God was sued. Here's the news article...
http://www.ketv.com/news/14133442/detail.html
2007-09-17 23:31:27 · 18 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
God doesn't require a subpoena. Since he's omnipresent, the court can assume He's been requested to "appear" in court to answer the summons.
2007-09-17 23:40:12 · update #1
If He fails to "appear" (as of course He would since He doesn't exist) there would be a summary judgement.
2007-09-17 23:41:03 · update #2
God is everywhere, so He definately show up for his trial date.
2007-09-18 00:44:49 · update #3
Not guilty by reason of insanity.
2007-09-17 23:36:11 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
if you want a realistic response,
the filing of the suite was in nature, an act of rebellion toward God as creator, and LORD.
God is righteous by his nature. It is fundamentally true that this case has no merit. The earth and everything on it is the LORD's and you have no rights before God, to question, to accuse or to find fault.
The beauty of it is that a judge can go forward and have the same binding action as dismisal. The LORD will do what he sees fit.
And all of us will someday stand before him,
you might find a lawyer who could put that in better legal form, but not a better presentation.
2007-09-17 23:58:50 · answer #2 · answered by magnetic_azimuth 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
In an opposed justice equipment, that's needed for the two the crown (or government) to have criminal representation of their accusation, and for the defendant to be waiting to take care of themselves. look previous the case by case undertaking, and rather ask, what would this is if the accusation on my own advance into sufficient to reformatory you? human beings could (and did) destroy one yet another with fake accusations purely before the Magna Carta whilst this style of element could happen. A defence criminal professional performs a useful provider to society. - they save the prosecution trouble-free. understanding they could face a criminal opponent, they recommendations their playstation and Qs, assemble their data actual, and don't misinform the decide, because of the fact something they say can and could be challenged. - they do no longer purely take care of the in charge - maximum many times, with the in charge they propose them of the rights they hold, and grant the expensive societal provider of speaking the defendant into taking a plea, saving the two the crown and the sufferers materials and grief. - They do take care of the harmless: in case you have been harmless and yet accused of against the regulation, i'd lay out solid money in Vegas you will have not any problems with a Christian protection criminal professional! confident each and every now and then, being a tribulation criminal professional means having to take a case the place the guy you're protecting is probably no longer what he's informed you he's, or maybe worse, you may suspect it to be so. yet even you will be incorrect! right here in Canada, we've had maximum of circumstances of "useful element" defendants who later became out to be thoroughly harmless, which includes David Milgaard. "harmless til shown in charge" isn't a slogan, and this is no longer a political assertion. that's a elementary reality and applicable of our judicial equipment, and it would propose no longer something devoid of those prepared to place themselves in provider of it.
2016-10-04 22:34:52 · answer #3 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I wouldn't defend him unless paid in advance and appointed by the court.
If paid by someone to do so, my first defense would be improper service...was the defendant properly served with the complaint? The court cannot assume proper service; it must be affirmatively proven.
Failing that, I would then challenge the court's jurisdiction over the defendant.
Failing THAT, I would simply advise my client to defy the injunction due to the court's inability to enforce it.
2007-09-17 23:40:20 · answer #4 · answered by Bill 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
He would answer, "the universe develops in many infinite ways we cannot understand or ever will understand and therefore, the Plaintiff has no case simply because he/she has not the ability, nor ever will have the ability to look into the mind of God.
2007-09-17 23:47:41 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I wouldn't be his lawyer... how the hell do I get him to court in the first place??? If I remember correctly, all parties have to be present in the courtroom when it begins (though you can get an allowance to be absent due to medical problems/etc - but even then, it would be hard to say "God's sick today Your Honor... We may have to put Him in the hospital")
2007-09-18 00:41:01 · answer #6 · answered by River 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Settle out of court to avoid a class action suit.
2007-09-17 23:37:47 · answer #7 · answered by shaun1018 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well I would try to prove it was one of the other thousands of gods. When they could prove it wasn't them and they they didn't exist..conclusively in a court of law....then we would have a case on our hands...until then..."If the glove doesn't fit...you must acquit.
2007-09-17 23:38:34 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
God is the greatest force in this universe..
so,why would He need any defense for Himself?
2007-09-17 23:57:30 · answer #9 · answered by Amirul 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
When you find the source of the gift of Life that you possess, You will be sued! and insanity defense will be thrown out!
2007-09-17 23:38:05 · answer #10 · answered by Premaholic 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think God would defend himself, like Saddam and Milosevic did.
2007-09-18 02:05:04 · answer #11 · answered by Brendan G 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋