Governments Have Descended to the Level of Mere Private Corporations

 http://www.rocklarochelle.org/documents/clearfield-doctrine.pdf

Supreme Court Building

 

 Clearfield Doctrine

Supreme Court Annotated Statute, Clearfield Trust Co. v. United States 318 U.S. 363-371 1942

Whereas defined pursuant to Supreme Court Annotated Statute: Clearfield Trust Co. v. United States 318 U.S. 363-371 1942: “Governments descend to the level of a mere private corporation, and take on the characteristics of a mere private citizen . . . where private corporate commercial paper [Federal

Reserve Notes] and securities [checks] is concerned . . . For purposes of suit, such corporations and individuals are regarded as entities entirely separate from government.”

What the Clearfield Doctrine is saying is that when private commercial paper is used by corporate government, then government loses its sovereignty status and becomes no different than a mere private corporation.

As such, government then becomes bound by the rules and laws that govern private corporations which means that if they intend to compel an individual to some specific performance based upon its corporate statutes or corporation rules, then the government, like any private corporation,

must be the holder-in-due-course of a contract or other commercial agreement between it and the one upon who demands for specific

performance are made.

And further, the government must be willing to enter the contract or commercial agreement into evidence before trying to get the court to enforce its demands, called statutes.

This case is very important because it is a 1942 case that was decided after the UNITED STATES CORPORATION COMPANY filed its “CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION” in the State of Florida (July 15, 1925). And it was decided AFTER the ‘corporate government’ agreed to use the

currency of the private corporation, the FEDERAL RESERVE. The private currency, the Federal Reserve Note, is still in use today.

References:

(i) Articles of Incorporation of UNITED STATES CORPORATION COMPANY

http://anticorruptionsociety.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/articles-of-incorporation-of-u-s-corp-company.pdf

(ii) From The Great American Adventure by Judge Dale, retired. (pages 93-94) http://anticorruptionsociety.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/the-great-american-adventure-complete-work-by-judge-dale.pdf

[4] Corporations are not and can never be SOVEREIGN. They are not real, they are a fiction and only exist on paper.

[5] Therefore, all laws created by these government corporations are private corporate regulations called public law, statutes, codes and ordinances to conceal their true nature. Do the Judge and your lawyer know about this? You bet they do!

[6] Since these government bodies are not SOVEREIGN, they cannot promulgate or enforce CRIMINAL LAWS; they can only create and enforce CIVIL LAWS, which are duty bound to comply with the LAW of CONTRACTS. The Law of Contracts requires signed written agreements and complete transparency! Did you ever agree to be arrested and tried under any of their corporate statutes? For that matter, did you ever agree to contract with them by agreeing to be sued for violating their corporate regulations?

[7] Enforcement of these corporate statutes by local, state and federal law enforcement officers are unlawful actions being committed against the

SOVEREIGN public and these officers can be held personally liable for their

actions. [Bond v. U.S., 529 US 334-2000]

(iii) Our Government is Just Another Corporation

http://anticorruptionsociety.com/is-our-government-just-another-corporation/

GOVERNMENTS HAVE DESCENDED TO THE LEVEL OF MERE PRIVATE CORPORATIONS

                                      CLEARFIELD DOCTRINE

Supreme Court Annotated Statute

Clearfield Trust Co. vs United States

318 US 363-371 –  1942

Says:

When private commercial paper is used by Corporate government, the Government loses it’s Sovereignty status and becomes no different then a mere private Corporation.

This case is very important because it is a 1942 case that was decided after the UNITED STATES CORP COMPANY FILED IT’S  ” CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION” IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA ( JULY 15, 1925),
And it was decided ‘ AFTER’ the ‘ Corporate Government’ agreed to use the currency of the private Corporation, the FEDERAL RESERVE.{ based in London}

THE PRIVATE CURRENCY THE ‘ FEDERAL RESERVE NOTE’, IS STILL IN USE TODAY.

  1. Do we ‘ technically’ have a Government, since the sovereignty status is lost, or a mere Corporation ?

By Ed Johnston

“People occasionally stumble on the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened.” “People who shut their eyes to truth, simply invite their own destruction.” It’s the same the world over folks….. it’s all about status/ standing……..subject, or sovereign!

You are “presumed” to be a

subject……Subject=citizen=person=debtor=slave! So how does one go about “correcting” ones “presumed” subject status? By affidavit of truth wherein is included a revocation of all powers of Attorney, signed, notarized, (certified copies made) and entered into the public record, (county recorder and/or by publication =proper service of notice procedures) certified copies sent first class mail to any/all interested parties, ie; government officials, public servants, courts, judges, Prostitutors, ect.

Truth is sovereign in commerce, all law is commercial law, Unrebutted affidavit stands as fact in law! No one can or will ever be able to rebut your truth, (your sworn affidavit). any questions? PM me on fb! If you are in U.K. contact me, I’m sure we can adjust/apply this process to you as well! American Law and Procedure, Vol 13, page 137, 1910: ”This word `person’ and its scope and bearing in the law, involving, as it does, legal fictions and also apparently natural beings, it is difficult to understand; but it is absolutely necessary to grasp, at whatever cost, a true and proper understanding to the word in all the phases of its proper use … A person is here not a physical or individual person, but the status or condition with which he is invested… not an individual or physical person, but the status, condition or character borne by physical persons… The law of persons is the law of status or condition.”

People are not persons. Read the following legal definitions of the word `person’ As you will see, persons are defined as non-sovereigns. A sovereign is someone who is not subject to statutes. A person is someone who voluntarily submits himself to statutes. In the United States the people are sovereign over their civil servants: Romans 6:16 (NIV): “Don’t you know that when you offer yourselves to someone to obey him as slaves, you are slaves to the one whom you obey…” Spooner v. McConnell, 22 F 939@ 943:

“The sovereignty of a state does not reside in the persons who fill the different departments of its government, but in the People, from whom the government emanated; and they may change it at their discretion. Sovereignty, then in this country, abides with the constituency, and not with the agent; and this remark is true, both in reference to the federal and state government.”
1794 US Supreme Court case Glass v. Sloop Betsey: “… Our government is founded upon compact. Sovereignty was, and is, in the people” 1829 US Supreme Court case Lansing v. Smith: “People of a state are entitled to all rights which formerly belong to the King, by his prerogative.”

US Supreme Court in 4 Wheat 402: “The United States, as a whole, emanates from the people… The people, in their capacity as sovereigns, made and adopted the Constitution…”

US Supreme Court in Luther v. Borden, 48 US 1, 12 Led 581: “… The governments are but trustees acting under derived authority and have no power to delegate what is not delegated to them. But the people, as the original fountain might take away what they have delegated and intrust to whom they please. …The sovereignty in every state resides in the people of the state and they may alter and change their form of government at their own pleasure.” US Supreme Court. in Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 US 356, page 370: “While sovereign powers are delegated to the government, sovereignty itself remains with the people.” Yick Wo is a powerful anti-discrimination case. You might get the impression that the legislature can write perfectly legal laws, yet the laws cannot be enforced contrary to the intent of the people.

It’s as if servants do not make rules for their masters. It’s as if the Citizens who created government were their masters. It’s as if civil servants were to obey the higher authority. You are the higher authority of Romans 13:1. You as ruler are not a terror to good works per Romans 13:3. Imagine that! Isn’t it a shame that your government was surrendered to those who are a terror to good works? Isn’t it a shame that you enlisted to obey them? US Supreme Court in Julliard v. Greenman, 110 US 421: “There is no such thing as a power of inherent sovereignty in the government of the United States …. In this country sovereignty resides in the people, and Congress can exercise no power which they have not, by their Constitution entrusted to it: All else is withheld.” US Supreme Court in Wilson v. Omaha Indian Tribe, 442 US 653, 667 (1979): “In common usage, the term ‘person’ does not include the sovereign, and statutes employing the word are ordinarily construed to exclude it.” US Supreme Court in U.S. v. Cooper, 312 US 600,604, 61 S.Ct 742 (1941): ”Since in common usage the term `person’ does not include the sovereign, statutes employing that term are ordinarily construed to exclude it.” US Supreme Court in U.S. v. United Mine Workers of America, 330 U.S. 258 67 Sct677 (1947): ”In common usage, the term `person’ does not include the sovereign and statutes employing it will ordinarily not be construed to do so.” US Supreme Court in US v. Fox, 94 US 315:

”Since in common usage, the term `person’ does not include the sovereign, statutes employing the phrase are ordinarily construed to exclude it.”

U.S. v. General Motors Corporation, D.C. Ill, 2 F.R.D. 528, 530: In ”common usage the word `person’ does not include the sovereign, and statutes employing the word are generally construed to exclude the sovereign.” Church of Scientology v. US Department of Justice, 612 F.2d 417 @425 (1979): “the word `person’ in legal terminology is perceived as a general word which normally includes in its scope a variety of entities other than human beings., see e.g. 1, U.S.C. § para 1.” In the 1935 Supreme Court case of Perry v. US (294 US 330) the Supreme Court found that: “In United States, sovereignty resides in people… the Congress cannot invoke the sovereign power of the People to override their will as thus declared. ”Since in common usage, the term `person’ does not include the sovereign, statutes employing the phrase are ordinarily construed to exclude it.”

U.S. v. General Motors Corporation, D.C. Ill, 2 F.R.D. 528, 530: In ”common usage the word `person’ does not include the sovereign, and statutes employing the word are generally construed to exclude the sovereign.” Church of Scientology v. US Department of Justice, 612 F.2d 417 @425 (1979): “the word `person’ in legal terminology is perceived as a general word which normally includes in its scope a variety of entities other than human beings., see e.g. 1, U.S.C. § para 1.” In the 1935 Supreme Court case of Perry v. US (294 US 330) the Supreme Court found that: “In United States, sovereignty resides in people… the Congress cannot invoke the sovereign power of the People to override their will as thus declared.”

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: