Former Nebraska state senator Ernie Chambers' lawsuit against the Almighty has been thrown out of court because the defendant couldn't be served papers informing him of Chambers' suit:
You can't sue God if you can't serve the papers on him, a Douglas County District Court judge has ruled in Omaha.
Judge Marlon Polk threw out Nebraska Sen. Ernie Chambers' lawsuit against the Almighty, saying there was no evidence that the defendant had been served. What's more, Polk found "there can never be service effectuated on the named defendant."
Chambers had sued God in September 2007, seeking a permanent injunction to prevent God from committing acts of violence such as earthquakes and tornadoes....
Polk dismissed the lawsuit with prejudice, which means it can't be refiled. But his ruling can be appealed.
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."
I'm not entirely convinced that the ruling is correct. After all, if God exists, he must be omnipresent and omnipotent. Therefore, it logically follows that he can be served with court papers anywhere; after all he is present everywhere in the universe at all times. Indeed, service of process is a pointless formality when it comes to God. Since the Lord is omniscient as well as omnipotent, he surely knew about Senator Chambers' lawsuit even before any process servers were sent out. Indeed, he must have foreseen that Chambers would file the suit long before Chambers himself knew that he would do it. As Chambers himself has pointed out, "Since God knows everything, God has notice of this lawsuit."
A better technical legal ground for dismissing lawsuits against God might be lack of redressability, which is a requirement of standing under federal law and (I presume) Nebraska law as well. If the plaintiff's injury can't be redressed by a judicial ruling, he doesn't have standing to file a suit. Since God is omnipotent, the judicial injunction Chambers seeks can't possibly force him to do anything he doesn't want to do anyway. Thus, no redessability and no standing.
This interests me. Suppose in Afghanistan there's a tribal chieftain, and someone comes before a court asking for an injunction against the chieftain. And let's suppose that Afghanistani standing law is just like our own. And also suppose that past injunctions have not had any effect on the chieftain, that the chieftain violates injunctions as he pleases and that police power in the part of the country where he operates is far too weak to exert any pressure on him. Does it follow, then, that there's no real redressability and therefore no standing for people to seek future injunctions, so long as the chieftain remains too powerful to be touched? I'm not sure how I feel about that. On the one hand, you could argue that courts shouldn't waste their time issuing merely advisory and ineffective injunctions; on the other, using standing in this way almost seems to subvert the rule of law.
I also happen to agree with Chambers here, because I think the petitioning clause should allow this sort of access to the courts.
If God is omnipotent, then he can detect process anywhere. Therefore, the only proof that's needed is evidence that you announced your intention to purse the lawsuit somewhere in some way.
Interesting. But unlike God, the chieftain isn't omnipotent. There's at least some chance that a future injunction might have an effect against him (e.g. - if the police become more effective, perhaps through training by Coalition forces). On the other hand, there's no chance that any human injunction could ever successfully compel an omnipotent God.
But I'd be inclined to agree that one's inability to force God shouldn't defeat standing. Depending on your theological point of view, you might be able to influence God by asking him not to do something; the injunction might just be a form of prayer, and it might change the probability that the acts of violence will occur. And we know that probabilistic redressability can, sometimes, support standing -- see the cases recognizing procedural injuries, or affirmative action injuries.
Of course, on the merits, it's not illegal for God to cause these acts of violence, because they're... drum roll... merely acts of God. So it's probably a losing case anyway. But you could rest a procedural dismissal on the widespread and speculative nature of the risk, which would defeat injury-in-fact. You could also rest it on a failure of the "fairly traceable" prong, because to take a position on this would require making a theological judgment. Or, as a previous commenter said, you could rest it on failure of proof of service, because relying on omniscience would likewise require making a theological judgment.
I'm wondering, though... who was representing God here? Why didn't he just win by default judgment? Any ground for him to lose ought to be one that the court has to raise sua sponte, for instance its own jurisdiction. So any standing-based ground would be O.K. there. I guess this is why you'd have to investigate service as an initial matter.
I've heard Cheney has convincing evidence of this.
Some chance, but it's quite unlikely. And as the Court has reiterated umpteen times,
That from Lujan. Of course, redressability, like all facets of standing law, is famously fudgeable, but "at least some chance" probably isn't enough.
www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,867662,00.html
I believe that is a point of some dispute. I believe the judge was correct to say that he failed to serve the defendant.
What about the notion that laws apply only to people, not other species, objects, Dieties, etc.
I suppose this is where social conservatives have a point about needing some kind of broad theistic underpinning to our legal system...one can hardly imagine the older English or early American courts that forged our legal doctrines ever entertaining these ideas. After all, the view that God could be sued is blasphemous to some while the opposite would offend others, so it's not like there's any such thing as religious "neutrality."
Just to take a common statute - leave it at the place of the defendant's usual abode with a competent member of his family over the age of 14.
1) God lives everywhere
2) Many Christians believe they are the "children" of God
3) Find a Christian over the age of 14, give him or her the summons &complaint.
What about service by publication?
God lives everywhere, so pick a paper anywhere and publish it.
Not all religions view God as omnipresent and omnipotent. For the court to decide that he is would be a violation of the First Amendment.
Bah. The judges need to restrict their attentions to situations they are likely to improve. Since they cannot improve upon the Divine will...
I dunno.
Genesis 24-30
This is why we have the 2nd Amendment to keep our 'chieftain' redressable.
I'm not sure what his point is. He was NOT able to sue God. The suit was dismissed. If he believes that "Nobody should stand at the courthouse door to predetermine who has access to the courts" in other words, nobody should determine who can and cannot be sued pre-suit, but rather jurisdiction over a defendant (and whether a defendant is proper) should only be determined by the court after suit has been filed, then his point was proven quite well - that's precisely what happened.
If he wants a law on the books that says nobody can sue God - that would seem to contradict the intent of his first point.
People always complain about frivilous lawsuits, and they often get a lot of attention, but the same is not true about when they're summarily dismissed. This guy couldn't even get to the summary judgment stage against God - the suit was dismissed at the first possible opportunity without the other party even having to make an appearance. What's so offensive about that?
Seems like the system worked perfectly. Of course, "Act of God" is just a term of art, interchangeable with "force majure."
But we know his primary residence in Heaven.
Therefore, to serve him with papers, just write them up, hand them to a process server of good Christian character, and shoot him dead. Process served.
Of course, you may have other legal issues at that point...
So as to God, I think sovereign immunity is the big problem rather than service of process or standing. However, there are certain occasions when the courts of one sovereign have to resolve the sovereignty of another purported sovereign. The Supreme Court has such a case on its docket this year, No. 07-615. This is frequently used by tax protestors ("render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and unto God that which is God's"), but Caesar tends to say "that's mine" and Pontius Pilate says "Yassah boss". Alternatively, one might implead God by sueing His earthly agents for torts committed in fulfilling His Word and then attempting to pierce the corporate veil. However, one would be more likely to get a ruling that the defendant was acting in propria persona rather than that his Principal did or did not exist.
I heard or read somewhere the argument that God can be all knowing, all powerful, or merciful, but not all three. (see Job) It cannot be determined which of the three God is not. So you can't automatically conclude the above, which asserts that God is not merciful.
In addition, I don't believe that any U.S. statute or court ruling implies that the U.S. courts have ever claimed jurisdiction over God. It is the plaintiff's burden to prove otherwise.
Similarly, god might choose to comply with the court ordering because of it's moral force or what not so it's not clear to me that the suit should be thrown out on these grounds.
Only if we assume he's told the truth to people. I mean, Zeus and Wotan weren't omnipotent, so why should Jehovah be?
I do recall an old trivia book I had as a child reported on a similar case, where the plaintiff won summary judgment because God didn't show up.
Ilya says "Since God is omnipotent, the judicial injunction Chambers seeks can't possibly force him to do anything he doesn't want to do anyway. Thus, no redessability and no standing."
Right, but presumably God wants to do what is just, so if the suit has merit, there wouldn't be an issue of God not wanting to comply.
At least for one example, if your a Mormon you believe G-d has at least once been seen in the United States and His son Jesus Christ multiple times. As for consenting to jurisdiction, again for Mormons the whole U.S. consitution, and by extention legal system, was inspired by G-d to men who were hand picked to develop it.
Is there anything the Douglas County District Court can do to Chambers for screwing around and wasting the Court's and People's time and money?
Which of course raises the question: Is there admissible evidence a plaintiff could present to establish that it is more likely than not that God is omniscient?
I was leaning towards judicial immunity.
Already Been Done!!!
Court Reporter: Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
God: So help me Me.
There are situations when an agent is personally liable for his own act as agent, but I'm pretty sure that that doesn't fit the facts you describe.
Courts can take judicial notice of publications. So take the The Bible, Torah or Koran and you have admissible evidence. The trier of fact can then decide on what weight, if any, to give to the evidence.
Many churches readily acknowledge that their building is 'God's House,' so the court could probably seize His property located in its district. It might be able to enjoin His designated representative, the Pope.
There is a better way.
Find all the inmate on death row who are suspected of being innocent, but whose appeals have run out. Give them the papers to be served. Surely one of them will make it to heaven, and unlike your first scenario, the execution is an act sanctioned by the state, so there should be no legal repercussions.
We cannot let this go. Even God should not be allowed to escape justice!
Redressability might have been an issue if Massachusetts had asked EPA to hold back the tides or be responsible to coastal area for losses due to global warming, but all it sought was that EPA exercise what powers it had in the manner its regulations required.
It is within God's power to hold back the tides (Exodus 14:21-27), but there is no law requiring him to do so.
But Pharoah could not have resorted to equity because of the clean hands doctrine (not to mention that he served a different God, and therefore the case would have had to go to an interdeital forum).
If God is omniscient then he always knows what is just.
If God wants to do what is just, then presumably he always does what is just since he always knows the just thing to do.
If God already causes earthquakes and tornados, then he must already have concluded that they are just. An injunction issued by a Nebraska court will not change his mind. God will therefore not comply with such an order.
Dan Schmutter
The judge dismissed the case on the grounds that the plaintiff couldn't prove God resided in these particular churches. Guess the judge had been reading Soloman that day.
I can't find the case, darn it (wish I could), but I do clearly remember the story.
This pretty much nails down the applicability of sovereign immunity.
Proving or disproving the existence of God doesn't change the Declaration. To take God out of the chain of command (on paper) we'd have to abolish our unilateral treaty with Great Britain (the Declaration resembles a treaty more than anything else) and come up with a new one.
People like Obama and Clinton sought his support, and journalists and liberal officials embrace him.
Mother Jones magazine called him a "national treasure," and his liberal colleagues and reporters have praised him for his “heart," "conscience," and "empathy."
Nevermind that he advocated "afrocentric" segregation in Nebraska -- redrawing school district boundary lines in order to create an almost entirely-black school district.
Can anyone imagine a right-wing nut who advocated segregation and suing God being treated with such reverence?
Any conservative politician who'd ever sought his support or worked with him would be toast.
But he, and his enablers, have gotten away with it, because he's a left-wing nut, not a right-wing nut.
The USA had the power to declare independence from the UK because the UK's sovereignty was merely a "government instituted among men" for a particular purpose, and when it failed that purpose it was "the right of the people to alter or to abolish it". God's sovereignty is not instituted by men, nor was it instituted for some purpose; God is sovereign because He made the world and everything in it, and nothing can alter or abolish that situation. Therefore a federal court has no more authority to enjoin Him from executing His judgments than a state or local court would have had to enjoin the federal government from executing Timothy McVeigh.
But that's a very big "if," isn't it? I mean, what if there is rumored to be a reclusive person living in an old house in my town -- but his existence is not agreed on by all. If I drop papers in his mail slot, and can assure that, if he exists, he will receive them, have I served him? Wouldn't I have to make it clear that he does exist, and did receive the papers?
God eventually did show and never bothered to answer Job's charge. Instead, he basically charged Job with arrogance based on ignorance and berated him, "You're a child. Don't open your mouth until you grow up." Job closes his mouth.
We'll probably have no such luck with the likes of Chalmers.
That said, it would be the defendant's job to raise the issue. The court should not be raising it for him.
Aren't there alternative service rules in Nebraska? Such as, the court could grant permission to serve by publication.
You're correct - but that means that suit is without merit. No theology needed: if God exists, the suit lacks merit for the reason you and I are describing, and if God doesn't exist, the suit lacks merit for even more obvious reasons.
Courts can't take judicial notice of publications, they take notice of facts. Facts that can, perhaps, be found in publications, but the publications have to "unimpeachable sources". I would wager millenia-old history books wouldn't be considered "unimpeachable" by any court.
You've never heard the phrase "God in Three Persons"? I wonder if that's a partnership and you have to serve all three.
Of course, given Senator Chambers' faulty logic, I am sure he can invent grounds for an appeal. Perhaps he can cite Romans 14:10 which promises that "all of us will stand before the judgment seat of God" to argue that the case should simply be stayed pending service. If so, he better pray the appellate court has a sense of humor.
But since papers can be served on anyone of suitable age and discretion at the defendant's residence, and God is omnipresent, couldn't he just have served any adult in any house? I think that's how it was done in the famous antitrust suit brought by Odin, Jove, and Ba'al, alleging that He had monopolized their field and driven them out of business.
Polytheism is the concept that there are many gods, each divine and each sovereign, and all existing independently of each other and the Universe as a whole. Typically, polytheistic religions see the gods as preexisting the universe, much as the monotheistic religions do. Which god is, in this event, at issue?
Pantheism is the concept that the Universe is, in corporate whole, Divine. (Alternately, that all life is, in corporate whole, Divine.) Pantheistic religions see Divinity as being inextricably a part of the Universe. (And thus, on a side note, at least theoretically reachable by scientific investigation.) Can one sue one's self? Can one sue one's self as part of a larger entity; for example, could one sue one's self as an American citizen to compel the government to appear?
Panentheistic religions believe that God interpenetrates the entire Universe, but is distinct from it. I believe that this is the way that Protestant Christian religions practice. (Let's not get into a debate about how a religion with at least 3 and arguably 4 and arguably thousands of gods can be a monotheistic religion, shall we?) In this case, jurisdiction certainly becomes a problem.
Not all Christians should be held responsible, but those who own the action - like Robertson in your example - could. Make them put their money where their mouths are. But if we're going to do that, we should also impose an income tax surcharge on any politician who advocates a tax hike. Of course, in that battle, religious types have the upper hand, since they voluntarily mobilize an army of volunteers for every natural or man made disaster, while tax hiking politicians tend to be notoriously stingy with their own money.
All the more reason to make it a RICO action.
The true richness of the irony lies in the fact that this was how Senator Chambers sought to illustrate why there should not be limits on frivolous lawsuits. I've only lived in Omaha for a couple of years, but explaining the fiasco that is its safe haven law and the contentious state of education in the local school districts does not require much research.
The difficulty is most likely not service itself, but proof of service or alternatively proof that God spends time in an area covered by a publication so that service by publication can take place. Sewer service might work with a sympathetic judge (but Nebraska may have rules which require a judge to dismiss an affidavit of service if the judge believes it to be false), but it remains sewer service. How can you convince a judge that your process server is telling the truth when they sign an affidavit that they served God?
"I'm wondering, though... who was representing God here? Why didn't he just win by default judgment? Any ground for him to lose ought to be one that the court has to raise sua sponte, for instance its own jurisdiction"
Actually, failure to provide proof of service of the complaint is one of the grounds state court judges have to dismiss sua sponte, at least here in California (and other states as well, I suspect). If a plaintiff hasn't filed a proof of service with the court around six months after filing, the courts are authorized to set an Order to Show Cause re dismissal sue sponte. If the plaintiff doesn't show up to the hearing -- or offer a plausible explaination of how they intend to serve the defendant -- dismissal is permitted. Plus, if a complaint is not served on the defendant within three years of filing, dismissal of the complaint is mandatory.
The only difference with California is that the dismissal for failure to prosecute rules is that the dismissal is without prejudice, so the type of dismissal is a little different, but that could just be a difference in Nebraska state law.
Yes, for example He must decide next year's Grammy winners.
Michael Nudow must be kicking himself about now...
Asking the very party he just tried to sue to bail him out of the mess he made for himself by trying to sue Him? That would have to be the ultimate in chutzpah.
Pat C: Yes, for example He must decide next year's Grammy winners.
And kick record-breaking game-winning field goals.
After the game, Detroit linebacker Wayne Walker told reporters, "Tom Dempsey didn't kick that field goal. God kicked it."
It is, in fact, quite clear that Satan has a presence in PA.
Exhibit 1 would be the Allentown-Bethlehem area in general.
Exhibit 2: that stretch of I-95 that blows right through that horrible neighborhood outside Philly, just southeast of the 476 exit.
Yep, you've got a fiend in PA.
There's another legal issue, which would likely bar claims in state court, though not federal court. If God is omnipresent, he was present before the colonization of America by Europeans, and thus is a Native American. God is present on reservations, and thus outside the jurisdiction of the State of Nebraska, though not necessarily outside the jurisdiction of the United States.
For pirates and such...
I had had always understood it to be one of the underpinnings of the Miller decision, which basically held that martial law is lawful where there is combat going on rendering it impossible to hold courts or enforce judgments.
IIRC, the Mormons believe Jesus had operations in Missouri at one point.
And further, there's some way to sue somebody who has fled the country, no? Jesus has promised to return, so he could be served then. The Sheriff might be smote on the spot, but that's not really the court's problem.
I think this just serves to illustrate that you need to sue a God of a particular religion, not God in general, to know how to properly proceed. This court has essentially endorsed the ignostic position on theology.