November 19, 2012 - Relating to Government

There is no end to the frustrations experienced when relating to government and especially when the courts are involved. Much of our frustration can be minimized when we understand what we are working with.

For me, insight came on learning of a court ruling called the Clearfield Doctrine, paraphrased by someone as: 

"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..."

Although I have not been able to confirm this particular quote, the Clearfield case law and two others contain support for the principles of this “doctrine”:

"The United States as drawee of commercial paper stands in no different light than any other drawee. As stated in United States v. National Exchange Bank, 270 U.S. 527, 534, 46 S.Ct. 388, 389, 70 L.Ed. 717, 'The United States does business on business terms.'” Clearfield Trust Co v. United States, 318 Us 363

"It is, we think, a sound principle that when a government becomes a partner in any trading company, it divests itself, so far as concerns the transactions of that company, of its sovereign character and takes that of a private citizen." Bank of United States v. Planters' Bank of Georgia, 22 U.S. 9 Wheat. 904 904 (1824)

"when Congress launched a governmental agency into the commercial world and endowed it with authority to 'sue or be sued', that agency is not less amenable to judicial process than a private enterprise under like circumstances would be.” F.H.A. v. Burr, 309 U.S. 242

When a government partners with a private corporation, such as a private bank, such as the Federal Reserve, or the United Nations, it becomes a "mere private corporation."

As pertains to the US, the principle holds that where the Constitution governs certain activities of the true government, a “mere private corporation” is not governed by it. The courts know this and would therefore rule accordingly. For example, where the Constitution requires that all prospective Presidents be “America-born," presidents of private corporations are under no such rule and the courts would have no interest in hearing such a case. 

This principle of Law hold true in Canada where this government began to borrow money from foreign banks and entered into partnership with the United Nations. While a legitimate government, be it federal or provincial, is obligated to the “Rule of Law” and to the Constitution Act as the supreme “Law of the land,” when this government became a "mere private corporation” in 1974 is not so obligated. 

In all cases, a private corporation can create it’s own internal laws (i.e. statutes), and only those acting as an agent for that private corporation (government) or those performing a function for that private corporation are obligated to obey its copyrighted, private, statutes. Common law has no standing within it affairs or in its court system. Its courts are strictly statutory courts.

If a private corporation has a dress code (or statute) or one regulating a speed limit, only those registered as being in its employ are obligated to that code or limit. So too states the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms:

Application of Charter

32. (1) This Charter applies

  • (a) to the Parliament and government of Canada in respect of all matters within the authority of Parliament including all matters relating to the Yukon Territory and Northwest Territories; and
  • (b) to the legislature and government of each province in respect of all matters within the authority of the legislature of each province.

The solution then is to know your employer. Is it the government, a private corporation, or do you employed in and for your own livelihood?

Use what you read here as a part of your research to establish your understanding.
Your actions remain your responsibility.
All natural rights reserved. © 2012 steven, a man. <><