Lawsuit Against God Dismissed For Improper Service

[CrackerBarrel]

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:

Chambers, who graduated from law school but never took the bar exam, thinks he's found a hole in the judge's ruling.
"The court itself acknowledges the existence of God," Chambers said Wednesday. "A consequence of that acknowledgment is a recognition of God's omniscience."
Therefore, Chambers said, "Since God knows everything, God has notice of this lawsuit."

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

[knight_shadow]

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

[nittanyalum]

Originally Posted by CrackerBarrel

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

This made me LOL.

[RaggedyAnn]

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

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by CrackerBarrel

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?

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

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by CrackerBarrel

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.

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

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).

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

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?

[honeychile]

I wouldn't have the audacity to sue God!

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by honeychile

I wouldn't have the audacity to sue God!

You're not a lawyer.

Originally Posted by KSigkid

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?

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.

[knight_shadow]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

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

"Raglike" ... What.the.hell???

We never get cases like this in business school

[honeychile]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

You're not a lawyer.

Obviously, I should be very grateful!

[Kevin]

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

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by Kevin

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?

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).

[CrackerBarrel]

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.

The Court is unpersuaded by this argument because it is not this Court's concern how Plaintiff gets here, whether it be by plane, train, automobile, horseback, foot, or on the back of a huge Texas jackrabbit, as long as Plaintiff is here at the proper date and time. Thus, the Court declines to disturb the forum chosen by the Plaintiff and introduce the likelihood of delay inherent in any transfer simply to avoid the insignificant inconvenience that Defendant may suffer by litigating this matter in Galveston rather than Houston.

FN2. Defendant will again be pleased to know that regular limousine service is available from Hobby Airport, even to the steps of this humble courthouse, which has got lights, indoor plummin', 'lectric doors, and all sorts of new stuff, almost like them big courthouses back East.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by CrackerBarrel

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.

Ah, very good point.