What is the Clearfield Doctrine ???
This is a question I get asked often.
The Clearfield doctrine is a legal principle that allows federal courts to create common law rules governing the liability of parties to negotiable instruments. The doctrine was established by the Supreme Court in the case of Clearfield Trust Co. v. United States, 318 U.S. 363 (1943).
In Clearfield, the Court held that federal courts have the power to create common law rules governing the liability of parties to negotiable instruments because such instruments are "instruments of commerce" that "affect interstate commerce." The Court reasoned that federal courts have a special responsibility to develop common law rules governing such instruments in order to ensure uniformity and predictability in the law.
The Clearfield doctrine has been applied by lower courts in a variety of cases involving the liability of parties to negotiable instruments. For example, the doctrine has been used to establish rules governing the liability of drawees of checks, the liability of indorsers of notes, and the liability of makers of promissory notes.
The Clearfield doctrine has been criticized by some scholars who argue that it gives federal courts too much power to create common law rules. However, the doctrine has been upheld by the Supreme Court and remains an important part of the law governing negotiable instruments.
Here are some of the key takeaways from the Clearfield doctrine:
Federal courts have the power to create common law rules governing the liability of parties to negotiable instruments.
This power is based on the fact that negotiable instruments are "instruments of commerce" that "affect interstate commerce."
The Clearfield doctrine has been applied by lower courts in a variety of cases involving the liability of parties to negotiable instruments.
The doctrine has been criticized by some scholars, but it remains an important part of the law governing negotiable instruments.
________________________________________
Basically no corporation has the authority to impose anything on you without conset. This is why people need to withdraw from the system. As long as you accept benefits and privilege's from the corporation you are under the rules of the corporation. If you work for McDonalds you are bond by those rules. If you quit that job and work for Walmart then a different set of rules apply and you are exempt from the ones at McDonald. No company can force anything on you without a contract.
I Hope that helps
Regards
Stan
What is the Clearfield Doctrine ???
This is a question I get asked often.
The Clearfield doctrine is a legal principle that allows federal courts to create common law rules governing the liability of parties to negotiable instruments. The doctrine was established by the Supreme Court in the case of Clearfield Trust Co. v. United States, 318 U.S. 363 (1943).
In Clearfield, the Court held that federal courts have the power to create common law rules governing the liability of parties to negotiable instruments because such instruments are "instruments of commerce" that "affect interstate commerce." The Court reasoned that federal courts have a special responsibility to develop common law rules governing such instruments in order to ensure uniformity and predictability in the law.
The Clearfield doctrine has been applied by lower courts in a variety of cases involving the liability of parties to negotiable instruments. For example, the doctrine has been used to establish rules governing the liability of drawees of checks, the liability of indorsers of notes, and the liability of makers of promissory notes.
The Clearfield doctrine has been criticized by some scholars who argue that it gives federal courts too much power to create common law rules. However, the doctrine has been upheld by the Supreme Court and remains an important part of the law governing negotiable instruments.
Here are some of the key takeaways from the Clearfield doctrine:
Federal courts have the power to create common law rules governing the liability of parties to negotiable instruments.
This power is based on the fact that negotiable instruments are "instruments of commerce" that "affect interstate commerce."
The Clearfield doctrine has been applied by lower courts in a variety of cases involving the liability of parties to negotiable instruments.
The doctrine has been criticized by some scholars, but it remains an important part of the law governing negotiable instruments.
________________________________________
Basically no corporation has the authority to impose anything on you without conset. This is why people need to withdraw from the system. As long as you accept benefits and privilege's from the corporation you are under the rules of the corporation. If you work for McDonalds you are bond by those rules. If you quit that job and work for Walmart then a different set of rules apply and you are exempt from the ones at McDonald. No company can force anything on you without a contract.
I Hope that helps
Regards
Stan
"Speeding, running stop signs, traveling without license plates, or registration are not threats to the public safety, and thus are not arrestable offenses." Christy v. Elliot, 216 I 131, 74 HE 1035, LRA NS 1905-1910
No comments yet
Be the first to reply to Dave Dave's post