How to Sue God
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 15 фев 2022
- ⚖️ Do you need a great lawyer? I can help! legaleagle.link/eagleteam ⚖️
When lawyers sue God, it's a real David and Goliath battle.
📚 Get a free trial of Audible! legaleagle.link/audible
Welcome back to LegalEagle. The most avian legal analysis on the internets.
🚀 Watch my next video early & ad-free on Nebula! legaleagle.link/watchnebula
👔 Suits by Indochino! legaleagle.link/indochino
GOT A VIDEO IDEA? TELL ME!
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
Send me an email: devin@legaleagle.show
MY COURSES
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
Interested in LAW SCHOOL? Get my guide to law school! legaleagle.link/lawguide
Need help with COPYRIGHT? I built a course just for you! legaleagle.link/copyrightcourse
SOCIAL MEDIA & DISCUSSIONS
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
Twitter: legaleagle.link/twitter
Facebook: legaleagle.link/facebook
Tik Tok: legaleagle.link/tiktok
Instagram: legaleagle.link/instagram
Reddit: legaleagle.link/reddit
Podcast: legaleagle.link/podcast
OnlyFans legaleagle.link/onlyfans
Patreon legaleagle.link/patreon
BUSINESS INQUIRIES
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
Please email my agent & manager at legaleagle@standard.tv
LEGAL-ISH DISCLAIMER
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
Sorry, occupational hazard: This is not legal advice, nor can I give you legal advice. I AM NOT YOUR LAWYER. Sorry! Everything here is for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Nothing here should be construed to form an attorney-client relationship. Also, some of the links in this post may be affiliate links, meaning, at no cost to you, I will earn a small commission if you click through and make a purchase. But if you click, it really helps me make more of these videos! All non-licensed clips used for fair use commentary, criticism, and educational purposes. See Hosseinzadeh v. Klein, 276 F.Supp.3d 34 (S.D.N.Y. 2017); Equals Three, LLC v. Jukin Media, Inc., 139 F. Supp. 3d 1094 (C.D. Cal. 2015).
Special thanks:
Stock video and imagery provided by Getty Images
Music provided by Epidemic Sound
Short links by pixelme.me (pxle.me/eagle)
🦅 Any crazy legal stories I should cover?
📚 Get a free trial of Audible! legaleagle.link/audible
Can I sue audible :D
Billy Connolly was in a film of that name... Extremely funny! 😉
Could you review Hal's trial on the TV show Malcolm in the Middle? It is on the episodes Reese Joins the Army: Part 1-2. Would Hal's defense be admitted under the rules of evidence?!?
I'm not sure if you want to talk about international issue, but can you do a video of all the laws broken with the Canadian truck anti vaccine convo, and by blocking the boarder is it breaking some American laws? Love your channel
Got any legal stories where persons tried to sue entire countries?
"God continues to evade US law enforcement," is a sentence I didn't know I needed. Got an almost Douglas Adams feel to it.
Almost Pratchett/Gaiman was my first thought but you're totally right xD
I agree. My birthday is Towel Day, by the way. My biodad was reading HHGTTG to my mom in hospital while she was in labor with me. Pratchett is awesome too.
Better put some sanctions on God himself
land of the fee
@@Listrynne That's a conversation starter if I ever heard one.
"Satan is a foreign prince and can claim sovereign immunity"
People actually going with this is hilarious
especially since AFAIK the idea that Satan rules in Hell is Milton, not Biblical.
On the other hand you could claim him to be a vassal of any state with a population of more than 1, after all, Hell is other people.
@@RAFMnBgaming I think he's in California right now for spring break.
@@LadyOnikara Last I heard, he owns a nightclub in LA.
@@torgranael “Insert, “I understood that reference” meme here” 😂
"Defendent is omnipresent therefore in this county" is just legal genius
Defendant is omniscient and therefore aware of this notice. 😂
Yeah, but He has the ultimate sovereign immunity.
@@Uryvichkits a joke
@Xeno The Strange Hell is the full wrath of God.
@Xeno The Strange Are you implying we’re not responsible for our sins?
The judge in that first case was absolutely just having a laugh, there's no way that much detail was actually needed to reject the case
Oh, it was definitely necessary, but not for the one dismissal. Any ruling entered by a court, in a case that includes issues not previously adjudicated elsewhere, sets a legal precedent that applies to all future cases. He was leaving future litigants less room to file similar cases.
People often cite this suit for reasons why lawsuits are rejected to this day, mostly because it is hilarious, but also because it cites a number of real issues all conveniently in a single suit.
"How to Sue God"
It has finally happened. Legal Eagle has become too powerful
I mean he did say he works for satan sooooooo...
@@blackslime_5408 I'm not sure what I expected from a lawyer
Now lets see legal eagle vs phoniex right
“He’s Too Dangerous To Be Kept Alive!”
@@BlindCoyoteGod but also he works for the devil, so can he be killed?
Fun fact: Satan originally meant 'prosecutor' in ancient Hebrew. So lawyers working for Satan isn't even that far fetched.
Or opposer. One that lays out the reasons why an action may be wrong.
So they're not working FOR Satan, they ARE Satan. At least prosecutors are.
@@JackgarPrime Would that make defending attorneys devil's advocates? 🤔
My understanding is that "Satan" was 'adversary'.
Fun fact: Satan is just 1 version of 1 of many names given to him over time...
List of names for The Devil:
(feel free to at to this list if you can find more)
Devil
Satan/Satanael/Shaitan/Al-Shaitan/Satanas
Azazel
Heylel/Lucifer
Yetzer Hara
Mastema
Angra Mainyu
Samael
Baal Davar
Diablo/Diábolos
Beelzebub
Abaddon/Apollyon
ho Kantegor
Iblis/Kafir
Al-Hakam
Al-Aqabah
I just really like the fact that the one guy sued Satan *and his staff.* It just conjures such a humorous mental image of Satan having like some accountants and an HR guy and whatnot.
and some Indian IT man
Seeing as the Divine Comedy portrays Hell as a bureaucratic hellscape…not too far off
There is a full category of lesser demons (I think it's Solomonic magic?) that go into many, many things, so if he was familiar with that system, then calling them "staff" kinda fits.;
"HR" lol.
Satan: "Hey Greg, anything to report?"
Greg, the HR demon: "We've had 443,556 reports of poor human treatment in the past hour."
Satan: (clicks tongue) "I've gotta have a talk with those guys-if they can't break half a million by next week, I'm gonna have to start making changes around here."
@@somerandomtankist6069
"Hellscape" lol that's redundant
If I was the judge, I would totally grant the defendant his motions because Satan failed to appear in court.
Once the police are able to locate Satan, he can appropriately be held accountable for his actions.
Perhaps they can contract God, as he knows where Satan is.
We can also use the catholic church as the representative for God, and they definitely exist and can be sued.
Imagine the police trying to locate Satan & some `witness` telling them that Satan`s address is
``Lucifer mansion, street no. 666, Hell`` (I wish I knew enough about Christianity & Satan to actually make an address with funny references)
Unfortunately, as of the events of Isaiah 14:12, God has a restraining order against Lucifer, restricting him to the plane of Hell until further notice. For Mr. Morningstar to attend court, this would necessitate that he violate this order.
Although, it could prove fruitful to have one of God's subordinates attempt to acquire Satan. Mr. John Brown enlisted in the Army of the Lord on December 2nd, 1859, and has currently been in service for 162 years. If Mr. Brown could be contacted, he could potentially make a lawful arrest of the Prince of Darkness and bring him to court.
@@ob2kenobi388 A misread :( The restraining order says he cannot have an abode in heaven.
I remember hearing the story of a cult leader who tried to sue former members making a copy of his holy text only to find out that since the text was attributed to god he was only cassified as a scribe and not in control of the copyright
That's why L. Ron Hubbard trademarked all his quackery.
I find that hard to believe seeing as you cannot copyright ideas, ie. what you write. You can only copyright the text itself which is for sure not made by the god but rather by the so called scribe. I'd love for you to show the evidence to the contrary and prove me wrong.
@@anteshell You can definitely copyright written work. It's done all the time.
@@anteshell Sorry if I didn't make it clear but the cult leader originally claimed that the text that he wrote was dictated by god (because he was a prophet) so if he wanted to claim he wrote he would have to admit he made it up himself
Honestly i see text made by god as text that appears on a surface without requiring human interaction
The judge really had fun writing his response to the devil suit. It was probably the highlight of his week
The highlight of his career.
truly a devil's advocate.
Sounds like he was treating it as a fin legal thought experiment. And I appreciate his conclusions.
As a Douglas County resident, I can tell you, The Honorable Senator Ernie Chambers is one of the finest statesman to serve. He truly represented his constituents with grace & brilliance. Any 'stunts' had purpose. Mad Respect~
The court could have simply struck out the motion on the first grounds: the plaintiff failed to establish that the court had jurisdiction over God. I like that the judge had the sense of humour to find lower order reasons to reject the motion.
"God continues to evade American law enforcement." Laughed way too hard at that one.
Atheist-RUclipsr:
Some made videos very similar to this here, even covering the same Court-Case (like Sir Sic did),
but theres many others.
@@nenmaster5218 what RUclipsrs?
That judge must have been so happy to get a creative writing assignment after all those years.
Fellow Eagles,
heed my Words:
Theres a whole Kind of RUclips-Channel that covers all this funny stuff and all
the Questions about Religion you could ever have:
Atheist-RUclipsr.
Some made videos very similar to this here, even covering the same Court-Case (like Sir Sic did),
but theres many others. Belief It Or Not, Viced Rhino, Genetically Modified Sceptic, ect, ect.
Oh, and remember Hbomberguy? The guy who Legal Eagle did a Collab with once?
Here's the problem with the first case.
In the song, The Devil went "down" to Georgia, where "down" is used in the vernacular to mean 'Southward'.
While this does somewhat narrow down the possible locations of The Devil's home address to be somewhere North of the state of Georgia (other clues in the song preclude it meaning the country of Georgia), it leaves a lot of possibilities.
The case should have been postponed until The Devil could be located and properly served.
The Satan lawsuit strikes me as a creative form of social critique ("society is to blame") and the judge clearly took the time to write a clever response. As for the Senators suit, it shows the difficulty of educating the public regarding technical (and in this case, foundational) rules of process, such as déni de justice.
I was so happy to see Ernie Chambers mentioned here, since he’s the reason that Nebraska’s electoral college votes are still split, helping preserve minorities’ voting power in the state!
Dude sounds unbelievably based.
@@Frommerman I don't always agree with him, but I definitely respect him.
When I saw the video title, I knew Ernie would get a mention. He definitely likes to push buttons to get people to think.
How is it the almost platonic idea of a boring state got such a gool dude in its leadership? Good on ya nebraska
@@fntthesmth423 Malcom X was born in Omaha too, credit the city not the whole state lol trust me
Senator Ernest Chambers was a procedural genius. The Nebraska GOP passed Term Limits just to stop him from being elected again. However, it backfired when GOP Sen Tony Fulton was forced to retire due to term limits. The GOP repealed term limits and Ernest Chambers was voted right back in again.
Correction. In Nebraska you can get re-elected after you sit out for 4 years. Measure 415 was enacted to remove Ernie from the unicameral. He was out for 4 years then back in for 8 more. Measure 415 term limits is still state law. Thus his second term out.
@@jennifernebraska9728 I stand corrected, but will verify. Thank you.
@@ethelwulfmountbattenderoth2286 It was easy to verify. Jennifer is correct. You have to sit out for 4 years before running again after 2 terms. I am also liking the fact that this law was directly voted on & approved by citizens.
What I am questioning is why you immediately assumed this was a Republican plot that backfired without even doing a quick google search about this first? The story you invented is very "conspiracy" like. You have enough of the facts right to be credible, such as Ernest sitting out for 4 years and then being re-elected, but then you twisted them to fit a narrative. Why?
@@lll9107 because we love hearing stories that reinforce our preconceived beliefs, even if they’re negative. They short circuit our critical thinking and skepticism reflexes. It’s why flashy, simple fake news stories spread faster than the mundane, complicated truth.
@@sircrapalot9954 Yeah, it's not even repealed either. Still a law there. I just want to know where OP got this story from. I am actually interested to know the source of it.
I laughed so hard when his eyes went read as he said that lawyers work for the devil 😂
“The story so far:
In the beginning the Universe was created.
This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.”
-Douglas Adams
He and Sir Pratchett are up there as two of the funniest authors imo.
If an insurance company refuses to pay because there's a clause limiting or removing liability for injuries, damages, and losses caused by acts of God I would just say, "OK, cool. I'm an atheist so I don't believe in any gods therefore the clause is void." As you may have guessed, I'm not a lawyer.
It is a popular misconception, encouraged by deists, that atheists don't "believe" in a god or gods. That is not the case. The position of an atheist is that they refuse to believe in something unproven, i.e., without any verifiable evidence. That is not the same as "believing" something doesn't exist. "Belief" doesn't enter into the argument. As an atheist I eagerly await convincing proof of the existence of a god, any god will do.
@@avsystem3142 when you get some let me know
I do think even as a Christian acts of God are still Not counted for
@@avsystem3142 There probably will be no proof to deny nor approve of God's existence
But Its fine
Sometimes you need faith
Sometimes facts
The definition of an "act of God" is "an instance of uncontrollable natural forces in operation." Any natural event beyond human control could be an act of god.
I would remind the court that there are several "Houses of God" in Omaha with published addresses and designated agents, and that leaving a complaint with a competent adult at such an address could constitute effective service under the Nebraska Rules of Civil Procedure.
Pope's got a direct line, right? Should be able to invoice the Vatican for damages
@@Ahrpigi Not just the catholic pope, but all sorts of religious leaders claim to have the authority to speak for and with god, which means any of them should be able to serve as a proxy for the transfer.
@@neeneko Be a better use for all the tithes and Vatican gold than sitting on it
@@Ahrpigi They're spending all that gold on either restitution for molestation or hiding evidence of such crimes.
Problem is... which God are you suing? While your argument about the "house of God" being a valid residence is certainly a novel solution -- which house of God is the correct one? They aren't all the same God. The United States doesn't recognize any specific God as the "official" one true God and so it would be difficult to sue if you sue any of the Gods that don't actually exist (of course, none of them do). So if you're suing YOUR God, then that probably makes a bit of sense, since that's the God that YOU believe in... but if you're an atheist, you are suing a mythological creature... so you'd get about as far as suing a minotaur, leprechaun, or a Titan.
I think my favorite thing about these cases is hearing the judges reasonings for not taking the cases, especially the ones where they say it’s out of their jurisdiction.
I love Chambers' arguments about omnipresence. Truly masterful interpretation of the smallprint.
Ernie Chambers actually is one of the only reasons NE can split its electoral votes. If I recall he was the tie breaking vote to an amendment changing NE to a winner take all state a few years back. He's also a fierce advocate for his district, which is an extremely poor minority majority district. Good man.
I also live in Omaha, was genuinely surprised to hear Legal Eagle cover Ernie Chambers (and by extention, Nebraska) as long as he did. And also admittedly, Ernie Chambers is the only legislator I know and remembered from my time in school.
Yes. He did a lot of good work for the community.
I heard the first few words of “senator suing God” and braced myself for lunacy.. then was preceded to be told some of the funniest greatest legal arguments I’ve heard. That man is brilliant!
Ernie Chambers is a legendary badass.
Absolute hell of a guy, glad at least someone in our state is worth being proud of.
I like how the judge specified “natural or artificial” personhood. So, in theory, you could sign a deed over to an android one day.
Artificial probably referred to corporations.
@@NestedQuantifierHowever, as wording is essential in court cases, an android (or gynoid) could argue it.
This is a lot more light-hearted than I thought it would be since I saw the video title and immediately thought of the film/play “God On Trial” which was based on a story about Jews in Auschwitz putting God on trial because they felt he’d broken his half of the covenant. Anyway. I really enjoyed this video! Thank you.
OBJECTION: Gottlieb was ALMOST on the right track, he could have gotten what he wanted (No taxes and immunity from legal woes) if he had just registered his hippie commune as a church and claimed that the 'health code violations' were, in fact, core practices of his faith.
Good luck getting a response here..😂😂😂
Counter Note: That law is specifically for religions that were made before the mid 1800s. That law is only there for Amish settlements pretty much
A bot named "lol" with 215k subs copied your comment and was liked by LegalEagle
@@LeastSaneBRDMain There are definitely religions that were deemed to be tax exempt that started long after 1800s. Scientology was deemed to be a charitable religious association in 2017. and they have lots of properties, compounds, and businesses. They did spend years fighting to get that recognition though.
@@TheDilemma76 scientology is filled with people who already weren't doing their own taxes, so saying that is the same thing as saying Disney is a religion tbh.
I like that one judge that allowed for the future possibility of suing ‘artificial’ humans. Taking the robots to court.
I think artificial persons actually, in this case, refers to legal persons, AKA Corporations.
DUDE!!! I was thinking that too. I was like what a forward thinking legislation... but yeah it's probably for corporations. Though I'm sure if iRobot ever takes place they'll be glad that they had this in the books. :P
Please note that it was "person", not "human", leaving open the possibility for animal or extraterestrial personhood.
@@ChJuHu93 Does anything in the law specify “human”? Because if so, I have a whole bunch of utterly petty (currently) protests to wage.
@@ChJuHu93 US law already calls any noncitizen an alien
3:30 "...All these rules of civil procedure were written by people who are already working for the devil...lawyers."
He finally admits it!
As a Lincolnite, Ernie has been a lifelong hero! He was forced out of office by a new law passed on term limits that targeted only him. He will be back!
Fun fact!: A theory of the origin of the term Satan, which more literally translates as “opposer”, is that the character originated not as a specific figure but as a title. What was the role of the figure (usually an angel) signified by the title? That the character was fulfilling the role of a PROSECUTOR in a celestial debate/legal argument. Yes, lawyers are the devil even in heaven 😈
Actually I heard it translates to "Accuser". The original role of Satan was to accuse others for God to judge and pass judgement.
@@brianfox771 both work, “opposer” is a little more direct because the root in Hebrew, ש ט ן, is also used for a verb which is usually translated as “to oppose” but in context your choice is also just as good
@@brianfox771 Fellow Eagles,
heed my Words:
Theres a whole Kind of RUclips-Channel that covers all this funny stuff and all
the Questions about Religion you could ever have:
Atheist-RUclipsr.
Some made videos very similar to this here, even covering the same Court-Case (like Sir Sic did),
but theres many others.
Belief It Or Not, Viced Rhino, Genetically Modified Sceptic, ect, ect.
It really is his role in the Book of Job, where he (Satan) brings a case against Job. The judge (God) allows him to take Job's property and bodily comfort. The rest of the book is Job appealing his case, which is ultimately successful, but only after the judge chews him out for being an insufferable whiner.
Reminds me of the film, "The Man Who Sued God", starring Billy Connolly, about a lawyer who sues the Catholic Church as God's representatives because an insurance company refused to pay out due to an Act of God. I say someone should actually do that to highlight the absurdity of the abused Act of God escape clause.
Isn't rare crazy things the reason we pay for insurance in the first place
Thought of this as soon as I saw the title :)
Act of God is just the name and has an actual definition that has nothing to do with the supernatural. So, in truth, the insurance companies don't use acts of divine beings as a basis for anything. They just use the name.
@@anthonybowman3423 They should come up with a better name. Like "natural disasters" then people could be upset about not being covered for the thing that they bought insurance for.
@@anthonybowman3423 Yes, they actually addressed that in the movie really well. It ended with Billy playfully suggesting that the various religious representatives sue the insurance companies for violating their copyright.
That lawsuit against the devil must have been a fun thought exercise for everyone involved
1:13, plot twist: He/She was just suing a guy named satan.
I lived in NE a couple of decades ago, and Senator Chambers was famous even back then. He was always fighting for justice and _always_ f'in with the conservative party. I love to hear that he was a thorn in the unicameral's side for 46 years.
Said conservatives term limited themselves just to get rid of him. And he still kept coming back after taking a legally-mandated term off.
@@Balmung60 I believe it, lol.
As my friend from TX would say, those poor lil' titty babies. Shootin' themselves in the foot just to avoid being challenged in such a spectacular fashion 😂
@@Balmung60 he do a lil trolling
_"Long, long ago, God created the Universe. This has been widely regarded as a bad idea and made alot of people very angy..."_
Your Ad where you list legal terms is wonderful. It is the first full ad I have watched intentionally all the way through. Keep it up!
This lends a whole new meaning to the term, "devil's advocate."
Noah: God, you can't just destroy my house, cover the whole earth with water, and murder the entire human population. I'm gonna sue.
God: Well, considering all of the courts are underwater...
Since it was a punishment for sin, killing the majority of the human population was no more murder than if a career criminal received the electric chair.
@@rokeYouuer I doubt the entire human race was given a “trial by peers”. Pretty sure the flood was an unprecedented act of vigilantism by a powerful being acting alone.
@@rokeYouuer thank you for reaffirming my lifelong commitment as a practicing anti-theist by attempting to justify genocide by a fictional, omnipotent fascist with a genital mutilation fixation.
@@alfrede.neuman9082 practicing anti-theist?
what does this "practicing" look like?
@@alfrede.neuman9082 Best of luck to you. For your benefit, I hope you're right, but for my benefit, I know you're wrong.
When dealing with omnipresent entities, serving them is quite easy. All you have to do is create the documents and they have been served.
Seriously. Claiming he cannot be served is _directly_ claiming he's not omnipresent _or_ omniscient.
With omniscient, you do not even have to do that. They already know what you want to do.
@@FriedrichHerschel God is supposed to be both, so...
Love that the US government admits God doesn't exist on one hand while handing other corporations tax breaks and legal excuses on the other over God. (religions are tax exempt and insurance doesn't have to cover 'acts of God')
This country is a pile of hypocrisy on every single level if you look deep enough.
@@ashkebora7262 You only have to look as deep as a damp napkin.
@@Genevieve1023 Oh yes, I mostly meant the deep looking in order to find it "on every single level".
*Everyone* understands and admits that humans are fallible and times change, and that the Constitution and laws can be changed and are imperfect ... but then so many treat the Constitution or law as if it's Gospel and _must_ be adhered to _as written,_ and cannot change. That it's perfect as is.
Nationalism and political conservatism _are_ hypocrisy for the proposed "American Values" of the US, and what has been running rampant since the beginning, let alone recently?
This may be my favorite video on this channel. Both informative and hilarious, thank you.
Interesting analysis video! Thanks for uploading!
I don't know, if oaths in court include (even optionally) the phrase "So Help Me God", doesn't that mean that at least people using that phrase are convinced that their god is with them in the courtroom? Seems like that would mean their deity must be aware of service of legal issues, otherwise it's not aware of the oath either, which would mean it's useless in compelling true testimony for those who use the oath as a standard for their truth telling... seems like that could be used as a basis for appeal somehow.
If I ever wind up in court I will refuse to give that oath as I believe God is a lie
@@quincyking010 as is your right.
@@quincyking010 afaik you can be sworn in on any object that you request as the swear is the main point. In the past several people opted for different holy texts or the constitution.
@@quincyking010 When I did jury duty (in Australia) we had this "Do you solemnly and sincerely declare and affirm that you will give a true verdict according to the evidence? If so, please say “I do”." for those of us who didn't do the god thing (about half).
@@quincyking010 For your benefit, I hope you're right. For my benefit, I hope you're wrong.
Wait, the dollar bill don't say "In God we trust"? That means that at lest the Treasury trust in him, so they acknowledge his/her existence. So if a federal department trust in him/her, the courts had no rights to negate the non-existence of God, don't they?
The federal government shouldn't be putting out statements of theology. Having "In god we trust" on currency should be be viewed just as ridiculous as "In Athena, Zeus, and Poseidon we trust", "In Baal we trust", "we love Shiva", "All hail Plutus" or "all gods are fake".
The First Amendment should bar the federal government from asserting statements of theology.
@@stephenJpollei Totally agree.
No, the god in question is clearly the almighty dollar.
The dollar bill didn't used to say that at all actually. A used to say "e pluribus unum" which means "out of many, one."
It is far more impactful, and stands for what the true American ideology is supposed to be before it was usurped by Christian fundamentalism
@@stephenJpollei "One nation under god" is what all US citizens pledge allegiance to ;p
"Steal this look: $0"
I laughed very loudly at that.
Just what i needed, thanks mate
Would love to see you talk about the movie "The Man Who Sued God". I think it would make for an interesting video.
An indian movie called OMG- OH MY GOD does exactly that
I've asked this before I love this movie
YES!!
The lord will laugh and have them in derision!
@@angloaust1575 You can’t go to a hell you don’t believe in 💁🏻♂️
Everyone is always on about how to kill God, but here you are asking the question no one was brave enough too: how to sue God.
Always interesting, thanks.
0:16 We all know that God is actually Aqua, the goddess of party tricks.
As it always is with lawyers, the devil is in the details.
The details are north of Georgia?
I'd like to see a lawyer's take on "Frank vs. God" (2014). It follows a man who lost everything because of a freak storm, and the insurance claims were rejected due to being an "act of God". Since the insurance companies regarded this as God's fault, he filed suit against God, naming the leaders of all local houses of worship as co-defendants.
Favorite video you've done.... ever! Thanks for a laugh on break from the studio
Really glad you mentioned the reason behind Ernie Chambers' lawsuit. There was a lot of rhetoric about "frivolous lawsuits" here in Nebraska at the time.
Funnily enough, in the game GTA IV there is a lawyer who tried to sue god because it rained on some festivities that he was attending.
And the game came out in 2008 just a year after Ernie Chambers tried to sue god so I think there's a definite reference to that😀
05:20 But wait, isnt there a house of God in basically every US settlement? Just deliver the case to the nearest one, and his housekeeper can receive it in his stead.
I could claim to own the "house of Shaq" right now, but unless Shaq claims the home himself, serving me is not the same as serving him. And God has never legally registered any of these houses as his residence.
@@anthonybowman3423 So what you're saying is He is a squatter.
@@JackgarPrime He's saying y'all aren't very bright on top of being desperate for arguments.
He's not wrong, either.
@@thealgerian3285 What the hell does an omnipresent squatter have to do with if someone has arguments?
I love your channel you’re awesome but this video tops everything you’ve done so far!!!
One reason I remember hearing was that either the court marshals or law enforcement or whoever "....lacked the necessary means and capabilities to compel the named defendant to appear before the court." Brilliant way to acknowledge the inability to actually sue (or prosecute? In this case?) God while sidestepping making an official recognition of existence or nature thereof
I was re-watching the movie “12 Angry Men” and I remembered something Justice Sonia Sotomayor said to some law students: “as a lower-court judge, she would sometimes instruct juries to not follow the film's example, because most of the jurors' conclusions are based on speculation, not fact.” From the Wikipedia article on the movie “Sotomayor noted that events such as Juror 8 entering a similar knife into the proceeding; performing outside research into the case matter in the first place; and ultimately the jury as a whole making broad, wide-ranging assumptions far beyond the scope of reasonable doubt (such as the inferences regarding the woman wearing glasses) would not be allowed in a real-life jury situation, and would in fact have yielded a mistrial (assuming, of course, that applicable law permitted the content of jury deliberations to be revealed).”
My question is, if I am on a jury can I only consider what is presented in court or put it another way, do I have to be as dumb as the lawyers arguing the case?
You can think whatever you want, just don't put it on the record. Also, juries are specifically selected so that they don't have any information or outside sources or news coverage about the case, which is why selecting juries for high profile cases well covered by the media is so difficult: you are only supposed to select people who claim not to have heard anything about the case before they get on the jury. You are also not supposed to put any experts in the field covered in the case on the jury. You ultimately are supposed to get an "average, unbiased peer of the accused" with no more knowledge than an "average person" as jury members. Real life is messy though, so it's not realistic for the jury to get ALL relevant information about the case for the first time in court, even though that's the theory.
@@blumoogle2901 OK. To flesh this out a bit more, if I was on the jury in “My Cousin Vinny” and had the specialized knowledge that Marisa Tomei had (and it was not presented at the trial). Could I just explain to the rest of the jurors that they can’t be guilty because the tire tracks were not made by their car?
@@patrickkillian1072 You can, I guess, but they were supposed to interview you and not put you on the jury.
@@blumoogle2901 I'm not trying to be a pain here but I think that is inevitable that someone has specific knowledge that is pertinent to a trial. In my example the trial was about a murder not (in general) about automobiles. Why would anyone think ask me about it? In my case I have a good deal of specific knowledge (that I can prove) that no one would ever know unless I was asked some very specific questions. If I was was deliberating with a jury and that information would decide a case wouldn't it be unethical on my part to not share the information with the jury?
@@blumoogle2901 I've had to go through voir dire as part of jury selection. The pool was so big I didn't get to the point of being vetted as a potential juror by either side, but I did watch the kinds of questions asked. They were incredibly generalized even within the confines of the case. Asking about the expertise to the point of knowing about tire tracks I would think is a highly unlikely question, and I'm not sure they'd ask about general car expertise either.
"Deed his property to god and make it his problem." LMFAO
Well done. This is the first legal eagle video where I was LMAO throughout the whole video! 🤣😂
Great editing. I really like the halo effect and the attention to details, such as the illumination of the hair from the halo
I think you should watch the Hindi movie, "Oh My God!", which actually deals with a person suing God to claim damages to his property because of an earthquake.
preacher: this is God's house
lawyer: well ackchually...
Its the Church's or the Precher's house under the Law, while Churches are representatives of God that doesn't mean that God has stake in the property God is basically above the law to be prosecuted or have Mortal laws apply to Him if your a believer, if not its just that he doesn't exist.
I get the feeling the judge in the first case was having a lot of fun with that dismissal. It sounds like they enjoyed the chance to play around with the idea and find every hole in it they could.
It's because of you that I now understand the phrase "dismissed with prejudice".
Thank you.
Good luck finding God to serve them. I understand they live in (and never leave) a very exclusive gated community that keeps all process servers out. Or, at least, once they go in they never come back out to confirm that they have successfully served god papers.
The red eyes effect when saying "lawyer" was brilliant. Cheers from Canada.
I was waiting for the lawyers are employed by the devil joke and I'm so glad you delivered
So awesome to see Bernie Chambers referenced. I'm from Lincoln, Nebraska, where he worked, and he was always known as a character; bringing up issues others overlooked.
Can you do a video on "Acts of God" and crazy ways insurance companies got out of lawsuits or claims using that claim? It always seems to me that "acts of God " is exactly why I have insurance
No mention of the comedy movie "The Man who sued God"? Or will we be getting a seperate "Lawyer Reacts to" video about it?
Come for the legal analysis
Stay for the seamless segue into the sponser.
This was one of the most entertaining legal eagle videos. 👏🏿👏🏿👏🏿👏🏿
8:40 If we manage to create sentient AI in the next few decades I wonder if you could use the "artificial person" part as a loophole. Create a sentient AI that enjoys being in debt and paying fines, then give it ownership of the property. I guess it'd depend on sentient AI being considered people by the law first.
The term "artificial person" probably refers to corporations, who, due to SCOTUS, are considered "persons" under U.S. law.
@@avsystem3142 I wouldn't say "due to SCOTUS" per se. As far as I know, and with some cursory reading to check, corporate personhood was generally taken as a common law idea that would, eventually, be affirmed by SCOTUS, but existed as a practiced legal concept long before the US did.
@@avsystem3142 But this is one of those not-altogether-thought-out legal statements that may result in new definitions in the future. I for one welcome our robot overlords.
@@vituperation No, corporate personhood was established as a matter of U.S. law by the SCOTUS in Santa Clara County vs. Southern Pacific Railroad Company ,118 US 394 (1886).
The definition of a "natural person" could arguably be expanded by a court upon demonstration of full humanlike sentience by an AI. Artificial persons are non-human entities granted personhood as a legal fiction by operation of law. A sentient robot or AI is arguably just a person, a "human being" under the vague definition of such a thing, with natural rights. A court case might be needed to sort that out, but a non-organic being isn't an "artificial person" under the legal understanding of that term.
Pretty sure that, without a jury of his peers, you're going to end up with a mistrial.
Does that hold true with civil cases like these? I didn't think a jury of peers was common there. Besides, would you want Loki on your jury?
Hello Legal Eagle! I'm a french law student in third year and I'm keen on studying the American jurisprudence. However, I have an english exam about the New York Times versus Sullivan Supreme Court case in 2 weeks. Could it be possible for you to explain me the case and the impact of it quickly with a lawyer perspective ? that would be awesome. Thanks anyway for your good work, you're giving me courage !!! :D
----CORRECTION----
I've found a video where you explain perfectly the case, in the Hillary Clinton and Tusli Gabbard case. Many thanks to you, that's much clearer to my mind. That's so interesting to see the difference of regime between Defamation in the US and in France.
Compared law is really the most interesting ;) Merci !!!
The second "steal his look" had me rolling. This video was fantastic!!
I find it comforting when law experts can put their faith aside and focus on the facts/legal procedures to settle a case.
I love stuff like this because of the interesting ways it tests the legal system. You find it in science and computer programming; it's not enough to just poke it with a stick, you have to poke it with all sorts of different things in order to really figure out how it works!
Hey legal eagle. Love your videos! I was just wondering if you could do a video about people who have sued their own parents.
I love the edit on that divine comedy painting it's so funny
This was a fantastic video idea! I'm in no way surprised people have attempted such things.
I was expecting to hear a little about the film "the man who sued God" starring Billy Connolly based on the true story
It's an Australian film.
Your best video so far. I laughed 'till my stomach hurt.
This is amazing 👏
"Hey God. Is there a place in hell for people who take you to court?"
"No."
"What about the lawyers who help them?"
"Straight to hell. To the boiler room of hell."
People should have just kept dueling instead of taking every problem to court.
when i need a break from studying organic chemistry, i turn to Devin's channel lol. Your content never disappoints!
I’ve never been someone to enjoy legal talk, or even legal dramas and entertainment. ( I do enjoy Better Call Saul, but not sure if it counts)
But I’ll be damned if I don’t enjoy the hell out of your videos. It never feels dry and textbook-y. Just very entertaining and stealthily educational. Been recommending you for some time now.
Ps: Love your suits.
"Senator Chambers is no stranger." You are becoming a rapper. 😂🤣 I always love your scripting.
if phoenix wright and shin megami tensei ever crossed over, sueing god would be the plot
In Season 7 Episode 13 of Seinfeld entitled ‘The Seven’, one of the plot lines sees Kramer and Elaine having a disagreement about a verbal contract. To solve the problem, they have mock mediation. I think you should watch it! Thanks!
This is absolutely amazing
That ‘Steal His Look’ joke was so good! 🤣
Great breakdown. Audible also has Max Gladstone's Three Parts Dead, a necromancer lawyer thriller about the probate case of a dead god whose church is being sued for theological mismanagement of estate's assets. If you're into lawsuits, deities, and magical courtroom battles :)
Nice recommendation! I'll look into it.
Well, the judges missed the obvious. Every preacher alive claims to be a representative of god, so serving ANY cleric effectively serves to the legal representative of god.
You should watch the film "The man who sued God". The British High Court ruled that a natural act was not an "act of God" as many insurance companies called it. This was to avoid payment.on insurance claims as the insurance excluded "acts of God". This is also the theme of the Australian film. Since the Roman Catholic church claims to represent God on earth they would be the defendants in Christian countries. Not sure how that would work with other countries religions.
Just the video title is amazing.