Sometimes You Just Cannot Sue

According to BBC News, the suit entitled Ernie Chambers v. God has met its maker. Nebraska state senator Ernie Chambers sued God in federal district court, seeking a permanent injunction to prevent “death, destruction and terrorisation.” The complaint alleged that God had threatened the plaintiff and the people of Nebraska and had inflicted widespread death and destruction “upon millions of the Earth’s inhabitants.” The court dismissed the case on the grounds of insufficient process: because the defendant has no address, legal papers cannot be served. The court apparently rejected the plaintiff’s argument that “since God knows everything, God has notice of the lawsuit.”

You may also like...

2 Responses

  1. C. Cox III says:

    Having thought about this problem (N.B. Wa-a-ay too much time on my hands!)I would attempt to resolve the process question by service on one of the self-proclaimed representitives of God-on-Earth, i.e. one of the three main monotheistic religions. Personally, if I were to be seeking money damages, I would include the Catholic Church as a co-defendant, because it seems to have the most apparent wealth, or “deep pockets” to use a term of art. Furthermore, process fees could be minimal as service might be effected at any local parish.

    There are other procedural issues, though. For example, what earthly court has jurisdiction? And, if an injunction were to entered, how could it be enforced against an omnipotent God?

    But, Yeah, I think the Court was correct in dismissing Chamber’s action on procediral grounds. That way the judge didn’t have to come right out and say Chambers is a frickin’ looneytune.

  2. C. Cox III says:

    Having thought about this problem (N.B. Wa-a-ay too much time on my hands!)I would attempt to resolve the process question by service on one of the self-proclaimed representitives of God-on-Earth, i.e. one of the three main monotheistic religions. Personally, if I were to be seeking money damages, I would include the Catholic Church as a co-defendant, because it seems to have the most apparent wealth, or “deep pockets” to use a term of art. Furthermore, process fees could be minimal as service might be effected at any local parish.

    There are other procedural issues, though. For example, what earthly court has jurisdiction? And, if an injunction were to entered, how could it be enforced against an omnipotent God?

    But, Yeah, I think the Court was correct in dismissing Chamber’s action on procediral grounds. That way the judge didn’t have to come right out and say Chambers is a frickin’ looneytune.