Can anyone really sue God and succeed?

Nebraska State Senator, Ernie Chambers announced on September 19th 2007 that he was suing God.

It should be kept in mind that court clerks cannot refuse to accept and process a claim, no matter how frivolous the claim is providing it is in the language of the country the court is sitting in.

Now in every claim, there must be a cause of action (the reason for suing) and in Chambers lawsuit, which was filed on September 14th in Douglas County Court, he is seeking a permanent injunction against God, ordering Him to cease certain harmful activities and making terrorist threats.

Unfortunately for Chambers, there is no way that a court can slap an injunction against God and actually enforce it.

Chambers has gone about this the wrong way. What he should have done is sue God for damages, such as those caused by flooding which in law, is considered an Act of God. Chambers perhaps could also sue for breach of contract.

Anyone familiar with the Bible will remember the promise given to Noah. In Genesis 9. verse 11, God said to Noah, “And I will establish my covenant with you; neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood.”

A covenant is a formal written agreement between two or more people that is recognized in law. Unfortunately, there is no written record of such an agreement between God and Noah. Despite that, an oral promise is still valid as a form of contract but something of value must pass between the parties in order for the contract to be valid.

A person cannot expect another person to give him something of value without getting something in return and expect the offer to be valid. For example, if a man says to another, ‘I will sell you my car for twenty-thousand dollars.’ He cannot be expected to hand the car over to the other man without first getting a promise from the offeree to pay the twenty-thousand dollars. He if he doesn’t make that promise, then the offer by the owner is unenforceable.

In Genesis 9, verse 7: God said to Noah, “And you, be ye fruitful, and multiply; bring forth abundantly in the earth, and multiply therein.”

That was one of the conditions God gave to Noah to honour after He promised Noah that no more flesh would be cut off any more by the waters of a flood, in other words, no one would die as a result of a flood. Noah was fruitful, and he multiplied and brought forth abundantly more people on Earth so he kept his end of the deal. Unfortunately, God didn’t keep his promise to Noah that no more people would die from floods and for this reason, he broke his word and as such, the contract became meaningless.

And to make matters worse for God, he has no defence since His floods are considered in law as an Act of God. This means that he is solely responsible for all floods.

Chambers would have a legitimate cause of action if he sued for breach of contract and for malicious damage but he would be faced with the problem of serving God with the claim. Since no one has ever seen what God looks like, how would a process server serve God with the claim? Chamber's bid to sue God was thrown out after a judge ruled the suit could not be served because the Almighty has an unlisted address. Chambers argued that because of God's omnipresence, the defendant was personally present in Douglas County, Nebraska. Marlon Polk, Douglas County district court judge, ruled that a plaintiff must have access to the defendant and be able to serve papers on him or her for a lawsuit to go ahead. The judge said, "Given that this court finds that there can never be service effectuated on the named defendant this action will be dismissed."

Actually, serving God would not be a problem. The law allows people and companies to be served court documents by substitutional service. It would have to be served on someone who is in communication with God. That person would be presumed to be in communication with God and as such, would pass on the claim to Him.

We all know that priests, church ministers and rabbis talk to God all the time when they pray to him and none of those people would ever deny that God doesn’t hear their prayers.

Now having got a court order for substitutional service and after having served God via the local church or synagogue, one would wait the required twenty days for God’s defence to be filed in the court and served on the plaintiff. Naturally, none would be filed.

The next step would be to bring in a motion for default judgment. The court would have no other choice but to sign the order for default judgment. The judge may find it amusing since he would figure that the default judgment would be unenforceable.

Not so. Every Christian priest and minister and every rabbi acknowledges that his church and synagogue is a house of God so it follows that you could serve a lien on the building, later followed by a writ of seizure. In other words, the building could be sold for the amount of the judgment if that amount wasn’t paid to the plaintiff.

There is a very strong feeling among Christians and Jews alike that the church and synagogue is the House of God and the places where His glory dwells. I doubt that any of these religious leaders would publicly declare that God does not reside in their places of worship.

This would unquestionably raise a deep concern to whoever is the religious leader of that specific building, not to mention the religious leaders of his or her faith. Up to now, the claim would have been considered a big joke but the arrival of the writ of seizure would not be a joke at all.

No doubt, the religious leaders would retain the services of high-priced lawyers to bring in a motion to set aside the default judgment. I am not convinced that they would succeed. After all, no defence was filed and ignoring a claim because it is presumed to be frivolous is not a valid reason for a judge to set aside the judgment.

If the motion is denied, then the seizure of the building could begin. Naturally an offer of settlement would be presented to the plaintiff and if the plaintiff is satisfied with the amount of money offered, then a settlement document would be drafted up and the payment forward onto the plaintiff.

And that, my dear friends, is how one might actually sue God and collect your money from Him or Her or even It. Who knows?

If the Senator from the state of Nebraska processed his case based on the scenario I have just presented to you, he might succeed. As I said earlier in this piece, he chose a different route and in my opinion, he failed since an injunction against God is unenforceable.

I hope you have as much fun reading this piece as I did when I was writing it.