Poof! ‘God’ Answers Suit, Asserts Lack of Jurisdiction

Civil Procedure

Poof! ‘God’ Answers Suit, Asserts Lack of Jurisdiction

Posted Sep 21, 2007, 05:48 am CDT
By Debra Cassens Weiss

A response to a legislator’s lawsuit from “God” asserts the court lacks jurisdiction to hear a Nebraska legislator’s lawsuit against him.

John Friend, clerk of the Douglas County District Court in Omaha, told the Associated Press the response was one of two filed on God’s behalf. State Sen. Ernie Chambers of Omaha sued God earlier this week to make the point that anyone can file a frivolous lawsuit.

"This one miraculously appeared on the counter,” Friend said. “It just all of a sudden was here—poof!"

The suit also argues that God is immune from earthly laws, he has not been served with the suit, and he should not be blamed for human suffering.

"I created man and woman with free will and next to the promise of immortal life, free will is my greatest gift to you," it read.

No contact information was on the filing, although it lists St. Michael the Archangel as a witness. Several local lawyers denied that they wrote the response, but they told Omaha’s Action 3 News they are available if God needs them.

"[God] hasn't called me yet!" said lawyer James Martin Davis.

A second response from "God" lists a phone number for a Corpus Christi law office.

Comments

Report Abuse

Posted by Jim - 11 months, 1 week, 1 day, 3 hours, 56 minutes ago

No personal jurisdiction over God in Nebraska, hmm....maybe the suit can be removed to Federal Court?
Posted by Lisa - 11 months, 1 week, 1 day, 1 hour, 57 minutes ago

I’m thinking it would be easy to serve Him. He is, after all, everywhere.
Posted by Jon Clark - 11 months, 1 week, 1 day, 1 hour, 50 minutes ago

It seems minimum contacts would be well established. Just look at all the churches.
Posted by Alyson - 11 months, 1 week, 1 day, 1 hour, 14 minutes ago

What judge will hear this case?!
Posted by Steve Long - 11 months, 1 week, 1 day, 1 hour, 3 minutes ago

If the matter goes to trial, what oath would God take prior to testifyiing? “I swear. . . so help me, Me” ?
Posted by denver john - 11 months, 1 week, 1 day, 1 hour, 2 minutes ago

If you have ever been to Nebraska, you know that God does not have even minimum contacts there
Posted by Jeff - 11 months, 1 week, 1 day, 57 minutes ago

I think we have a problem with lacking procedural rules governing service of process on God. We have rules for serving individuals, foreign and domestic corporations, etc. but I see now “Service Upon Absolute Being.”

Minimum contacts are arguable from a deist standpoint, if you assert that God has not had his hand in human events since well before the establishment of the United States’ jurisdiction.

Or a cynic could conclude that churches really can’t establish minimum contacts with God due to their tangential relationship with him these days. So, we’d have to use miracles as our meaningful contacts and I don’t think there have been enough around here lately to establish general personal jurisdiction in any particular state.

Further, even if we assert the due process clause does reach far enough to grab God, we’ll have to double-check with our long-arm statute. I haven’t looked at Nebraska’s, it might be coextensive.

I have obviously spent too much time thinking about this. Time to go to class.
Posted by Steve - 11 months, 1 week, 1 day, 35 minutes ago

Since God is omnipotent does it really matter that He be served in Person?
Posted by Mike L - 11 months, 1 week, 1 day ago

A similar csae was filed 36 years ago against Satan. US ex rel Mayo v. Satan and His Staff,
54 FRD 282 (W.D.PA 1971).
That court denied in forma pauperis status and noted lack of jurisiction and lack of service.
Of course the real question is how to enforce/collect any judgment.
Posted by CR - 11 months, 1 week, 23 hours, 57 minutes ago

The real problem with jurisdiction is God has not waived his sovereign immunity. For those of you looking for miracles to satisfy the minimum contact issue, just consider it a miracle that Cosgrove still has a job—there really is no other explanation that makes any sense.
Posted by Henry - 11 months, 1 week, 23 hours, 54 minutes ago

In reply to Steve Long: God should affirm.
In reply to Jeff: Does the subject matter of the suit establish specific personal jurisdiction? The orignial report suggests it is about the grant of free will, in which case, it depends whether each new human being’s birth in Nebraska creates a separate specific contact with Nebraska, or whether you have to rely on the original creation of Adam and Eve, who could never have been expected to reach Nebraska in the normal flow of commerce.
Posted by Andrew S. - 11 months, 1 week, 23 hours, 11 minutes ago

The article implied that the divine document objecting to personal jurisdiction was in the form of an answer to the complaint—not a motion to quash the summons. There is no indication that God did not make a general appearance.

This means that God has waived his/her/its right to contest personal jurisdiction. It remains true that one representing onself has a fool for a client.
Posted by Steve F - 11 months, 1 week, 23 hours, 2 minutes ago

The first filing submitted is troubling, because there could be some circumstances in which a defendant can confer jurisdiction or waive service by the filing of an answer acknowledging the suit.

I also wonder how the law office filing the second answer would establish that the client did, in fact, retain it as counsel. Simple agency principles suggest an agent cannot confer an appointment on itself, as the principal must grant the appointment. It is my recoolection that some years ago a court threw out a suit naming God and serving churches and synagogues on the ground that there was no proof that the purported principal had ever conferrred agency powers on the named institutions, and therefore there was no proof the defendant had been served.
Posted by James Pollock - 11 months, 1 week, 22 hours, 37 minutes ago

Before we can assume that this document represents a response (and therefore a general appearance, and therefore a waiver of jurisdiction) from the Almighty Being, it might be necessary to consider the possibility that it is, in fact, a forgery entered by Lucifer, the Prince of Lies. I think it will be necessary for the court to summon the witness named in the response to answer the question of whether or not He actually signed the document. Is Mr. St. Michael the Archangel a resident of Nebraska and liable to summons?
We’ll also need to examine the possibility that the defendant is, in fact, deceased as reported by Witness Nietze.
Posted by Brandon - 11 months, 1 week, 22 hours, 36 minutes ago

I would have just filed a 12(b)(6) motion asserting soverign immunity.
Posted by Oscar Rivas - 11 months, 1 week, 20 hours, 22 minutes ago

I am having flashbacks to Civ Pro. But since everyone is having fun with this one, has anyone considered how the court is going to accommodate a burning bush on the stand? What if you require god to read a document, or place hand on bible? I would also file a motion in limine restricting the booming voice as it would unduly prejudice the jury and can be argued is grandstanding (but how would god not grandstand?).
Posted by Diane Barry - 11 months, 1 week, 20 hours, 20 minutes ago

I think the plaintiff could certainly assert that God has sufficient minimum contacts to support jurisdiction. Unless they want to claim that God is not present in their jurisdiction? That is a claim God would certainly deny, and prior statements would certainly contradict. Couldn’t God be served by publication if actual service isn’t possible? If He’s everywhere, any paper of general circulation should do. :o>
Posted by richard - 11 months, 1 week, 17 hours, 40 minutes ago

how about the problem of finding an unbiased jury?
Posted by Regal Legal Eagle - 11 months, 1 week, 16 hours, 48 minutes ago

Summary Judgment should be granted the Plaintiff, as all lawyers know there’s no such thing as a free will.
Posted by Elizabeth Cohen - 11 months, 1 week, 16 hours, 41 minutes ago

re: comment #12 on filing an answer and not a motion to quash: Perhaps he just moves in mysterious ways.
Posted by Phil - 11 months, 1 week, 15 hours, 54 minutes ago

Does God have to pay filing fees for 1 or 3 defendants?
Posted by Dbarer - 11 months, 1 week, 15 hours, 32 minutes ago

This belies the myth that there are no lawyers in Heaven.
Posted by skg - 11 months, 1 week, 14 hours, 56 minutes ago

Seems to me that filing an answer of behalf of a client that does not exist raises questions of Rule 11 of the Rules of Civil Procedure ("after reasonable inquiry it is well grounded in fact"), and Rule 8.4(c) of the Rules of Professional Conduct: “It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation.”

Of course, the plaintiff would be liable under Rule 11 but for the lack of a defendant with standing to assert it.
Posted by Jeff - 11 months, 6 days, 23 hours, 24 minutes ago

I’m not convinced that God’s omnipresence will actually confer personal jurisdiction over God on the courts of Nebraska. Don’t the contacts need to be purposeful? That was what my first comment was really aimed at.

If you’re hoping to assert tag-jurisdiction, you’ll have to FIND him and personally serve him - even actual knowledge by the defendant doesn’t cure the defect in service by publication
Maybe if they can hire an angel as process server.

Also, I don’t think he’s waived his objection - though the writer could have been more clear about it: “The suit also argues that God is immune from earthly laws, he has not been served with the suit . . . .” - this sounds like it covers both 12(b)(2) and 12(b)(5) of the federal rules, and I’m sure Nebraska has something similar if this was in state court.

The length of this post and the last just underscores how much more interesting this issue is that Trusts and Estates.
Posted by L. Ford Banister - 11 months, 6 days, 21 hours, 52 minutes ago

This is hardly an original idea, in the courts or in popular culture. There is a really well made Australian film with Billy Connelly called “The Man Who Sued God.” It basically played on the idea that insurance companies blame some acts on “Acts of God.” Connellly’s character sued the Church of England in Australia when an insurance company denied his claim for a lightning strike on his fishing boat. The Church accepted service but was left in a pickle. The thing is, make the claim of being God’s earthly reps so what church is actually going to deny a request to admit that asks them to admit agency?

Last year while a professor was droning on about federal exemption from taxes for churches, I raised the question and suggested liability for Acts of God. He looked squarely at me, told me he lacked the intellectual capacity to raise the question, dismissed the class to roll in laughter into the hallway and never called on me again.

Man, I once again missed my big chance at national headlines…
Posted by Roger Knight - 11 months, 6 days, 17 hours, 39 minutes ago

God visited the State of Washington, specifically Skamania County, Mt. St. Helens.
It seems that our Division of Child Support determined that as we are all children of God, it sent Notice and Finding of Financial Responsibility to Heaven.
Jehovah finished reading the document at abour 8:02 am Sonday, May 18, 1980.

BOOM!!!!

Sometimes, Allah is not merciful!
Posted by JUSTIN - 11 months, 5 days, 20 hours, 45 minutes ago

WHAT A SHAM FOR THE LEGAL PROFESSION-
Posted by David - 11 months, 4 days, 23 hours, 57 minutes ago

Post Nos. 13 and 25 raise useful points. This is really a fascinating interplay of Civil Prodecure and Constitutional Law. Since it would appear to be impossible to perfect personal service on God, one would have to do it thru God’s agent.

Presumably a wide variety of institutions could be in the position of the Church of England in Post 25. But for a United States court (unlike an English court, since in England there is an Established Church), to recognize a particular religious institution as the legal representatiive of God would amount to an Establishment of a particular Religion, in unambiguous violation of the First Amendment.

Could this be avoided by the court simply letting all religious institutions in the jurisdiction have the opportunity to be co-counsel?

Such joint court-mandated representation might have the virtue of forcing a certain level of ecumenicism, but runs the risk of fractured representation in the event that there are disagreements about legal tactics and strategy among the attorneys for Roman Catholics, Episcopalians, Methodists, Presbyterians, the various iterations of Baptists and Lutherans, the various iterations of Judaism, the various iterations of Islam, etc .,ad infiinitum. If that were to happen, the court inevitably would have to step in and, as in a Class Action, appoint a lead counsel—but that, again, would run afoul of the Establishment Clause.

Commenting has expired on this post.

ABA Journal - Law News Now

Civil Procedure