The Clearfield Doctrine

[TheBlackTruth]

<font size=3><u>Clearfield Trust Co. v. United States</u>, 318 U.S. 363-371 (1942)



<font color=red>NOTE: This post has been modified to reflect the discovery that the quote here before is most likely a concoction of some patriot's imagination or even worse, a fabrication of BB so as to get us relying on false information in court.[/color]



<hr>

Governments descend to the level of a mere private

corporation and take on the character of a mere private

citizen [where private corporate commercial paper {Federal

Reserve Notes} are concerned] .... For purposes of suit,

such corporations and individuals are regarded as an entity

entirely separate from government.



[Clearfield Trust Company v. United States, 318 U.S. 363]

[bold emphasis added]



[Bank of United States v. Planters Bank,

9 Wheaton (22 U.S.) 904, 6 L.Ed. 24]



Also refer to my earlier post: There are only TWO possible causes of action



-BlackTruth

[Ice]

Does it make you wonder how the "United States" and the "IRS" feel about such a doctrine? I wonder if the IRS can submit the evidence of a contract in which we are required to "perform"... ya think ??

[TheBlackTruth]

Well I can only assume they don't like it, since the winnging case I cited in my causes of action post was vs. the IRS and the Clearfield Case was vs. the US!



I'm not sure the cite, but its Stare Decisis that a governemt in Law is reduced to that of a mere foriegn corportation. This puts them clearly in the clearfield realm. They CAN'T like that! haha



I would think it would be possible to draft an argument for MOST court cases based on just those two concepts, don't you think?



*i need to learn to write briefs!!*

[KaosTheory]

This is the reasoning behind Howard Freeman's Sui Juris Status letter that I was telling Tora about. If the IRS gets one to argue the code, then the presumption that a contract is in force is supported. This is where people like Irwin Schiff get tripped up.



If there is no contract then the code doesn't even come into play. Why argue about a code that doesn't even come into play?



Good thread TBT. You've hit the heart of the beast.



Clearfield Doctrine says:



"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 (FRN's) and securities is concerned) --- For the purposes of suit, such corporations and individuals are regarded as entities entirely seperate from government."



Bank of U.S. vs Planter's Bank 9 Wheaton (22 US) 904 6 L.Ed. 24



Also,



"When governments enter the world of commerce, they are subject to the same burdens as any private firm or corporation."



United States vs Burr 309 U.S. 242







KT

[Jerseee]

Hhhmmmm,



Doesn't that sound familiar? "Never Argue" I could of sworn I saw that term all over this site.

OK, Maybe I'm beating the wrong drum, but wouldn't this apply to fingerprints at banks or check charging fees at a bank?



Just asking,



HB

[Libertarian]

Originally Posted by TheBlackTruth

<font size=3><u>Clearfield Trust Co. v. United States</u>, 318 U.S. 363-371 (1942)

<hr>[/color]The Clearfield Doctrine is <span title="Latin: to stand by things decided. The concept of legal precedent." style="cursor:hand">stare decisis</span> upon all courts, and imposes that “an entity cannot compel performance upon its corporate statutes or corporation rules unless it, like any other corporation, is the Holder in Due Course of some contract or commercial agreement between it, and the one on whom its demands for performance are made, <u>and is willing to produce said document, and to place the same into evidence before trying to enforce its demands</u>."



In my opinion, this is one of the most important case cites i've ever seen (as it implies to traffic violations and other stutory infractions)! Does anyone have any examples of this case cite being used in a brief, or its precedent asserted in court to force BB to produce the contract?



Also refer to my earlier post: There are only TWO possible causes of action



-BlackTruth

I read the Clearfield case on Findlaw:



http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...=318+&page=363



and I don't see that quoted language. Am I missing something?

[TheBlackTruth]

I've put in an inquiry on one of the groups i'm a member of. They've been doing an investigation on widey distributed quotes that were actually manufactured. Apparently its been happening more and more lately. People are starting to think they are being hatched by "the enemy" so we will begin to rely on them and fail to do deeper research. I will let you know what i find!

[weishaupt1776]

<font color=purple>[b] Libertarian's got me on a mad hunt, BT.



I've been doing numerous searches, cross searches, site specific advanced searches, different combos of key words & phrases in the case you quoted, and I haven't been able to come up with anything, either.

If the language that you quoted is in fact in Clearfield, it got omitted or was possibly in a case that cited Clearfield. However, I even omitted Clearfield on the site specific search for findlaw.com & still couldn't find a case using the verbeage quoted for that case.

the best way to determine if a cite is genuine is to pull the case from which it came. can you say "certified verification?"



when needed, i ask my brother (a lawyer, ahem) to pull the reference and he 99% of the time does or lets me know it doesn't exist. especially since i don't have the resources he does...



jon