Reply With QuoteDoesn't it cost money to file a suit in a court of law? Why would anyone, especially a State official waste money, paid to him by the State, on a something like this?
Also: lol.
I just can't wrap my head around this one. So to prove to the legislators that being able to file frivolous lawsuits is something that everyone should be able to do, he's filing the stupidest, most frivolous lawsuit ever?Chambers says he isn't suing God because he has any kind of beef with the deity. He says the suit is to fight possible laws restricting the filing of frivolous lawsuits. Chambers tells KPTM FOX 42 News that his lawsuit is in response to bills brought forth by other state senators to try and stop lawsuits from being filed.
You sir, are a hideous hermaphroditical character which has neither the force and firmness of a man, nor the gentleness and sensibility of a woman.
Now seasoned with health
Doesn't it cost money to file a suit in a court of law? Why would anyone, especially a State official waste money, paid to him by the State, on a something like this?
Also: lol.
Pontius is my Co-Pilate
Boo, Hiss.
No handle, no identity.
Here's a brief of the relevant case law, you're welcome, ty Lexis law search
edit: short case, judge knew the right call.UNITED STATES ex rel. Gerald MAYO v. SATAN AND HIS STAFF
Misc. No. 5357
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
54 F.R.D. 282; 1971 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10548
December 3, 1971
*282] MEMORANDUM ORDER
WEBER, District Judge.
Plaintiff, alleging jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 241, 28 U.S.C. § 1343, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 prays for leave to file a complaint for violation of his civil rights [*283] in forma pauperis. He alleges that Satan has on numerous occasions caused plaintiff misery and unwarranted threats, against the will of plaintiff, that Satan has placed deliberate obstacles in his path and has caused plaintiff's downfall.
Plaintiff alleges that by reason of these acts Satan has deprived him of his constitutional rights.
We feel that the application to file and proceed in forma pauperis must be denied. Even if plaintiff's complaint reveals a prima facie recital of the infringement of the civil rights of a citizen of the United States, the Court has serious doubts that the complaint reveals a cause of action upon which relief can be granted by the court. We question whether plaintiff may obtain personal jurisdiction over the defendant in this judicial district. The complaint contains no allegation of residence in this district. While the official reports disclose [**2] no case where this defendant has appeared as defendant there is an unofficial account of a trial in New Hampshire where this defendant filed an action of mortgage foreclosure as plaintiff. The defendant in that action was represented by the preeminent advocate of that day, and raised the defense that the plaintiff was a foreign prince with no standing to sue in an American Court. This defense was overcome by overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Whether or not this would raise an estoppel in the present case we are unable to determine at this time.
If such action were to be allowed we would also face the question of whether it may be maintained as a class action. It appears to meet the requirements of Fed.R. of Civ.P. 23 that the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable, there are questions of law and fact common to the class, and the claims of the representative party is typical of the claims of the class. We cannot now determine if the representative party will fairly protect the interests of the class.
We note that the plaintiff has failed to include with his complaint the required form of instructions for the United States Marshal for directions [**3] as to service of process.
For the foregoing reasons we must exercise our discretion to refuse the prayer of plaintiff to proceed in forma pauperis.
It is ordered that the complaint be given a miscellaneous docket number and leave to proceed in forma pauperis be denied.
So to short answer everyone, law suits can be filed by the poor for free, by pauper's oath (as they're known in Texas; forma pauperis in this case). The problem with suing deities is service of process. Also, there's the same problem here, failure to state a claim to which the court can grant relief. I mean are we going to sue god for negligence, trespass, or what? What will be the damages, can we actually establish the causal link between god and the relevant natural disasters?
Last edited by MarsKitten; 18 Sep 2007 at 03:12 AM.
I don't remember anyone asking about filing for free.
But even so it still costs the state money.
You sir, are a hideous hermaphroditical character which has neither the force and firmness of a man, nor the gentleness and sensibility of a woman.
No handle, no identity.
Originally Posted by Rhydant
Pls pay attention.
Aight, so one person asked.
That doesn't constitute everyone as your post says.
You sir, are a hideous hermaphroditical character which has neither the force and firmness of a man, nor the gentleness and sensibility of a woman.
No handle, no identity.
People were asking what's stoping this case, its called a compound answer, an answer with more than one part.
People were asking? The only person I see really asking a question about the case is Rhydant I do believe.
You sir, are a hideous hermaphroditical character which has neither the force and firmness of a man, nor the gentleness and sensibility of a woman.
No handle, no identity.
You're just being purposefully dense now.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks