Issue Position: Clean Hands
Issue Position
We want out Liberty back. We're not asking.
You may often hear Mealer state that he, unlike all other gubernatorial candidates, has Clean Hands. He often states that this is critical to governing Arizona if we are to become a solvent and non corruptly run State. This does not mean he has never done anything wrong in his life, but as far as an elected or appointed official or one who has taken an oath of service and has not upheld it, John has Clean Hands.
The term "Clean Hands" is a legal term meaning John has not committed any criminal acts or "high crimes and misdemeanors' in an official capacity (or at all, for that matter) -as have all other elected officials- simply by sitting in office without fighting existing law that is either anti-Constitutional or which goes against any form of true Law that outlines our Rights. This includes civil rights. Placing the claims of criminal activity on all other officials is a bold and broad statement and we must clarify that not all elected officials are monsters or in any way want to interfere with their constituent's rights. On the other hand, there are those elected and appointed officials who thrive on and become very wealthy from such activity. However, "ignorance of the law excuses no one" and the hands are sullied from the second the other individual is elected.
One's hands may also be sullied by promoting or giving large contributions to political campaigns which in turn create a situation where the elected or appointed person's hands become unclean.
As Governor of Arizona, John would have both the ability and absolute duty to see that all laws are enforced. The lawful violations that exist within the elected and appointed body of government notwithstanding. He would also have the ability to pardon. This combination of "gubernatorial powers' give the State a huge advantage over corruption and the "pay-to-play' mentality that has destroyed both state and country.
In a nutshell -before we quote the law on the "Clean Hands" doctrine which is used in all court cases in order to gain standing- a man (or woman) in the Governor's Chair who has "Clean Hands" can exercise the Rights of the Citizenry to reverse and restore our rights and remove policies that either hinder our ability to survive or prevent us from going about our daily lives as we choose to.
Clean hands gives a Governor standing to charge elected or appointed officials with crimes that they have committed during their term in office. The very crimes that have been used to create state and federal statutes contrary to the lawful protections outlined by State Constitutions and the Federal Constitution. The crimes are committed against all people and as such, cannot be used as a claim against those who have been a party to violating the same laws.
"We want our Liberty back. WE'RE NOT ASKING!"
An elected Governor without Clean Hands cannot have others prosecuted, with these same violations because their hands have been legally "dirtied' to the point that they have no standing. This can be compared to a group of bank robbers when one of the gang runs off with the money and cheats his cohorts in crime. They have no standing to go to the courts and demand justice, because they have dirty hands with the same charges they wish to bring upon someone else. This is what kept Ron Paul from actually following through on auditing the federal reserve.
The Highwayman (Everet v. Williams, Ex. 1725, 9 L.Q. Rev. 197)
*A federal law exists that transfers a small portion of Federal Reserve "usury' to Congress and the state governing bodies that would "by law' create the conflict of interest, which -if not addressed prior to taking office- create a legal situation where the newly elected or appointed official is working in an office and using equipment that was purchased with the small percentage of usury interest. They would then have dirty hands and no legal standing.
The repetition of the Clean Hands doctrine has gone far enough. Below is the actual wording of the Clean Hands Doctrine used in all court cases.
Clean Hands Doctrine n. a rule of law that a person coming to court with a lawsuit or petition for a court order must be free from unfair conduct (have "clean hands" or not have done anything wrong) in regard to the subject matter of his/her claim. His/her activities not involved in the legal action can be abominable since it is considered irrelevant. As an affirmative defense (positive response) a defendant might claim the plaintiff (party suing him/her) has a "lack of clean hands" or "violates the clean hands doctrine" because the plaintiff has misled the defendant or has done something wrong regarding the matter under consideration. Example: A former partner sues on a claim that he was owed money on a consulting contract with the partnership when he left, but the defense states that the plaintiff (party suing) has tried to get customers from the partnership by spreading untrue stories about the remaining partner's business practices.
"He who comes into equity must come with clean hands."
This maxim bars relief for anyone guilty of improper conduct in the matter at hand. It operates to prevent any affirmative recovery for the person with "unclean hands," no matter how unfairly the person's adversary has treated him or her. The maxim is the basis of the clean hands doctrine. Its purpose is to protect the integrity of the court. It does not disapprove only of illegal acts but will deny relief for bad conduct that, as a matter of public policy, ought to be discouraged. A court will ask whether the bad conduct was intentional. This rule is not meant to punish carelessness or a mistake. It is possible that the wrongful conduct is not an act but a failure to act. For example, someone who hires an agent to represent him or her and then sits silently while the agent misleads another party in negotiations is as much responsible for the false statements as if he himself or she herself had made them.
The bad conduct that is condemned by the clean hands doctrine must be a part of the transaction that is the subject of the lawsuit. It is not necessary that it actually have hurt the other party. For example, equity will not relieve a plaintiff who was also trying to evade taxes or defraud creditors with a business deal, even if that person was cheated by the other party in the transaction.
Equity will always decline relief in cases in which both parties have schemed to circumvent the law. In one very old case, a robber filed a bill in equity to force his partner to account for a sum of money. When the real nature of the claim was discovered, the bill was dismissed with costs, and the lawyers were held in Contempt of court for bringing such an action. This famous case has come to be called The Highwayman (Everet v. Williams, Ex. 1725, 9 L.Q. Rev. 197), and judges have been saying ever since that they will not sit to take an account between two robbers.
"Equity acts specifically."
This maxim means that a party who sues in equity can recover the precise thing that he or she seeks rather than monetary damages as a substitute for it. This maxim is the remedy of Specific Performance.
"Equity will not suffer a wrong to be without a remedy."
It is the traditional purpose of equity to find solutions in lawsuits. Where money will not pay for the injury, equity has the authority to find another remedy.
This maxim is a restatement of the broad legal principle: Ubi jus, ibi remedium, "Where there is a right, there is a remedy." The maxim is applied in equity in an orderly way. It does not mean that anything goes. It calls forth recognized remedies for well-established wrongs, wrongs that are invasions of property rights or personal or Civil Rights and that the law considers actionable. A court will not listen to complaints about every petty annoyance or immoral act.
Let's cut to the chase
We have a man running for Arizona Governor in 2014 (John Lewis Mealer) who not only has huge industry and multiple new Arizona cities waiting to be built and issue in a great age of Arizona economic growth, but also a man with "Clean Hands" who has the ability and will have the authority to do away with laws that have perverted our freedoms and ability to be who we want to be.
It is obvious, once the Mealer Initiative 2014 is read, that Mealer is our best and only viable fix for the state and for Arizonans who have been mistreated by any and all forms of government abuse. Small business growth, and new business plans that rival all others.
John offers the only opportunity to do this the easy way, rather than turning over a "new guard' the violent way.
Just something to seriously think about. Now, help put the man into office.
Source