Legal Antics

A reasonable defense strategy, no?

God prevails. For now.

As reported in this AP article, last year Nebraska Senator Ernie Chambers filed the lawsuit last year seeking a permanent injunction against God, and alleged that God made terroristic threats against the senator and his constituents and inspired fear and caused "widespread death, destruction and terrorization of millions upon millions of the Earth's inhabitants."

Earlier last week, the lawsuit was dismissed on jurisdictional grounds.  The court held that:

Given that this court finds that there can never be service effectuated on the named defendant this action will be dismissed with prejudice...

While at first glance it appears to be a sound decision, Senator Chambers raised a good point when he criticized the decision, asserting that:

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 always thought the idea of omnipotence sounded really awesome.  Now, I'm not so sure.

God prevails. For now.

As reported in this AP article, last year Nebraska Senator Ernie Chambers filed the lawsuit last year seeking a permanent injunction against God, and alleged that God made terroristic threats against the senator and his constituents and inspired fear and caused "widespread death, destruction and terrorization of millions upon millions of the Earth's inhabitants."

Earlier last week, the lawsuit was dismissed on jurisdictional grounds.  The court held that:

Given that this court finds that there can never be service effectuated on the named defendant this action will be dismissed with prejudice...

While at first glance it appears to be a sound decision, Senator Chambers raised a good point when he criticized the decision, asserting that:

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 always thought the idea of omnipotence sounded really awesome.  Now, I'm not so sure.

Not that there's anything wrong with quoting Seinfeld

Who says judges don't have a sense of humor?  Certainly not this blogger!

Case in point, the Maryland Court of Appeals recently quoted the Seinfeld episode where Jerry returns a wig out of spite in a footnote in an opinion:

Clerk: I don't think you can return an item for spite.

Jerry: What do you mean?

Clerk: Well, if there was some problem with the garment. If it were unsatisfactory in some way, then we could do it for you, but I'm afraid spite doesn't fit into any of our conditions for a refund.

Hat tip: Legal Profession Blog.

Free legal advice

Things not to say during a traffic stop:

“ I was smoking, I was smoking marijuana. It's right here in my ashtray. I just picked up an eighth, here it is. I smoked a bowl's worth. I was just smoking the last hit of the bowl. I have been smoking for the last half hour. There may be something in the trunk. Is this test only for marijuana because I might not want to take the urine test if they are testing for other drugs.”

People v. El-Khawam, 20 Misc.3d 1103(A) (N.Y.Dist.Ct. Jun 16, 2008).

Me thinks the judge is a bit bored.

Via Above the Law comes this fairy tale of a case, Vitaich v. City of Chicago, No. 94 C 692, 1995 U.S. Dist LEXIS 11804, at * 3-4 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 16, 1995).  A snippet for your reading enjoyment:

Even though plaintiffs have filed a total of three complaints, the essential facts do not vary. They allege the following: plaintiffs had been throwing down a few cool ones at a neighborhood watering hole euphemistically named, "The Great Beer Palace." Around the witching hour our two princes crossed the threshold of the establishment into the moonless night. The princes and the palace's draughtsman exchanged vulgar calumnies as they left. Of a sudden, the princes were set upon by the three of the Dreaded Wearers of the Blue [i.e., police officers] known commonly as Cole, Ignowski, and Ogliore. The princes suffered unmentionable tortures at the hands of these rabid beasts. Prince Vitaich attempted to escape on his trusty steed "Harley" but a masked Blue Wearer felled the steed, trapping Sir Vitaich (of Virginia) under it and causing him great pain and anguish. The princes shouted for a paladin or a shire reeve to aide them in their distress, but what great irony upon their discovery that the very Wearers of the Blue were the self-same Defenders of Justice they had summoned, like an invocation gone awry. Oh cruel fate. "We are the defenders of the land of stinking onions whom you seek!" they cried. With that, they vanished into the night, their laughter echoing through the deserted appia on the Avenue of Lincoln. By such a tortuous troubled path have come our wounded princes to this High Court by sealed writ, calling the Wearers of the Blue and the hamlet that gives them succor to task for invading the rights set down by the Tapestry of Edicts known as the Constitution. (citations omitted).

How about "kiss my grits"?

Tip o' the day--If you happen to live in South Carolina and a judge just revoked your probation, adding the following after your John Hancock on the judge's order is probably not a great idea:  "Kiss my ass."

And, that's not just my opinion, it's the opinion of the South Carolina Court of Appeals.

Hat tip:  Lowering the Bar.

Iggidity, wiggity--whatever.

Via Lowering the Bar, this rather funny description of a California appellate court getting jiggy wid it--or something like that:

While the facts of the underlying opinion in U.S. v. Freeman aren't especially comical -- it was an appeal from a conviction and sentence on drug-conspiracy charges -- it does have some educational value.  The question was whether the district court had properly allowed the government's expert witness to testify "regarding the meaning of encoded drug language."  In part, this involved the witness's translation of certain terms that are "part of the jargon commonly used by drug traffickers." But, possibly since much of this jargon is not commonly used by Ninth Circuit judges and clerks (presumably), the opinion had to be amended in August to make the following change:

Wiggity_4 Please make a note of it to avoid confusing "iggidy" with "wiggity" in your future briefing. Link: Legal Pad (Cal Law)

Great analysis, counselo...zzzzz

Via Legal Reader comes this great quote from a recent case out of the California Court of Appeals, American Guarantee and Liability Ins. Co. v. ADP Marshall, Inc. (CA4/2, Dec. 4, 2007) No. E041182 (Richli, J.):

Appellate counsel for both sides have done an outstanding job, resulting in briefs that have been more than ordinarily helpful to the court. The fact remains that the issues are far from enthralling; they demand an almost microscopic examination of dry, lengthy contract documents. As we embark on the resolution of these issues, then, we think it only fair to suggest that the reader might want to be sitting in a comfortable chair, with a cup of strong coffee nearby.  (Emphasis added).

The Simpson's hit the big time.

It's what every cartoon aspires to:  being referenced in a court opinion.  From this Sixth circuit opinion issued last week the following footnote can be found:

Homer Simpson talking to God: “Here’s the deal: you freeze everything as it is, and I won’t ask for anything more. If that is OK, please give me absolutely no sign. [no response] OK, deal. In gratitude, I present you this offering of cookies and milk. If you want me to eat them for you, please give me no sign. [no response] Thy will be done.” The Simpsons: And Maggie Makes Three (Fox television broadcast, Jan. 22, 1995).

Hat tip:  Above the Law.

 

And, if you find the concept of the Simpsons and the law to be inordinately fascinating, check out The Law of the Simpsons, brought to you by the Bench & Bar of Minnesota.