Clean hands doctrine - law

[djf]

There is an accepted principle in law called "The clean hands doctrine".

It basically means that if someone is going to attack or charge you with something, they must be honest and have no history of doing those things just out of vengeance, or using corrupt or penurious testimony to accuse you.

Here is what Black's 6th ed. says:

Clean hands doctrine. Under this doctrine, equity will not grant relief to a party, who, as actor, seeks to set judicial machinery in motion and obtain some remedy, if such party in prior conduct has violated conscience or good faith or other equitable principle. Franklin v. Franklin, 365 Mo. 442, 283 S.W.2d 483, 486. One seek­ing equitable relief cannot take advantage of one's own wrong. Fair Automotive Repair, Inc. v. Car-X Service Systems, Inc., 2 Dist., 128 Ill.App.3d 763, 84 Ill. Dec. 25, 471 N.E.2d 554, 558.

So, for instance, if you were black, and you were charged with something, and a diligent search showed that blacks were being unfairly targeted, then that would be an example of a violation of clean hands.

So what if, for example, a government agency attacks a certain group, like say, maybe, this is just hypothetical, conservative leaning groups?

Simple.

They have lost or forfeited "STANDING".

[AppyPappy]

It becomes a matter of eliminating the “dirty hands”. For an administration, that means forcing people out and replacing them with clean hands. But if the President gets tainted, everything is suspect.

[Diogenesis]

Undocumented Moslem Tyrant’s pro-Jihad pro-terrorist AG:
”These do NOT apply to your King.
For those, he deems that he is Kenyan or Indonesian
and they do not apply. We at the DO"J" agree,
and also because of your King's Koran and race."

[Salvey]

For an administration, that means forcing people out

For the people, that means forcing the administration out.

[Labyrinthos]

Your layman's understanding of the "clean hands doctrine" is incorrect: First, it applies only to civil cases and therefore, it would not apply to a situations where blacks are being charged with a crime because of racial discrimination.

Second, the clean hands doctrine has absolutely nothing to do with "standing." The question of standing is generally whether a litigant has suffered sufficient harm distinct from the harm suffered by the general public to enable the person to sue and seek redress in court. (The issue of standing can be much more complicated, but I assure you it has nothing to do the clean hands doctrine.)

Third, the clean hands doctrine is an affirmative defense that is generally limited to law suits in which the plainitff/petitioner is seeking equitable releif (as opposed to monetary damages) such as as an injunction, specific performance of a contract, or the return of property. For example, suppose I knowingly buy stolen property and the rightful owner finds out and breaks into my house and takes the property back. I then commence a "replevin" proceeding against the owner of the property return of the property. ("Replevin" is the equitable remedy for the return of property.) In response, the rightful owner of the property asserts the clean hands doctrine as an affirmative defense, arguing that "one who seeks justice, must do justice" and therefore, equity prohibits the person who knowingly purchased stolen property from getting the property back from the rightful owner.

[Rockingham]

No. Standing is a different concept that refers to whether one has enough of a legal and practical interest in a particular legal claim or controversy to go into court.

[phockthis]

sfl

[RideForever]

Let’s say Fannie Mae is trying to foreclose on a home for which they cannot provide a copy of the note. In the collection efforts the ‘lender’ signs up the borrower in the HAMP program for a ‘trial modification’, but the borrower did not apply for because no copy of note was provided. Lender gets paid by Treasury for ‘signing up’ the borrower, and gets monthly ‘rewards’. None of these payments are applied to borrower’s balance. Borrower asserts ‘unclean hands’ against lender in the complaint.

(judge decides lender too big to fail)