I'm not 100% positive, but I think 40 years ago was pre-Hearsay. :lol:

 

Yes, its was 5 years B.H. (Before Hearsay).

:laugh: Got to laugh. I think God does.

 

 

If this fool refuses to pray and belittles Christians as stated in the article - I'd say God doesn't find him funny at all.

 

I'm all for his point on frivelous lawsuits, but could this be the exact definition of using God's name in vein?

For some reason, I can't get the face of George Burns out of my mind.

 

Now THAT'S a great reference.

 

I can see the Senator's point, but I'd like to know more about the case to which he's responding. It says the judge in a sexual assault case banned the words "victim" and "rape" during the proceedings. If she lost, I can understand why she or her attorney would think that the use of those words may have helped, they're obviously heavily loaded.

 

But while we're at it, let's check in with someone from the other side:

United States v. Satan

 

Plaintiff "alleges that Satan has on numerous occasions caused plaintiff misery and unwarranted threats, against the will of the plaintiff, that Satan has placed deliberate obstacles in plaintiff's path and has caused plaintiff's downfall."

 

If anyone deserves to be sued, it's probably Satan.

On a completely side note, one that is aided by a glass of warm cognac, there is a legitimate question about whether we, as citizens, still enjoy the right to "trial by combat," or what was known at English Common Law as "trial by wager of battel."

 

Trial by combat was a method of resolving legal disputes in the Germanic peoples that was adopted in England following the invasion of William at Normandy. It was less-used in England following the Azzizes of Clarendon in 1166, when Henry II created the trial by jury, but remained a viable legal option for litigants all the way up to 1819, when Parliament abolished it. In 1818, the case of Ashford v. Thornton was going to be resolved by wager of battel at Newgate.

 

Well, of course, our Constitution (as well as the Virginia Constitution it was based upon) were drawn up in 1776, and "reserved to the citizenry all rights which existed at the common law of England."

 

Kentucky's Constitution was not enacted until 1891, but at Section 233 reserves all rights which existed to us under the Commonwealth of Virginia until repealed.

 

Since the trial by wager of battel was not abolished in England until 1819, and our Constitutions gave us rights before that date, do we not have an absolute right to a trial by wager of battel here in Kentucky? Can't I name a champion and provide him with a quarterstaff and have him meet my enemy on a field rather than in the courtroom, winner take all?

 

Seems like a quicker and less expensive alternative to some of the stuff we see out there right now.

On a completely side note, one that is aided by a glass of warm cognac, there is a legitimate question about whether we, as citizens, still enjoy the right to "trial by combat," or what was known at English Common Law as "trial by wager of battel."

 

Trial by combat was a method of resolving legal disputes in the Germanic peoples that was adopted in England following the invasion of William at Normandy. It was less-used in England following the Azzizes of Clarendon in 1166, when Henry II created the trial by jury, but remained a viable legal option for litigants all the way up to 1819, when Parliament abolished it. In 1818, the case of Ashford v. Thornton was going to be resolved by wager of battel at Newgate.

 

Well, of course, our Constitution (as well as the Virginia Constitution it was based upon) were drawn up in 1776, and "reserved to the citizenry all rights which existed at the common law of England."

 

Kentucky's Constitution was not enacted until 1891, but at Section 233 reserves all rights which existed to us under the Commonwealth of Virginia until repealed.

 

Since the trial by wager of battel was not abolished in England until 1819, and our Constitutions gave us rights before that date, do we not have an absolute right to a trial by wager of battel here in Kentucky? Can't I name a champion and provide him with a quarterstaff and have him meet my enemy on a field rather than in the courtroom, winner take all?

 

Seems like a quicker and less expensive alternative to some of the stuff we see out there right now.

 

I am definitely taking this into account if I am ever in said situation.

^And it would have made Bush v. Gore back in 2000 a lot more fun than a Supreme Court hearing.

Now THAT'S a great reference.

 

I can see the Senator's point, but I'd like to know more about the case to which he's responding. It says the judge in a sexual assault case banned the words "victim" and "rape" during the proceedings. If she lost, I can understand why she or her attorney would think that the use of those words may have helped, they're obviously heavily loaded.

 

But while we're at it, let's check in with someone from the other side:

United States v. Satan

 

Plaintiff "alleges that Satan has on numerous occasions caused plaintiff misery and unwarranted threats, against the will of the plaintiff, that Satan has placed deliberate obstacles in plaintiff's path and has caused plaintiff's downfall."

 

 

If anyone deserves to be sued, it's probably Satan.

I believe I recall a Saturday Night Live skit about this....

I'd love to see the look on Atticus' face if this one came into his courtroom!!! I have a feeling that it would be a case of "Two exits...No Waiting.":D

One of two court filings from "God" came Wednesday under otherworldly circumstances, 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.

 

A legislator who filed a lawsuit against God has gotten something he might not have expected: a response.

 

Too funny.

Ask and ye shall receive.