The Clearfield Doctrine, established in the Supreme Court case Clearfield Trust Co. v. United States, 318 U.S. 363 (1943), provides a critical lens to view the U.S. government’s role in commerce and contract law. This doctrine reveals that when the government engages in "commercial" transactions, it acts as a private entity and forfeits any claim to sovereign immunity. Its implications ripple through contract law, the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), and the understanding that everything, factually and legally, is commerce. Everything the Government does is "commercial." Think about that for a moment…
West Coast Exotic Cars is embroiled in serious legal issues that stem from fraudulent and unethical business practices, as evidenced by unrebutted affidavits that establish a prima facie case against the dealership. The following points summarize the key violations and the corresponding legal statutes that highlight the gravity of the situation:
The Estate of Steven MacArthur Brooks has filed a $2.975 billion lawsuit against San Diego County Credit Union, asserting a legally binding contract and requesting summary judgment. This claim highlights the plaintiffs’ standing as secured creditors under the Uniform Commercial Code, supported by unrebutted affidavits and documented acceptance of contractual terms by the defendants. The case centers on a security agreement and contract, with the defendants’ lack of response legally reinforcing the plaintiffs’ demand for summary judgment.
In legal practice, the roles of an "Attorney at Law" (commonly referred to as a "Lawyer") and an "Attorney in Fact" are distinct and carry different responsibilities and powers. This distinction is crucial when considering legal representation, personal agency, and the management of one’s affairs, especially in terms of maintaining personal sovereignty.
This explanation clarifies the distinction between state citizens and nationals in the context of U.S. law, emphasizing that individuals born in a state are primarily state citizens with allegiance to their state, not to the federal United States, which is defined as a federal corporation occupying only 10 square miles. It highlights the absence of explicit references to "state citizen" in official documentation and how this ambiguity may be intentionally designed to centralize federal control. Understanding these distinctions can illuminate the complexities of citizenship and legal identity within the U.S. legal framework.
Discover the hidden connections between major institutions like Bank of America, Chase, Wells Fargo, and the IRS, all linked under the corporate structure of Northern Trust Corporation. Uncover how these financial giants, along with the American Bar Association, intertwine to control significant aspects of the legal and financial landscape. Explore the influence of these entities and the impact on the perception of government agencies and banks.
House Joint Resolution 192 of 1933 Public Law 73-10 and the Removal of Gold from America: a long time ago, back in 1933, the government had a big money problem. They couldn’t pay their bills, so they declared bankruptcy. To fix things, they created new rules. One of these was called Executive Order 6102, which made “U.S. citizens” turn in their gold coins and bars. In exchange, they received paper money called Federal Reserve Notes. But here’s the key part: this rule only applied to “U.S. citizens,” not to private citizens who knew they were different from that legal status.
Most people didn’t know the difference between the public and private sides of the law, so they unknowingly volunteered to give up their gold. By not understanding the difference, they became their ens legis, also known as their “straw man” “U.S. citizen,” or “trust,” or “bank,” or “corporation,” or “individual.” It is the fake version of themselves whether they consciously know it or know. The “U.S. citizen” is a “legal person” and a fiction—an entity. By volunteering to turn in their gold, these people also agreed to use Federal Reserve Notes instead of “lawful money,” which is gold and silver-backed. They entered into a contract without even realizing it, and contract is law and enforceable.
Contracts, legally binding agreements between parties, are often formed through mutual consent, typically involving an offer and acceptance. Silence, known as tacit agreement, acquiescence, or tacit procuration, can also legally bind parties to contract terms. This concept becomes vital when challenging purported fraudulent loans like mortgages. Through the strategic use of commercial affidavits, one can utilize contract law principles such as the mailbox rule, the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), and relevant statutes to enforce or modify contract terms. However, it is equally important to recognize that using Federal Reserve Notes (FRNs) for debt payment may be interpreted as tacit acceptance of the contract’s terms, potentially resulting in the abandonment of one’s assets and exemptions. This action may further expose the purported borrower to legal risks under federal law.
When a purported borrower takes out a loan from a bank, it may seem as if the bank is lending its own money. However, under 12 U.S.C. § 83, banks are prohibited from lending their own funds. Instead, the bank uses the purported borrower’s promissory note—created through the borrower’s signature—as the source of credit. This note, becomes an asset on the bank’s books, allowing it to generate credit entries for a private monetary system without using its own capital. Importantly, no money leaves a bank account; all the credit generated is based on accounting entries.
Under Title 12 U.S.C. § 1813(l)(1), when the purported borrower deposits or surrenders a promissory note, it is considered a cash item. In this context, a financial institution, such as Chase or other entities, are legally obligated to treat the note as a cash equivalent and issue a cash receipt acknowledging the deposit of this asset.
A bill of exchange can function as "legal tender" or "tender of payment," but its status depends on acceptance and context but regardless, if tendered correctly, it does discharge the debt and respective amount tendered. It is a written instrument where one party (the drawer) orders another (the drawee) to pay a specific amount to a third party (the payee). While bills of exchange can be negotiable, they can also be non-negotiable, meaning they don’t always transfer ownership upon indorsement.