Point 071(b).

Affiant has no record or evidence that the Clearfield Doctrine is not in full
force and effect against all fictions, including, among others, all governments, their
agents/agencies, officers, employees, and other affiliates.
ADMIT - Libellees listed within this document admit and agree that the Clearfield
Doctrine applies to them in its entirety.

NOTICE 071(b) - CLEARFIELD DOCTRINE in Full

Force

"As the use of private corporate commercial paper [Federal Reserve notes], debt
currency or securities [checks] is concerned, removes the sovereignty status of the
government of "We the People" and reduces it to an entity rather than a
government in the area of finance and commerce as a corporation or person.
"Governments descend to the level of a mere private corporation and take on the
characteristics of a mere private citizen. This entity cannot compel performance
upon its corporate statute or rules unless it, like any other corporation or person is
the holder-in-due course of some contract or commercial agreement between it and
the one upon whom the payment and performance are made and are willing to
produce said documents and place the same evidence before trying to enforce its
demands called statutes". For purposes of suit, such corporations and individuals
are regarded as entities entirely separate from government." Clearfield Trust Co. v.
United States 318 US. 363-371.
"When governments enter the world of commerce, they are subject to the same burdens
as any private firm or corporation" -- U.S. v. Burr, 309 U.S. 242 See: 22 U.S.C.A.286e,
Bank of U.S. vs. Planters Bank of Georgia, 6L, Ed. (9 Wheat) 244; 22 U.S.C.A. 286 et
seq., C.R.S. 11-60-103
NOTE: Under the Clearfield Doctrine, the courts are no longer government entities in that
they are demanding private monies and must have a contract with you to compel
performance. They are no more special as a normal business than your local Jack In The
Box.
Did/does the court demand payment in a certain "species"? [U.S. $]
Did the court make payment [on the record, or by way of agreement] of any entry fees, etc.?
If one USD is given, or demanded, [species] HJR 192 is over-riden and all Instruments have
become "bogus financial instruments" involving private creditors and all "enjoined in the
fraud" may be prosecuted under a variety of statutes; conspiracy (18 U.S.C. Sec 371); mail
fraud (18 U.S.C. Sec 1341); uttering a false security (18 U.S.C. Sec 472); bank fraud (18
U.S.C. Sec 1344); and possessing and uttering a counterfeit security (18 U.S.C. Sec 513).
SEE, United States v. Uullman, 187 F.3d 816 (8th Cir. 1999); United States v. Hanzlicek, 187
F.3d 1228, 1230 (10th Cir. 1999); United States v. Wells, 163 F.3d 889 (4th Cir. 1998); United
States v. Stockheimer, 157 F.3d 1082 (7th Cir. 1998).
DICTIONARY OF LAW (1893) Corporation. A creature of the crown, created by letters-patent.
An artificial being, indivisible, intangible, and existing only in contemplation of law. 1 Blackstone,
295. The United States may be deemed a corporation, United States v. Hillegas, 3 Wash. 73
(1811); so may a State, 1 Abb. U.S. 22 and 35 Ga. 315; and so, a county. [SEE; NOTICE - All
S.S.I. is from the Crown]

United States under Title 28, Section 3002 (15)(A)."United States means - (A) a Federal
corporation."

The United States Federal Government is a corporate entity or society which makes it a person.
A monarch is, "a single or sole ruler of a state... a person or a thing that suppresses others of the
same kind." - Webster's New Dictionary unabridged 2nd Ed. 1965.

The United States Federal Government is a CORPORATE entity which MAKES IT A PERSON.

STATE OF OHIO v. HELVERING, 292 U.S. 360 (1934)

A state is a person within the meaning of a statute punishing the false making or fraudulent
alteration of a public record 'with intent that any person may be defrauded.' Martin v. State, 24
Tex. 61, 68.

Under a statute defining a negotiable note as a note made by one person whereby he promises
to pay money to another person, and providing that the word 'person' should be construed to
extend to every corporation capable by law of making contracts, it was held that the word
included a state. State of Indiana v. Woram, 6 Hill (N.Y.) 33, 38, 40 Am.Dec. 378.

And a state is a person or a corporation within the purview of the priority provisions of the
Bankruptcy Act. 1 In re Western Implement Co. (D.C.) 166 F. 576, 582. [292 U.S. 360, 371]
Compare Matter of Jensen, 28 Misc. 378, 59 N.Y.S. 653, 655; Bray v. Wallingford, 20 Conn. 416,
418; County of Lancaster v. Trimble, 34 Neb. 752, 756, 52 N.W. 711; Rains v. City of Oshkosh, 14
Wis. 372, 374; 1 Black. Comm. 123.

A STATE IS A PERSON.

----------
"Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is Person." 9 F. Supp 272
----------

A COMMONWEALTH IS A PERSON

----------
Arizona State Legislature

45-291. Definition of person

In this article, unless the context otherwise requires, "person" means an individual, public or
private corporation, company, partnership, firm, association, society, estate, trust, any other
private organization or enterprise, the United States, any state, territory or country or a
governmental entity, political subdivision or municipal corporation organized under or subject to
the constitution and laws of the United States, this state or any other state.
A "PERSON" MEANS A "GOVERNMENT"

"The people as a corporate unit form an artificial person or body politic; thus constituted they form
a moral person. It is this person we call a state. (4 1 Wilson’s Works 321-325: 2 Wilson’s Works
321)"

A STATE IS AN ARTIFICIAL PERSON

"In free states the people form an artificial person or body politic, the highest and noblest
that can be known" (1 Wilson’s Works).

"History is clear that the first ten amendments to the Constitution were adopted to secure
certain common law rights of the people, against invasion by the Federal
Government." Bell v. Hood, 71 F. Supp., 813, 816 (1947) U.S.D.C. -- So. Dist. CA.

I have not granted any power of attorney or other similar instrument to any "person",
government, or any agent thereof and no governmental agency has power of attorney
over me or my property.

It should be noted that no rights are ever "granted" to a man, rather that mankind possess
all of their rights. These are not "constitutional rights" but are rather rights possessed by
all people. Documents do not grant rights, but simply state what rights are already
possessed by mankind. No constitution or other document creates rights, but only state
them so as to prevent governments or people from infringing upon those rights. The
Constitution for the United States of America states many rights possessed by mankind,
but I claim no rights emanating from any constitution or other document. It should be
further noted that mankind are the natural people, as mentioned in the Constitution for the
United States of America. A man is distinctly different from a "person*."

* The Dictionary Act provided that:

"in all acts hereafter passed... the word `person' may extend and be applied to bodies
politic and corporate... unless the context shows that such words were intended to be used
in a more limited sense." Act of Feb. 25, 1871, 2, 16 Stat. 431.

Are not all "persons" protected by the 4th and 5th Amendments? No! Corporations,
which are legally "persons," are not protected, as explained by the United States
Supreme Court in the case of Hale v. Henkel , 201 U.S. 43, 74, that court said:

"If, whenever an officer or employee of a corporation were summoned before a grand

jury as a witness he could refuse to produce the books and documents of such
corporation, upon the ground that they would incriminate the corporation itself, it would
result in the failure of a large number of cases where the illegal combination was
determinable only upon the examination of such papers. Conceding that the witness was
an officer of the corporation under investigation, and that he was entitled to assert the
rights of corporation with respect to the production of its books and papers, we are of the
opinion that there is a clear distinction in this particular between an individual and a
corporation , and that the latter has no Right to refuse to submit its books and papers for
an examination at suit of the State. The individual may stand upon his constitutional [sic]
{guaranteed} Rights as a citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his
own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no duty to the State or to his
neighbors to divulge his business, or to open his doors to an investigation, so far as it
may tend to incriminate him. He owes no such duty to the State, since he receives nothing
therefrom, beyond the protection of his life and property. His Rights are such as existed
by the law of the land long antecedent to the organization of the State, and can only be
taken from him, by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution. Among
his Rights are a refusal to incriminate himself, and the immunity of himself and his
property from arrest or seizure except under a warrant of law. He owes nothing to the
public so long as he does not trespass upon their Rights. (Emphasis added)

Upon the other hand, the corporation is a creature of the state. It is presumed to be
incorporated for the benefit of the public. It receives certain special privileges and
franchises, and holds them subject to the laws of the state and the limitations of its
charter. Its powers are limited by law. It can make no contract not authorized by its
charter. Its rights to [201 U.S. 43, 75] act as a corporation are only preserved to it so
long as it obeys the laws of its creation. There is a reserved right in the legislature to
investigate its contracts and find out whether it has exceeded its powers. It would be a
strange anomaly to hold that a state, having chartered a corporation to make use of
certain franchises, could not, in the exercise of its sovereignty, inquire how these
franchises had been employed, and whether they had been abused, and demand the
production of the corporate books and papers for that purpose. The defense amounts to
this: That an officer of a corporation which is charged with a criminal violation of the
statute, may plead the criminality of such corporation as a refusal to produce its books.
To state this proposition is to answer it. While an individual may lawfully refuse to
answer incriminating questions unless protected by an immunity statute, it does not
follow that a corporation, vested with special privileges and franchises, may refuse to
show its hand when charged with an abuse of such privileges." (Emphasis added)

see: Chisholm v. State of Georgia , 2 U.S. 419, (Dall.) 455 (1793) and the United States
Supreme Court said this:

"States and Governments were made for man; and, at the same time, how true it is, that
his creatures and servants have first deceived, next vilified, and, at last, oppressed their
master and maker". ...Let a State be considered as subordinate to the People.

The State of Georgia is NOT Sovereign, Mr. Chisholm IS."