Nebraska Woman - Representing God & Jesus - Files Lawsuit Against "All Homosexuals"

originally posted by: marg6043
a reply to: Woodcarver

This women is mentally unstable, she is claiming to be an "Ambassador" for Jesus and God and has been addressed as such, she is also representing herself, so obviously the fancy major churches around are not forwarding any funds to help her with her lawyer needs

Yea. She is def unstable. As she gains attention she will likely find more and more support. I'm guessing she probably didn't get this far by herself.

a reply to: Woodcarver

Oh, I definitely agree, the more she screams the more the religious fundamentalist in the US and opportunist will come and help her.

But I see it this ending once the Supreme court makes the decision on whatever they decide in June.

It is just remarkable how much people can be delusional.

I wonder if she should also represent Red Riding Hood so court finally can issue restraining order against bad wolf...

Sad on what our tax dollars are spend, but when I see joke called Congress and Senate... well, this is not much better... everything is in la-la-land...

a reply to: marg6043

I am trying to find more information on the case, to see what kind of retributions the woman wants,

Thanks for that, marg.
Me, too.
Someone on page 1 posted a link to a case number, but when I clicked on it I got a Page Not Found.
Maybe the stupid suit has already been withdrawn, and the media is sitting on it to keep us engaged (reminds me of Nancy (dis)Grace).

Gah

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

I posted this on the previous page:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

I'm pretty sure that the case is still open, at least according to the court docket.

When I first heard about this, I did think this was a joke. However, the filing is real and ultimately one can hope it gets dismissed. If it does not, then the bad self prophecy that the rhetoric has been stated, and will come true. If this trial goes forward, the first question that everyone needs to ask is who is going to foot the bill.

Consider this, first she is going to have to pay for the attorney, unless she is going to represent herself, and then there is the court costs. That is the small amount, then comes the next part, and this is where it will get expensive, and that will be the private detectives, and the summons. This is not a small amount of money here, this is getting close to a quarter of a billion if not more in costs to find and then summon all of the gay people in the country to appear in court. And they would have the option of counter suing, having their own attorney and either participate or demand separate trials.
If this goes through, it would open the door up to bring a lawsuit against all of the anti gay politicians, like Huckabee or Cruz, and the various religious institutions to where it will either end up breaking their banks or the LGBT communities.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Thanks for the link, man!
Here I go to read it.

a reply to: sdcigarpig

I'm sure she would make plenty with a Gofundme account.

a reply to: intrepid

How can we dismiss that, she is going to attract plenty of followers, backers and fans.

after all she is doing it for Jesus and God, how can any good Christian say no.

a reply to: intrepid

I don't think that she can get 300 million just for the summons. People and organizations will have to give her the money for such.

a reply to: sdcigarpig

Plenty of morons in the world that care more about their bigotry than their money.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

OMG, this woman writes and thinks at about the short-bus 3rd grade level.



Ambassador: I BuzzyWigs, ambassador for the Plaintiff's do set forth on this 30 day of 2015 in writing this petition to the [city court][city][state]
On behalf of the Plaintiff's.' Free, Thinker's, and There Children and, Grandchildren.


This, is Mortuary, Example, of American and there Dumb.
*facepalm*

I'm sorry, people, I am of this country, and want what's best for this country, but this woman should have been silenced before she ever did this. Who egged her on?????

Is she representing Jesus or Leviticus?

I dont recall Jesus saying anything about anything sexual at all.

a reply to: marg6043

How can we dismiss that, she is going to attract plenty of followers, backers and fans.

Which will, make no mistake, sink their ship even faster than it is already sinking.

It's kind of hilarious in a way..... the Bible Thumpers want power?

"Well, here ya go. Let's see your game.
*waits to see how it plays*

Oh - your game? Yeah. Lame."

Maybe we should sue all fundies for the mental anguish they've caused us over the years.

I thought this had to be an onion article but, really, truth is always gonna be stranger than fiction. The way I see it, good for her. If she puts herself out there and can get as much information as possible about WHY this isn't a defendable standpoint, she'll at least know she's done all she can. I expect more hail mary attempts to *stop the gay from spreading*, because it's becoming a dead issue. The majority of folks are...I believe... In overwhelming support of gay rights. Others still, at least concede that their rights should be respected even if they have personal issues with homosexuality in general. I'm super glad about this, because just a few years ago this wasn't something folks gave a sidelong glance at, this was normal, this was an official stance for politicians with a real chance of entering the white house. I'm glad that I can say I firmly believe homophobic presidents are a thing of the past. It's about time.

Also, if one were to stand up in representation of "the gay community" would they have grounds to file countersuit for frivolous lawsuit? Nobody will, though, I think it's best to just sorta... Let her get this out of her system. I don't think they should have even put this in the news, honestly. It's more attention than this kind of babble deserved. It's good the legal system is being fairly... OK about this.

I predict the Judge will glance at the documents while on the bench, say something to the effect of "I'm not going to entertain this", slap down the gavel and say "frivolous lawsuit, case dismissed".

I've seen it happen with other silly cases, and no doubt it will in this one.

This law suit is such nonsense.

Why are judges passing laws,

Someone should let her know that federal and state legislators make the US and state laws.

a reply to: Telos

I'm pretty sure the insanity folks referred to here is that there's any legal precedent to establish homosexuality as a sin in a court of law. The legal system is not there to uphold religious morals or establish religious codes of any kind. So, someone trying to represent a mythological entity in our legal system is... Pretty misled, it's not applicable. That's for whoever decides it's their job, I guess.

Disagreeing with homosexuality is frowned upon when it creates pressure to marginalize the gay population and deny them legal rights. All too often folks go past expressing their "disagreement" with homosexuality to calling for some kind of action against it. Even now there are hate crimes, people being harmed for being gay, and it's generally incited by inflammatory language. Not that language can be blamed for another's actions, but, culturally, it's gonna be frowned upon to say anything that brings up cultural memories of horrific violence visited upon a people.

Feel free to disagree respectfully... But frankly, I have no respect for anyone who would infringe upon my rights. Far too many who "disagree" with homosexuality spend far too much time actively opposing folks existences. Being gay isn't an ideology or philosophy. You can't disagree with homosexuality any more than you can disagree with 1+1=2, it simply is. There is no room for debate on the subject, gay people exist. Bigotry, however, is an ideology, a philosophy, and is subject to change. If one can't handle facing verbal assault for their changeable views, imagine the everyday struggle of facing verbal (and, all too often physical) assault on your very existence and being. I suppose that may clear up the discrepancy in reception. It certainly is progress, whether it's a progress you agree with or not, you'll never be forced into it. But the world will not tailor it's colorful inhabitants for your comfort. Do not expect kindness where you spit venom, the history is long, the abuses too many. In history, there has been very little "respectful disagreement" with the gay community, only hated and veiled hatred. Until the post trauma passes, and they're fully integrated and vindicated, do not expect bigotry to go unanswered.

There is no problem with somebody freely expressing their personal beliefs and opinions, that's what living in a liberated country is all about.

But when you drag those personal beliefs and opinions into a court of law, ON THE TAXPAYERS' DIME.... it is a problem.

It becomes a country-wide problem of spending other peoples' money (tax revenues) on unnecessary frivolous trivial things based off of nothing but one individual's personal convictions.

Now...

Add to that the fact that the country is sucking on fumes as it is (economic wise) while the government is grasping at every tax revenue they can get their hands on to make ends meet, and suddenly these frivolous little lawsuits become an outright blatant revenue-robbing problem in all directions.

Every wasted penny that goes into these nonessential lawsuits (paying judges, court clerks, courtroom time, etc) is a penny less that could have gone towards infrastructure, job creation, education programs, healthcare, and so on and so forth...

You know, that real important type of stuff that's actually needed to run a functional country.



These lawsuits cause an increase in budgetary allocations in the following fiscal year, which simply means robbing Peter to pay Paul (taking away from one budget to increase the other). Either that, or taxes have to be increased to compensate for the need of an increased budget allocation.

I don't think people realize just how much these lawsuits cost the taxpayers, not only in direct monies, but also in how much they reshuffle the budgetary deck of cards for the fiscal years following.

It's not a pretty picture folks.