Chambers Sues God

Big E · Post by **Big E** » Mon Sep 17, 2007 3:15 pm

From the "I've Never Been More Proud to Be from Omaha" Department:

http://www.ketv.com/news/14133442/detail.html (Linked from the front page of CNN.com, I might add.)

This may be his best ever.

Chambers lawsuit, which was filed on Friday in Douglas County Court, seeks a permanent injunction ordering God to cease certain harmful activities and the making of terroristic threats. The lawsuit admits God goes by all sorts of alias, names, titles and designations and it also recognizes the fact that the defendant is “Omnipresent”.

In the lawsuit Chambers says he’s tried to contact God numerous times, “Plaintiff, despite reasonable efforts to effectuate personal service upon Defendant (“Come out, come out, wherever you are”) has been unable to do so.”

-Big E

Swift · Post by **Swift** » Mon Sep 17, 2007 5:14 pm

Ha! Awesome.

The suit also says God has caused, “calamitous catastrophes resulting in the wide-spread death, destruction and terrorization of millions upon millions of the Earth’s inhabitants including innocent babes, infants, children, the aged and infirm without mercy or distinction.”

Big E · Post by **Big E** » Mon Sep 17, 2007 5:43 pm

Who knows... Â maybe this could be the end of the "act of God" clauses in insurance contracts.

-Big E

Candleshoe · Post by **Candleshoe** » Tue Sep 18, 2007 1:11 pm

Heh heh. Watching Fox & Friends this morning on Fox News, and they refer to Chambers as "...this guy".

Post by **nebugeater** » Tue Sep 18, 2007 1:40 pm

For those that think a guy in bib overalls or a farmers hat present a poor image for the state how can you think this is any better on the national scene?

Big E · Post by **Big E** » Tue Sep 18, 2007 2:28 pm

nebugeater wrote:For those that think a guy in bib overalls or a farmers hat present a poor image for the state how can you think this is any better on the national scene?

Because he's a making a point about what can and can't be settled in a court and the effect of frivolous lawsuits. Â Very few politicians have this kind of cajones or level of savvy. Â He's really quite good at this, and this is not the first time he's done something similar (although I do think this is the first time he's called out the Almighty).

There's also the interesting angle of swearing on a Bible before testifying in court. Â That is somehow accepted practice, but this can't be taken seriously? Â Beyond that, for those of us that believe in the separation of church and state, this is actually a pretty interesting case study.

Overall I know it is going nowhere and on the surface is fairly silly, but it raises some pretty legitimate questions once you allow yourself past the snickering and eye-rolling. Â Ernie Chambers is one of, if not the, smartest state legislators we've had in Nebraska.

And when you get right down to it, I'd much rather Nebraska and Omaha be making the news for this than the LB416s of the world. Â

-Big E

Post by **Coyote** » Tue Sep 18, 2007 2:42 pm

I would agree with E.

Most of the papers that have carried this story give Ernie's reasoning behind this lawsuit. Now if people only read the headline and not the story they may have an unfair bias of this guy and Nebraskans. In one interview I saw last night Ernie said that he had been thinking about doing this for some time. The woman suing the judge was the right time to do this. Ernie is one sharp cookie. He is one of the few people that can downright insult your intelligence with flair.

Stargazer · Post by **Stargazer** » Tue Sep 18, 2007 2:58 pm

Most of the papers that have carried this story give Ernie's reasoning behind this lawsuit. Now if people only read the headline and not the story they may have an unfair bias of this guy and Nebraskans.

This pretty well summarizes how most Nebraskans have formulated their opinion of Ernie, in general, over the years. Â Although there have also been instances where the press hasn't fully detailed his motivation behind some of these pursuits, whether by design or not.

Big E · Post by **Big E** » Tue Sep 18, 2007 3:34 pm

Coyote wrote: E

Daddy likes.

-E

icejammer · Post by **icejammer** » Tue Sep 18, 2007 3:45 pm

Big E wrote:Because he's a making a point about what can and can't be settled in a court and the effect of frivolous lawsuits.

He hasn't made any point yet, other than anyone can file suit for anything against anyone, regardless of merit. Â I think he picked the wrong lawsuit to file this frivolity over though, it doesn't make him look very compassionate towards the victims of assault and their ability to testify in court against their accuser.....

Big E wrote:There's also the interesting angle of swearing on a Bible before testifying in court. That is somehow accepted practice, but this can't be taken seriously? Beyond that, for those of us that believe in the separation of church and state, this is actually a pretty interesting case study.

Actually Big E, there is no requirement that one swear on a Bible before testifying in court.

Big E wrote:And when you get right down to it, I'd much rather Nebraska and Omaha be making the news for this than the LB416s of the world.

And there are a lot of people who would see this in the opposite direction. Â To each his own.

Big E · Post by **Big E** » Tue Sep 18, 2007 4:47 pm

icejammer wrote:He hasn't made any point yet, other than anyone can file suit for anything against anyone, regardless of merit.

Which, I thought, would be exactly the point he was trying to make:?:

icejammer wrote:Actually Big E, there is no requirement that one swear on a Bible before testifying in court.

Who said anything about a requirement? Â I said "accepted practice". Â When you're looking at the lawsuit in the context of separation of church and state, swearing on a Bible, Koran or any other holy book seems perplexing at the least. Â But that's me.

-Big E

(That's me.)

StreetsOfOmaha · Post by **StreetsOfOmaha** » Tue Sep 18, 2007 7:56 pm

AWESOME!!!

I think this is hilarious AND clever.

Like others have said, I think Chambers is probably the smartest senator we have, and this lawsuit DOES bring up some very important issues concerning the supposed separation of church and state.

It took balls. Â I'm impressed.

And I would ALSO much rather have someone like chambers in the national news, who shows that Nebraska has diverse cultures and viewpoints, than someone who furthers the stereotype that Nebraska is full of crazy, right-wing conservative Christians.

Omababe · Post by **Omababe** » Tue Sep 18, 2007 8:28 pm

StreetsOfOmaha wrote:Like others have said, I think Chambers is probably the smartest senator we have, and this lawsuit DOES bring up some very important issues concerning the supposed separation of church and state.

Whether you admire or detest Ernie (or maybe a little of both) you must admit that he is most likely the most effective politician that the State has ever seen, in that he serves his constituency well and they continue to re-elect him. (His adversaries could only legislate him out of office, something they failed to do with Roosevelt and failed to un-do with Ronnie.)

He has succeeded in getting people thinking and talking (what if God was one of us?) and for once it seems like people are breaking out of that endless-loop Left v. Right drek with this one ...

Oh well ...

Stargazer · Post by **Stargazer** » Tue Sep 18, 2007 8:59 pm

lawsuit DOES bring up some very important issues concerning the supposed separation of church and state.

Well that's the funny thing about many of Ernie's crusades, the real message is often lost in the elaborate packaging he surrounds it with... and don't get me wrong, I'm one of his biggest fans... but the issues that many of you are enthusiastically citing here are just along for the ride... to make it more flamboyant and interesting. Â The one which Ernie hopes this suit will call attention to... is simply the frivolous lawsuit. Â Personally, I can think of far more meaningful challenges he's taken up in the past.

StreetsOfOmaha · Post by **StreetsOfOmaha** » Wed Sep 19, 2007 1:09 am

Oh, I'm well aware of all that, and I agree.

I just find it very provocative and interesting, especially the religious overtones.

ricko · Post by **ricko** » Wed Sep 19, 2007 2:27 am

I understand God has a really good lawyer. Â I mean, he has more money than....

Post by **Brad** » Wed Sep 19, 2007 2:40 am

ricko wrote:I understand God has a really good lawyer. I mean, he has more money than....

I hear that James Martin Davis is going to defend God. Â I hear the other lawyers are going to disbar him for defending God because apparently you can't defend someone that hasn't hired you?

CapitalGuy · Post by **CapitalGuy** » Wed Sep 19, 2007 6:21 am

Why is this in the Lincoln forum?

It is not related to develop and the lawsuit was filed in Douglas County District Court.

The only loose connection is to the Tory Bowen rape case.

cdub · Post by **cdub** » Wed Sep 19, 2007 7:28 am

A lot of savy, smart people are still nucking futs...

Stargazer · Post by **Stargazer** » Wed Sep 19, 2007 8:51 am

Why is this in the Lincoln forum?

Linconites are nucking futs.

Big E · Post by **Big E** » Wed Sep 19, 2007 8:52 am

CapitalGuy wrote:Why is this in the Lincoln forum?

It is not related to develop and the lawsuit was filed in Douglas County District Court.

The only loose connection is to the Tory Bowen rape case.

Sorry. Â I put it here because of Chambers being a state senator. Â The Douglas County court part flew past me when I posted. Â I suppose it is something worth getting your knickers in a twist over, though.

-Big E

Post by **Brad** » Wed Sep 19, 2007 9:04 am

All the state leglistlature stuff has been posted under the Lincoln thread in the past.

icejammer · Post by **icejammer** » Wed Sep 19, 2007 10:02 am

Big E wrote:
icejammer wrote:He hasn't made any point yet, other than anyone can file suit for anything against anyone, regardless of merit.
Which, I thought, would be exactly the point he was trying to make:?:

Which is a point that has been proven time and time again prior to Ernie's 'efforts', so his point is mainly pointless, as his point has previously been made by others.

Big E wrote:
icejammer wrote:Actually Big E, there is no requirement that one swear on a Bible before testifying in court.
Who said anything about a requirement? I said "accepted practice". When you're looking at the lawsuit in the context of separation of church and state, swearing on a Bible, Koran or any other holy book seems perplexing at the least. But that's me.

Excuse me for a poor choice of words, but this alleged "accepted practice" is not practiced in many, many jurisdictions. Â Ever. Â How you can twist this into an issue of separation of church and state is waaaaaay beyond anything Mr. Chambers is doing here....

Stargazer · Post by **Stargazer** » Wed Sep 19, 2007 10:42 am

How you can twist this into an issue of separation of church and state is waaaaaay beyond anything Mr. Chambers is doing here....

I wouldn't say it is 'waaaaay' beyond the intent here... as I said, 'it' is just along for the ride... the pretty packaging he's wrapped this suit in. But obviously, as we can see right here, he has succeeded in getting people, nationwide, to talk about this pretty packaging, while at the same time making his primary statement about frivolous lawsuits (which I personally, could care less about). But looking back at arguments Ernie has made in his nucking futty past... IS frivolous lawsuits the primary message here?

Personally, I think the man is a genius. Or maybe he's just our Chauncey Gardener.

StreetsOfOmaha · Post by **StreetsOfOmaha** » Wed Sep 19, 2007 11:46 am

Brad wrote:All the state legislature stuff has been posted under the Lincoln thread in the past.

Right, and it should probably be in the Nebraska section.

Omababe · Post by **Omababe** » Wed Sep 19, 2007 11:52 am

Related question here? Is there a legal definition of God?

We have references to God in legally binding oaths, we have acts of God defined in legally binding contracts, but do we have anything which defines God in the legal sense? (I don't know, I'm asking, IANAL.)

Big E · Post by **Big E** » Wed Sep 19, 2007 12:34 pm

Omababe wrote:Related question here? Is there a legal definition of God?

FANTASTIC question,

to which I don't have an answer...

...although I think we can probably make a safe guess with reasonable certainty.

-Big E

Post by **Coyote** » Wed Sep 19, 2007 2:06 pm

GOD From the Saxon god, good. The source of all good; the supreme being. 1. Every man is presumed to believe in God, and he who opposes a witness on the ground of his unbelief is bound to prove it. 3 Bouv. Inst. u. 3180. 2. Blasphemy against the Almighty, by denying his being or providence, was an offence punishable at common law by fine and imprisonment, or other infamous corporal punishment. 4 Bl. Corn. 60; 1 East, P. C. 3; 1 Russ. on Crimes, 217. This offence his been enlarged in Pennsylvania, and perhaps most of the states, by statutory provision. Vide Christianity; Blasphemy; 11 Serg. & Rawle, 394. 3. By article 1, of amendments to the Constitution of the United States, it is provided that "Congress shall make no laws respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." In the United States, therefore, every one is allowed to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience.

Source: Bouviers Law Dictionary 1856 Edition

(IANAL but MFIAL)

Omababe · Post by **Omababe** » Wed Sep 19, 2007 2:48 pm

Coyote wrote:Blasphemy against the Almighty, by denying his being or providence, was an offence punishable at common law by fine and imprisonment, or other infamous corporal punishment. 4 Bl. Corn. 60; 1 East, P. C. 3; 1 Russ. on Crimes, 217. This offence his been enlarged in Pennsylvania, ...

Apparently it's still on the books in, of all places, Massachusetts:

From: http://mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/272-36.htm

Section 36. Whoever wilfully blasphemes the holy name of God by denying, cursing or contumeliously reproaching God, his creation, government or final judging of the world, or by cursing or contumeliously reproaching Jesus Christ or the Holy Ghost, or by cursing or contumeliously reproaching or exposing to contempt and ridicule, the holy word of God contained in the holy scriptures shall be punished by imprisonment in jail for not more than one year or by a fine of not more than three hundred dollars, and may also be bound to good behavior.

I'm very surprised that one's still in force, although I seriously doubt it would be enforceable.

New word of the day: contumeliously

(IANAL but MFIAL)

IANAL, but MTBABL

(Figure that one out!)

Post by **Coyote** » Thu Sep 20, 2007 8:10 pm

Omababe wrote:IANAL, but MTBABL (Figure that one out!)

Can't figure that one - but here is the follow up getting news across the nation:

'God' apparently responds to lawsuit

Boston Globe wrote: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.

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.

In the paper, “God” says the suit by Sen. Ernie Chambers (D-Omaha) should be thrown out because there was “[n]o proper and sufficient service of summons” by a deputy. Several attorneys that were interviewed denied writing the document, but said they're available if God needs them in court. "He (God) hasn't called me yet!" defense attorney James Martin Davis told Action 3.

Omababe · Post by **Omababe** » Thu Sep 20, 2007 9:00 pm

Coyote wrote:
Omababe wrote:IANAL, but MTBABL (Figure that one out!)
Can't figure that one - ...

My Two Brothers Are Both Lawyers.

"He (God) hasn't called me yet!" defense attorney James Martin Davis told Action 3.

ROFL!

("... nobody callin' on the phone, 'cept for the Pope maybe in Rome.")

Post by **Coyote** » Thu Sep 20, 2007 9:19 pm

[youtube][/youtube]

[youtube][/youtube]

[youtube][/youtube]

[youtube][/youtube]

StreetsOfOmaha · Post by **StreetsOfOmaha** » Fri Sep 21, 2007 2:28 am

It's like, if someone has an imaginary friend who, he or she tells you, is completely real, and then you tell that person that you're going to sue the "friend" and then the person totally goes back on his/her words and says, "no you can't sue him, he's imaginary." Â Except instead of "imaginary" insert "almighty."

Post by **Coyote** » Tue Sep 25, 2007 8:56 pm

Woman's lawsuit against judge dismissed

Lincoln Journal Star wrote:A federal judge dismissed a lawsuit against a state judge who barred the words “rape” and “victim” in court, ruling Tuesday that the accuser failed to prove that he should intervene.

U.S. District Court Judge Richard Kopf also determined Tory Bowen didn’t provide enough evidence to show why her lawsuit against Lancaster County District Judge Jeffre Cheuvront isn’t frivolous.

Big E · Post by **Big E** » Tue Aug 05, 2008 11:17 am

Chambers' suit against God taken under advisement

http://www.omaha.com/index.php?u_page=2 ... d=10398666

Omaha.com wrote:Nebraska Sen. Ernie Chambers' motion to put his lawsuit against God on the Douglas County District Court calendar has been taken under advisement by Judge Marlon Polk.

On Tuesday, before an unusually large group of observers, Chambers laid out the skeleton of his argument in which he seeks to enjoin God from committing acts of violence such as earthquakes, tornadoes, floods and pestilence.

And at the LJS:

http://www.journalstar.com/news/politic ... 040589.txt

I have to say, the comments at the Journal-Star are worth reading from time to time. Â This appears to be one of those times. Â I personally love the people that lose their minds at the mere thought that someone else doesn't share their outlook on religion (ie, "go to Iraq/Iran if you don't like 'under God'", because those are certainly non-religious areas).

Louie · Post by **Louie** » Wed Aug 06, 2008 11:16 pm

Big E wrote:Chambers' suit against God taken under advisement

http://www.omaha.com/index.php?u_page=2 ... d=10398666

Omaha.com wrote:Nebraska Sen. Ernie Chambers' motion to put his lawsuit against God on the Douglas County District Court calendar has been taken under advisement by Judge Marlon Polk.

On Tuesday, before an unusually large group of observers, Chambers laid out the skeleton of his argument in which he seeks to enjoin God from committing acts of violence such as earthquakes, tornadoes, floods and pestilence.
And at the LJS:

http://www.journalstar.com/news/politic ... 040589.txt

I have to say, the comments at the Journal-Star are worth reading from time to time. This appears to be one of those times. I personally love the people that lose their minds at the mere thought that someone else doesn't share their outlook on religion (ie, "go to Iraq/Iran if you don't like 'under God'", because those are certainly non-religious areas).

ha ha isnt that great? Â psssh

S33 · Post by **S33** » Thu Aug 07, 2008 1:35 pm

I'm so glad Chambers is using tax payer money to 'prove a point'.

Stargazer · Post by **Stargazer** » Thu Aug 07, 2008 1:51 pm

Eh... I've seen still worse uses of my tax money... especially where litigation is concerned.

Big E · Post by **Big E** » Thu Aug 07, 2008 2:09 pm

S33 wrote:I'm so glad Chambers is using tax payer money to 'prove a point'.

Do you crawl all over Bruning when he does it?

S33 · Post by **S33** » Thu Sep 11, 2008 1:23 pm

Big E wrote:
S33 wrote:I'm so glad Chambers is using tax payer money to 'prove a point'.
Do you crawl all over Bruning when he does it?

Chambers was a Senator and his responsibility lies with representing the people of his district. He is not the moral compass of Nebraska and doesn't need to squander tax payers money.

Bruning,is however, our Attorney General. He is supposed to act as our moral compass and his job is to spend money to "prove points". No, I don't agree with all his decisions and they are equally aggravating. Bruning seems to be a little less transparent as Chambers therefore suppressing some public criticism.