tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13324551.post5448258853986877282..comments2023-12-13T05:30:40.911-05:00Comments on The World According To Marc: God Has An Attorney?Marchttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06331222151132163756noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13324551.post-4025285720356972042007-09-24T16:01:00.000-04:002007-09-24T16:01:00.000-04:00guy suing God.guy suing God.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13324551.post-62296821426981746842007-09-24T11:49:00.000-04:002007-09-24T11:49:00.000-04:00Citizen - I never denied my geekdom... nor did I a...Citizen - I never denied my geekdom... nor did I allege yours. <BR/><BR/>King - Hmmm... are you talking about Citizen's legal analysis or the guy suing God?Marchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06331222151132163756noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13324551.post-91729689075205851562007-09-24T11:41:00.000-04:002007-09-24T11:41:00.000-04:00Crazy. Who has this much time?Crazy. Who has this much time?King Familyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10711046988630918840noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13324551.post-91079901104701315512007-09-23T22:03:00.000-04:002007-09-23T22:03:00.000-04:00Geek alert? you mean like these...? I thought that...Geek alert? you mean like these...? I thought that "The World According to Marc" was like, where geeks came to roost... <BR/><BR/>See e.g.<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://theworldaccordingtomarc.blogspot.com/2006/07/gay-marriage-and-personal-revelation.html" REL="nofollow">a geek revealed</A><BR/><BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://theworldaccordingtomarc.blogspot.com/2007/03/romney-explained.html" REL="nofollow">geek explanation</A><BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://theworldaccordingtomarc.blogspot.com/2006/11/election-in-hindsight.html" REL="nofollow">very geeky in hindsight</A><BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://theworldaccordingtomarc.blogspot.com/2006/05/fiscal-responsibility.html" REL="nofollow">ugh. a geeky chart!</A><BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://theworldaccordingtomarc.blogspot.com/2006/05/peter-joseph-bis.html" REL="nofollow">navel gazing at the homeless? liberal geek!</A><BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://theworldaccordingtomarc.blogspot.com/2005/12/combative-by-nature_22.html" REL="nofollow">arguably geeky</A>---https://www.blogger.com/profile/15764734621722193333noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13324551.post-84056977616776750402007-09-23T21:37:00.000-04:002007-09-23T21:37:00.000-04:00Geek, maybe. Freaking awesome, most definitely.Geek, maybe. <BR/><BR/>Freaking <I>awesome</I>, most definitely.Marchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06331222151132163756noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13324551.post-18455509133673541112007-09-23T15:07:00.000-04:002007-09-23T15:07:00.000-04:00geek alert!geek alert!Sammy Powhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00243107679804322341noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13324551.post-69201317975693268842007-09-23T13:09:00.000-04:002007-09-23T13:09:00.000-04:00Personally, I am not convincted that the service o...Personally, I am not convincted that the service of process issues are not insurmountable for Mr. Chambers. No, I am more concerned about whether, as he has framed his complaint, he has standing to sue. Simply stated, to have standing, Mr. Chambers must show in his complaint that he has suffered or imminently will suffer (b/c he is seeking injunctive relief, he will have to show this) some cognizable injury; that the injury can reasonably be traced to God, and that the Court has the ability (and not just the authority) to redress Mr. Chamber's harm, i.e. order God to stop.<BR/><BR/>1. Injury. It seems that Mr. Chambers' complaint is concerned not with the direct, personal injuries that God has caused him - but rather with the injuries God has allegedly caused innumerable other parties, including his constituents. In other words, Mr. Chambers is trying to assert some form of "third party" standing, which is normally prohibited unless there is a "special relationship" that the Court has recognized as permissible for 3rd party standing. The relationship Mr. Chambers seems to assert is (a) he is part of humanity - hardly "special" and (b) his constituents have been harmed. Really? by earthquakes in Omaha? Besides, I am fairly certain that the Court has ruled out "representative/senator" 3rd party standing, because that would violate the political question doctrine, and it would just be unmanageable.<BR/><BR/>2. Fairly Traceable to God. Assuming arguendo that the Court didn't punt on the first question, and that he were granted third party standing (or personal standing) for injuries by God to him or his constituents in Omaha, he would have to specifically state those injuries, and show how they could be traced back to God. I think the defendant would make quick work of that, because the Court wouldn't have to decide that there "is no God" when the defendant shows that an earthquake is more likely traceable to techtonic shifts, the Court would just say that the Plaintiff has failed to meet his burden, and the defendant's evidence in the alternative shows that it could traced to alternative sources. <BR/><BR/>3. Redressability. This is my favorite part. Mr. Chambers is seeking injunctive relief from the Court. He can't have standing unless the Court agrees that whatever relief he has asked for, the Court is capable of providing (or some other adequate relief that it can fashion). The Court would have to ask whether an injunctive order would do any God, assuming arguendo that God was responsible for the "terroristic earthquakes" et al. Well, I think the Court might delve into an inquiry into God's nature, to determine His likelihood of following an injunctive order. On the one hand, He doesn't have a very good track record of fulfilling "requests" by prayers, willy nilly. But what about orders? Most of human history is filled with people REQUESTING things of the Omnipotent and getting DENIED. Maybe we have it ALL WRONG... Maybe Mr. Chambers is on to something. Maybe, instead of praying to God, "please protect my family, don't let any harm come to them," it's time we played some hardball. I think it would be intriguing if the Court decided to do a survey of religions to check and see if any of them have anything on DEMANDS of the God(s).---https://www.blogger.com/profile/15764734621722193333noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13324551.post-73494996704252730772007-09-23T00:34:00.000-04:002007-09-23T00:34:00.000-04:00Almost as good as the time some guy sued Satan and...Almost as good as the time some guy sued Satan and his servants:<BR/><BR/>U. S. ex rel. Mayo v. Satan and his Staff<BR/><BR/>Civil rights action against Satan and his servants who allegedly placed deliberate obstacles in plaintiff's path and caused his downfall, wherein plaintiff prayed for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The District Court, Weber, J., held that plaintiff would not be granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis who in view of questions of personal jurisdiction over defendant, propriety of class action, and plaintiff's failure to include instructions for directions as to service of process.<BR/>Prayer denied.<BR/><BR/>54 F.R.D. 282Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02561195144319981325noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13324551.post-11631673558300589122007-09-23T00:00:00.000-04:002007-09-23T00:00:00.000-04:00I like His signature. Notice how I capitalized "h...I like His signature. Notice how I capitalized "his"? Both Mrs. Bestors would be so proud.Sammy Powhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00243107679804322341noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13324551.post-12355428832526186312007-09-22T23:14:00.000-04:002007-09-22T23:14:00.000-04:00It's so weird, I don't even really know what to sa...It's so weird, I don't even really know what to say.Melaniehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08222256625945174432noreply@blogger.com