We can help you claim
compensation following an accident
illness or injury - nationwide
Call: 0800 10 757 95
One can only imagine that the lawyer who recently took on the case of a US senator who was trying to sue God didn't do so on a "no win, no fee" basis.
The chances, short of a divine manifestation, of such a case succeeding were always going to be slim. As it was, the judge hearing the case threw it out on the grounds that, without God having a known address, the legal papers could not be served.
But, really, what was the claimant hoping for? Did he expect God to get wind of the case and just give himself up on the grounds that "people have been trying to prove my existence for thousands of years, but now some senator from Omaha, Nebraska is on my case, I had better give myself up. After all, I better be careful, one of the more vulgar US political commentators did dub him the angriest black man in Nebraska'!"?
The senator, 71-year-old Ernie Chambers, hoped to claim compensation for the Almighty's part in the whole pantheon of fatuous human suffering as well as a permanent injunction, ordering God to "cease certain harmful activities and the making of terroristic threats...of grave harm to innumerable persons, including constituents of Plaintiff who Plaintiff has the duty to represent".
The judge showed little patience with the claim. "Given that this court finds that there can never be service effectuated on the named defendant this action will be dismissed with prejudice," he said.
Chambers will now have to appeal if he is to have any hope of holding God accountable for his actions. And it seems he is already thinking about his case for appeal. Claiming that by referring to the defendant in its ruling, "the court itself acknowledges the existence of God. A consequence of that acknowledgment is a recognition of God's omniscience. Since God knows everything, God has notice of this lawsuit."
I'm not sure if this pseudo-theological argument is evidence of a brilliant legalistic mind of the kind that would befit a no win, no fee lawyer or plain semantic sophistry. Why don't we ask "what God would say"? Oh hang on, someone already has, posing precisely that question in a lawsuit taken out in responses to Chambers' case.
If you are finding this all very confusing, you are not alone. There has even been another response to Chambers' action taken out in the name of someone called "God" (address, unfortunately, nay, scandalously, not provided). Personally, my professional curiosity can't help but wonder if he's using a no win, no fee lawyer.
I can see a way out of this. If - and this is a very big "if" - we could get the various churches and religions to agree on the questions of omniscience and omnipresence, it may just be possible to hold God accountable.
Okay, so let's suppose he is everywhere, or as Thomas Aquinas said, "God is in all things by his power, inasmuch as all things are subject to his power; he is by his presence in all things, inasmuch as all things are bare and open to his eyes; he is in all things by his essence, inasmuch as he is present to all as the cause of their being".
So why not make an example of him? Presume his omniscience, serve him with the legal papers and, when he fails to attend a court hearing, imprison him for contempt of court.
"How", you might ask, "do you imprison God"? Simple. His omnipresence must make him the easiest entity/deity in the world to get hold of. And, if you are not content with knowing a part of him is joined with us in suffering below this vaulted sky, simply find an empty prison cell and close the door. And therein he will reside, in the still air, bare walls and trapped light, inasmuch as we understand him.
