second?

second?

was that a proceeding in rem or in personam?

I've got a lovely bunch of coconuts, deedly dee

what about service by publication?

Rule 11 FTW.

Or not?

Was there an improper purpose? (Probably.)

Are the legal contentions merited by existing law? (Not in Nebraska.)

Factual contentions have evidentiary support? (No.)

Denials of factual contentions are warranted? (Possibly.)

In short, if Rule 11 governs in this case, I'm guessing he'll lose.

There they are, sitting in the road, bum bum bum

How about a link to the opinion? Let's not get lazy, shall we?

Isn't the Pope the registered agent for service of process?

This plaintiff should have certified a class of those individuals who have signed any contract containing a force majeure clause. Perhaps he would have had a bit more luck!

The description of the ruling suggests that the court held that god is not subject to service of process (or, more precisely, that it is impossible to prove service of process on god). Indemnification, by contrast, requires a final judgment, which in turn requires service of process.

Big ones, small ones, some the size of your head, la la la la la, LLAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

Big ones, small ones, some the size of your head, la la la la la, LLAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

Gentlemen at the legal preparatory academy with which I was once affiliated from time to time attempted to file lawsuits of various sorts against their own God or Gods, or at times against other gods and other assorted minor deities in which others purportedly had faith. The gentlemen attempted to perfect the service of process on the aforementioned beings, only to become confused by the lack of either a business or residence address. Said gentlemen were subsequently smote as a direct and proximate result of their imperitenence, although to be fair it cannot be stated with certainly by which deity this smiting was done, and were subsequently visited by hordes of locusts, assorted plagues, other and sundry signs of the apacolypse, and assorted nervous T-10 1Ls. Other than the aforementioned first year law student, those who were aware of the circumstances described herein remained unperturbed by these occurrences, and did not retain them in their memories.

Apacolypse? Pacman Jones' new name when he's reinstated?

If God was not actually served, then perhaps he has constructive notice of the lawsuit that obviates the need to provide actual notice. If God is all knowing, than he has actual notice. If God is omnipresent, then he has made an appearance, perhaps waiving improper notice. Either way, judicial notice of God is not moot.

Maybe you can't serve him, but if he's omniscient, he has actual notice of the proceedings. I'm sure he has enough dealings with Christians in Nebraska to establish minimum contacts in the state. Still, though, if Nebraska law doesn't purport to exercise jurisdiction over God, then Chambers is hosed.

16: Indeed. My most humble apologies.

The god here seems to be Zeus or Neptune, as the graphic contains the image of a statue of one of these gods (which one is debated) that is currently in a museum in Athens.

I filed lawsuits against omnipotent beings all the time.

William Ayers

See the great things Creighton grads do?

19: 'Tis nothing--16.

first to say creighTTTon

I once had opposing counsel ask to change the 'acts of god' language in a force majeure clause to 'acts of nature' becuase he'd had a bad experience trying to squeeze within the parameters of the former. I thought that was pretty good.

Reminds me of the joke about the devil suing god over a fence dispute, and there being no way god could win...all the lawyers were in hell. (or something like that... you google it, I'm busy!)

Elie the race-baiter didn't write this post because he refuses to report things that make any black person look stupid.

Hmmm, actually in this case I think judicial notice of God would be moot because which God would the trial court be taking notice of? A court can only take judicial notice of facts that are generally known throughout the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court or of facts that are not generally known but can be verified by resort to sources whose authenticity cannot reasonably be questioned. The last time I checked there wasn't a general consensus as to the essence of God or even that God exists. I mean it certainly wouldn't be "unreasonable" to question to either.

Hmmm, actually in this case I think judicial notice of God would be moot because which God would the trial court be taking notice of? A court can only take judicial notice of facts that are generally known throughout the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court or of facts that are not generally known but can be verified by resort to sources whose authenticity cannot reasonably be questioned. The last time I checked there wasn't a general consensus as to the essence of God or even that God exists. I mean it certainly wouldn't be "unreasonable" to question either.

Guys at my high school used to beat up tools like 15 all the time, it was no big deal.

-FRAT STUD

http://obamaisscum.blogspot.com/

28 -- Good point in that it would be difficult to take judicial notice. However, that's not a reason to deny the motion on mootness. That's reason to deny the motion on the merits.

The judge should have first considered if he had proper personal jurisdiction over God.

c.f., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_ex_rel._Gerald_Mayo_v._Satan_and_His_Staff

Dear Liberal Hippie Douche,

Please stop using an already overworked and understaffed court system to make political statements. That's what newspapers and blogs are for.

Signed,

People with legitmate cases.

amen 34