times, specifically required them to state, in their Claim to the Cargo, the specific interest in the Cargo “by which the claimant demands restitution.” Furthermore, on August 9, 2000, counsel for Intamex and Amaleo issued a letter of security to Hawkspere in which they stated “[i]n consideration for your releasing to our clients Intamex and Amal-eo or their designates, certain Intamex and Amaleo cargo ” (emphasis added). And it was Intamex and Amaleo who posted the security for the Cargo’s release. The Shippers had a duty under Supplemental Admiralty Rule C to disclose the alleged non-ownership of the Cargo. Their silence on the point thus effectively constituted a material misrepresentation. See Edell & Assoc., P.C. v. Law Offices of Peter Angelos, 264 F.3d 424, 440 (4th Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>). Furthermore, the statement in their August 9,
holding that silence can constitute misrepresentation when there is duty to speak holding that upon choosing to speak one has a duty to be both accurate and complete  holding that objection was called for by the party to be estopped since an  estoppel may arise as effectually from silence where it is a duty to speak as from words spoken  holding that the government can use prearrest silence for impeachment purposes against a defendant because no government action induced the silence holding where there is no duty to defend there is no duty to indemnify