Lawsuit Against God Dismissed For Improper Service

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

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).

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?

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by Kevin

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.

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.

[agzg]

Originally Posted by Kevin

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

"So help me me."

[Kevin]

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:

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS, with whom JUSTICE KENNEDY joins, dissenting from denial of certiorari.
North Philly, May 4, 2001. Officer Sean Devlin, Narcotics
Strike Force, was working the morning shift. Undercover
surveillance. The neighborhood? Tough as a threedollar
steak. Devlin knew. Five years on the beat, nine months with the Strike Force. He’d made fifteen, twenty drug busts in the neighborhood.
Devlin spotted him: a lone man on the corner. Another approached. Quick exchange of words. Cash handed over; small objects handed back. Each man then quickly on his own way. Devlin knew the guy wasn’t buying bus tokens. He radioed a description and Officer Stein picked up thebuyer. Sure enough: three bags of crack in the guy’s pocket. Head downtown and book him. Just another day at the office.

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

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by Kevin

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.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by KSigkid

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.