97% found this document useful (34 votes)
5K views5 pagesClean Hands and Fictitious Plaintiff
Clean hands and fictitious plaintiff: When the alleged plaintiff’s attorney brings a cause of action to court accusing entity JOHN DOE with a crime in the secret maritime jurisdiction, he (or at least his client) needs standing to sue.
All cases in law, equity, admiralty or maritime, are now classified as “civil actions.” Civil maritime and admiralty actions require a contract between the plaintiff and defendant for the plaintiff to have standing to sue. For the plaintiff to have standing and for the court to have jurisdiction of the subject-matter, there must be in existence a bona fide contract binding the accused into the criminal maritime jurisdiction and the attorney rat had better be able to get it properly into evidence. This is the foundation of the venue jurisdiction and the subject-matter jurisdiction of the court.
Under the doctrine of “clean hands”, relief will not be granted to a party, who as an actor, seeks to set the judicial machinery in motion and obtain some remedy, if such party in prior conduct has violated conscience or good faith or other equitable relief. One seeking relief cannot take advantage of one’s own wrongdoing. The plaintiff’s attorney (prosecutor) is representing the XYZ BANK, or the UNITED STATES, both d/b/a/ corporations. The prosecuting attorney is representing a corporation, a fictitious plaintiff, and bringing a maritime claim on the presumption that a maritime contract exists between XYZ BANK and the affiant.
The affiant does not know that this presumption even exists, does not know that the cause of action cannot be in the common-law because a crime in law requires a corpus delecti, that is to say, the body of the crime or an injured party, and a corporation cannot be the body of the crime or an injured party because it is artificial, a fiction. The attorneys for the plaintiff are prosecuting the suit in maritime jurisdiction without evidence entered into the record of the contract binding the affiant to the maritime law. Without such contract the trial court is wholly in want of subject-matter jurisdiction and venue jurisdiction. The doctrine of “unclean hands” applies to the attorney(s) for the plaintiff.
The people are the Fountain of sovereignty. The whole was originally with them as their own. The state governments are but trustees acting under a derived authority, and had no power to delegate what is not delegated to them. But the people, as the original Fountain, might take away what they have lent and entrust to whom they please. They have the whole title and as absolute proprietors have the right of using or abusing. – jus utendi et abutendi. It is a maxim consecrated in public law as well as common sense and the necessity of the case that a Sovereign is answerable for his acts only to his God and his own conscience… There is no authority above a Sovereign to which an appeal can be made. 4 Wheat, 402 (Bouvier’s 4th Edition Law Dictionary: “Sovereignty”)
"People of a State are entitled to all rights which formerly belonged to the king by his prerogative."
"In these United States the people are sovereign and the government cannot sever its relationship to the people by attempting to take away their inherent power."
“The law subscribes to the king (in America, the people) the attribute of sovereignty; he is sovereign and independent within his own Dominion; and owes no kind of subjection to any other potentate upon earth. Hence, it is, that no suit or action can be brought against the king, even in civil matters, because no court can have jurisdiction over him; for all jurisdiction implies supremacy of power.
“The people, or the Sovereign are not bound by general words in statutes, restrictive of prerogative rights, titles or interests, unless expressly named. Acts of limitation do not bind at the King, nor the people. The people have been ceded all the rights of the king, the former Sovereign. It is a maxim of the common-law that when an act of pa
Uploaded by
in1orCopyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
97% found this document useful (34 votes)
5K views5 pagesClean Hands and Fictitious Plaintiff
Clean hands and fictitious plaintiff: When the alleged plaintiff’s attorney brings a cause of action to court accusing entity JOHN DOE with a crime in the secret maritime jurisdiction, he (or at least his client) needs standing to sue.
All cases in law, equity, admiralty or maritime, are now classified as “civil actions.” Civil maritime and admiralty actions require a contract between the plaintiff and defendant for the plaintiff to have standing to sue. For the plaintiff to have standing and for the court to have jurisdiction of the subject-matter, there must be in existence a bona fide contract binding the accused into the criminal maritime jurisdiction and the attorney rat had better be able to get it properly into evidence. This is the foundation of the venue jurisdiction and the subject-matter jurisdiction of the court.
Under the doctrine of “clean hands”, relief will not be granted to a party, who as an actor, seeks to set the judicial machinery in motion and obtain some remedy, if such party in prior conduct has violated conscience or good faith or other equitable relief. One seeking relief cannot take advantage of one’s own wrongdoing. The plaintiff’s attorney (prosecutor) is representing the XYZ BANK, or the UNITED STATES, both d/b/a/ corporations. The prosecuting attorney is representing a corporation, a fictitious plaintiff, and bringing a maritime claim on the presumption that a maritime contract exists between XYZ BANK and the affiant.
The affiant does not know that this presumption even exists, does not know that the cause of action cannot be in the common-law because a crime in law requires a corpus delecti, that is to say, the body of the crime or an injured party, and a corporation cannot be the body of the crime or an injured party because it is artificial, a fiction. The attorneys for the plaintiff are prosecuting the suit in maritime jurisdiction without evidence entered into the record of the contract binding the affiant to the maritime law. Without such contract the trial court is wholly in want of subject-matter jurisdiction and venue jurisdiction. The doctrine of “unclean hands” applies to the attorney(s) for the plaintiff.
The people are the Fountain of sovereignty. The whole was originally with them as their own. The state governments are but trustees acting under a derived authority, and had no power to delegate what is not delegated to them. But the people, as the original Fountain, might take away what they have lent and entrust to whom they please. They have the whole title and as absolute proprietors have the right of using or abusing. – jus utendi et abutendi. It is a maxim consecrated in public law as well as common sense and the necessity of the case that a Sovereign is answerable for his acts only to his God and his own conscience… There is no authority above a Sovereign to which an appeal can be made. 4 Wheat, 402 (Bouvier’s 4th Edition Law Dictionary: “Sovereignty”)
"People of a State are entitled to all rights which formerly belonged to the king by his prerogative."
"In these United States the people are sovereign and the government cannot sever its relationship to the people by attempting to take away their inherent power."
“The law subscribes to the king (in America, the people) the attribute of sovereignty; he is sovereign and independent within his own Dominion; and owes no kind of subjection to any other potentate upon earth. Hence, it is, that no suit or action can be brought against the king, even in civil matters, because no court can have jurisdiction over him; for all jurisdiction implies supremacy of power.
“The people, or the Sovereign are not bound by general words in statutes, restrictive of prerogative rights, titles or interests, unless expressly named. Acts of limitation do not bind at the King, nor the people. The people have been ceded all the rights of the king, the former Sovereign. It is a maxim of the common-law that when an act of pa
Uploaded by
in1orCopyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
/ 5
