Reply With Quote
Nobody cares that they look kind of stupid by complaining about something that is making the exact same point they're complaining about?
Then, by all means...
Sarcasm.Yay! One person in this thread didn't miss me!
Look it up.
If you don't own a dictionary, you can always look it up on the internets.
Nobody cares that they look kind of stupid by complaining about something that is making the exact same point they're complaining about?
Then, by all means...
Trust me. Human nature won't allow communism to work properly, at least not in the US, because people are far too materialistic for it to work.
Materialism is alive and working in China.
Plus, we can arrest and imprison all those crazy christians.
Don't hide behind sarcasm after missing me!
Idiocy.
Look it up.
If you don't have a dictionary, you can look it up on the internets.
No thanks. I've already learned more about you than I care!
Don't miss me next time! Goodbye!
Beautiful retort!!
I don't know how to come back from that one, but I'll try.
How's this:
I'm rubber, you're glue . . . .
The story demonstrates that this state legislator is trying to make a serious point about frivolous lawsuits by taking the exercise to an extreme. I would imagine that the suit has been or will be mirrored by an effort to create stronger laws in favor of limiting patently frivolous lawsuits, but it never hurts to create some publicity on your side if you're going to try to pass such a law.
This legislator obviously does not think that existing laws (monetary penalties, mostly) do enough to curb frivolous suits and wants to change that. He's done it with a lightning rod issue, obviously, and that may ultimately detract from his message, but his point is one that should resonate with citizens who think that lawyers are a bunch of s bags. If the citizens are in a frenzy about it, they might contact their legislators and that might be enough to get the law changed.
I'm not sure that the suit that gives rise to this stunt is one that I would call truly frivolous -- one must challenge an existing application of law to ever have it changed and I can see, to an extent, the First Amendment issues that the alleged sexual assault victim is making here.
If he in fact is attempting tort reform, then i applaud him to the highest.
If he though is on another atheist parade, then I stand by my original statement.
Either way it's funny as .
And, I'd like see god pay up just to hear him say, "Okay, but can you break a 50?"
It's not tort reform -- tort reform would be limiting or abolising suits aimed at recovering personal injury or property injury damages. It would appear that the sentaor is aimed at litigation reform, trying to more narrowly define what cons utes a frivolous suit.
I don't really support either effort, mostly I think that measures like tort reform and litigation reform pander to cons uencies and really have a tendency to deprive those who've really been hurt of a meaningful avenue for obtaining remedies for those injuries. There are resources on the books already to do away with frivolous suits and with meritless claims; creating more rules won't make judges rule correctly.
Well they are, aren't they?
Yeah, I guess the truth is a defense.Well they are, aren't they?
Loser pays.I don't really support either effort, mostly I think that measures like tort reform and litigation reform pander to cons uencies and really have a tendency to deprive those who've really been hurt of a meaningful avenue for obtaining remedies for those injuries. There are resources on the books already to do away with frivolous suits and with meritless claims; creating more rules won't make judges rule correctly
Ins ute it, and you fix it all IMO.
Im sure you'd disagree.
I do, because I don't think one's ability to seek remedies for his or her injuries should be determined by how wealthy he or she is.
Justice shouldn't be about how much money you already have -- if you're injured, you're injured; whether you are held liable for acting negligently should not be a function of happening to hit someone who couldn't afford to pay the costs associated with suit if the jury turns on him or her. And someone involved in a case that would be a close call, but one in which there are legitimate claims, should not be discouraged from seeking remedies for his or her injuries.
Ultimately, penalties exist for pursuing frivolous lawsuits and parties have means of defending against meritless claims. If you ask me, the system's two biggest flaws are that the penalties aren't implemented enough and too many parties (mostly insurers) are willing to settle questionable claims that become lawsuits. By settling even the most questionable claims, defendants encourage people to bring such claims; when courts aren't willing to impose penalties upon those who bring claims that are patently frivolous, the incentive to bring a suit grows -- particularly because most parties will settle the case.
All of that is to say that the problem isn't with rules that govern the system; the problem is with the people on all sides of the equation who are the routine players in the system.
Well they are, aren't they?Taking people's quotes out of context isn't nice.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/09/20....ap/index.html
LINCOLN, Nebraska (AP) -- A legislator who filed a lawsuit against God has gotten something he might not have expected: a response.
One of two court filings from "God" came Wednesday under otherworldly cir stances, according to John Friend, clerk of the Douglas County District Court in Omaha.
"This one miraculously appeared on the counter. It just all of a sudden was here -- poof!" Friend said.
State Sen. Ernie Chambers of Omaha sued God last week, seeking a permanent injunction against the Almighty for making terroristic threats, inspiring fear and causing "widespread death, destruction and terrorization of millions upon millions of the Earth's inhabitants."
Chambers, a self-proclaimed agnostic who often criticizes Christians, said his filing was triggered by a federal lawsuit he considers frivolous. He said he's trying to make the point that anybody can sue anybody.
Not so, says "God." His response argues that the defendant is immune from some earthly laws and the court lacks jurisdiction.
It adds that blaming God for human oppression and suffering misses an important point.
"I created man and woman with free will and next to the promise of immortal life, free will is my greatest gift to you," according to the response, as read by Friend.
There was no contact information on the filing, although St. Michael the Archangel is listed as a witness, Friend said.
A second response from "God" disputing Chambers' allegations lists a phone number for a Corpus Christi law office. A message left for that office was not immediately returned Thursday.
Attempts to reach Chambers by phone and at his Capitol office Thursday were unsuccessful.
God needs a lawyer??
What a pussy.
From Corpus Christi, no less.
From Corpus Christi, no less.
Corpus Christi reeks respectability.
Still going on...
http://dailynews.att.net/cgi-bin/new...rq85100&src=ap
'God' Gets an Attorney in Lawsuit
ANNA JO BRATTON
LINCOLN, Neb. (AP) - The mystery of one response to a lawsuit against God has been solved. Eric Perkins, an attorney in Corpus Christi, Texas, said Friday he filed a response to the lawsuit from Nebraska State Sen. Ernie Chambers. "It's kind of a turn on 'What would Jesus do?'" Perkins said. "I thought to myself, "what would God say?"
"Defendant denies that this or any court has jurisdiction ... over Him any more than the court has jurisdiction over the wind or rain, sunlight or darkness," according to Perkins' response.
As for Chambers' contention that God made terroristic threats, inspired fear and caused "widespread death, destruction and terrorization," Perkins wrote that God "contends that any harm or injury suffered is a direct and proximate result of mankind ignoring obvious warnings."
Perkins, who said he is a Christian, faxed one of at least two responses to Chambers' lawsuit. He said while he hopes the lawsuit was just a stunt by Chambers, "maybe his timing has something to do with world affairs. I'd hate to be that person who sat back and did nothing."
The problem of serving God a summons could land the lawsuit in the earthly scrap heap of failed legal actions.
But whether the issue goes before a judge may largely depend on how hard Chambers pushes the issue. The senator isn't asking that notice be served to God, but says in his lawsuit that if he doesn't get a summary judgment in the case, he wants a hearing _ "if the court deems such a hearing not to be a futile act."
Chambers, a self-proclaimed agnostic, said he's trying to makes the point that anybody can sue anybody. He said his filing was triggered by a federal lawsuit he considers frivolous.
It's still not clear where a second response from "God" came from. There was no contact information on the filing, which turned up on the counter at the Douglas County Court office, although St. Michael the Archangel is listed as a witness.
Attempts to reach Chambers by phone Friday were unsuccessful.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions