OFRIKAN WRITERS

Party having superior knowledge who takes advantage of another’s ignorance of the law to deceive him by studied concealment or misrepresentation can be held responsible for that conduct. Fina Supply, Inc. v. Abilene Nat. Bank,726 S.W.2d 537, 1987.

When a person sustains to another a position of trust and confidence, his failure to disclose facts that he has a duty to disclose is as much a fraud as an actual misrepresentation. Blanton v. Sherman Compress Co., 256 S.W. 2d 884,1953.

When circumstances impose duty to speak and one deliberately remains silent, silence is equivalent to false representation. Fisher Controls International, Inc. v. Gibbons,911 S.W. 2d 135, 1995.

Party in interest may become liable for fraud by mere silent acquiescence and partaking of benefits of fraud. Bransom v. Standard Hardware, Inc., 874S.W.2d 919, 1994.

Knowing failure to disclose material information necessary to prevent statement from being misleading, or making representation despite knowledge that it has no reasonable basis in fact, are actionable as fraud Rubinstein v. Collins, 20 F.3d 160,1990.

The findings show fraud on [the part of the party seeking legal subrogation]. He does not come into court with clean hands, and is therefore not in a position to invoke the equitable principles upon which legal subrogation rests.); Rotge v. Dunlap,91 S.W.2d 905, 908 (Tex. App. 1936)

It is well settled that a party seeking equity cannot come into a court with unclean hands. Schenk v. Halliday Real Estate, Inc., 803 S.W.2d 361, 366 (Tex.App. 1990)

Applying to legal subrogation the maxim that "one who seeks equity must come into court with clean hands., Christian v. Manning, 59 S.W.2d 234, 237 (Tex. App. 1933),and See: Bell v. Franklin, 230 S.W.2d 181, 185 (Tex. App. 1921) (same).

"We (judges) have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given, than to usurp that which is not given. The one or the other would be treason to the Constitution." Cohenv. Virginia, (1821), 6 Wheat. 264 and U.S. v. Will, 499 U.S. 200.

The commonwealth (state) is a political corporation. Commonwealth v. Gibney, 9 Chest. 152 (Com. Pl. 1959). The Commonwealth is apolitical subdivision of the United States and an entity other than government, as it deals with commercial paper, checks, etc., in the world of commerce, The doctrine of incorporation is binding on the states through the Fourteenth Amendment of the united States Constitution, Gideon v. Wainwright, 372U.S.335, 83 S.Ct. 792 (1963). Also, see, 28 U.S.C.A. Section 3002 (2) and (15)(A). Governments are corporations, see, Penhallow v. Doane, 3 Dall. 55.(8/10/99. N.T. ppg. 16. Lines 22 through pg. 17. Line 6: pg. 40, lines 13through 15, inclusive).

CLEARFIELDTRUST DOCUMENT. Governments descend to the level of a mere private corporate commercial paper [Federal Reserve Note] and securities [checks] is concerned... For purpose of suit, such corporations and individual are regarded as entities entirely separate from government. Clearfield TrustCo. V. United States, 318 U.S. 363.271 1942. See note.

T he state is prohibited from violating Substantive Rights. Owens v. City, 445 US 662 (1980); and it can not do by one power (eg. Police Power) that which is, for example, prohibited expressly to any other such power (eg. Taxation / Eminent Domain) as a matter of Law. US and UT v. Daniels, 22 p 159, nor indirectly that which is prohibited to it directly. Fairbanks v. US 181, US 283, 294, 300.

“Lack of Federal Jurisdiction can not be waived or overcome by agreement of parties”. Griffin v. Matthews, 310 F Supra 341, 342 (1969): and “Want of Jurisdiction may not be cured by consent of parties”. Industrial Addition Association v. C.I,R., 323 US 310, 313.

"We (judges) have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given, than to usurp that which is not given. The one or the other would be treason to the Constitution." Cohenv. Virginia, (1821), 6 Wheat. 264 and U.S. v. Will, 499 U.S. 200.

Governments descend to the level of a mere private corporate commercial paper [Federal Reserve Note] and securities [checks] is concerned... For purpose of suit, such corporations and individual are regarded as entities entirely separate from government. Clearfield TrustCo. V. United States, 318 U.S. 363.271 1942.

Under common law, any adult or emancipated person has the right to change his or her name without legal formality or permission of court to any name he or she lawfully chooses. N.J. –Application of Ferner, 295 N.J. Super. 409, 685 A.2d 78 (Law Div. 1996)

Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule-making or legislation, which would abrogate them. Miranda v. Arizona 384 US 436, 125.