1. Same story, different day...........year ie more of the same fiat floods the world
    Dismiss Notice
  2. There are no markets
    Dismiss Notice
  3. Week of 6/24/2017 Closing prices & Chg Over Last Wk---- Gold $1256.40 Silver $16.64 Oil $43.01 USD $96.94
  4. "Spreading the ideas of freedom loving people on matters regarding high finance, politics, constructionist Constitution, and mental masturbation of all types"
    Dismiss Notice

CLEARFIELD DOCTRINE

Discussion in 'U.S. Constitution & Law' started by Goldhedge, Nov 24, 2017.



  1. Goldhedge

    Goldhedge Moderator Site Mgr Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2010
    Messages:
    28,666
    Likes Received:
    32,717
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Retired
    Location:
    Planet Earth
    Governments Have Descended to the Level of Mere Private Corporations

    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?

    [8] 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/
     
    michael59 and OverOver like this.
  2. Goldhedge

    Goldhedge Moderator Site Mgr Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2010
    Messages:
    28,666
    Likes Received:
    32,717
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Retired
    Location:
    Planet Earth
    Clearfield Trust Co. v. United States
    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Clearfield Trust Co. v. United States, 318 U.S. 363 (1943), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that federal negotiable instruments were governed by federal law, and thus the federal court had the authority to fashion a common law rule.[1]

    Facts & procedural history [edit]
    On April 28, 1936, the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia mailed a check for $24.20, drawn on the Treasurer of the United States, to Clair Barner. The check was Barner's paycheck from the Works Progress Administration (WPA). Barner never received the check, which was stolen by an unknown party. The thief forged Barner's signature and cashed the check at the J.C. Penney department store in Clearfield, Pennsylvania, where the thief assumed the identity of Mr. Barner. J.C. Penney then turned the check over to Clearfield Trust Co. as its collection agent. Clearfield Trust Co. collected the check from the Federal ReserveBank, knowing nothing about the forgery.

    On May 10, 1936, Barner informed his supervisors at the WPA that he had not received his paycheck. His complaint made its way up the chain of command, and on November 30, 1936, Barner signed an affidavitalleging that the endorsement of his name on the check was forged. Neither J.C. Penney Co. nor Clearfield Trust Co. had any notice of the forgery until January 12, 1937, when the U.S. government sent its first notice about it. The United States sent its initial request for reimbursement on August 31, 1937, and filed suit against Clearfield Trust Co. in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on November 16, 1939. The government based its cause of action on the express guaranty of prior endorsements by Clearfield Trust Co.

    The District Court determined that the dispute should be governed by the state law of Pennsylvania. It then dismissed the government's complaint on grounds of laches, holding that because the United States unreasonably delayed in notifying Clearfield Trust Co. of the forgery, it was barred from recovery. The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed the dismissal.

    Decision [edit]
    Justice Douglas, writing for a unanimous United States Supreme Court, first distinguished the case from Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins, holding that because the U.S. government was exercising a constitutionally-permitted function in disbursing its own funds and paying its debts, the commercial paper it issues should be governed by federal law rather than state law. Thus, the Erie doctrine rule -- that a United States District Court must apply the law of the state in which it is sitting -- did not apply. In the absence of an applicable Act of Congress, a federal court had the right to fashion a governing common law rule by its own standards.

    While the Court's decision explicitly retained the option of applying state law in fashioning a federal common law rule, the Court chose instead to fashion its own rule based on prior decisions. Justice Douglas identified a major federal interest in permitting the Court to fashion its own rule: uniformity in dealing with the vast amount of negotiable instruments and commercial paper issued by the federal government. Douglas reasoned that if each transaction were subject to the application of a multiplicity of different state laws, confusion and uncertainty in the administration of federal programs would be the result.

    Justice Douglas chose to follow the rule set forth in United States v. National Exchange Bank of Providence, 214 U.S. 302 (1909), in which the U.S. Supreme Court held that the U.S. government, “as drawee of commercial paper stands in no different light than any other drawee” and could recover on a check as a drawee from a person who had cashed a pension check with a forged endorsement, despite the government's protracted delay in giving notice of the forgery. The National Exchange Bank case held the government to conventional business terms, but said nothing about whether lack of prompt notice was a defense for nonpayment of a check. The Court held that the Pennsylvania state law -- requiring prompt notice from the drawee -- presumed injury to the defendant by the mere fact of delay. In this case, not only did Clearfield Trust Co. fail to demonstrate that it had suffered a loss because of the delay in notice, it could still recover the amount of the check from J.C. Penney, because none of its employees detected the fraud. The court chastised both companies for their "neglect and error" in accepting the forged check, and suggested that they should only be permitted to shift the loss to the drawee only when he can demonstrate that the delay in notice caused him damage.

    See also [edit]
     
    OverOver likes this.

Share This Page