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…
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.