[weishaupt1776]

[color=black][b]I have just now learned about a doctrine called the <u>Act Of State</u> in regards to reconciling the correct record of one's status w/ D.C. I'm gonna be checkin' this out .



I typed in the search terms: "act of State" sovereign



Here's a functional definition from an English Law perspective HERE

I'm finding that it ties in to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) so far as I go

This one's pretty cool- HERE

Maybe parts of this could be used as a model- HERE

. . . Rather, the act of state doctrine only protects private anticompetitive acts com pelled by the sovereign himself - David K. Pansius, The Pitfalls of Act of State Analysis in the Antitrust Context: A Critique of Hunt v. Mobil Oil, 6 Denv. J. Int'l L. & Pol'y 749

[color=black][b] I like this one HERE & this quote in particular from it :

Because the Act of State Doctrine has such sparse legislation, a researcher may be tempted to bypass looking at the applicable code

[color=black][b]This should speak volumes for the Sovereign because it is recognized as a legitimate & applicable common law doctrine but with NO statutory crap to screw it all up. That article above is worth a read because it teaches HOW to research the Act of State Doctrine.

From the Money Glossary, This doctrine says that a nation is sovereign within its own borders, and its domestic actions may not be questioned in the courts of another nation.



<center>REFINED SEARCH TERMS : "act of State doctrine" -terrorism sovereign "common law" citizen "united States"</center>

Here's what Professor Ray August from the College of Business and Economics at Washington State University says:

The act of state doctrine is another limit on a court's ability to exercise jurisdiction over a foreign state. Principally an American rule, it holds that a municipal court should decline to exercise jurisdiction over a foreign state when that state did some act within its territory that was an expression of its sovereign powers. <u>Statutory enactments and court decisions</u> in the United States have <u>tried to define</u>whether it is for the courts or the executive branch to determine when the doctrine will be used, but <u>no clear conclusion has yet been made.</u>

[color=black][b]Here's a holding from a Supreme Court Decision

Moreover, the act of state doctrine requires American courts to presume the validity of “an official act of a foreign sovereign performed within its own territory.” W. S. Kirkpatrick & Co. v. Environmental Tectonics Corp., Int’l, 493 U. S. 400, 405 (1990); see also ante, at 22–23; Banco Nacional de Cuba v. Sabbatino, 376 U. S. 398, 423–424 (1964). The FSIA “in no way affects existing law on the extent to which, if at all, the ‘act of state’ doctrine may be applicable.” H. R. Rep., at 20; S. Rep., at 19; see also ante, at 22–23.

<font color=black[b]Also, during this case THOMAS G. HUNGAR, ESQ., Deputy Solicitor General, Department of Justice was questioned by an attorney,

There is jurisdiction but you are free

to file act of state

<font color=black[b]So it seems that an Act of State filing is an option to not being in the jurisdiction of the DoC.Another definition :

Act of State Doctrine. If another government acts within its own territory to deprive a U.S. party of its property rights within that foreign territory, the United States courts will generally refrain from applying U.S. law to give the expropriated U.S. party a legal remedy. This doctrine grows out of traditional notions of comity by which the courts of one state will not question the sovereign acts of a government within its own territory. Various exceptions to this doctrine exist, including an agreement to arbitrate dispute between the parties.

[color=black][b] New search terms have come up : "conflict of law" & a synonymn for Act of State is " non-justiciability"