Tags

, , , , , , , ,

(For Frank ‘Austin’ England III) 
(Blog Masters Note: This is the second document and is to presented along with Frank ‘Austin’ England, III’s  “Declaration Of A Foreign Neutral”.   The first document was also labeled “The Itinere Cover Sheet and Caveat”.  The first one I believe to be a cover sheet of a case, while this one goes into more detail in case law.)
 

COVER SHEET AND CAVEAT

SEE: ATTACHED MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT TO PRESENT DECLARATION BY “IN ITINERE” EXECUTED UNDER INTERNATIONAL TREATY ASSERTING STANDING TO PROCEED AS “FOREIGN NEUTRAL” IN LIEU OF RESTRICTED ACCESS TO ASSERT AND DEFEND SECURED RIGHTS BY AND THROUGH THE PUBLIC VESSEL.

ALSO ATTACHED IS THE INTERNATIONALLY RECOGNIZED AND DULY EXECUTED “IN ITINERE” OFFERED BY THE HEREIN REFERENCED PRESENTER UNDER APOSTILLE, WHICH BY ITS NATURE, REBUTS ANY AND ALL STANDING USE OF PRESUMPTION BY AGENT OR AGENTS RE THE PRESENTER OF THIS DOCUMENT TO BE AN ENEMY OF THE STATE OF THE FORUM. WHEREAS, ALL DULY CRAFTED LEGISLATIVE ACT(S) THAT PROVIDE UNDER OPERATION OF LAW FOR SAID MERE PRESUMPTION THAT SAID PRESENTER IS TO BE HELD OR VIEWED AS AN “ENEMY” OF THE SAID STATE OF THE FORUM IS HEREBY REBUTTED IN IT’S ENTIRETY. THIS PRESENTER IS WHO HE SAYS HE IS.
 

Citing: Federal Crop Ins. Corp v. Merrill, 332 U.S. 380, the Supreme Court held: “Whatever the form in which the government functions, anyone entering into an arrangement with the government takes a risk of having accurately ascertained that he who purports to act for the government stays within the bounds of his authority, even though the agent himself may be unaware of the limitations upon his authority.” 

“Silence can only be equated with fraud where there is a legal or moral duty to speak, or where an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading. . .”  U.S. v. Tweel, 550 F.2d 297, 299. See also U.S. v. Prudden, 424 F.2d 1021, 1032; Carmine v. Bowen, 64 A. 932.

Fraud: Deceit, deception, artifice, or trickery operating prejudicially on the rights of another, and so intended, by inducing him to part with property or surrender some legal right. 23 Am J2d Fraud § 2. Anything calculated to deceive another to his prejudice and accomplishing the purpose, whether it be an act, a word, silence, the suppression of the truth, or other device contrary to the plain rules of common honesty. 23 Am J2d Fraud § 2. An affirmation of a fact rather than a promise or statement of intent to do something in the future. Miller v Sutliff, 241 111 521, 89 NE 651.

Citing: The 93rd Congress, Section 93-549:

Addressing the “Trading With the Enemy Act” as amended circa 1935 and making the American people presumptive enemies of the state of the forum and that acts broad and unlimited powers as promulgated within U.S.C. Title 50.

Citing: Senator Katzenbach:
“Under this procedure we retain Government by operation of law – special, temporary law, perhaps, but law nonetheless. The public may know the extent and the limitations of the powers that can be asserted, and the  “persons” affected may be informed by the statute of their rights and their duties.”

Further citing: At 93-549, Mr. Katzenbach:
“My recollection is that almost every executive order ever issued straddles on several grounds, but it almost always includes the Trading With the Enemy Act because the language of that act is so broad, it would justify almost anything.”

Speaking on the subject of a challenge to the Act by the people, Justice Clark then says,
“Most difficult from a standpoint of standing to sue. The Court, you might say, has enlarged the standing rule in favor of the litigant. But I don’t think it has reached the point, presently, that would permit many such cases to be litigated to the merits.”

“Senator Church then made the following observation:
“What you’re saying, then, is that if Congress doesn’t act to standardize, restrict, or eliminate the emergency powers, that no one else is very likely to get a standing in court to contest.”

“No persona standi in judicio – no personal standing in the courts to challenge the application of the Trading With the Enemy Act.
(Thereby, out of necessity and due to the above referenced denial of standing to sue, cause is given for relief, to rebut any and all such attaching presumption that this presenter is, or acts as an enemy of the foreign state of the forum, united states, a insolvent body corporate.)

Considering the above cite, the presenter of this document thereby preserves his right to proceed both privately and commercially, absent his being held by presumption to be an “enemy of the state of the forum” as provided by the legislatively crafted operation of law entitled as the Trading With the Enemy Act, and as amended within the said acts related emergency provisions found at 50 USCA.

___________________________________________
By: Frank ‘Austin’ England, III

Advertisements