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."