish this fraud] . . . to wit:

Continued “. . . this process established a Naval Prize fund into which the proceeds of sale of certain prizes and prize cargos were paid, and out of which prize money was distributed among members of the Naval and Marine Forces . . . [Think the Civil Seizure of vehicles on the highways today . . . ]