Neb. State Senator Sues God

[Pulp Hero]

You could cite him for contempt for failure to answer questions.

God can't plead the Fifth?

He still as to plead it though.

[Simplicius]

I am not certain Sen. Chambers will meet with much luck. Consider United States ex rel. Gerald Mayo v. Satan and his Staff, 54 F.R.D. 282:

Plaintiff, alleging jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 241, 28 U.S.C. § 1343, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 prays for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. He alleges that Satan has on numerous occasions caused plaintiff misery and unwarranted threats, against the will of the plaintiff, that Satan has placed deliberate obstacles in plaintiff's path and has caused plaintiff's downfall.

Plaintiff alleges that by reason of these acts Satan has deprived him of his constitutional rights.

We feel that the application to file and proceed in forma pauperis must be denied. Even if plaintiff's complaint reveals a prima facie recital of the infringement of the civil rights of a citizen of the United States, the Court has serious doubts that the complaint reveals a cause of action upon which relief can be granted by the court. We question whether plaintiff may obtain personal jurisdiction over the defendant in this judicial district. The
complaint contains no allegation of residence in this district. While the official records disclose no case where this defendant has appeared as defendant there is an unofficial account of a trial in New Hampshire where this defendant filed an action of mortgage foreclosure as plaintiff. The defendant in that action was represented by the preeminent advocate of that day, and raised the defense that the plaintiff was a foreign prince with no standing to sue in an American Court. This defense was overcome by overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Whether this would raise an estoppel in the present case we are unable to determine at this time.

If such action were to be allowed we would also face the question of whether it may be maintained as a class action. It appears to meet the requirements of Fed.R. of Civ.P. 23 that the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable, there are questions of law and fact common to the class, and the claims of the representative party is typical of the claims of the class. We cannot now determine if the representative party will fairly protect the interests of the class.

We note that the plaintiff has failed to include with his complaint the required form of instructions for the United States Marshal for directions as to service of process.

For the foregoing reasons we must exercise our discretion to refuse the prayer of plaintiff to proceed in forma pauperis.

It is ordered that the complaint be given a miscellaneous docket number and leave to proceed in forma pauperis be denied.

All standing precedent is against Sen. Chambers, sadly. But this is wonderful political theater nonetheless.

[General Zod]

I am not certain Sen. Chambers will meet with much luck. Consider United States ex rel. Gerald Mayo v. Satan and his Staff, 54 F.R.D. 282:

All standing precedent is against Sen. Chambers, sadly. But this is wonderful political theater nonetheless.

The problem seemed to mainly fall under the wording of the way recompense was to be given and whether Satan falled under X jurisdiction more than the existence of Satan itself. I figure if the Senator can nail those two problems he might have a better chance.

I'll have to dig it up later, but there is a small degree of precedence in that there's a county in Florida that has barred Satan from entering one of its cities, rather hilariously.

[Simplicius]

Re-checking the OP, it appears Chambers has addressed the problem of service, which prevented Mayo and Mircea Pavel from successfully filing suit. Since he is seeking an injunction, determining redress is probably also not a problem. So the Mayo precedent may not actually apply.

However, the matter of standing in this case is critical. I am not terribly familiar with lower-court standing doctrine, but if one applies Supreme Court doctrine here then the injury-in-fact requirement is a hurdle for the Senator. Chambers' closest claim to standing here seems to be the injury caused to "constituents of Plaintiff who Plaintiff has the duty to represent," but this is not an injury to the plaintiff himself. I am sure the OP article would have specified if Chambers had made a claim against God on his own behalf, but it seems he did not. A straightforward reading of injury-in-fact would then be enough to prevent the claim from being heard, unless the judge felt like playing along.

[General Zod]

Re-checking the OP, it appears Chambers has addressed the problem of service, which prevented Mayo and Mircea Pavel from successfully filing suit. Since he is seeking an injunction, determining redress is probably also not a problem. So the Mayo precedent may not actually apply.

I'm pretty sure Romanian precedent has no basis in American courts.

However, the matter of standing in this case is critical. I am not terribly familiar with lower-court standing doctrine, but if one applies Supreme Court doctrine here then the injury-in-fact requirement is a hurdle for the Senator. Chambers' closest claim to standing here seems to be the injury caused to "constituents of Plaintiff who Plaintiff has the duty to represent," but this is not an injury to the plaintiff himself. I am sure the OP article would have specified if Chambers had made a claim against God on his own behalf, but it seems he did not. A straightforward reading of injury-in-fact would then be enough to prevent the claim from being heard, unless the judge felt like playing along.

Do you have any type of link to this "injury-in-fact" precedent? I've never heard that you had to be the recipient of harm to file a lawsuit on someone else's behalf.

[Simplicius]

I'm pretty sure Romanian precedent has no basis in American courts.

I know; I just tossed that case in as a representative example.

Do you have any type of link to this "injury-in-fact" precedent? I've never heard that you had to be the recipient of harm to file a lawsuit on someone else's behalf.

Nothing prevents a person from filing suit. However, a court can dismiss the suit on grounds of standing. Injury-in-fact is one of the three factors SCOTUS - and maybe other courts; I don't know - uses to determine whether a plaintiff has standing in a case.

[A]t an irreducible minimum, Art. III requires the party who invokes the the court's authority to 'show that he personally has suffered some actual or threatened injury as a result of the putatively illegal conduct of the defendant,' and that the injury 'fairly can be traced to the traced to the challenged action' and 'is likely to to be redressed by a favorable decision.'

Since I read the thread taking a mock-serious tone about the prospects of the suit, making it class-action, etc., I applied the principles of jurisprudence in a similar vein. As long as Chambers' point about frivolous lawsuits doesn't depend on receiving a decision in this case, there will be no problem. If he was determined to press the case, the court would likely deny him standing rather than try to make a decision on the merits. This is only theater, after all.

[mingo]

If anyone READS the complaint, he's committed political suicide, because only an atheist would follow that line of thinking about God's "crimes". Christians very much do NOT what the fallacy of omnipresence chalenged.

[sketerpot]

If anyone READS the complaint, he's committed political suicide, because only an atheist would follow that line of thinking about God's "crimes". Christians very much do NOT what the fallacy of omnipresence chalenged.

This guy has periodically made fun of religion since the 1970s. In public. While serving in the Nebraska state senate.

So no, he hasn't committed political suicide.

[Darth Wong]

I'm pretty sure Romanian precedent has no basis in American courts.

It's not binding on American courts, but American courts have looked to precedents set in other countries before, for ideas. There's nothing wrong with that (although I know some right-wingers tried to use this fact, combined with a lot of flag-waving, as an excuse for their "activist anti-American judge" rhetoric before).

[Howedar]

Strictly speaking, to what degree is even US precedent "binding"? I'm sure eyes would roll funny if a judge went contrary to precedent, but by definition isn't the judge the arbiter of what is and is not precedent, thereby making the new judgment in line with precedent almost by definition?

[Vympel]

Strictly speaking, to what degree is even US precedent "binding"? I'm sure eyes would roll funny if a judge went contrary to precedent, but by definition isn't the judge the arbiter of what is and is not precedent, thereby making the new judgment in line with precedent almost by definition?

Not if the precedent is from a higher court, no. The judge's only choice then is to distinguish the present case from the precedent that has been previously set - usually the precedent will be set before him in argument by one of the parties' counsel (or both of them).

(that's how it works in Australia and I'm pretty sure that's how it works in the US, both being common law jurisdictions)

[Natorgator]

And God has apparently responded:

LINCOLN, Neb. (AP) -- A legislator who filed a lawsuit against God has gotten something he might not have expected: a response. One of two court filings from "God" came Wednesday under otherworldly circumstances, according to John Friend, clerk of the Douglas County District Court in Omaha.

"This one miraculously appeared on the counter. It just all of a sudden was here - poof!" Friend said.

State Sen. Ernie Chambers of Omaha sued God last week, seeking a permanent injunction against the Almighty for making terroristic threats, inspiring fear and causing "widespread death, destruction and terrorization of millions upon millions of the Earth's inhabitants."

Chambers, a self-proclaimed agnostic who often criticizes Christians, said his filing was triggered by a federal lawsuit he considers frivolous. He said he's trying to makes the point that anybody can sue anybody.

Not so, says "God." His response argues that the defendant is immune from some earthly laws and the court lacks jurisdiction.

It adds that blaming God for human oppression and suffering misses an important point.

"I created man and woman with free will and next to the promise of immortal life, free will is my greatest gift to you," according to the response, as read by Friend.

There was no contact information on the filing, although St. Michael the Archangel is listed as a witness, Friend said.

A second response from "God" disputing Chambers' allegations lists a phone number for a Corpus Christi law office. A message left for that office was not immediately returned Thursday.

Attempts to reach Chambers by phone and at his Capitol office Thursday were unsuccessful.

[Pablo Sanchez]

It adds that blaming God for human oppression and suffering misses an important point.

I think whatever jerkoff dropped those letters off at the clerk (likely the clerk himself) is the one missing the point.

[Stuart Mackey]

It adds that blaming God for human oppression and suffering misses an important point.

I think whatever jerkoff dropped those letters off at the clerk (likely the clerk himself) is the one missing the point.

And has not read the bible either. Perhaps 'God' forgot that whole flood thing and the elimination of a couple of cities for no good reason.

[sketerpot]

It adds that blaming God for human oppression and suffering misses an important point.

I think whatever jerkoff dropped those letters off at the clerk (likely the clerk himself) is the one missing the point.

Bearing false witness, too.