A home for the weary.
https://www.wwtbambored.com/
What a moron. It figures that he's a Democrat.Bob Juch wrote:LINCOLN, Neb. - A judge has thrown out a Nebraska legislator's lawsuit against God, saying the Almighty wasn't properly served, because of his unlisted home address. State Sen. Ernie Chambers filed the lawsuit last year seeking a permanent injunction against God.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27201871/
No, it's a political lawsuit. Reading between the lines, I'm guessing Chambers was trying to paint the judge into the corner of having to decide whether God exists. His ideal result would probably have been to get the case tossed on the ground that God doesn't exist.NellyLunatic1980 wrote:Two words: Frivolous lawsuit.
But that's still a frivolous lawsuit, since the court is not literally "competent" to exercise jurisdiction in the first place. Anyway, it reminds me of the old law school chestnut:Bob78164 wrote:No, it's a political lawsuit. Reading between the lines, I'm guessing Chambers was trying to paint the judge into the corner of having to decide whether God exists. His ideal result would probably have been to get the case tossed on the ground that God doesn't exist.NellyLunatic1980 wrote:Two words: Frivolous lawsuit.
It's a stupid political stunt, but it's different from a frivolous lawsuit. --Bob
"It ain't over till it's over." Chambers is considering an appeal. He says that the lack of an address is irrelevant since, because God is omniscient, he already knows about the suit.silvercamaro wrote:It was a stupid, frivolous lawsuit, but I applaud the judge for finding a perfectly valid legal reason to throw it out.
Constructive notice. Clever argument. Still gonna get him nowhere, though.earendel wrote:"It ain't over till it's over." Chambers is considering an appeal. He says that the lack of an address is irrelevant since, because God is omniscient, he already knows about the suit.silvercamaro wrote:It was a stupid, frivolous lawsuit, but I applaud the judge for finding a perfectly valid legal reason to throw it out.
earendel wrote:"It ain't over till it's over." Chambers is considering an appeal. He says that the lack of an address is irrelevant since, because God is omniscient, he already knows about the suit.silvercamaro wrote:It was a stupid, frivolous lawsuit, but I applaud the judge for finding a perfectly valid legal reason to throw it out.
The Lord Jehovah wrote:earendel wrote:"It ain't over till it's over." Chambers is considering an appeal. He says that the lack of an address is irrelevant since, because God is omniscient, he already knows about the suit.silvercamaro wrote:It was a stupid, frivolous lawsuit, but I applaud the judge for finding a perfectly valid legal reason to throw it out.
Damn straight God knows about it; before time was, God knew about it. And God has got just the place prepared for this jackass.
Technically, lack of personal jurisdiction doesn't make a lawsuit frivolous. But my real point is that most people who file frivolous lawsuits are hoping use them to make money. This guy, if my speculation is correct, is hoping to lose, albeit in a particular way. --BobWeyoun wrote:But that's still a frivolous lawsuit, since the court is not literally "competent" to exercise jurisdiction in the first place. Anyway, it reminds me of the old law school chestnut:Bob78164 wrote:No, it's a political lawsuit. Reading between the lines, I'm guessing Chambers was trying to paint the judge into the corner of having to decide whether God exists. His ideal result would probably have been to get the case tossed on the ground that God doesn't exist.NellyLunatic1980 wrote:Two words: Frivolous lawsuit.
It's a stupid political stunt, but it's different from a frivolous lawsuit. --Bob
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Sta ... _His_Staff