You won't have eyes tonight. You won't have ears or a tongue; you will wander the underworld blind, deaf and dumb...
http://news.aol.com/newsbloggers/2007/09/18/senator-ernie-chambers-sues-god/
He's doing it as a statement against a law that would prevent people from filing "frivolous lawsuits." Still, I like the guy.
He's doing it as a statement against a law that would prevent people from filing "frivolous lawsuits." Still, I like the guy.
Quote:
Nebraska State Senator Ernie Chambers has filed a lawsuit against God for, among other things, causing "fearsome floods, egregious earthquakes, horrendous hurricanes, terrifying tornadoes, pestilential plagues, ferocious famines, devastating droughts, genocidal wars, birth defects and the like." The plaintiff assumes God will have actual knowledge of the action, due to His being omniscient.
Chambers, who is not a religious man, said he filed the suit not because he actually expects an injunction against God (see, he's not crazy, even if the AP photographer made it look like he had a halo around his head in this picture), but because he wants to call attention to "frivolous" lawsuits.
An example of a controversial lawsuit Chambers wanted to protest: the one against a judge who banned an alleged rape victim from using words like "rape" or "sexual assault" during her testimony under penalty of sanctions. (It seems pretty un-frivolous to us, especially compared to, say, the wacky guy who sued his dry cleaner for $54 million. Details on the rape -- sorry, bad thing -- case are available in a sidebar video report here and via the A.P.)
So, two questions: (1) should the courts indeed be open to any and all lawsuits? and (2) against God, does Chambers have a case?
Chambers, who is not a religious man, said he filed the suit not because he actually expects an injunction against God (see, he's not crazy, even if the AP photographer made it look like he had a halo around his head in this picture), but because he wants to call attention to "frivolous" lawsuits.
An example of a controversial lawsuit Chambers wanted to protest: the one against a judge who banned an alleged rape victim from using words like "rape" or "sexual assault" during her testimony under penalty of sanctions. (It seems pretty un-frivolous to us, especially compared to, say, the wacky guy who sued his dry cleaner for $54 million. Details on the rape -- sorry, bad thing -- case are available in a sidebar video report here and via the A.P.)
So, two questions: (1) should the courts indeed be open to any and all lawsuits? and (2) against God, does Chambers have a case?
...and all the dead will know: this is Hector, fool who thought he killed Achilles.