Legal case against God dismissed

[emad]

Source: BBC

A US judge has thrown out a case against God, ruling that because the defendant has no address, legal papers cannot be served.

The suit against God was launched by Nebraska state senator Ernie Chambers, who said he might appeal the ruling.

He sought a permanent injunction to prevent the "death, destruction and terrorisation" caused by God.

Judge Marlon Polk said in his ruling that a plaintiff must have access to the defendant for a case to proceed.


Read more: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7673591.stm

---

Well he/she supposedly moves in mysterious ways and could have any number of residences!...

[Solly Mack]

1. so..uh..the plaintiff has no access to God (the defendant)?

hehehehehehehehe

[JonLP24]

2. Ugh why did a liberal have to do somthing like this?

However, this is funny and you can't make this stuff up.

[Patriought]

4. I'll bet that the liberal connection...

Will be pointed out by the "others"
However, I believe that God has a way better sense of humor than any of us appreciate. I can't remember if it was George Carlin of Robin Williams who said something about the Platypus.

[Rainbowreflect]

8. Nope, Ernie is one of a kind. Cannot just call him a liberal.

[Teaser]

3. Oldest Boy Network triumphs again

.

[Blue_Tires]

5. you know there isn't enough money in the world to pay for God's attorney

[emad]

7. Nah, she comes cheap!

!!

[Bake]

13. I'm guessing there are many, many who claim to represent the Almighty.

:rofl:

Bake

[AlphaCentauri]

17. subpoena those guys to find his address

[harmonicon]

6. that's hilarious

Now maybe insurance companies will stop calling some things "acts of God".

[lynnertic]

9. Oh, is that why he filed suit? I get it, that's funny. n/t

[otherlander]

26. No.

That's not why he filed the suit.
See post 25.

Or this link:
http://news.aol.com/newsbloggers/2007/09/18/senator-ernie-chambers-sues-god/

"An example of a controversial lawsuit Chambers wanted to protest: the one against a judge who banned an alleged rape victim from using words like "rape" or "sexual assault" during her testimony under penalty of sanctions. "

He thought it was "frivolous" for a rape victim to sue for the right to use the word "rape" in her case against her attacker. He's a woman-hating douchebag; that's why he filed the suit.

[lynnertic]

29. that's unbelievable!! thanks for the info. n/t

[pipi_k]

10. Poor guy...he's got the wrong defendant....

I've always wondered why they're called "Acts of God" anyway.


Everyone KNOWS the real culprit is the Devil!!!!!!


Why do people blame God for stuff? He's good and kind and benevolent and cares for his children except when he's killing them off with plagues and locusts and floods and....

Oh never mind...


:evilgrin:

[GinaMaria]

11. After reading the headline

I thought it was the Onion, and thought of a follow up

Legal case against God dismissed, but Santa not off the hook yet.

The case of Jonnie and Janie Doe vs. Kris Kringle alleges breach of contract on the part of St. Nick. The children's attorney commented, "There was a clear exchange. Santa promised them a tree house for the backyard if they in turn would be good. My clients have been very good. They held up their end of the bargain. They never received the tree house last Christmas. It's a clear case of breach of contract."

The legal team mounting Santa's defense claim they have located several witnesses who will attest to Jonnie and Janie not being good, in fact, clearly bad.

[Renew Deal]

12. God's attorney is Johnny Cochran

[Bake]

14. Johnny gets a one-third contingency, too.

I wonder if he'll settle out of court.

Bake

[AlbertCat]

If the 3 tiered crown don't fit....

.... you must aquit!

[Bake]

15. I kinda doubt the court has personal jurisdiction!

There was a case a few years back, Mayo v. Satan and his Minions, where some idiot attempted to sue the Dark Lord for "putting obstacles in his path." In FEDERAL COURT, no less. The judge dismissed it, because the plaintiff hadn't provided an address where the U.S. marshals could serve process on His Evilness. But the judge also noted that he doubted he had jurisdiction, and that the plaintiff would have to take it up with a "higher court."

:rofl:

Bake

[treestar]

32. Why didn't he just give them Cheney's address?

Oh, wait, that's an undisclosed location.

[sakabatou]

16. Maybe it's because God dropped a piano on him

[WiMu]

18. I guess even God could not escape the housing bubble.

His home in Heaven was foreclosed on, and he was forced to skip out in the middle of night without leaving a forwarding address.

[onager]

19. I found his Internet address...

http://www.officialgodfaq.com/

[Gen. Jack D. Ripper]

31. BWABHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

Every time I see that site, it just cracks me the fuck up. I don't know why. Appeals to my odd sense of humor, I guess. :rofl:

[damntexdem]

20. But being omniscient, is presumably unlike McCain in that She knows where her mansions are.

Still, prayer is said to be a way to contact said defendant -- so is the judge saying that the suit didn't have a prayer? ;-)

[Sin]

21. How could he not have an adress.

Pick a random church any one will do they always keep going on about how It's the House of god.

[cobalt1999]

22. I'd sue him, but he's always broke

Every church and religious program I've seen is always asking for more money. The guy must be penniless.

[cureautismnow]

23. He should have filed for child support. n/t

[Zhade]

24. Ha! I liked that, actually.

No address - yup, pretty hard for nonexistent mythological entities to have addresses!

[otherlander]

25. I remember the backstory to this.

It was two years ago; I heard about it in a journalism class I was taking. A woman charged a man with rape, I believe, and Mr. Chambers thought that her charges were ridiculous, so he decided to file charges against God to prove how ridiculous legal cases could be. Calling a rape survivor's case ridiculous and filing frivolous charges to make a point against her? Pretty damn low, Mr. Chambers.

[NorthernSpy]

27. Thing is, there WASN'T clear evidence of rape, and the charges were eventually dismissed...

The complainant met the defendant at a bar, and a security video shows her willingly leaving with him. Everyone agrees that the night involved very heavy drinking and sex. What was at issue was whether to convict the defendant of sexual assault based solely on the woman's claim that she didn't remember consenting to intercourse.


The jury at the first trial deadlocked 7 to 5. The second trial ended when a judge dismissed the case. Finally, the state dropped the charges.


Honestly, I wouldn't have voted to convict, either. There was no clear evidence that a crime had been committed. Calling the complainant in this case a "victim", and labelling the incident in question as "rape" would have had the effect of prejudging the defendant as guilty by assuming facts not in evidence.

[sofa king]

28. I'd like to see the discovery documents in that case.

[noonwitch]

30. Maybe he can sue Santa Claus next, for not brining him what he wanted for Xmas

Silly people.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

33. "Holy Shit!" v "Jesus Christ!"