Clearfield Doctrine

**admin** · 09-02-2009 11:42 AM

THIS IS SUCH AN IMPORTANT ISSUE AND WE ALL NEED TO KNOW ABOUT THIS DOCTRINE. IT EFFECTS EACH OF US AS A CITIZEN. WE HAVE LOST OUR ABILITY TO BE FREE, IN 1936 WE LOST, NOW IT IS TIME TO STAND UP AND BE COUNTED.

Clearfield Doctrine

"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." -

Clearfield Trust Co. v. United States 318 U.S. 363-371 (1942)
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 whom 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 to
the court to enforce its demands, called statutes.

This case is very important because it is a 1942 case after the
Erie RR v. Tomkins 304 U.S. 64, (1938) case in which the
Legislatures and Judiciary changed from legislating under
"Public Law", which was in consonance with the CONstitution,
to legislating under "Public Policy" according to the wishes
of the "Creditors of the US Corporation".

**admin** · 09-02-2009 11:45 AM

Facts & procedural history

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 Reserve Bank, 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 affidavit alleging 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

Justice Douglas, writing for a unanimous 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, and that in absence of an applicable Act of Congress, a federal court had the right to fashion a governing common law rule by their own standards.

While Douglas explicitly retained the option of applying state law in fashioning a federal common law rule, it chose instead to fashion its own rule based on prior decisions. He identified a major federal interest in permitting the court to fashion its own rule: namely, the issue of uniformity in dealing with the vast amount of negotiable instruments and commercial paper issued by the federal government. Douglas reasoned that if each transaction was subject to the application of a multiplicity of different state laws, it would lead to great confusion and uncertainty in the administration of federal programs.

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 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 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.

**admin** · 09-02-2009 11:50 AM

ARTICLE #2 - Fourteenth Amendment Citizenship

If you look through the copy of the United States constitution found in the 1990 edition of Black's Law Dictionary, you'll notice something very interesting. The word "Citizen" is always capitalized until you get to the fourteenth amendment, which was adopted in 1868. After that, it's no longer capitalized. This isn't an isolated occurrence either. In the definition of "Dred Scott Case," a supreme court case decided before the fourteenth amendment, they capitalize "Citizen," but everywhere else in the dictionary, where it refers to the laws of today, the word isn't capitalized. As you shall see, this is just one small indicator of many that the fourteenth amendment created a new class of citizen.

This is certainly no secret to the legal community. In fact, under the definition of "Fourteenth Amendment" it says, "The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States... creates... a citizenship of the United States as distinct from that of the states..." This class of "citizen of the United States" was new; it was unknown to the constitution prior to 1868. This wasn't the status of our forefathers. In the first sentence of the definition of "United States" found in Black's, it says, "This term has several meanings." Pursuing this further, we find that one of the definitions is the "collective name of the states which are united by and under the Constitution." This is what the framers of the constitution meant by "Citizen of the United States" - that is, the Citizen of one state is to be considered and treated as a Citizen of every other state in the union. Used in another sense, though, the term is simply the name of the federal government. This is what is meant by "citizen of the United States in the fourteenth amendment":

Privileges and immunities clause of Fourteenth Amendment protects only those rights peculiar to being citizen of federal government; it does not protect those rights which relate to state citizenship.
Jones v. Temmer, Federal Supplement, Vol. 829, Page 1227 (1993)

From the authorities above, we can see that the fourteenth amendment created citizenship of the federal government. This status is a privilege granted by the government:
Citizenship is a political status, and may be defined and privilege limited by Congress.
Ex Parte (NG) Fung Sing, Federal Reporter, 2nd Series, Vol. 6, Page 670 (1925)

It goes without saying that the federal government can regulate the privileges it creates. By definition, "citizenship" is the basis of a person's relationship with the government. In the legal sense, everything else is built upon it. Therefore, since fourteenth amendment citizenship is a privilege, every aspect of the citizen's life could potentially be regulated. Worst of all, this new class of citizen does not have the right to invoke the protections of the Bill of Rights, as explained in the following supreme court case:
We have cited these cases for the purpose of showing that the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States do not necessarily include all the rights protected by the first eight amendments to the Federal Constitution against the powers of the Federal government. They were decided subsequently to the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment...
Maxwell v. Dow, 176 US 598 (1900)

This isn't an idea peculiar to the turn of the century either. Going back to the 'Jones' case, which was decided in 1993, we find the courts of today saying, "The privileges and immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects very few rights because it neither incorporates any ofthe Bill of Rights not protects all rights of individual citizens." Although fourteenth amendment citizens have no guaranteed access to the Bill of Rights, the amendment itself does state that they have certain "privileges and immunities." Here's what the supreme court has decided they are:

Privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, on the other hand, are only such as arise out of the nature and essential character of the national government, or are specifically granted or secured to all citizens or persons by the Constitution of the United States. Slaughter-House Cases, supra, p.79; Re Kemmler, 136 U.S. 436, 448, 34 L.ed. 519, 524, 10 Sup. Ct.Rep. 930; Duncan v. Missouri, 152 U.S. 377, 382, 38 L.ed. 485, 487, 14 Sup.Ct.Rep. 570. Thus, among the rights and privileges of national citizenship recognized by this court are the right to pass freely from state to state (Crandall v. Nevada, 6 Wall. 35, 18 L.ed. 75); the right to petition Congress for a redress of grievances (United States v. Cruikshank, supra); the right to vote for national officers (Ex parte Yarbrough, 110 U.S. 651, 28 L.ed. 274, 4 Sup.Ct.Rep. 152; Wiley v. Sinkler, 179 U.S. 58, 45 L.ed. 84, 21 Sup.Ct. Rep. 17); the right to be protected against violence while in the lawful custody of a United States marshall (Logan v. United States, 144 U.S. 263, 36 L.ed. 429, 12 Sup.Ct. Rep. 617); and the right to inform the United States authorities of violation of its laws (Re Quark, 158 U.S. 532, 39 L.ed. 1080, 15 Sup.Ct.Rep. 959).
Twining v. New Jersey, 211 US 78 (1908)

As discussed in the last article, Sovereign Citizens created government to guarantee them their rights. In contrast, it would seem from the above that the federal government created fourteenth amendment citizenship to guarantee its power.

As a side note, this amendment has always been controversial. Many people over the years have questioned the amount of power it vests in the federal government. Some have even questioned its validity. On one occasion Judge Ellett of the Utah supreme court remarked:

I cannot believe that any court, in full possession of its faculties, could honestly hold that the amendment was properly approved and adopted.
State v. Phillips, Pacific Reporter, 2nd Series, Vol. 540, Page 941, 942 (1975)

However, the most important fact about this amendment is that, although it created a new class of citizen, it did not have any effect on Sovereign Citizens. Both classes still exist:

When the Constitution was adopted the people of the United States were the citizens of the several States for whom and for whose posterity the government was established. Each of them was a citizen of the United States at the adoption of the Constitution, and all free persons thereafter born within one of the several States became by birth citizens of the State and of the United States. (Mr. Calhoun in his published work upon the Constitution denied that there was any citizenship of the United States in any other sense than as being connected with the government through the States.)

The first attempt by Congress to define citizenship was in 1866 in the passage of the Civil Rights Act (Revised Statutes section 1992, 8 United States Code Annotated section 1). The act provided that:

"All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power are declared to be citizens of the United States."

And this in turn was followed in 1868 by the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, United States Code Annotated Amendment 14, declaring:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

Perkins v. Elg, Federal Reporter, 2nd Series, Vol. 99, Page 410 (1938), affirmed by supreme court at 307 US 325 (1939)
Both classes of citizen still exist. It's your right to be a Sovereign Citizen, while it's a privilege to be a fourteenth amendment citizen, and most importantly, it's up to you to determine which one you are, and which one you want to be.

**admin** · 09-02-2009 11:52 AM

Arizona State Senator Wayne Stump Explains
14th Amendment Citizenship

The following is a reprint from the Free Enterprise Society's newsletter, May 1989. It is authored by former Arizona State Senator Wayne Stump:
"As my interest in constitutional law has expanded over the past years and the word of my interest spread, I have happily become the recipient of Patriot papers, circulars and letters from all over this great land.
Many folks involved in the research and use of the principles involved in our "Republican" form of government have become personal friends. These friendships have enabled a great deal of activity, from diverse sources, to develop together for comparison and evaluation.
I have, from time to time, endeavored to pass information, on a limited basis, from one source to another for enlightenment of individuals on general issues.
This time, however, it would appear that the emerging principles are so fundamental to our form of government, and of such magnitude as to encompass every man, woman and child in our united Republics, that one wonders how they could have ever become obscured.
The principles to which I refer are those heralded in the Preamble of the Constitution, which being: "We, the People...." and continues "....secure the blessings of Liberty to Ourselves and our Posterity." These words, without question, were used to represent the interests of the signers of the Constitutional contract. That is to say, "The Founding Fathers and their Posterity."
When one reflects on this meaning of "We the People" it would seem to mean that the Preamble People were a class of people who, with the aid of God, originally secured their Liberty with the protections they constructed into the Organic Constitution and the first ten Amendments thereto. This, being the case, tends to bring the import of the 14th Amendment into focus.
The 13th and 14th Amendments, as we have been taught, were fashioned to give freedom to slaves and to secure for them privileges of citizenship.
Our Educators, however, neglected to explain that the 14th Amendment creation was that of a new "class" of citizenship. It becomes clear when one studies the wording of the Organic Constitution, that the original people cited in the "Preamble" could not lose the "Blessings" secured thereby as long as the Constitution was intact, because our Constitution is perpetual.
The 14th Amendment, then had to create another "position" for those persons for whom it was created. Scrutiny of the 14th Amendment reveals that persons encompassed thereby were "subject" to jurisdiction thereof and may not "question" the validity of the public debt.

Big "C" -- Little "c"

When this Nation was founded each of the individual States of this union had their own Citizens (spelled with a capital "C"). Today, we have a second class of citizen (note the small "c"), the 14th Amendment citizen.
In law, every letter in a word is important. A word capitalized may mean one specific thing, while the same word without capitalization may mean something entirely different. In the case of Citizenship (or citizenship), this is more certainly true.

There is a clear distinction between national and State citizenship, U.S. citizenship does not entitle citizen of the privileges and Immunities of the Citizen of the State. K. Tashiro v. Jordan, 256 P 545, affirmed 49 S Ct 47, 278 US 123.

Black's Law Dictionary, 5th Edition, agrees with the distinction between these different classes of (C)itizenship:

There are two Privileges and Immunities Clauses in the federal Constitution and Amendments, the first being found in Art. IV, and the second in the 14th Amendment. Section 1, second sentence, clause 1. The provision in Art. IV states that "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States, while the 14th Amendment provides that "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.

Note the lack of capitalization in the wording used in the 14th Amendment, this specifically means that the words "citizens, privileges, immunities" are not the same as in Article IV.
The State of California was admitted into the Union of the United States in 1849; 9 Statutes at Large 452. It was admitted on an equal footing with the original States in all respects whatsoever.
The State of California was required to have its own Citizens, who were first State Citizens, then as a consequence of State Citizenship were American Citizens, known as Citizens of the United States. There was no specific class as this, but for traveling and protection by the United States government while out of the country, they were generally called Citizens of the United States.
The Constitution for the United States of America (1787) used the term "Citizen of the United States" in Article I, Section 2, (capital "C"), and numerous other sections. This referred to the Sovereign Political Body of State Citizens, this Citizen is entitled to all the Privileges and Immunities of the Citizens of the several States under Article IV.
Congress utilized the same term "citizen of the United States" qualifying it with a small "c" to distinguish "federal citizen" in the so-called 14th Amendment. These "citizens" have only statutory rights granted by Congress.
Thus, Congress and most of the Judiciary, without distinction being properly brought forth have made rulings based upon the federal "citizens" who are resident in a State, not State Citizens domiciled within their own State.
The statement by Chief Justice Taney in Dred Scott v. Stanford, 19 How. 393, 422, in defining the term "persons" the Judge stated:

...persons who are not recognized as Citizens." See also American and Ocean Ins. Co. v. Canter, 1 Pet. 511, which also distinguishes "persons" and "Citizens." These were the persons that were the object of the 14th Amendment, to give to this class of native born "persons" who were "resident" in the union of the United States citizenship, and authority to place other than the white race within the special category of "citizen of the United States."

To overcome the statement in Dred Scott, supra, that only white people were Citizens, and all other persons were only "residents" without citizenship of the United States, Congress then passed the Civil Rights Act of 1866, 14 Stat 27.
The Act of Congress called the Civil Rights Act, 14 U.S. Stats. At Large, pg. 27, which was the forerunner of the 14th Amendment, amply shows the intent of Congress:

All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States, and such citizens of every race and color... shall have the same right in every state and territory of the United States... to full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and property as is enjoyed by white citizens,...

(Again, note the lack of capitalization)
This was the intent of Congress; not to infringe upon the Constitution or the state of the de jure Citizens of the several states. It was never the intent of the 14th Amendment to subvert the States' authority or that of the Constitution as it relates to the status of the de jure State Citizens. People v. Washington, 36 C 658, 661 (1869) over ruled on other grounds; French v. Barber, 181 US 324; MacKenzie v. Hare, 60 L Ed 297
At this point, I anticipate a lot of folks reading this article are going into shock as they grab for the Constitution to check out the phrase and "question" of the validity of the public debt. Let me help you by reference to section 4 of the 14th Amendment and caution you to hold onto your chair.
It would seen then, from the foregoing, that there are two "classes" of citizens in this country:
1. Preamble Citizen: persons born or naturalized within the meaning of the Organic Constitution and inhabiting one of the several Republics of the United States who enjoy full citizenship of the Organic Constitution as Citizens of the Republic which they inhabit.

2. Citizen "subject": persons enfranchised by the 14th Amendment who are born or naturalized in the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment and are residing therein as a United States citizen and are enjoying the privileges and immunities of "limited" citizenship.

It is not my intention, in this article, to become technically involved in citations for the information introduced here, but only to outline an overview for those folks who claim "Constitutional Rights" and then wonder why the legislatures, courts and police don't respond in "kind" to these claims.

When one separates the classes among their appropriate dividing lines, it appears that:
1. Preamble Citizens:
a. Have direct personal access to a God inspired, original Constitution and it's restraints on government for the protection of life, liberty and property.

b. Have direct personal access to the Article III courts known as "justice courts" which deal with law.
2. Citizen "subjects":
a. Have representative access to the first eight amendments as purviewed by the 14th Amendment.

b. Have representative access to Article 1 courts, provided by legislature, that are known as "legislative courts" which deal with statutes and are served by bar members, or officers of the court, known as lawyers.

My concern here, stems from my observation that folks involved with the preservation of our beloved Constitution are unaware of the "limited" citizenship created by the 14th Amendment. Additionally, these folks don't realize that they are, or have voluntarily become, citizen subjects because of their acceptance of the "benefits" of limited citizenship.
The main "benefit" that I will mention here is Social Security. There are many other "benefits" such as the benefit of "regulation by licensing" that give control of your children to the State by making them "wards of the State" and subject to the "regulation" of the "legislative courts" by statute, etc.
The intention of this article is to point out the apparent difference in the classes of citizenship and the difference in the courts in serving these classes.

I have noticed that, in many publications, and also personal conversations, people convey their feelings of alarm or despair in finding that "the court" or "government" is in violation of the Constitution without realizing that the court they are addressing is a legislative court and does not hear cases based on justice, but rather, cases based only on statute law.
The reality of the following example of statute law is that the statute specifies a speed limit to be held at 30 m.p.h. The only question that can be entertained by the court is that of whether the accused did in fact go faster than the limit. That is a yes or no question. The accused cannot try to tell the court that it was a six lane highway on a clear day with no traffic in sight and that his speed of 60 m.p.h. did not injure anyone. The court is not obligated to hear that argument as it is not a justice court.

The final question then would seem to be "where is the article III "justice" court and who can use it? I am very aware that many of the folks reading this article are not going to be able to use the justice courts, as they have natural or acquired deficiencies that will not allow them Preamble Citizenship, but for the people endowed with the proper qualifications, it appears that the straight line approach of barring jurisdiction of legislative courts (tribunals) through recision of contracts and declaration of Article IV, Section 2 status is essential, as it appears that only Preamble People can exercise the offices as set forth in the Organic Constitution. Additionally, it seems that this same class (Preamble People) is the only class that may claim the protection of the first ten Amendments as written.

As the truth of our personal status, and the responsibilities connected therewith unfolds, it becomes clear that the Article III "justice" court must be accessed individually by the person claiming the right. At present it is being done by common law filing of actions "in law" with the County Recorders who have been found to be "ex officio" clerks of the County courts. The authority for the exercise of the "justice" office is found in the 9th Article of Amendment and I believe all State Constitutions have similar provisions for the Preamble Citizens (also known as de jure Citizens).
I will not go farther with an attempt toward instruction but will leave this in the hands of the many patriots engaged in the research of these developments. My mission in presenting this information in a general sense is to help the unfortunate individuals who repeatedly bash themselves against the rocks of misinformation or ignorance in vain, though laudable, effort to protect our beloved Constitution. I hope I have achieved this end."

**admin** · 09-02-2009 11:54 AM

The Fourteenth Amendment and a “natural born citizen”

A common misunderstanding of “natural born” citizenship comes from the Fourteenth Amendment, but a strict reading of the fourteenth amendment is quite clear that this only conveys an at birth naturalized citizenship. Those born in the United States at the time of adoption and afterwards were only citizens. Those who wrote the amendment knew exactly what they were doing. Because of the distinctive use of “natural born citizen” and “citizen,” in Article II, Section 1 the simple fact that being born in the United States does not make one a “natural born citizen,” it only makes one “a citizen.”

The Fourteenth amendment states in Section 1,

Section 1 - “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

Obviously missing is the conveyance of “natural born” status to these citizens. In fact what is obviously included in the text is the term “naturalized.” This section has several clauses, the first deals with citizenship.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.

The second deals with prohibiting the states from passing laws denying the protection of citizenship from any citizen, “natural born” or naturalized.

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

The fifth section details something very important, it reads

Section 5 – “The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.”

Article 1, Section 8 enumerated the powers Congress has. The only power Congress has over citizenship is found here. It reads,

“To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;”

To make the freed slaves citizens, naturalization was the only power the 14th Amendment granted Congress to use. Look it up in the Constitution. Congress had no intention and no authority to making everyone born under the 14th Amendment “a natural born citizen.” This is born out by Congressional records regarding the debate of the Fourteenth Amendment. By the chief architect of Section 1 of this amendment.

“I find no fault with the introductory clause, which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen; but, sir, I may be allowed to say further, that I deny that the Congress of the United States ever had the power or color of power to say that any man born within the jurisdiction of the United States, and not owing a foreign allegiance, is not and shall not be a citizen of the United States.” John A. Bingham, (R-Ohio) US Congressman, Architect of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment, March 9, 1866 Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866), Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes (1866), Cf. U.S. Const. XIVth Amend.

There is no doubt that anyone born under the 14th Amendment who is not subject is a “naturalized citizen,” or just “a citizen,” as the Amendment states. They are not natural born citizens.

To further understand why this is so, is to look at the first clause carefully.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.

The words “born or naturalized” are joined with the conjunction “or,” and logically an or implies either of the two are equal. What they are equal in is being a citizen. Not “a natural born citizen.” This expressly negates the idea that simple birth of a person who is “subject to the jurisdiction” confers the coveted “natural born” status. If the term “citizen” did in fact convey a “natural born” status, then who were naturalized would be considered “natural born.”
Obviously, this is not the case, as it would mean that people like Kissinger, Albright and Schwarzenegger could run for office. Clearly, the Fourteenth Amendment is not conferring “natural born” status on anyone, it only confers simple citizenship and the universal rights given to all citizens, “native born” and naturalized. In fact, several Supreme Court Cases since the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment restrict citizenship claims based on being born geographically within the United States, and bestows the coveted “natural born citizen” title to the children of citizens, while affirming simple citizenship to the children born to aliens.

1.The Slaughterhouse Cases 83 U.S. 36 (1873) The Fourteenth Amendment excludes the children of aliens. “The phrase, "subject to its jurisdiction" was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.”
2.Minor v. Happersett 88 U.S. 162 (1874) The Fourteenth Amendment draws a distinction between the children of aliens and children of citizens. “The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also.”
3.Elk v. Wilkins 112 U.S. 94 (1884) The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction" requires "direct and immediate allegiance" to the United States, not just physical presence. “This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only: birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof." The evident meaning of these last words is not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance. And the words relate to the time of birth in the one case, as they do to the time of naturalization in the other. Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterwards except by being naturalized, either individually, as by proceedings under the naturalization acts, or collectively, as by the force of a treaty by which foreign territory is acquired.”
4.Wong Kim Ark Case, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) Affirms that “natural born citizen,” is the child of an existing citizen. “The right of citizenship never descends in the legal sense, either by the common law or under the common naturalization acts. It is incident to birth in the country, or it is given personally by statute. The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.”
5.Perkins v. Elg, 307 U. S. 325 (1939) In citing a long series of cases, involving minors removed from their US domicile by their foreign born parents, the Supreme Court distinguishes the difference of “a native born person” of two naturalized citizens can become President. This distinction of citizenship is not made to the others, only that their Jus soli citizenship is intact if at the age of majority they reclaim it.

As you can see from the intent of the Founding Fathers to the Supreme Court decision that “a natural born” is the child of citizens. A natural born citizen is not the child of an alien. In this there is no doubt. The question now that we seek answered is that Barack Hussein Obama, II is both the child of an alien who never had any intention on becoming a naturalized citizen and the child of a citizen minor. If Barack Hussein Obama, II was in fact born in Hawaii, he is a citizen under Jus soli and afforded all rights any citizen has. But he is not a citizen under Jus sanguinis, because we have laws that dictate how Jus sanguinis citizenship can be transferred. If Barack Hussein Obama, II cannot claim citizenship under Jus sanguinis then he is not a natural born citizen.

While many patriots will argue with clear conviction “natural born” should be narrowly interpreted as to mean both parents must be citizens, giving birth to that child under the jurisdiction of the United States of America, they do accept that Jus sanguinis citizenship can be passed from one parent in accordance to the law of the land at the time of birth. So what was the law of the land at the time for giving a person Jus sanguinis citizenship?

There three ways for a person claim citizenship, what most of us think of first is called Jus soli, “the right of the soil,” which is the physical location your place of birth. The second is what is called Jus sanguinis, “the right of blood,” which you inherit from your parents. The third is a combination of Jus soli and Jus sanguinis, and it is this combination that determines if one is a natural born citizen. Since any citizenship under Jus solis is codified by the Fourteenth Amendment, we only find laws for passing citizenship via Jus sanguinis on August 4th, 1961 in the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter Act). This act states that in order for Obama’s right of blood citizenship to be passed to him, that since he only had one parent who was a U.S. citizen at the time of your birth, that parent must have resided in the United States for at least ten years, at least five of which had to be after the age of 14. Barack Hussein Obama, II fails the test for the right to claim “natural born citizen” status.

Common sense tells us that both Jus soli and Jus sanguinis are what the Founding Fathers intended when they penned the phrase “a natural born citizen.” For imagine foreigners owing allegiance to a foreign power, arriving in America, giving birth to a child and immediately returning home to their country with their child. This child is reared for 21 years in a culture that hates America and that wants to see America destroyed. On the child’s 21st birthday this child returns to the United States of America, claiming their citizenship based Jus soli. For fourteen years they live in the United States, supported covertly by these foreign powers, growing in wealth and stature until they reach the age of 35 years. This scenario cumulates with this child of the soil, not having one drop of American blood in their veins, becoming President and destroying this country. Considering that countries are a creation of mankind, and non-existent in nature, natural loyalties are too blood.

“To disregard such a deliberate choice of words and their natural meaning would be a departure from the first principle of constitutional interpretation. 'In expounding the Constitution of the United States, every word must have its due force, and appropriate meaning; for it is evident from the whole instrument, that no word was unnecessarily used, or needlessly added. The many discussions which have taken place upon the construction of the constitution, have proved the correctness of this proposition; and shown the high talent, the caution, and the foresight of the illustrious men who framed it. Every word appears to have been weighed with the utmost deliberation, and its force and effect to have been fully understood.” Chief Justice Roger B. Taney

The Constitution directly specified 3 types of citizens, at the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment as those who are “citizens,” those who were citizens at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, and natural born citizens. The architects of the Fourteenth Amendment had two to choose from in granting citizenship under this amendment, they choose just a citizen, and rejected “a natural born citizen.”

**admin** · 09-02-2009 12:02 PM

If you are serious about your freedom this is a must listen what is going on.

It is over a couple of hours long, it is indepth and important.

Please pass the link along to others. We have gotten some information that the link is not working properly, please try this one. There is a green box, and an area to open in your own computer player to hear the audio. Please listen to it all.

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/Patriot...ens-Grand-Jury

Superior Court of the District of Columbia.
MUST LISTEN!!!!

Listen to the audio and then reread the articles above...

**admin** · 09-02-2009 06:05 PM

I have been getting pm's on the link posted in the above post. The link was working earlier, if it is not working for you now, please try again. My other thought is perhaps it is being scrubbed by Washington.....

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~

CORPORATE GOVERNMENT
Clearfield Doctrine

The government does business on business terms and its no different than any other corporation doing business. 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 and securities is concerned.
See: Clearfield Trust Co. v. United States , 318 U.S. 363, 371 (1943).

The federal government is not the sovereign for ones who are not United States citizens. The government is the sovereign to corporations or persons it creates. One who is in a position of being the servant cannot question the demands of the master. The government possesses what is called "sovereign immunity" in relation to those it creates.

**admin** · 09-02-2009 06:37 PM

Freedom and Privacy Restoration Act of 1999.

This act forbids the federal government from establishing any national ID cards or establishing any identifiers for the purpose of investigating, monitoring, overseeing, or regulating private transactions between American citizens. This legislation also explicitly repeals those sections of the 1996 Immigration Act that established federal standards for state drivers' licenses and those sections of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 that require the Department of Health and Human Services to establish a uniform standard health identifier.

**Boots06** · 09-05-2009 10:37 AM

The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 -- The greatest Treason in US History.

VIDEO LINK (Former IRS Agent Joe Banister and Ron Paul On CNBC)

On December 23, 1913 the United States Congress passed the FEDERAL RESERVE ACT and by that committed the greatest act of TREASON in U.S. history. It surrendered the nation's sovereignty and sold the American people into slavery to a cabal or arch-charlatan bankers who proceeded to plunder, bankrupt, and conquer the nation with a MONEY SWINDLE.
The "money" the banks issue is merely bookkeeping entries. It costs them nothing and is not backed by their wealth, efforts, property, or risk. It is not redeemable except in more DEBT paper. The Federal Reserve Act forced us to pay compound interest on thin air. We now use worthless "NOTES" backed by our own credit that we cannot own and are made subject to compelled performance for the "PRIVILEGE."

From 1913 until 1933 the U.S. paid "interest" with more and more gold. The structured inevitability soon transpired - the Treasury of the United States' government was empty, the debt was greater than ever, and the U.S. declared bankruptcy. In exchange for using notes belonging to bankers who create them out of NOTHING on our credit, we are forced to repay in substance (labor, property, land, businesses, resources - life) in ever-increasing amounts. This IS the GREATEST HEIST AND FRAUD of all time.

When a government goes bankrupt, it loses its sovereignty. In 1933 the U.S. declared bankruptcy, as expressed in Roosevelt's Executive Order 6073, 6102, 6111, and 6260, House Joint Resolution 192 of June 5, 1933, confirmed in Perry v. U.S., (1935) 294 U.S. 330, 381; 79 L.ED. 912, also 31 USC 5112, 5119 and 12 USC 95a.

The bankrupt U.S. went into receivership, reorganized in favor of 115 creditors and new owners. In 1913, congress turned over America lock, stock and barrel to a handful of criminals whose avowed intent from the beginning was to plunder, bankrupt, conquer and enslave the people of the united States of America and eliminate the nation from the face of the earth. The goal was, and is, to absorb America into a one-world privately owned commercial government. A "NEW WORLD ORDER."

With the Erie R.R. v. Thompkins case of 1938 the Supreme Court confirmed their success. We are now in an international private commercial jurisdiction in colorable admiralty-maritime under the Law Merchant. We have been conned and betrayed out of our sovereignty, rights, property freedom, common law, Article III courts, and our REPUBLIC. The Bill of Rights has been statutized into "civil rights" in commerce.

America has been stolen. We have been made slaves, i.e., permanent debtors, bankrupt, in legal incapacity, rendered commercial "person," residents and corporate franchisees known as "citizens of the United States" under the so-called "14th Amendment," which was never ratified - see Congressional Record, June 12, 1967; Dvett v. Turner (1968) 439 P.2d 266; State v. Phillips, (1975)(affirmed) and created a citizenship for corporations (abstract) statutory entities, which are the products and definitions of the legislature and are fully taxable and regulatable thereby. Thomas Jefferson's prophecy came to pass: "If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of currency ... the banks ... will deprive the people of all property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered."

Since 1933 what is called the "United States' Government" is a privately owned corporation of the Federal Reserve System/IMF. It is merely an instrument by which the banksters administer their ongoing rape of human freedom. All "public servants," officials, Congressmen, politicians, judges, attorneys, law enforcement, States and their various agencies, teachers, etc., are the express agents of these "Foreign Principals*" who have stolen the country by clever, intentional, and unrelenting fraud, trickery, treachery, non-disclosure, misrepresentation, intrigue, coercion, conspiracy, murder, etc.. If there is a greater tragedy in human history, there were no survivors and has been hidden since its occurrence.
* See Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938; 22 USC 286 et seq. 263a, 185g, 267j; 611(c)(ii) & (iii); Treasury Delegation Order #91.

An insidious aspect of this is that "officials" like you may think you are "public servants," or upholding the "law," or other hoaxes. In truth you are conscientiously and assiduously serving the archenemies of yourselves, your rights, your fellow citizens, continued human rights, life and freedom in general. YOU are seditiously administering the plunder, bankruptcy, impoverishing, and injuring human life based on crimes and lies of magnitude, depth and proportions as to be beyond human comprehension.

By so doing, you are committing TREASON AND PERFIDY so immense as "to make the angels weep." If you and your fellow "officials" do not understand the real situation you are ignorant, naive, deceived and conned. You are sheer dupes. If you do know and are parties to it you are guilty of evil and heinous "betrayal." You are in such case TRAITORS AND CRIMINALS. ALL OF YOU "IN POWER" are therefore, either fools or knaves, either of which eminently invalidates your "authority" and renders NULL AND VOID absolutely, all moral obligation to pay allegiance or to obey the TREASONOUS SYSTEM you enforce with such mechanical avariciousness, viciousness and malice aforethought.

If, You, "public servants" have any shred of humanity, awe, heart, clarity, sanity, access to your true being and conscience, left you would instantly resign and do everything possible to inform the American people of their plight and help us retrieve our rights and our country. Only by such means can you even begin to atone for your endless crimes against humanity, and the lives you so arrogantly and mindlessly butcher with the "meat-grinder of the law."

You DID NOT CREATE the lives you, "legally" assault, they DO NOT belong to you. Ignorance of the law (moral and natural law), is no excuse. You CANNOT engage in bringing harm to life, and like the Nazi's defense at Nuerenberg, presume that because you do so, under the consequences of your acts. Moral and natural law are NOT obviated by ignorance, hubris and self-righteous militancy. Your entire system - from ground up - is DECEIT AND FRAUD. It is illicit in essence and ab initio. As Broom's Maxims 297, 729 put it: "A right of action cannot arise out of fraud." Honor is earned by honesty and integrity, not under false and fraudulent pretenses. The color of the cloth one wears cannot cover up the usurpations, lies and treachery. "When black is fraudulently declared to be white, not all will live in darkness."

More people are awakening to the truth. What do you think the American people will do as they discover that they have no more country, that they are slaves to mortal enemies, that they have been tricked and betrayed by their "leaders" who sole them out? What do you think they will do when they realize that all their alleged "public servants" are willing or stupidly compliant parties to the plunder, subjugation and ruin of their lives and country?

Thomas Jefferson wrote: "An honest man can feel no pleasure in the exercise of power over his fellow citizens." Lincoln said: "Just as I would not be a slave, neither would I be a master." I will NOT participate in your corrupt, arrant and cruel FRAUD, either as perpetrator nor victim. The great Indian poet Tagore wrote: "Power takes as ingratitude the writhing of its victim."
I will no longer sit here and writhe. The TYRANNY over this nation MUST END! If you continue with this course, you will have natural and moral law and higher powers to answer to, not to mention all those you have wronged under the color of law. You also, will have your own laws turned against you, as you have turned the law against us. To transform the shield of protection into a sword of exploitation, subjugation and plunder is PERFIDY. You have now been NOTICED. All further actions on your part will be willful.

**Boots06** · 09-05-2009 11:26 AM

Excellent article Link:
The Dark Side of the Tax State

The essence of all slavery consists in taking the produce of another's labor by force. It is immaterial whether this force be founded on ownership of the slave or ownership of the money that he must get to live on.

Color of Law and Other Laws

Sunday, October 2, 2011

CLEARFIELD DOCTRINE

Thread: Clearfield Doctrine

Thread Tools

Search Thread

Display

Clearfield Doctrine

14th Amendment "Color of Law

Arizona State Senator Wayne Stump

The Fourteenth Amendment and a “natural born citizen”

Important audio to listen to

The Federal Reserve Act of 1913

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

3 comments:

Le