From Karen Marie Handy, a.k.a. Aaliyah Al-Aziz v. United States, 2005 WL 6115381 (Ct. Fed. Cl.), decided May 6, 2005 but — as best I can tell — just posted on Westlaw (paragraph breaks added):
Count I ("Copyright") [of the Complaint] states: "[A]ll materials and written works containing any biblical, historical and religious relevance" and "[a]ny mentioning of my name" are "the sole property and ownership of God .... [and] should have been copyrighted to God." Count II ("Patent") states: "Any patent taken on any goods, services, products with respect to any representation of God, her deity, character, symbol, and any historical person has been blatantly disregarded as to ownership by God only .... [and] should have and be reserved for my approval only."
Count III ("Taking Personal Property") arguably asserts a Fifth Amendment takings claim: "All property contained within the limits of the Earth, its space and such are the sole ownership of God." Counts IV and V ("Miscellaneous Damages") appear to allege further takings claims, violations of the free exercise clause of the First Amendment, and other constitutional violations.
The common denominator in the first three counts, as well as the takings component of Count IV, is that God's rights in various property interests have been injured in some way. Plaintiff lacks standing to bring such claims, however.... It is clear from plaintiff's complaint ... that she does not claim to have suffered an "injury in fact" for herself, but on behalf of a third party--God.
It should be noted that plaintiff attempted to cure this defect. In a document dated April 6, 2005, which the court treated as a response to defendant's motion, plaintiff states: "To make the following statement very clear to you, I am God, Allah, as stated before, I will not tolerate being referenced to as anyone other than that." This mere allegation, however, is insufficient to satisfy standing requirements. Further, weighing any evidence pertaining to the truth of this statement would involve a nonjusticiable matter....
The various other constitutional claims contained in Counts IV and V are also beyond this court's jurisdiction. See United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206, 218 (1983) (holding that this court's jurisdiction is limited to cases in which the Constitution or a federal statute mandates the payment of money)....
But I sure am glad to see our tax dollars at work !
Someone should really enumerate the supernatural powers of the judicial branch.
I don't practice in copyright law, so I could be off-base, but isn't the court supposed to presume that plaintiff's factual allegations are true under a motion to dismiss?
Mayo v. Satan and His Staff, 54 F.R.D. 282 (W.D. Penn. 1971). In a suit against Satan for various offenses, including a s1983 claim, motion to proceed in forma pauperis denied. Doubtful personal jurisdiction is discussed.
If the motion to dismiss is premised on a lack of subject matter jurisdiction, then the court need not presume all plaintiff's allegations true. It's a bit of a complex area though.
Nevermind.
There is nothing particular to copyright (or patent) law that needs to be referenced to answer your question. As a matter of Federal Procedure, courts do not presume the truth of factual allegations when motions to dismiss are based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction (or improper venue, or lack of personal jurisdiction, or lack of sufficient service of process). Only on motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim do courts presume the truth of factual allegations. (You can attack subject matter jurisdiction based solely on the allegations of the complaint, and there the Court would presume the truth.)
.... what?
The judge's handling of the matter (calling it nonjudiciable rather than saying the plaintiff is wrong) seems correct. Plaintiff is hardly the first individual to declare herself a deity.
But since God is a trinity, couldn't the court rule that He is a corporate author, and thus that his copyright expired seventy-five years from the date of creation, regardless?
And where does God stand ? I mean, where does he place his Godly feet ? And are there jurisdictional issues of a trans-galactic nature ?
This sounds like a good question to open the next ABD Presidential Debate ! It's about as close to meaningful as the ones they used last time ....
"If Karen Marie Handy was really smart, she would have encouraged a letter-writing campaign wherein all mail addressed to "God" would be delivered to her in large sacks in the courtroom."
You've been watching too many Kris Kringle movies.
I can't wait to see a court take judicial notice of the polytheistic doctrines of trinitarian Christians:) Also, I doubt that the Trinity is a corporation. Do unincorporated partnerships count as corporate authors for purposes of copyright?
That is beside of claiming copyrights on Bible e.g. in Poland. Techicality being that local law does not recognize translator as author.
Sample links:
link one
link two
I have personal experience of many bizarre medical compensation cases. Those are mostly pure "narrative," though, without all the legal posturing and special weirdness that gives cases like Karen Marie Handy, a.k.a. Aaliyah Al-Aziz v. United States.
Or even better, could they deny coverage based on intentional acts, if they are acts of God?