Join 3,512 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


"You can't sue God if you can't serve the papers on Him."
October 16, 2008 11:03 AM   Subscribe

The case against God brought by Ernie Chambers (previously on MeFi) has been thrown out. (title via News Now Network, although I added a capital H.)
posted by homelystar (22 comments total)

 
But of course.

Still, there's so many ways the court could have gone with this, and I would've enjoyed speculation on just how a favorable ruling was expected to be enforced.
posted by Navelgazer at 11:11 AM on October 16, 2008


Oops, I messed up the links: that should read...

"previously on MeFi"
&
"has been thrown out"

This Romanian plaintiff addressed his suit against the deity to "God, resident in heaven..."--perhaps a way to get around the problem.
posted by homelystar at 11:11 AM on October 16, 2008


Arrrggh...I mean THIS Romanian plaintiff. No, really, I have used the internet before. Once or twice.
posted by homelystar at 11:14 AM on October 16, 2008 [2 favorites]


Couldn't he be convicted in absentia?
posted by Reverend Robbie at 11:24 AM on October 16, 2008 [1 favorite]


Ten minutes to Wapner. We're definitely locked in this box with no deity.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 11:25 AM on October 16, 2008


Reverend Robbie, that was my first thought as well, but wouldn't that involve an official opinion from the Court stating that God is absent? I'm pretty sure they don't want to go there... yet.
posted by Navelgazer at 11:44 AM on October 16, 2008


So, they aren't willing to say God is absent. Wouldn't the alternative be the fact that God is everywhere, including the courtroom, and is unwilling to mount a defense?
posted by never used baby shoes at 11:56 AM on October 16, 2008 [2 favorites]


Still, there's so many ways the court could have gone with this, and I would've enjoyed speculation on just how a favorable ruling was expected to be enforced.

Well, that's the executive branch's problem.
posted by shadow vector at 11:58 AM on October 16, 2008


Sounds like someone's been reading too much Blameless in Abaddon.
posted by JaredSeth at 12:25 PM on October 16, 2008 [1 favorite]


Does this mean hobo's are free to do anything, just as long as they have no address to be reached at?
posted by Laotic at 1:08 PM on October 16, 2008


Does this mean hobo's are free to do anything, just as long as they have no address to be reached at?

Putting aside the question of what one would hope to accomplish by suing a hobo in the first place, you need to balance the unfairnesses. While it may be unfair to a plaintiff to be denied the opportunity to sue someone, it's surely more unfair to deny a defendant proper notice of a suit pending against him.
posted by Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America at 2:03 PM on October 16, 2008


JaredSeth - thinking that one myself as well (and for anyone who hasn't read Blameless in Abaddon yet, do so immediately. Brilliant, beautiful, hilarious and tragic.)
posted by Navelgazer at 2:22 PM on October 16, 2008


Does this mean hobo's are free to do anything, just as long as they have no address to be reached at?

Read the article: it only covers omniscient hobos.
posted by rokusan at 3:27 PM on October 16, 2008 [1 favorite]


I'm really going to miss living in a world where Ernie Chambers is in the Nebraska Legislature.
posted by brennen at 3:33 PM on October 16, 2008


Omniscient hobos are pretty much wily enough to get away with whatever they like anyway.
posted by weston at 7:30 PM on October 16, 2008


I'd've thought that an omniscient hobo would know if they were being sued.
posted by pompomtom at 8:14 PM on October 16, 2008


the case against god, by god! (and mr. wiggles ;)
posted by kliuless at 8:27 PM on October 16, 2008 [1 favorite]


I don't get it - there's at least one residence (and frequently lots more) in each city that claims to be the "House of God". Can't they just serve papers there? After that, it should be easy to hold Him in contempt of court for not showing up.
posted by DreamerFi at 1:12 AM on October 17, 2008


Yes well, pardon my ignorance, but the question still stands. Supposing you want to sue a hobo who stole your million dollars in cash. Supposing you know him, there is some evidence it was him, but he disappeared and has no known residence other than "U.S.A." (i.e. Heaven). That reason enough for the court to throw out the case? Nowhere to be served? By the way, it was the plaintiff who planned to claim omniscience on appeal.

So.

Are hobos and gods not prosecutable?
posted by Laotic at 4:40 AM on October 17, 2008


Anyone seen the Australian movie "The Man who Sued God"? (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0268437/)
posted by acrobat at 4:47 AM on October 17, 2008


Someone should sue God for abandonment. Then, if they tried to pull the "we can't find Him to notify Him of the charges" argument, you'd just say: "See? I rest my case."
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 9:18 AM on October 17, 2008


I guess this means no class-action discrimination case against Santa Claus for all us Jewish kids.
posted by JaredSeth at 5:23 PM on October 17, 2008


« Older 50 Years of Blue Peter....  |  Pseudopod... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments