State Senator Sues God!

ITDEFX

ITDEFX

CAGiversary!
Feedback
13 (100%)
http://www.ketv.com/news/14133442/detail.html

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.”
Click to expand...

I am just waiting for the bolt of lighting or freak car accident to happen to this guy before I burst out laughing.
 
:rofl:

I'd also like to press multie-murder charges, bordering on genocide based upon the number of times someone's said "It was his time, God's taken him".

God: He put Hitler to shame.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I dunno, God has Johnnie Cochran on his side.[/QUOTE]


nah your thinking of the devil... I don't think Cochran got into Heaven.
 
[quote name='dopa345']He's doing to prove a point how easy it is to file frivolous lawsuits.

The man's a hero.[/QUOTE]


this guy must be related to Jack guy...you know the guy who thinks all video games are evil.
 
[quote name='dopa345']He's doing to prove a point how easy it is to file frivolous lawsuits.

The man's a hero.[/quote]

Whoa fellas. There is something much more serious going on here. This ass thinks its 'frivilous' for a woman to need to use the words 'rape' and 'victim' in her testimony in her rape case. The judge that's being sued is preventing a rape victim from using those words when she is asked what happened to her. If you think you were raped, you should be allowed to testify as such. What the judge is doing is wrong, and what this guy did 'suing God' is absolutely irresponsible and stunning considering the already difficult task of prosecuting a rape case to begin with.
 
[quote name='dragonreborn23']Whoa fellas. There is something much more serious going on here. This ass thinks its 'frivilous' for a woman to need to use the words 'rape' and 'victim' in her testimony in her rape case. The judge that's being sued is preventing a rape victim from using those words when she is asked what happened to her. If you think you were raped, you should be allowed to testify as such. What the judge is doing is wrong, and what this guy did 'suing God' is absolutely irresponsible and stunning considering the already difficult task of prosecuting a rape case to begin with.[/quote]

Interesting article on the background story:

http://slate.com/id/2168758/

Article is a bit more nuanced then what you describe.

I tend to agree with you that the words should be used, but unfortunately this looks to be a "he said, she said" - I'd hate to be one of the jurors.
 
[quote name='camoor']Interesting article on the background story:

http://slate.com/id/2168758/

Article is a bit more nuanced then what you describe.

I tend to agree with you that the words should be used, but unfortunately this looks to be a "he said, she said" - I'd hate to be one of the jurors.[/quote]


"If the complaining witness in a rape trial has to describe herself as having had "intercourse" with the defendant, should the complaining witness in a mugging be forced to testify that he was merely giving his attacker a loan?"


Both sides should be allowed to argue their case from their own point of view. The defense can argue that it wasn't 'rape' because he stopped when she asked him to. Of course, they will still have to explain away how having sex with a girl who is in and out of consciousness isn't rape... but to ban the word 'rape' from a case that exists because of an alleged 'rape'...lol it just seems ludacris.
 
Hmmm...This is a very interesting issue. Understandably, many people in here are confusing the guilt issue with what is clearly an evidentiary issue.

To be admissible, evidence in any trial must be relevant. Relevant is defined in the Federal Rules of Evidence (hereinafter "F.R.E.") as any evidence that is helpful to the jury that makes some fact in the case more or less likely to have occurred.

This means that legal conclusions are inadmissible. A witness cannot say, "He is guilty of manslaughter"or "The other driver was negligent" They can say, "The other driver wasnt looking at the light and was going about 60 mph." The former statments are legal conclusions and the latter are statements of fact. Legal conclusions are not "helpful" to the jury as contemplated in the F.R.E. as they dont make some fact in the case more or less likely to have occurred. Expert Witnesses have a little more leeway and can sometimes testify to legal conclusions but lay witnesses like the alleged rape victim cannot testify as to legal conclusions.

It is for these reasons that the judge did not feel comfortable letting her testify to legal conclusions and IMO he did so properly. She can say "He forced sex on me", or "He made me have sex with him", or "I passed out and he had sex with me without my permission while I was unconscious." The jury can discern for themselves what happened but it is up to them to decide if he "raped" her.

Judges are given broad discretion in thier decisions regarding whether some statement is a legal conclusion or not and barring an obvious abuse of discretion, thier decisions will be upheld on appeal.
 
[quote name='pittpizza']Hmmm...This is a very interesting issue. Understandably, many people in here are confusing the guilt issue with what is clearly an evidentiary issue.

To be admissible, evidence in any trial must be relevant. Relevant is defined in the Federal Rules of Evidence (hereinafter "F.R.E.") as any evidence that is helpful to the jury that makes some fact in the case more or less likely to have occurred.

This means that legal conclusions are inadmissible. A witness cannot say, "He is guilty of manslaughter"or "The other driver was negligent" They can say, "The other driver wasnt looking at the light and was going about 60 mph." The former statments are legal conclusions and the latter are statements of fact. Legal conclusions are not "helpful" to the jury as contemplated in the F.R.E. as they dont make some fact in the case more or less likely to have occurred. Expert Witnesses have a little more leeway and can sometimes testify to legal conclusions but lay witnesses like the alleged rape victim cannot testify as to legal conclusions.

It is for these reasons that the judge did not feel comfortable letting her testify to legal conclusions and IMO he did so properly. She can say "He forced sex on me", or "He made me have sex with him", or "I passed out and he had sex with me without my permission while I was unconscious." The jury can discern for themselves what happened but it is up to them to decide if he "raped" her.

Judges are given broad discretion in thier decisions regarding whether some statement is a legal conclusion or not and barring an obvious abuse of discretion, thier decisions will be upheld on appeal.[/quote]

I understand what you are saying, but it's just analytical word games to normal people (me).

"I passed out and he had sex with me without my permission while I was unconcious."

in other words...

"He raped me."

She's not an alleged 'passed out and he had sex with me without my permission while I was unconcious' victim. She is an alleged 'rape' victim. She should be allowed the freedom to say what she genuinely feels happened. If the defense wants to object, that is fine. They will do their best to tear holes in her story, using any words they like. The judge didn't ban the words 'slut' or 'whore' did he? Did he ban presenting any previous relationships she may have had? Of course not.
 
[quote name='dragonreborn23']The judge didn't ban the words 'slut' or 'whore' did he? Did he ban presenting any previous relationships she may have had? Of course not.[/quote]

How do you know this? IMO the judge would probably ban these words unless they were part of recorded witness testemony - those words are ambiguous in meaning and extremely loaded.
 
State Sen. Ernie Chambers
ErnieChambers.jpg


Morgan Freeman (as god)
evanal023.jpg


hmmmm
 
[quote name='Warner1281']What the hell? He'll respond to this fool but he won't answer my prayers to let me win the lottery? Geez... next time I'll just send him a subpoena for next week's winning lotto numbers.[/quote]

God needs those numbers for himself. Tithing isn't as lucrative as it used to be.:lol:
 
[quote name='Sideshow']God and oppression are tied for the most bloodshed.[/quote]

It gets more interesting if you compare gods.

Are you talking about the Christian God, Allah, or Yahweh? Any way you slice it, their bodycounts put Ares to shame.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top