It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Judge tosses Neb. legislator's lawsuit against God, saying defendant never received notice

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 15 2008 @ 02:05 PM
link   

Judge tosses Neb. legislator's lawsuit against God, saying defendant never received notice


www.newsday.com

LINCOLN, Neb. (AP) _ A judge has thrown out a Nebraska legislator's lawsuit against God, saying the Almighty wasn't properly served due to his unlisted home address.

State Sen. Ernie Chambers filed the lawsuit last year seeking a permanent injunction against God. He said God has made terroristic threats against the senator and his constituents in Omaha, inspired fear and caused "widespread death, destruction and terrorization of millions upon millions of the Earth's inhabitants."
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Oct, 15 2008 @ 02:05 PM
link   
Well, it seems that God, like many other celebrities, is getting off on a technicality.

Chambers argued that if God is omnipotent then he is everywhere, thus he was properly served.

Though it would have been a big waste of money, I wish the judge would have let the lawsuit go to trial. It would have made for interesting arguments. Many of which we tackle on ATS on a regular basis.




www.newsday.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Oct, 15 2008 @ 02:08 PM
link   
Chambers makes a valid point:



"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."


AP/Newsday



posted on Oct, 15 2008 @ 02:12 PM
link   
reply to post by schrodingers dog
 


SD;

But wait a second! I'm nor clear from the article how this lawsuit addresses...


Chambers has said he filed the lawsuit to make the point that everyone should have access to the courts regardless of whether they are rich or poor.


What part of the backstory am I missing?

---------------------

Besides, recognition of the defendant was made indirectly, no names cited, I think the judge may have already foreseen this potential appeal. Sheesh, does this guy have money and time to burn or what?



posted on Oct, 15 2008 @ 02:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Maxmars
 


Max, I'm not sure what he is trying to achieve.
I found this better description of the case.


On September 14, 2007, Sen. Chambers filed a lawsuit against God, seeking a permanent injunction ordering God to "cease certain harmful activities and the making of terroristic threats...of grave harm to innumerable persons, including constituents of Plaintiff who Plaintiff has the duty to represent".[13] Sen. Chambers filed the lawsuit in response to another lawsuit filed in the state court that he considers to be frivolous and inappropriate.[14] When the Broadway musical the Putnam County Spelling Bee was in Omaha, it mocked the lawsuit.

Two responses to the lawsuit were filed. The first was from a Corpus Christi lawyer, Eric Perkins, who wanted to answer the question "what would God say".[15] The second was filed in Douglas County, Nebraska District Court. The source of the second response, claiming to be from "God", is unclear as no contact information was given.[16]

On July 30, 2008, local media sources reported the Douglas County District Court was going to deny Chambers' lawsuit because Chambers had failed to notify the defendant.[17] However, on August 1 Chambers was granted a court date of August 5 in in order to proceed with his lawsuit. "The scheduling hearing will give me a chance to lay out the facts that would justify the granting of the motion," Chambers was quoted as saying. He added, "Once the court enters the injunction, that's as much as I can do," he said. "That's as much as I would ask the court. I wouldn't expect them to enforce it."

wiki

It doesn't really answer your question though.
I'll try and figure it out.



posted on Oct, 15 2008 @ 02:19 PM
link   
I say.....GUILTY AS CHARGED.

Read a book called "Under One Banner". You will see how God (or his followers all over the world) have killed millions in his name.

There is another guy who never killed HIMSELF but was found guilty for inciting murder.....his name is Charlie.



posted on Oct, 15 2008 @ 02:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Maxmars
 


I think I got his logic, he is against "frivolous lawsuit" legislation.


Although the case may seem superfluous and even scandalous to others, Chambers has said his point is to focus on the question of whether certain lawsuits should be prohibited.

"Nobody should stand at the courthouse door to predetermine who has access to the courts," he said. "My point is that anyone can sue anyone else, even God."

Chambers, a political independent who has served in the Nebraska Legislature for 38 years, said he decided to make that point after at least two attempts by other senators in the Legislature to limit "frivolous lawsuits."

"I was able to fend them off," Chambers said. "A lawsuit is not frivolous until a court declares it so."


OWH

He is a lawyer by trade and he's basically using the courts to lobby for his cause.



posted on Oct, 15 2008 @ 02:23 PM
link   
Yes, Mr. Chambers is quite the character. If you are from our beloved state then you most likely detest him. He is a racist and a bigot, and loves to waste our tax money. Thanks Ernie!

Now only do we take any kid from any state that the parent doesn't want, we also sue god! Man that is some great PR for us....



posted on Oct, 15 2008 @ 02:28 PM
link   
reply to post by schrodingers dog
 


Gotcha! Makes perfect sense!

That he had to go to these lengths to make the point is a clear display of the decay of juris prudence and the legislatorial process...

Evidently, some don't care for the guy at all...



posted on Oct, 15 2008 @ 02:38 PM
link   
He may have an agenda, but I think that the story is absolutely hilarious.

By citing God's omniscence as reason for awareness of the suit, he basically satired the entire Creationism movement...


That said, it may be a waste and unnecessary, but the guffaws I experienced when reading the Original Post were completely worth it.

Good Find, Schro Dog...



posted on Oct, 15 2008 @ 02:43 PM
link   
reply to post by sputniksteve
 


Actually, many people in Neb think Chambers is pretty awesome. How many years has been elected to the Unicam now? He's a scrapper that actually gives a damn about making government work...you gotta respect that, even if you don't like his political stances.



posted on Oct, 15 2008 @ 02:45 PM
link   
reply to post by MemoryShock
 


It is very funny, especially if you think about the potential SNL sketch.

Nervous bailiff:

"Mr. God, Do you swear to tell the truth so help yourself?"



posted on Oct, 15 2008 @ 03:06 PM
link   
Hmmm the man is trying to sue god?


That puts a new perspective to the expression "devil's advocate"?


Only in america....


Peace



posted on Oct, 15 2008 @ 03:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by sputniksteve
Yes, Mr. Chambers is quite the character. If you are from our beloved state then you most likely detest him. He is a racist and a bigot, and loves to waste our tax money. Thanks Ernie!


I've been looking into Mr. Chambers. Interesting career. He's done some really good work mixed in with a few head scratchers, including this one.
Eccentric dude, but his constituents seem to love him.

wiki



posted on Oct, 16 2008 @ 01:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
reply to post by sputniksteve
 


Actually, many people in Neb think Chambers is pretty awesome. How many years has been elected to the Unicam now? He's a scrapper that actually gives a damn about making government work...you gotta respect that, even if you don't like his political stances.


Like I said above the guy is obviously respected and trusted by his constituents.
He could however have made his point in this instance without wasting money and time.
Though that would not have been as funny for the rest of us.



posted on Oct, 16 2008 @ 04:33 AM
link   
I kind of wonder what the sentence will be if God is found guilty? Will He be required to compensate the victims of all of those terrorist acts? Does God even have (or need) a bank account to provide compensation? Whatever the injunction actually declares or whatever any sentence is cited, who's going to be able to enforce it on God?

Or is this just another way of trying to make the courts & the government set a new "legal precedent" that makes Man's Laws seem more powerful than God's Laws, at least as far as it goes to sway "public opinion?"



posted on Oct, 16 2008 @ 05:26 AM
link   
thats the best laugh ive had all week

Sen. Chambers i salute you sir!



posted on Oct, 16 2008 @ 05:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by schrodingers dog


Well, it seems that God, like many other celebrities, is getting off on a technicality.

Chambers argued that if God is omnipotent then he is everywhere, thus he was properly served.

Though it would have been a big waste of money, I wish the judge would have let the lawsuit go to trial. It would have made for interesting arguments. Many of which we tackle on ATS on a regular basis.




www.newsday.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

No its not a technicality, celebrities address's would be found and they would be served.
The problem is here is there is no where on earth to serve it, seeing as though God lives in heaven and in order to go there you have to die.
So no one can verify they served God with the documents because they would be dead.
However, isn't the Catholic church supposedly a representative of God?
Couldn't he serve it on them?

God care of the Catholic Holy See?



posted on Oct, 16 2008 @ 02:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Interestinggg
 


A Catholic church would actually no be a bad idea for a place to "serve" God his/hers/its papers.

I think I heard last year someone in Italy doing that to the Vatican. I have to try I find that example. The courts also threw that lawsuit out if I remember correctly.

In a way I wish the judge let the case go to trial. We would have had some fascinating existential arguments.



posted on Oct, 16 2008 @ 07:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by MidnightDStroyer
I kind of wonder what the sentence will be if God is found guilty?


A life sentence.

That's a long time for a god.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join