Lawsuit Against God Dismissed For Improper Service
 

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5i...cZmFwD93R41PO0

A Nebraska state-lawmaker who sought a permanent injunction against God for terrorizing his constituents had his case dismissed when the judge said he had failed to properly serve the defendant due to his inability to locate God's home address.

And then his genius thoughts about the decision:

EDITED TO ADD: Is it a bad sign that this was my 666th post?

http://www.smileyhut.com/confused/g.gif

I hate that we're so sue-happy. This is ridiculous.

:eek: :p This made me LOL.

And just who pays for these kinds of frivolous law suits?

well, the greatest trick of the devil was to say he doesn't exist...LOL

LOL. (And yes, it's a very bad sign.)

This is actually not anything that new. When you have a chance, check out United States ex rel. Gerald Mayo v. Satan and his Staff, 54 F.R.D. 282 (1971) (dismissing civil rights action against Satan and his servants, who were alleged to have placed obstacles in plaintiff's path, causing plaintiffs' downfall).

For further law school entertainment, might I recommend:

• Mackensworth v. American Trading Transportation Co., 367 F. Supp. 373 (1973) (the entire opinion is in verse);

• Cordas v. Peerless Transp. Co., 27 N.Y. Supp. 2d 198 (1941) (peerless prose);

• Lason v. State, 152 Fla. 440; 12 So. 2d 305 (1943) (you'll know why when you read it); and

• James D. Gordon III, How Not to Succeed in Law School, 100 Yale L. J. 1679 (1991).

The Satan case is fantastic - one of my professors last year slipped it into the week's reading as entertainment.

If the Lason case is the one I'm thinking, it's easily one of the top 5 most disgusting cases ever (at least, the fact pattern was disgusting). Is it the one about the active old-timer?

I wouldn't have the audacity to sue God! :eek:

You're not a lawyer. ;):p
That would be it, and it's the description of a certain something appertaining to poor Mr. Lason that is both amazingly disgusting and hilarious.

"Raglike" ... What.the.hell??? :eek:

We never get cases like this in business school :o

Obviously, I should be very grateful! :p

So now, as a matter of law, God's official residence isn't "everywhere" and his being is not omnipresent, thus not able to be served?

I hope there's an appeal :)

LOL. I'm not sure that it was that he was unable to be served because of the nature of his being per se; as I understand it, it's that he wasn't served and couldn't be served because plaintiff failed to provide his address.

Our plaintiff here is confused. (Really, you say?) It's not enough for God to be omnipresent and omniscient; it's not enough that God knows about the lawsuit. Without service, God has not been brought under the jurisdiction of the court.

Interesting query, though. Would the court have jurisdiction because God's official residence is everywhere, and that includes Nebraska? Or would the court have jurisdiction because God's activities in Nebraska constitute minimum contacts?

A civil procedure professor could have some fun with this. Meanwhile, I'd love to read the complaint and the order.

ETA: Seek and ye shall find, ask and it shall be given unto you. The complaint (petition).

Someone on Above the Law pointed out that if God is omnipresent than he was present in court and waived his defense of not being properly served.

And as far as odd opinions go I'm a fan of Smith v. Colonial Penn Ins. Co., 943 F.Supp. 782., S.D.Tex.,1996.

Ah, very good point.

I'm sure that God, as a matter of law has the sort of minimal contacts with the proposed forum to be reasonably hailed into court. I'm sure Nebraska's long-arm statute would be more than adequate.

While God may not physically reside in a church, we say it's a house of God, right? So wouldn't personal service on a usual resident at any church be considered good service?

I mean... especially under the Calvinist view, God would certainly have minimal contacts with all possible forums because it was He who preordains everything.

I'm just a bit disappointed.. you know? I mean, where the hell was George Burns?

And, to quote the hymn, Whate'er My God Ordains is Right. (Though to be fair to my forebear in the faith, predestination to Calvin and to a Calvinist refers only to the eternal decree of a person's salvation. Presumably, though, at least a few of the elect live in Nebraska, so perhaps it's too fine a point to press.)

But service on a resident at any church? Does a church have any usual residents? The clergy usually live in a separate house -- manse, rectory, parsonage, what-have-you.

In any event, our plaintiff did not contend that service of process could be made on any resident of any church. Rather, while alleging that God had many agents upon whom service could be made if only he knew how, he specifically asked the court to find that service of process was not necessary or that constructive service had been accomplished. But constructive service can only be had when personal service has proved impossible. Once again, a plaintiff's own pleadings do him in.

"So help me me."

Maybe this deserves its own thread, but did anyone catch the preamble Chief Justice Roberts wrote a couple days ago today in a denial of cert:

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinio...df/07-1486.pdf

That is fantastic - I'm a big fan of Roberts, and this just deepens my admiration.

I got a chance to see Roberts in action recently. While he and I don't always share the same jurisprudential viewpoint, I was very impressed with the way he presided over the Court. And this is just classic. Raymond Chandler would be proud.