The sensational claims were heard during a civil claim brought by the Queensland businessman and his company Palmer Leisure Coolum.

The Supreme Court case comes after Mr Palmer and PLC were charged by the corporate watchdog.

The charges, levelled by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, relate to an unfulfilled 2012 proposal to buy shares of another company that owned properties at his Sunshine Coast resort.

Under corporations law, Mr Palmer was required to make an offer within two months of announcing his intentions but failed to do so, ASIC alleged.

Mr Palmer and PLC have filed a statement of claim with the Supreme Court seeking orders for, among other things, the permanent stay of the criminal proceedings before the Brisbane Magistrates Court.

Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions senior executive lawyer Tim Begbie referred to an affidavit included in the plaintiffs' case, in which a person said he heard "members of the Australian government had a whiteboard in Canberra where they were planning this".

"[It] asserts government had a whiteboard and they were planning ways to get Clive Palmer," he said.

Mr Begbie described claims one could infer improper behaviour in the proceedings as "flimsy and far-flung".

Mr Palmer has previously described the criminal charges brought against him by ASIC as baseless, politically-motivated and likely to fail.

Mr Palmer’s case argued ASIC charges were filed against Mr Palmer in February, which coincided with his announcement that he would contest the next federal election.

Barrister Christopher Ward, who represented PLC, of which Mr Palmer is currently a sole director, said there were "some very serious issues with the way this claim, the way this prosecution has been commenced".

But Mr Begbie said the plaintiffs knew about the proceedings.

"All of these extraordinary sinister suggestions around the timing is a complete house of cards," he said.

Mr Palmer represented himself in the Supreme Court on Tuesday on the directions and adjournment hearing in his claim against ASIC, the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions and the Magistrates Court of Queensland.

Mr Palmer said the case was not about the charges in the Magistrates Court.

"They're about the abuse in bringing them," he said.

"We're seeking declarations under the Corporations Act, etcetera that the Magistrates Court doesn't have the jurisdiction to hear or make."

Mr Begbie argued any issues with the ASIC case against Mr Palmer and PLC could be adequately dealt with as part of the Magistrates Court proceedings, and the case in the Supreme Court should be stayed because it was an abuse of process.

However, Mr Palmer said the matter could not be dealt with in the Magistrates Court.

"I find myself in a situation where I believe there is no case to be made against me, that the only court that has jurisdiction in that matter is the Supreme Court of Queensland," he said.

"I feel akin to a murder trial taking place in the Magistrates Court where the victim walks in and the prosecution still says, well, let's continue the case."

The parties were asked to make written submissions, with the potential the case could return to court later this month.