Nebraska Woman Files Lawsuit Against All Gay People

Here’s a lawsuit that is so mind-numbingly stupid that I find it hard to believe that she isn’t being represented by Larry Klayman. A woman from Nebraska has filed a sort of reverse class action suit against all homosexuals in federal court.

An Auburn woman claiming to be an ambassador for God and his son, Jesus Christ, is suing all homosexuals.

Sylvia Driskell, 66, asked an Omaha federal judge to decide whether homosexuality is a sin.

Citing Bible verses, Driskell contends “that homosexuality is a sin and that they the homosexuals know it is a sin to live a life of homosexuality. Why else would they have been hiding in the closet(?)”

Driskell wrote in a seven-page petition to the court that God has said homosexuality is an abomination. She challenged the court to not call God a liar.

She’s representing herself, of course. You can see the “complaint,” which is actually just a letter to the judge, here. It’s handwritten, as all great legal documents are. It’s labeled “Sylvia Ann Driskell, Ambassador for Plaintiffs God, and His Son, Jesus Christ vs. Homosexuals, Their Given Name Homosexuals, Their, Alis Gay.” Driskell refers to herself as the “ambassador for the plaintiffs, God and his son Jesus Christ.” And it just gets funnier from there. This suit may break the record on how fast a case gets dismissed.

POPULAR AT PATHEOS Nonreligious
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden

    It’s handwritten, as all great legal documents are.

    Ah, I love the smell of facetiousness in the morning!

    This is one pleading I have to read in its entirety.

  • colnago80
  • http://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/User:Modusoperandi Modusoperandi

    A woman from Nebraska has filed a sort of reverse class action suit against all homosexuals in federal court.

    But what about the homosexuals not in federal court?

  • Doug Little

    Can’t God and Jesus get better representation?

  • iknklast

    Why else would they have been hiding in the closet

    Because bigoted people actually kill homosexuals? Because people like Oscar Wilde actually went to jail for homosexuality? Because it might be difficult to get a job if you are openly homosexual? Because it might lose you family and friends?

    It wasn’t because the homosexuals know it is a sin; it is because so many heterosexuals believe it is a sin, and are prepared to act on that belief.

  • whheydt

    You can’t put her in the list of “worst lawyer not named…” because she’s not a lawyer.

    And, I suspect, that’s a problem. She is (effectively) claiming to be representing someone else in court, so–Mr. Pieret is invited to tell me if I’m wrong–she is attempting to practice law without a license, a big “no no” in many places. That’s just the *first* reason why this “suit” is doomed. There there is no cause of action stated, no identified defendants, asking the court to determine a non-legal question (Is homosexuality a sin?), probable lack of standing, going to have trouble showing proof that her “clients” are (a) real, (b) agreed to be represented by her, and (c) able to get them into court to be cross examined (civil suit…no protection from 5th Amendment), and she hasn’t shown personal harm.

    I’m sure that there are other failings with this filing, but those are the ones that immediately leap out at me from what I’ve read about it. Anyone want to add to the list of “fail”?

  • Pierce R. Butler

    She challenged the court to not call God a liar.

    Can she, or anyone, cite any decision in which a court did call God (any god) a liar?

  • John Pieret

    This suit may break the record on how fast a case gets dismissed.

    Federal courts review all pro se complaints. As soon as it hits the desk of the judge’s law secretary, it’s gone … in a puff of laughter.

  • sugarfrosted

    I could see a news story for this

    “God could not be reached for comment.”

  • Saad

    God, and His, Son, Jesus Christ

    I cringed at those out of place commas…

    God doesn’t care that their homosexuals

    … and stopped reading there.

    I would quote some more stuff but she chose to hand-write the damn thing and I can’t be arsed.

  • John Pieret

    whheyd @ 6:

    The court would probably, for the nanosecond it will take to dismiss this “case,” deem it to be brought on her own behalf and, therefore, not practicing law without a license. The rest of your list are among the reasons this won’t get past the automatic review. More might be found … once everyone stops laughing.

  • John Pieret

    Saad:

    Misplaced commas are rampant throughout.

    Hemant has transcribed it for easier reading (following the handwritten copy) here:

    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2015/05/05/nebraska-woman-sues-all-homosexuals/

  • raven

    It’s handwritten, as all great legal documents are.

    Printed in the traditional red crayon, I hope.

  • sugarfrosted

    @11 She’s not representing herself. She’s representing another legal entity. (iirc God is a legal entity.)

  • http://www.facebook.com/eo.raptor.3 eoraptor

    It is long standing, and well known precedent, that courts will not entertain suits where supernatural beings are parties. The primary issue has always been the courts’ inability to obtain jurisdiction over the supernatural being. See, United States ex rel. Gerald Mayo v. Satan and His Staff. 54 FRD 282 (W.D. Pa, 1971. The court there relied on a well known case ably pursued by one Daniel Webster.

  • http://www.thelosersleague.com theschwa

    I’d like to see the evidence for this ambassadorship. I assume she will produce a document with God’s actual signature on it. THEN you will not be laughing at her!!!

  • John Hinkle

    She does realize that Jesus had two dads, doesn’t she?

  • moarscienceplz

    I’d love to know how she determines which sins the Federal courts should rule on. The sin of wearing fabrics of blended fibers? The sin of cooking meat in milk? The sin of growing two different crops in the same field? The sin of keeping a store open to do business on a Saturday?

  • whheydt

    Re: John Pieret @ #11…

    A whole nanosecond? The court clerks must think slowly…I’d’ve guessed in the picosecond range.

  • sylwyn

    Well played, Mr. Hinkle (#17).

  • Alverant

    When she’s arguing her case, someone needs to declare that they’re filing a lawsuit against God just to check out her reaction.

  • busterggi

    I want to see the paperwork where Jesus gave her power of attorney.

  • blf

    I assume that after the case is dismissed with extreme laughter, Her Excellency will set up an account on EejitsFundingEejits.scam complaining how Teh Gay has sabotaged justice and are planning to build a giant animatronic analsex to go stomping about the bits of Oklahoma not covered by the statue of satan. Oh, and as a result, she’s now mindless. Er, penniless.

  • abb3w

    @6, whheydt

    no identified defendants

    So, from a remark over at Lowering the Bar, that might not be entirely precise. Apparently, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure at 23 does potentially allow for the possibility of class action defendants as well as plaintiffs. (This is relevant on another battle in this culture war front; the federal judge in the Alabama gay marriage circus seems to have hinted she’s willing to consider certifying Alabama marriage officials as a defendant class.) My non-lawyer’s understanding is that the difficulty here seems that for a class action to be certified, at least one particular defendant must be named and shown representative of the class.

    No doubt this Nebraskan legal genius will solve the problem by naming the judge as such representative, after the first filing bounces.

    @11, John Pieret

    The court would probably, for the nanosecond it will take to dismiss this “case,” deem it to be brought on her own behalf and, therefore, not practicing law without a license.

    Or, first dismiss the part where she presents herself to represent another (particularly as God did not sign the complaint), and then deal with the complaint(s) brought on her own behalf. Which is what provoked the “Notice To F*ck This Court And Everything That It Stands For” motion in that other recent bit of news….

  • raremomentsoflucidity

    @8 John Pieret- ” it’s gone … in a puff of laughter.”

    Oh, dear Dog, Mr. Pieret, FTW! I will honorably attribute this phrase to you for eternity. Well done, Sir. Well done.

  • John Pieret

    Or, first dismiss the part where she presents herself to represent another (particularly as God did not sign the complaint), and then deal with the complaint(s) brought on her own behalf. Which is what provoked the “Notice To F*ck This Court And Everything That It Stands For” motion

    Depends on how into judicial niceties the judge is. The judge can just say that the complaint fails to state a cause of action cognizable by the court and then give her a period of time to amend to correctly state a cause of action or else bugger off.

  • whheydt

    Re: John Pieret @ #26…

    Of course, the judge will say the “bugger off” part in the nicest possible way. I’m waiting to see exactly how the case dismissal is written. I dare say it could range from the simplest, two word statement all the way to an extensive treatise dealing with all the myriad ways the case can’t be taken seriously. The real question, I suppose, is: What sort of sense of humor does this judge have? (I’m thinking of the LA case where the judge gave a ruling laced with Star Trek references…)

  • Sastra

    Doesn’t matter if the lawsuit is dismissed. This will make a great film in the tradition of God’s Not Dead.

    She’s probably being approached for the rights even as we sit here and mock. In fact, atheists mocking this lawsuit on blogs will be part of the build-up for the dramatic court scene where the SCOTUS is forced to rule that homosexuality is, indeed, a sin. And then we get our comeuppance.

    It’s not a Christian movie if some atheist doesn’t get their comeuppance.

  • John Pieret

    It’s not a Christian movie if some atheist doesn’t get their comeuppance.

    No doubt Justice Kennedy will be hit by a car and repent of his treating gays as if they are human beings just before he dies.

  • Who Cares

    @abb3w(#24):

    You still need to have a defendant fitting the class and she doesn’t have one.

  • John Pieret

    raremomentsoflucidity @ 25:

    Thanks. Don’t worry about attribution. Someday, I’ll have to tell the story about when I said, in a motion, that the “plaintiff’s attorney’s aim was insufficient to find his own client’s foot.”

  • Nemo

    On the one hand it’s hilarious, but on the other, I actually feel kind of sorry for this woman. To live for sixty-six years, and still be that fucking stupid — what a waste of life, seriously.

  • rietpluim

    What’s wrong with sin? Let people sin as much as they want to. It’s their constitutional right.

  • http://www.rodlamkey.net reverendrodney

    An Orly Taitz wanna be.

  • https://www.facebook.com/joseph.sexton.7 Joseph Sexton

    So, if the suit isn’t already dismissed, perhaps a few hundred putative defendants could answer, and after the scheduling conference, file their allotted 30 interrogatories each. If just 100 of the putative defendants each served 30 interrogatories, that would be 3,000 questions to be answered by the plaintiff under oath. My guess is she could be busy for a very, very long time.

  • John Pieret

    The judge dismissed the case yesterday. You can read the decision here:

    https://www.scribd.com/doc/264505469/8-15-cv-00158-5-Order-Dismissing

  • dingojack

    And she’s opening an account on GoFundMyBigotry.com in 5… 4… 3… 2… 1…

    @@ Dingo

    —————-

    Any bets on the amount she raises? $1000, $200, $1.50?

  • abb3w

    @26, John Pieret

    Depends on how into judicial niceties the judge is.

    Fair enough. I’m not a lawyer, so I mostly read the more colorful sort of ruling that starts getting passed around the Internet; EG, those where the judge is very meticulously (if colorfully) explaining everything that the plaintiff has done wrong, so that any review by the Appeals Court has no iota of prospect to potentially result in the dimwit ever being sent toddling back to darken the doorway to the judge’s courtroom again over an undotted i or uncrossed t.

  • abb3w

    Followup spotted via the Friendly Atheist; cue promptly delivered color — including a cite to the classic United States ex rel. Gerald Mayo v. Satan and His Staff.

  • eric

    From the dismissal:

    The Court may decide what is lawful, not what is sinful.

    Supreme Court, take note!

    Even construing the complaint liberally, it does not contain allegations reasonably suggesting federal question jurisdiction exists in this matter. Nor can the plaintiff plausibly allege that her citizenship is different from the citizenship of each defendant. And she has not asked for any money damages, much less enough to satisfy the amount-in-controversy requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

    You just know some Omaha Judge is thinking “you bastard, don’t drop her on our doorstep!”

  • http://www.facebook.com/eo.raptor.3 eoraptor

    Does anybody graduate from an American law school without knowing US ex rel. Mayo v. Satan? Maybe Liberty graduates, but anybody else?