So reports the AP:
Fed up with the threats, tired of natural disasters, the state's longest-serving state senator is using his legal muscle against who he says is the culprit — God. State Sen. Ernie Chambers of Omaha sued the Almighty in Douglas County District Court last week.
Chambers, who skips morning prayers during the legislative session and often criticizes Christians, said he filed the lawsuit to show that anybody can file a lawsuit against anybody....
Chambers, incidentally, once sued to bar legislative prayers in the Nebraska Legislature. The Supreme Court ultimately rejected the lawsuit, in Marsh v. Chambers (1983).
For a decision about a lawsuit against Satan, see United States ex rel. Mayo v. Satan and His Staff, 54 F.R.D. 282 (W.D. Pa. 1971).
Too bad for him the court will dismiss this in a second. I guess that undercuts his point.
An odd publicity stunt considering he is known only for filing a lawsuit of his own. It's too bad the people of Omaha don't demand more substance from their representatives.
Also, this suit brings to mind one of my favorite Simpsons quotations (which, like Satan and his staff, are legion):
Kent Brockman: This is Kent Brockman reporting live from the trial of God versus Lisa Simpson. Defending Miss Simpson is ACLU-appointed liberal, Clarice Drummond.
Clarice Drummond: I'm from New York!
Crowd: Boooo!
Love the post about service of process. That does present an interesting picture. If I were him, I would be very careful about being outside in a lightening storm!
Either (a), the Supernatural Entity controls everything (God?), in which case it would be pointless for the court to hear the case, because the court is subservient to the Entity.
Or (b), the Supernatural Entity is not in complete control of the world, in which case the court must defer to the sovereign immunity of the Executive Branch to set foreign policy with the supernatural, and to Congress on the question of whether to allow such suits to proceed.
Further, if God does possess a degree of control over Satan, the court should defer to God as to how that control is exercised.
It's not for the court to decide which possibility (a or b) is correct. After all, the court is discouraged from interpreting spiritual matters (see 1st Amendment cases re establishment of religion). Further, one man's Satan/devil/Baal is another man's Yahweh/Allah/Baal.
One other thing, how would the court go about <i>enforcing</i> any injunction?
I realize that he's just trying to make a point here, but the court should show him that there is a mechanism against frivolous lawsuits and sanction him.
And in a bit of judicial restraint,
"SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - A U.S. federal judge tossed out a lawsuit by California's attorney general on Monday seeking hundreds of millions of dollars from six automakers for damaging the state with climate-changing greenhouse gases.
Martin Jenkins, a federal judge in the Northern District of California, said the issue of global warming should be decided in the political rather than legal arena."
rbj,
This is an attractive idea, but Ernie Chambers is a barber, and not a lawyer-- see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernie_Chambers
I also recall this as common knowledge in Omaha from the time I lived there.
It might be attractive to sanction barbers for filing frivolous lawsuits (especially if they sue surgeons). But I doubt that Nebraska statute provides for such sanctions.
If God takes umbrage at frivolous lawsuits, then Ernie is in big trouble.
While I do not deny that this is a ridiculous lawsuit, that's because I do not believe that there is a god to sue. I suspect that this rep does not, either, which makes me wonder about whether he is vulnerable to Rule 11 sanctions. How can one file a good faith lawsuit against someone you don't believe exists?
On the other hand, I do find it curious that such suits would evoke such a visceral "that's ridiculous" action amongst believers. After all, if there is a god, then this suit is not actually that ridiculous at all.
I also reject the sovereign immunity arguments. That assumes that a deity is a sovereign, which it seems to me is a legal status assigned through comity, not (ahem) a divine right that can be claimed unilaterally by the defendant. I would think that, if there is a deity, you would at least have an argument that he could be tried for crimes against humanity under universal jurisdiction.
Besides, even if the deity is entitled to sovereign immunity, I would argue that by granting people free will (and allowing the court to be constituted in the first instance) that immunity has been waived.
Israelites Sue God For Breach Of Covenant
According to Sachs, the Israelites have not received the protection they were promised in the covenant.
"Despite the presence of numerous 'chosen people' clauses throughout this covenant, my client has suffered countless tragedies over the past 5,000 years, from the destruction of the Holy Temple in Jerusalem to the Spanish Inquisition to the Holocaust," Sachs said. "Does that sound like protection to you? Clearly, the Creator had no intention of honoring His legal and binding agreement with us from the start."
Continued Sachs: "The covenant also states that the plaintiff is be entitled to all the lands of the Earth. This, too, has not occurred. Furthermore, it states that the plaintiff will become more numerous than the dust thereof. This has not occurred, either, assuming, of course, that the world contains more than 14 million particles of dust."
Sachs then produced a Torah scroll and said, "I was raised to believe that this is more than just a piece of paper. What about Him?"
Court officers visited the Defendant atop Mount Sinai early this morning, serving Him with papers and setting the legal machinery in motion. Though He has declined comment, lawyers in His employ have already cited multiple points of contention with the Israelite argument, questioning the authenticity of the thousand-year-old hand-inscribed documents and taking issue with the selection of New York, "a city of Israelites," as the trial site.
RTWT.
If Sonja is on the jury,then the Israelites will lose.
Preferred Customer, Donkus,
According to Wikipedia, Chambers has a law degree from Creighton but is not a member of the Bar. As such, he is not subject to sanctions.
Also, the lawsuit was filed in Douglas County Court, according to the press. If sanctionable, the remedy would be state sanctions, and not Rule 11 sanctions.
L.
I assume God could be treated as a foreign corporation operating within the state. Perhaps process could be served on any bishop acting as a duly appointed representative. Or, when a Catholic priest is serving "in persona Christi" during a sacramental confession, perhaps process could be served then.
http://media.graytvinc.com/documents/Chambers+v+God.pdf
(The Hebrew Bible and the Qur'an make no such claim that I know of, so the Christian religion will have to suffice for service. No offense intended, Jews and Muslims.)
Chambers says in his lawsuit that God has made terroristic threats against the senator and his constituents, inspired fear and caused "widespread death, destruction and terrorization of millions upon millions of the Earth's inhabitants."
"Terrorization". Haha, that reminds me of the Third Circuit test for failure to prosecute: one of the factors is "meritoriousness of the case". Why use 2 syllables when 6 will do?
Unfortunatly for the Israelites they are on record for repeatedly breaking their side of the deal.
Dave, something tells me the plaintiff is not interested in serving G*d.
Peremptory strike!
Unfortunatly for the Israelites they are on record for repeatedly breaking their side of the deal.
And just Whose scriptures are you relying upon for these scurrilous allegations?
Nothing to sic here. "Drouth" is a dictionary recognized variant spelling.
The scene: a hotel in Ontario, CA. The FBI and IRS and two AUSAs are interviewing some clients, preparing them for a trial in Texas. They are witnesses to an alleged fraud ring -- unknowing ex-employees.
The strange part was that half of the feds (not me-fed, the current-feds) were genial and jovial and fun, and the other half were grumpy and unfriendly. And the two groups seemed to hate each other.
So they're grilling my client about who else, if anyone, was involved in the fraud scheme:
Prosecutor 1: So, Ms. Witness, did Mr. or Mrs. Scumbag identify anyone else supporting their efforts?
Witness: Supporting?
Prosecutor 1: Anyone else they said was backing them up, giving them any type of support, anything.
Witness: Well, there's .. well, no, not really.
Prosecutor 1: What does that mean?
Witness: No.
Prosecutor 1: But you started to say something. You started to identify someone.
Witness: There really isn't anyone specific.
Prosecutor 1: Look, this is very important, Ms. Witness. You aren't a suspect now, but that's because you've been cooperative. You can't hide things from me. You can't protect people. You can't decide what you will or won't tell me. If there is someone else that the Scumbags identified as supporting them in this scam, you need to tell me now. Not later, now.
Witness: God.
FBI agent 1: Sorry. Repeat that?
Witness: God. You know, like, God?
Prosecutor 1: The Scumbags said they were supported by God?
Witness: They said that they did everything they did based on God's guidance, and that God was supporting their efforts.
Me: Just for clarification, can you give me an indication of whether God is a target, subject, or witness in this investigation?
Prosecutor 1: [stone faced, unamused]
FBI agent 1: [stone faced, unamused]
IRS agent: [stone faced, unamused]
Prosecutor 2: Why? Do you represent Him?
Me: I'm not sure whether He needs representation in this matter.
FBI agent 2: Do you go to church?
Me: Yes.
FBI agent 2: Wouldn't you have a conflict of interest, then?
Me: Those can be waived.
Prosecutor 2: How would He pay you?
Me: I was thinking of asking for my hair back.
Witness: Jesus Christ. Can we please just get through this?
Prosecutor 1: Ms. Witness, other than God or gods, did the Scumbags identify any other persons supporting their enterprise?
Me: Not excluding demigods, avatars, and manifestigations?
Prosecutor 1: Would you please ... would you please .... just .. just ... please.
As an aside I generally agree that victims and witnesses in rape cases should be bared from describing what happened as "rape" during their testimony. Maybe they already are but it seems to be much superior to require them to testify in a non-conclusory fashion about the actual incidents that occurred and then let the jury make the decision. If the victim can say "it was rape" one has the problem that psychologically the jury has to either decide she was a liar or convict even if her notion of what is rape doesn't meet the legal definition.
Is this all the judge mentioned in the case was requiring? Isn't this fairly straightforward law that testimony can't draw conclusions like this? Then again the whole story in the AP was so confused I couldn't figure out what was going on at all.
Perhaps he's an idiot, but at least he doesn't conduct his life based on the alleged teachings of an invisible, and almost certainly imaginary, all-knowing supernatural tripartite entity.
I mean, you'd have to be pretty much of an idiot to do that, right?
And is he really paid all that much?
He can even request through the proper acknowledged channels to have God appear at the trial. And if God doesn't appear, He might be held in contempt.
And for a way to collect damages. There are enough groups that claim to collect for God, go get it from them instead of from God directly.
"Can someone explain to me why the AP article also talk about a lawsuit against a judge by a completely different person? Are the two somehow related, or is it just really sloppy reporting?"
~~Actually, the reason it is linked to a story about a woman suing a judge is interesting, and maybe tenuous. In that case, a young woman claims to be raped. The judge, in a not un-common move, instructed her not to use the word "rape", "sexual assault" or similar words. First trial was hung. Second trial, judge declared mistrial due to the publicity that the accuser had brought to town. It received (and continues to receive) national attention. (Aside...the media seems to get it wrong, seeing this as something seriously out-of-turn for a judge to do. My experience says otherwise.) The accuser has now sought a Federal judge's ruling to direct the state court judge to allow her to use these words. Ernie has latched onto this opening into Federal Court to try and show that everyone has a right to access to the courts...something that he claims Nebraska has attempted to limit in the past.
Really, an interesting sequence of events.
Very true -- if they are really collecting it in the name of God, they can hardly refuse to pay a judgment against God.
Nick