HaqDiesel Wrote:
It really depends under which jurisdiction Stump brings suit. There are several reasons to believe that under U.S. contract law this contract would be void.
Firstly, you have the argument that you signed under duress. What were the circumstances? If you were told that you either had to sign or couldn't leave, then the case for duress is strong. Going hand in hand with this argument is the question of consideration - what were you bargaining for in this deal? If it's clear that you were simply signing over your soul and getting nothing valuable in return, then your soul is a gift, and you have the right to revoke a gift at anytime, even if you've attempted to contract it away. If you were contracting for supernatural powers during your limited time earth, however, the absence of such powers would be evidence that Stump did not hold up his end and would probably release you from performance. If, on the other hand, you were simply contracting for your safe release, then again, your duress defense is strong.
Finally, there is a clear question of the baseline legality of the contract. US contract almost certainly prohibits contracting for human any amount of human flesh, and it is similarly unlikely that any court would uphold a contract for a human soul.
If Stump brings suit under any other jurisdiction, the laws may be different, but he's going to have to extradite you, and it's unlikely the US will allow that.
you beat me to it.
check out this real case from Westlaw:
United States District Court, W. D. Pennsylvania.
UNITED STATES ex rel. Gerald MAYO
v.
SATAN AND HIS STAFF.
Misc. No. 5357.
Dec. 3, 1971.
Civil rights action against Satan and his servants who allegedly placed deliberate obstacles in plaintiff's path and caused his downfall, wherein plaintiff prayed for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The District Court, Weber, J., held that plaintiff would not be granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis who in view of questions of personal jurisdiction over defendant, propriety of class action, and plaintiff's failure to include instructions for directions as to service of process.
Prayer denied.
West Headnotes
KeyCite Notes
170A Federal Civil Procedure
170AXIX Fees and Costs
170Ak2732 Deposit or Security
170Ak2734 k. Forma Pauperis Proceedings. Most Cited Cases
Plaintiff would not be granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis in civil rights action against Satan and his servants, who allegedly placed deliberate obstacles in plaintiff's path and caused his downfall, in view of questions of personal jurisdiction over defendant, propriety of class action, and plaintiff's failure to include instructions for directions as to service of process. Fed.Rules Civ.Proc. rule 23, 28 U.S.C.A.; 18 U.S.C.A. § 241; 28 U.S.C.A. § 1343; 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983.
*282 Gerald Mayo, pro se.
MEMORANDUM ORDER
WEBER, District Judge.
Plaintiff, alleging jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 241, 28 U.S.C. § 1343, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 prays for leave to file a complaint for violation of his civil rights *283 in forma pauperis. He alleges that Satan has on numerous occasions caused plaintiff misery and unwarranted threats, against the will of plaintiff, that Satan has placed deliberate obstacles in his path and has caused plaintiff's downfall.
Plaintiff alleges that by reason of these acts Satan has deprived him of his constitutional rights.
We feel that the application to file and proceed in forma pauperis must be denied. Even if plaintiff's complaint reveals a prima facie recital of the infringement of the civil rights of a citizen of the United States, the Court has serious doubts that the complaint reveals a cause of action upon which relief can be granted by the court. We question whether plaintiff may obtain personal jurisdiction over the defendant in this judicial district. The complaint contains no allegation of residence in this district. While the official reports disclose no case where this defendant has appeared as defendant there is an unofficial account of a trial in New Hampshire where this defendant filed an action of mortgage foreclosure as plaintiff. The defendant in that action was represented by the preeminent advocate of that day, and raised the defense that the plaintiff was a foreign prince with no standing to sue in an American Court. This defense was overcome by overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Whether or not this would raise an estoppel in the present case we are unable to determine at this time.
If such action were to be allowed we would also face the question of whether it may be maintained as a class action. It appears to meet the requirements of Fed.R. of Civ.P. 23 that the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable, there are questions of law and fact common to the class, and the claims of the representative party is typical of the claims of the class. We cannot now determine if the representative party will fairly protect the interests of the class.
We note that the plaintiff has failed to include with his complaint the required form of instructions for the United States Marshal for directions as to service of process.
For the foregoing reasons we must exercise our discretion to refuse the prayer of plaintiff to proceed in forma pauperis.
It is ordered that the complaint be given a miscellaneous docket number and leave to proceed in forma pauperis be denied.
W.D.Pa., 1971
UNITED STATES v. SATAN AND HIS STAFF
54 F.R.D. 282
eter, aka 
usty 
halk
