A small legal problem

Blueboyd

Thought today about this Autralian movie where a man sued God

Don't remember exactly all the details of the film but could see problems in suing God because doens't the one you sue have to be "a legal entity" like a person or a company. You can't sue Elephants I guess and God would probably be so abstract thing that He could not be defined as a legal person or personality.

But then I thought. Heck isn't Christianity based upon the idea that Jesus is both man and God in the same time and that way God could be indeed defined as "legal person" if the accused was Jesus.

In the film the guy sued God becuase his insurance company said it was "Act of God" when a lighting hit his boat and blew it up. So he sued the churches which claimed to be God's representatives on Earth. Don't remember if they actually had to deny they are that to wiggle out of it but in any case maybe more propriate case against Jesus would be genocide. I came accross this site recently

where someone had gone through the bible and counted how many people God actually has killed. He came with the biblical number 2,476,636 but says it probably is around 25 million as in some parts it is not documented how many God exactly kills.

Now if Bible is credible evidence of God killing men in millions and Jesus is God and also a man. And men are legal persons could Jesus not be sued for genocide?

FreudianSlippers

Should I move this to Conspiracy Theories or Philosophy?

3 issues:

1. The Church is His agent and therefore not responsible for God's actions while the converse is not the case.

2. As a sovereign He can claim immunity from prosecution. His claimed kingdom being heaven and earth.

3. It would be difficult to get anyone to accept service on His behalf and a summons server may be unwilling to take the obvious step to get His attention.

A good case on this point (yes, there is a case on this point) would be United States ex.rel Mayo -v- Satan and His Staff 54 F.R.D 282 (W.D para 1971).

State Bar of Nevada provides a nice summary. Enjoy.

http://www.nvbar.org/publications/nevadalawyer/2010/October/Oct_2010_Back_Story.pdf

FreudianSlippers

Deleted User wrote: »

3 issues:

1. The Church is His agent and therefore not responsible for God's actions while the converse is not the case.

2. As a sovereign He can claim immunity from prosecution. His claimed kingdom being heaven and earth.

3. It would be difficult to get anyone to accept service on His behalf and a summons server may be unwilling to take the obvious step to get His attention.

A good case on this point (yes, there is a case on this point) would be United States ex.rel Mayo -v- Satan and His Staff 54 F.R.D 282 (W.D para 1971).

State Bar of Nevada provides a nice summary. Enjoy.

http://www.nvbar.org/publications/nevadalawyer/2010/October/Oct_2010_Back_Story.pdf

I actually wish I could thank this post a hundred times. haha. well played.

FreudianSlippers

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I actually wish I could thank this post a hundred times. haha. well played.

The rare opportunity for legal comedy.

Blueboyd

Deleted User wrote: »

3 issues:

1. The Church is His agent and therefore not responsible for God's actions while the converse is not the case.

2. As a sovereign He can claim immunity from prosecution. His claimed kingdom being heaven and earth.

3. It would be difficult to get anyone to accept service on His behalf and a summons server may be unwilling to take the obvious step to get His attention.

A good case on this point (yes, there is a case on this point) would be United States ex.rel Mayo -v- Satan and His Staff 54 F.R.D 282 (W.D para 1971).

State Bar of Nevada provides a nice summary. Enjoy.

http://www.nvbar.org/publications/nevadalawyer/2010/October/Oct_2010_Back_Story.pdf

First of all I have to say that I am not a lawyer but I am considering applying to a law school and wanted to see if I have it in me. I hope I didn't pic too tough case.

1. Yes you are right - it would be usless to go after the church. In this case. Beside they have already handfull of suits coming at them becuase of the abuse cases.

2. Hmmm isn't genocide one of those crimes that under universal jurisdiction can be taken to International Criminal Court and therefore Jesus is not immune to prosecution as a head of State. And even if the King of Heaven would be immune - does He not have to prove he still is the King. I mean even Mubarak was overthrown. We have no info of the present situation in Heaven who is in charge - maybe they had elections and it is run now by Mary.


3. I'm not sure if I understood this. English isn't my mother tongue. Can he not be "sentenced in absentia" if does not show up at ICC? Does the subpoena have to be delivered personally if it can be showed that He is trying to avoid of recievig the subpoena.
EDIT: If this is not possible in ICC - would it not be possible in Civil law countries like France or Sweden.

Not to continue this loopy loop legal debate any further but the ICC only has jurisdiction over countries that have signed up to it. I can't be certain but I don't think the Divine Kingdom is a signatory.

hession.law

Wasn't Jesus the son of God?

Zambia

I would be confident you could not Try someone ex parte for genocide. One would want to hear a case that serious.

Blueboyd

Deleted User wrote: »

Not to continue this loopy loop legal debate any further but the ICC only has jurisdiction over countries that have signed up to it. I can't be certain but I don't think the Divine Kingdom is a signatory.

Hmm you seem to be very emotional about this. Isn't emotional thinking what one should avoid when talking about legal cases and just see what the law says.

In anyways you might be right but I'm in the impression that Rome Statue does allow prosecution individuals who are not from signatory states

Article 12 says

[SIZE=-1]Preconditions to the exercise of jurisdiction[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]1. A State which becomes a Party to this Statute thereby accepts the jurisdiction of the Court with respect to the crimes referred to in article 5.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1]2. In the case of article 13, paragraph (a) or (c), the Court may exercise its jurisdiction if one or more of the following States are Parties to this Statute or have accepted the jurisdiction of the Court in accordance with paragraph 3:[/SIZE]

• [SIZE=-1](a) The State on the territory of which the conduct in question occurred or, if the crime was committed on board a vessel or aircraft, the State of registration of that vessel or aircraft;[/SIZE][SIZE=-1](b) The State of which the person accused of the crime is a national.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1]3. If the acceptance of a State which is not a Party to this Statute is required under paragraph 2, that State may, by declaration lodged with the Registrar, accept the exercise of jurisdiction by the Court with respect to the crime in question. The accepting State shall cooperate with the Court without any delay or exception in accordance with Part 9.[/SIZE]

I thought this was exacly why - when UN drafted the resolution on Libya - US pushed the article 6 into the resolution

“6. Decides that nationals, current or former officials or personnel from a State outside the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya which is not a party to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court shall be subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of that State for all alleged acts or omissions arising out of or related to operations in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya established or authorized by the Council, unless such exclusive jurisdiction has been expressly waived by the State;

However I did notice that the Rome Statue covers only crimes done after July 1 2002 - so that would make the case more difficult cos I'm not sure it has been documented that God has killed after 2002 anyone.

Blueboyd

Zambia wrote: »

I would be confident you could not Try someone ex parte for genocide. One would want to hear a case that serious.

I think "In Absentia" is alien to Common Law. However in Civil Law that is possible.

I think ICC does not approve "in absentia" in general but some of the special tribunals have sentenced in absentia.

Then the Civil Law countries would be probably be the best choice for us to get God/Jesus convicted in absentia.


Hmmm How about Bolivia

http://ww4report.com/node/7336

FreudianSlippers

The whole thing is based on two flawed conclusions:

1) God exists
2) The "kingdom" of said god is a state or sovereign territory on plane with existence of man.

As I said before, this is more of a philosophical debate than a legal debate necessarily.

Blueboyd

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

The whole thing is based on two flawed conclusions:

1) God exists
2) The "kingdom" of said god is a state or sovereign territory on plane with existence of man.

As I said before, this is more of a philosophical debate than a legal debate necessarily.

1. Well there is quite strong eveidence that Jesus excisted. But was he God or is there even a God - I'm not sure if there really is eveidence either way. Isn't that what the court would have to ponder. And I bet it would not be that difficult to find a court who were absolutely sure that God do excist.

2. That would explain why Jesus hasn't signed the Rome Statue. In that His thinking must be like the US then

Blueboyd

Blueboyd wrote: »

1. Well there is quite strong eveidence that Jesus excisted. But was he God or is there even a God - I'm not sure if there really is eveidence either way. Isn't that what the court would have to ponder. And I bet it would not be that difficult to find a court who were absolutely sure that God do excist.

2. That would explain why Jesus hasn't signed the Rome Statue. In that His thinking must be like the US then

This is so so weak.

Just to stoke up this troll-fire an Irish Court would have to find as a matter of fact that God existed otherwise the oath, both of office for the judge and for the witnesses, is meaningless.

Blueboyd

Deleted User wrote: »

This is so so weak.

Just to stoke up this troll-fire an Irish Court would have to find as a matter of fact that God existed otherwise the oath, both of office for the judge and for the witnesses, is meaningless.

Now that's interesting - would have never thought that God's excistence is verified by court in that large scale. But would that not support my side of the case.


Troll-fire? LOL I thought this was a forum for interesting legal isues. At least I do find in the globalized world interesting what differences for instance Civil Law and Common Law jurisdictions have and what to think of universal jurisdiction. For that the toughest case imaginably works fine. Lets not forget that Jesus/God is innocent until proven guilty in the court of law.

Reloc8

The OP accepts that the suit against God as divine entity can't proceed on the basis that there is no person amenable to law available to sue.

It's further complicated by the fact that Jesus died, then rose again, but left the jurisdiction immediately thereafter. In those circumstances, if you had managed to effect service on his personal representative during the period of his death your case could probably proceed on the basis that a court would not allow his escape act defeat your suit on procedural grounds.

That gave you a window of opportunity of 3 days or so, roughly 1,798 years ago, to commence your action.

Your other option would be to await the moment of transubstantiation during a Roman Catholic eucharistic service, and slap a writ on the chalice & host. The problem then is you would be suing only the Roman Catholic God in the jurisdiction of service.

He would presumably want to join a Satan as a co-defendant which will further lengthen the delay to getting this case on.

As a preliminary point you would want to determine whether you were entitled only to proceed against Jesus' estate (reputedly not very large in terms of worldly goods) or whether his resurrection allows you to recover the kingdom of heaven and earth, subject to incumbrances. The law will admit of tax planning/avoidance but not evasive schemes.

Blueboyd

Blueboyd wrote: »

Now that's interesting - would have never thought that God's excistence is verified by court in that large scale. But would that not support my side of the case.


Troll-fire? LOL I thought this was a forum for interesting legal isues. At least I do find in the globalized world interesting what differences for instance Civil Law and Common Law jurisdictions have and what to think of universal jurisdiction. For that the toughest case imaginably works fine. Lets not forget that Jesus/God is innocent until proven guilty in the court of law.

This isn't an interesting legal issue. Universal jurisdiction as a concept is ridiculous anyway.

Your last sentence is a complete ignoratio elenchi.

Reloc8

Blueboyd wrote: »

Lets not forget that Jesus/God is innocent until proven guilty in the court of law.

Don't be silly.

This is all civil process.

No one is talking about charging him with criminal offences.

Where would you get a jury of his peers anyway ?

PCPhoto

hession.law wrote: »

Wasn't Jesus the son of God?

still waiting on the paternity tests on that one !!!

Blueboyd

Blueboyd wrote: »

would have never thought that God's excistence is verified by court in that large scale.

Well no actually, it doesn't help. They also have a Koran and people can affirm rather than swear so the Courts both deny and affirm the existence of God at the same time. It's all a conspiracy if you ask me.

Reloc8

I have a copy of the Commissioner's Handbook from circa 1930 or so (deals with how to administer oaths).

For a Chinese national you had to have them break a saucer or other piece of delf and say 'I am bound by this oath'.

edit : woops I thought I was in AH...

Reloc8

Reloc8 wrote: »

I have a copy of the Commissioner's Handbook from circa 1930 or so (deals with how to administer oaths).

For a Chinese national you had to have them break a saucer or other piece of delf and say 'I am bound by this oath'.

edit : woops I thought I was in AH...

That not Greek people?

234

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

The whole thing is based on two flawed conclusions:

1) God exists
2) The "kingdom" of said god is a state or sovereign territory on plane with existence of man.

As I said before, this is more of a philosophical debate than a legal debate necessarily.

Em, I would have assumed that you were familiar with Article 44.1. The existance of God is a given constitutional fact in this jurisdiction.

FreudianSlippers

234 wrote: »

Em, I would have assumed that you were familiar with Article 44.1. The existance of God is a given constitutional fact in this jurisdiction.

I take serious issue with any article of the constitution which contradicts itself.

See IMHO Art 44.2.2


Either way I don't think the existence of god is a "given" from Art 44.1, I think it's clear that the state public homage is to "god" and that blasphemy is bold.
The sooner we hold a referendum on that the better though.

234

Agree on the referendum, also on the contradictions. Much of 44 could be removed without any harm. However, taking 44.1 on it's own it's logically impossible for the state to acknowlegde that worship is due to something that does not exist.

234

234 wrote: »

Agree on the referendum, also on the contradictions. Much of 44 could be removed without any harm. However, taking 44.1 on it's own it's logically impossible for the state to acknowlegde that worship is due to something that does not exist.

Since when did a lack of logic ever stop the State from doing anything?

Anyone want to make this worse and bring in the Irish version of the Constitution?

Fred Cohen

Deleted User wrote: »

1. The Church is His agent and therefore not responsible for God's actions while the converse is not the case.

Could it not be argued, that as servants of God they engaged in a joint exercise and are therefore equally liable ?

Deleted User wrote: »

2. As a sovereign He can claim immunity from prosecution. His claimed kingdom being heaven and earth.

Easily overcome, if his "kingdom" is heaven and earth, people sue the state everyday.

Deleted User wrote: »

3. It would be difficult to get anyone to accept service on His behalf and a summons server may be unwilling to take the obvious step to get His attention.

To use the idiom "God may be in the preamble but the Devil is in the details", searching "preamble" in google maps turns up an address in Pittsburg at 6605 Church Ave (I kid you not), so the papers can be served there. Besides God being omnipotent (S)He can hardly deny knowledge of the proceedings.

Class post by the way, love it.

Fred Cohen

Fred Cohen wrote: »

Could it not be argued, that as servants of God they engaged in a joint exercise and are therefore equally liable ?

Prove God was a complicit partner. He gave us free will after all.

Fred Cohen wrote: »

Easily overcome, if his "kingdom" is heaven and earth, people sue the state everyday.

Suing in His personal capacity, not as Head of State.

Fred Cohen wrote: »

To use the idiom "God may be in the preamble but the Devil is in the details", searching "preamble" in google maps turns up an address in Pittsburg at 6605 Church Ave (I kid you not), so the papers can be served there. Besides God being omnipotent (S)He can hardly deny knowledge of the proceedings.

I am unsure of the Court's position with regard to service outside the plane of existence but I would imagine that idioms would be inadmissible as evidence of current whereabouts.



On a side note: Would the Holy Trinity be jointly and severally liable?

234

Deleted User wrote: »

Anyone want to make this worse and bring in the Irish version of the Constitution?

Thought you would never ask!
Well, based on my Leaving Cert Irish there is almost no difference.

Zambia

Actually this is a legal discussion as opposed to the usual

1: Help
2: I f&&ked up
3: What is going to happen to me
4: Please dont judge me just tell me some legal loophole to get me out of this mess.

234

Zambia wrote: »

Actually this is a legal discussion as opposed to the usual

1: Help
2: I f&&ked up
3: What is going to happen to me
4: Please dont judge me just tell me some legal loophole to get me out of this mess.

Agreed. On a tangenital note I think I once saw an artilce analysing the trial of Jesus from a conflict of laws point of view. Seems this grounds has been broken before!

Fred Cohen

Deleted User wrote: »

Prove God was a complicit partner. He gave us free will after all.

Does this not make all church personnel more culpable as they willingly engaged with His projects with the full knowledge of His previous actions.

Deleted User wrote: »

Suing in His personal capacity, not as Head of State.

Not sure what you mean by this, can you elaborate?

Deleted User wrote: »

I am unsure of the Court's position with regard to service outside the plane of existence but I would imagine that idioms would be inadmissible as evidence of current whereabouts.

But God is everywhere.

Deleted User wrote: »

On a side note: Would the Holy Trinity be jointly and severally liable?

Again we get back to the joint enterprise argument.

234 wrote: »

Agreed. On a tangenital note I think I once saw an artilce analysing the trial of Jesus from a conflict of laws point of view. Seems this grounds has been broken before!

Are you claiming double jeopardy applies.

Also in the Noah storey, as God sent the flood, can He be charged with criminal damage?

234

No, I said absolutely nothing about double jepordy, I just noted an article on a slightly similar topic. Also, joint and several liability is not the same as joint enterprise.

Fred Cohen

234 wrote: »

No, I said absolutely nothing about double jepordy, I just noted an article on a slightly similar topic..

Fair enough, I just wanted to make the point that Jesus has faced trial on this charge already, so therefore could not be reprocicuted.

234 wrote: »

Also, joint and several liability is not the same as joint enterprise.

Agreed, but does not the fact that God is the 3 in 1, nullify this question of who is liable.

234

The conflict of laws issue arose when choosing between Roman and Judean law, in this partially hypothetical scenario. Joint and several liability is not a defence and has nothing to do with defences.