posted
Senator Suing God Urges Judge to Proceed Court Could Throw Suit Out Because of Failure to Serve Notice on God By JOSH FUNK Associated Press Writer August 5, 2008—
OMAHA, Neb. (AP) --State Sen. Ernie Chambers says his lawsuit against God might seem funny but that doesn't mean it doesn't have a serious point.
Chambers asked Douglas County District Judge Marlon Polk on Tuesday to let his lawsuit proceed. Chambers said he wants to make the point that everyone should have access to the courts regardless of whether they are poor or have the means of billionaire Warren Buffett of Omaha.
"What brought me to the point of filing this lawsuit was the ill-advised attempts by certain legislators to prevent the filing of certain lawsuits," Chambers said.
Polk said he would consider the issue and rule later.
Chambers acknowledges using wit and humor in the lawsuit he filed last September seeking a permanent injunction against God. Chambers said God has made terroristic threats against the senator and his constituents in Omaha, inspired fear and caused "widespread death, destruction and terrorization of millions upon millions of the Earth's inhabitants."
The court told Chambers last week that his lawsuit may be dismissed because he had failed to serve notice on God. Chambers acknowledged that failure in court Tuesday while sitting a few feet away from an empty table reserved for God and God's attorney.
"Despite my most sincere, zealous efforts, I could not find a location to serve the defendant," Chambers said.
But Chambers asked Polk to take official notice of God, and the Almighty's omniscience and omnipresence.
Chambers argued that courts and the U.S. government already routinely take notice of God. Courts swear in witnesses with an oath that includes the phrase "so help me God." Plus, the pledge of allegiance describes "one nation, under God," and U.S. currency proclaims "In God We Trust."
And the senator said that if the court recognizes God, the deity wouldn't need formal notice of the lawsuit because he knows everything. And God would be at every hearing because he's everywhere always.
A senator for 38 years, Chambers skips morning prayers during the legislative session and often criticizes Christians. He is being pushed out of the Legislature by term limits.
Chambers said he appreciates the difficult position Judge Polk is in because of the unique nature of the case, but he hopes the lawsuit will be allowed to proceed.
"Your honor, I do not envy your position," Chambers said.
posted
You don't have to be able to actually find the party you want to sue in order to serve notice. Depending on the particular state wherein you will sue and its specific procedures, when it is otherwise impossible or made too difficult, there is a procedure to publicly notify, which suffices. Then, after such proper notification, if the defendant fails to appear, you can request a default judgment.
IP: Logged |
posted
Surprised the (D) was left out of the article. I know some of you will not like me for saying this but it is no surprise that a Democrat would do this.
You wouldnt find a Republican wasting time in the Senate trying to sue God of all things....seriously, get to work on a energy plan buddy or something else like a troop withdrawl demand from Iraq.
-------------------- It isn't so much that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that aren't so.
IP: Logged |
posted
This moron better hope that God doesn't feel the same about people who file frivilous lawsuits as I do. I got a feeling that this idiot is going to be spending eternity in a very warm place!
IP: Logged |
posted
Ernest (Ernie) W. Chambers (born July 10, 1937) is a Nebraska State Senator. He represents North Omaha's 11th District in the Nebraska State Legislature. He is also a civil rights activist and is widely-regarded as Nebraska's most prominent and outspoken African American leader. As a State Senator, Chambers is considered one of the Legislature's most passionate, controversial and colorful members and has been characterized by some outlets of the national media as "the Maverick of Omaha," the "angriest black man in Nebraska," and "defender of the downtrodden".[2] He served his final day as a Senator in the Nebraska Legislature on April 17, 2008 due to a term limits law passed in 2000. It is generally agreed that even after 38 years he would have easily won re-election. As he put it, "They had to change the (state) constitution to get rid of me."
On September 14, 2007, Sen. Chambers filed a lawsuit against God, seeking a permanent injunction ordering God to "cease certain harmful activities and the making of terroristic threats...of grave harm to innumerable persons, including constituents of Plaintiff who Plaintiff has the duty to represent".[12] Sen. Chambers filed the lawsuit in response to another lawsuit filed in the state court that he considers to be frivolous and inappropriate.[13] When the Broadway musical the Putnam County Spelling Bee was in Omaha, it mocked the lawsuit.
Two responses to the lawsuit were filed. The first was from a Corpus Christi lawyer, Eric Perkins, who wanted to answer the question "what would God say".[14] The second was filed in Douglas County, Nebraska District Court. The source of the second response, claiming to be from "God", is unclear as no contact information was given.[15]
On July 30, 2008, local media sources reported the Douglas County District Court was going to deny Chambers' lawsuit because Chambers had failed to notify the defendant.[16] However, on August 1 Chambers was granted a court date of August 5 in in order to proceed with his lawsuit. "The scheduling hearing will give me a chance to lay out the facts that would justify the granting of the motion," Chambers was quoted as saying. He added, "Once the court enters the injunction, that's as much as I can do," he said. "That's as much as I would ask the court. I wouldn't expect them to enforce it."[17]
OMAHA, Aug. 6 (UPI) -- A Nebraska lawmaker says his lawsuit against God is perfectly valid until a judge says otherwise.
State Sen. Ernie Chambers, D-Omaha, sued the Almighty for making terrorist threats against mankind in the form of floods, earthquakes, plagues and other calamities and demand he cease and desist immediately, KETV-TV in Omaha said Wednesday.
Chambers was in court Tuesday to press his case but readily admitted it was a publicity stunt to remind his colleagues that it isn't up to politicians to limit citizens' constitutional access to the judicial system by bans on so-called frivolous lawsuits.
KETV said Chambers has taken a stand against limits on lawsuits in the past and was quoted last year saying, "Anybody can file a lawsuit against anybody -- even God."
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
posted
Since God is all powerful and all seeing, doesn't he automatically know about that suit? Every address is his, ain't it? Isn't he already served notice?
IP: Logged |
posted
Clinton was much more (overtly) religious than Daddy Bush
Yeah, lol, nothing says pious like getting it on with an intern in the oval office.
IMO religion has no place in politics. politics puts a stench on religion that it doesn't deserve.
I agree in principle, but the reality is that with all the lobbying groups in washington, those of faith need to make their opinions heard as well.
as for suing God? i beleive he's making fun of our justice system and not God....
No, he's trying to make a point about the system that the state constitution allows any citizen to sue anyone. It's in response to other legislators that want to curb frivolous lawsuits. He supports this kind of time\money wasting in the name of 'freedom'.
As for not being about religion:
Although he is known to skip morning prayers during the legislative session and often criticizes Christians, Chambers said he isn't suing God because he has any kind of personal objections against Him.
The Omaha senator told a local Fox affiliate that his lawsuit is in response to bills brought forth by other state senators to try and stop frivolous lawsuits from being filed.
His motivation is irrelavant really, it's (once again) about perception. He's adding the belief that Dem's don't respect God or religion in general. That's why I still hold that many religious people vote Repub more as a vote against Dems.
next you'll be telling us God is a conservative right winger
posted
Considering what republicans have done to the Constitution, our society, and world peace over the last 30 years or so, I MUST hold that aginst them.
IP: Logged |
posted
Clinton was much more (overtly) religious than Daddy Bush
Yeah, lol, nothing says pious like getting it on with an intern in the oval office. [Razz]
hmmmmm... i agree, that's why put overtly in there...
i always wondered why the Southern Baptists allowed him to join in the beggining, but i'll refrain from mentioning the old Methodist reading joke...
speaking of Methodists? did you hear about this?
Methodist Bishops Repent Iraq War 'Complicity'
Thursday, November 10, 2005
WASHINGTON — Ninety-five bishops from President Bush's church said Thursday they repent their "complicity" in the "unjust and immoral" invasion and occupation of Iraq.
"In the face of the United States administration's rush toward military action based on misleading information, too many of us were silent," said a statement of conscience signed by more than half of the 164 retired and active United Methodist bishops worldwide.
President Bush is a member of the United Methodist Church, according to various published biographies. The White House did not return a request for comment on the bishops' statement.
Although United Methodist leadership has opposed the Iraq war in the past, this is the first time that individual bishops have confessed to a personal failure to publicly challenge the buildup to the war.
so lessee here, we have philandering and the death of about 100,000 people.... hmmmm... i'm going to need to call a Jesuit conference to figure out which is worse...
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
posted
No, I hadn't heard about the Bishops. Though I feel their statement is a little lacking.
"In the face of the United States administration's rush toward military action based on misleading information, too many of us were silent," said a statement of conscience signed by more than half of the 164 retired and active United Methodist bishops worldwide.
Once again, the spectre of 20/20 hindsight about the lack of finding weapons of mass destruction raises it's ugly head. It's easy to condemn after the fact.
so lessee here, we have philandering and the death of about 100,000 people.... hmmmm... i'm going to need to call a Jesuit conference to figure out which is worse...
How many deaths were involved with the Civil War here? How about WW 1 or 2? How about the Persian Gulf war? I would think even the Jesuits would ask if the cause was considered just or not. And no, I don't want this thread to turn into a rehashing of what we think the war was 'really' about. Just saying that your comparison is more than a little incomplete.
IP: Logged |
posted
the difference in each of those other wars is that they were in response to well-defined acts of aggression....
whether you are a fan of the "conservative" Old Testament, or the "liberal" New Testament? Thou shalt not kill is in the more conservative part, i see no commandment not to defend oneself, i admit i am not able to turn the other cheek when it comes to self-defense.
there was never any evidence of a link between Sadam and 9-11 even tho Bush and Cheney manged to convince much more than half the US population that there was... isn't lying mentioned in there too?
politics and religion mixed is what the Jihadists want too...
quite frankly, you cannot run this country from the Bible...
you do know that the Bible forbids Usury in several areas right? yet you are are free-market person?
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
posted
First off, if you want to turn this into a biblical debate I would ask whether you are willing to accept it as authoritative in regards to human behavioural guidance. If that is the case then I'll be happy to show you where it supports everything I've ever posted on this board. If not, please don't try and tell me that my behaviour\position aren't inline with my professed faith.
Secondly, let's look at your 'well-defined acts of aggression.... '
Persian Gulf War: What would you say was the act of agression against the U.S. here? I'm pretty sure this was to help Kuwait and Saudi Arabia and not to protect sovereign U.S. soil.
World War 1: As above, what you say was the act of agression against the U.S.? Other than because London wanted help and the possibility of Mexico helping Germany, what did they do to us? And please don't hang your point on the 128 americans on the Lusitania, they were in the 'wrong place at the wrong time' during a european war.
Civil War and World War 2: I'll give you WW2 without question. We were out till Japan hit us. I'll even sort of give you the Civil War based on the attack on Fort Sumpter though that one is debatable as it was within S. Carolina's boundries and the whole point of sucession was that it was a seperate entity.
If you hold that the first two mentioned wars were justified, what is the criteria? Is it acceptable to fight to help those that need it? Did 5000 kurds that died in the Halabja poison gas attack need help? Or how about the 100,000 to 200,000 that died in the al-Anfal Campaign? Did they need help? What is the magic number of dead or the magic criteria that 'justifies' war?
The old adage about evil's triumph from the apathy of good men isn't just words. It's life.
IP: Logged |
posted
The old adage about evil's triumph from the apathy of good men isn't just words. It's life.
hmmmmmm..... Bush is an expert on evil now too?
he's at best a clown and you are defending him... so don't try to make this about YOUR faith.
the Methodist Church Bishops made a statement and YOU said they are lacking in circumspection. they are his Church leaders. or at least they were while he had a church...
i'm not a Methodist...
laslty, if you are justifying evil acts with other evil acts tehn you need to go back and start your religious studies over at the very beginning, cuz you missed something pretty important right at the very beginning.
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
posted
the difference in each of those other wars is that they were in response to well-defined acts of aggression....
Your words, Glass, not mine. You contrasted them with this war so I would really like to know how you think they were any different. It's easy to condemn now without the historical perspective to judge it by, but try and compare it with those that you seem to see as justified and show me where they differ.
so don't try to make this about YOUR faith.
When you offer one of our holy books as evidence that my words and beliefs don't match, Glass, you make it about my faith.
laslty, if you are justifying evil acts with other evil acts tehn you need to go back and start your religious studies over at the very beginning, cuz you missed something pretty important right at the very beginning.
Wow! You're right, Glass, I don't know how I could have taken that as being about my faith.
My bad.
Now, reality check. Nothing in my post is trying to justify an evil act with those of Sadam Hussein. I mentioned two very good reasons (which consist of the deaths of up to 200,000+ people) for the ousting of Sadam. You're opinion that this war was 'evil' because you don't agree with the stated reasons (which nearly everyone agreed were valid and just at the time) for which we entered Iraq. Just as with the Methodist bishops I took issue with above, it's easy to look back and make claims about who knew what and when. It's entirely different to look at the event at it's inception and make the tough choices.
Whether you like it or not...disagreeable consequences or not...Sadam was evil and needed to be removed. Just as there are many in our current world doing just as much evil or worse than this need to be removed.
I stand by the words of Edmund Burke...
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”
IP: Logged |
posted
the difference in each of those other wars is that they were in response to well-defined acts of aggression....
Your words, Glass, not mine. You contrasted them with this war so I would really like to know how you think they were any different. It's easy to condemn now without the historical perspective to judge it by, but try and compare it with those that you seem to see as justified and show me where they differ.
WTF is this supposed to be anyway a masters thesis?
you are making excuses for Bush's propaganda campaign to start the war and you don't even seem to acknowledge that it was a propagnada campaign...full of lies and deceit..
you claim it was justified because of the al-Anfal? nah... that action is full of rumors... there's never been any evidence that the numbers claimed added up...
not even going to bother trying to 'splain to you why other wars might have been justified. you brought them up as an excuse to justify another war, not me, and that's not an excuse or a justification... well defined acts of aggression is what i said, and you made the case... there were well-defined acts of aggression..
Bush told Sadam to get out of his own country or he would invade. you seem to be confused about who the aggressor was.
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
"Now, reality check. Nothing in my post is trying to justify an evil act with those of Sadam Hussein. I mentioned two very good reasons (which consist of the deaths of up to 200,000+ people) for the ousting of Sadam. You're opinion that this war was 'evil' because you don't agree with the stated reasons (which nearly everyone agreed were valid and just at the time) for which we entered Iraq. Just as with the Methodist bishops I took issue with above, it's easy to look back and make claims about who knew what and when. It's entirely different to look at the event at it's inception and make the tough choices."
_________________________________________________
What is your opinion on this war in Iraq?
It seems like your trying to talk around the point.
A lot of the people on this board have been pretty straight forward of their views of the war for as long as i have been watching this board and since i became a member.
As far as my views on the war they go back to the inception as i think many others did. We tried and hoped we could find some really good reason to be there but... There was never any doubt for me, all i had to do is follow our recent history and that of the Mid-East and how we fight guerrilla wars and it was pretty easy to figure where we would end up.
I only wished and still hope they would and will prove me and others wrong on this board.
IP: Logged |
posted
Ok, Iwish, here's my opinion on the war spelled out...
I hate the fact that wars have to happen. However, there are times when those with the power to act have the moral responsibility to do so.
At the begining of the Iraq war, literally everyone in the world KNEW that Sadam had weapons of mass destruction. He said he had them. Foreign intellegence said he had them. Our own intellegence said he had them. Noone debated that point. He had used them in the past on both military and civilians.
HE HAD THEM.
The fact that no large caches of WMD's were found has made many criticize the motivations for the war. But even the ISG, multinational researchers, stated that Saddam fully intended to rebuild his arsenal once the sanctions were lifted and work towards nuclear weapons had he not been stopped.
Diplomacy was tried for 13 years! It didn't work. At what point does talk become merely a cover for cowardice?
I don't think anyone expected the mess we got into. We thought it would be like the outing of the Taliban in Afghanistan. Noone expected that we'd have to hold the country together for so long. But nothing goes exactly the way people expect. Does that mean that nothing should be done to stop the genocidal reign of a madman?
For those that say Bush led us into Iraq for personal gain I ask: What has he gained? A legacy that currently bespeaks of failure and deception. A nation that is deeper in debt than ever before and a party that has lost their hold on the reigns of the country mainly due to popular disapproval of the war. Once again, what has he gained?
I don't think he intended this to go as far as it has. Ignorance? Inneptitude? Who knows? But I feel that the constant clamor for his head because he acted when the U.N. was unwilling and removed a tyrant that gassed his own people doesn't rank as being worthy of such comtempt.
Readers Digest version: War sucks. This war has sucked more than many. But the current resulting freedom for the Iraqi people may end up justifing our efforts as did the friendship of Japan the Hiroshima and Nagasaki attacks.
On Bush, no wartime president has been overly popular. But time will tell as it did in the past.
quote:Originally posted by SeekingFreedom: However, there are times when those with the power to act have the moral responsibility to do so.
That's odd... I didn't see us invading Iran or North Korea knowing they really have true WMD's that are true threats to the U.S. Unlike Iraq whose so called puny WMD's couldn't even reach us...
Oddly enough I do not see us also going into Rwanda, Sierre Leon, Darfur etc. when there is Genocides there... could it be that the Iraq war was really about something else and not WMD's or morality? ... Could it be profiteering or other motivations? ... makes ya wonder...
-------------------- Let the world change you... And you can change the world.
posted
I wish i could buy that for the sake of all those shattered lives.
I hope all those that have lost love ones or had their lives torn apart by this war also feel that it is justified, that would make it a little easier.
IP: Logged |
That's odd... I didn't see us invading Iran or North Korea knowing they really have true WMD's that are true threats to the U.S. Unlike Iraq whose so called puny WMD's couldn't even reach us...
_________________________________________________
Better watch out for what you ask for.
President Bush might decide to get them both, trouble is he will have to draft the over 50 group because he knows there are not enough troops to go around.
Can you imagine that... Iwish, Bdgee, Bond, Retiredat maybe Glassman and others all in the same unit.
IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wall Bang]](graemlins/wallbang.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
