President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Kamala Harris

(R) Donald Trump



CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) V. Archuleta



CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Marshall Dawson



CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd



CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert

(D) Trisha Calvarese



CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank

(D) River Gassen



CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) John Fabbricatore



CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen

(R) Sergei Matveyuk



CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans



State Senate Majority See Full Big Line





State House Majority See Full Big Line





Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
September 18, 2007 06:03 PM UTC

At Least He's Not Your Legislator

  • by: Colorado Pols

In another edition of “At Least He’s Not Your Legislator”, we travel just across the state line to Nebraska. As The Associated Press reports:

State Sen. Ernie Chambers sued God last week. Angered by another lawsuit he considers frivolous, Chambers says he’s trying to make the point that anybody can file a lawsuit against anybody.

Chambers says in his lawsuit that God has made terroristic threats against the senator and his constituents, inspired fear and caused “widespread death, destruction and terrorization of millions upon millions of the Earth’s inhabitants.”

The Omaha senator, who skips morning prayers during the legislative session and often criticizes Christians, also says God has caused “fearsome floods … horrendous hurricanes, terrifying tornadoes.”

He’s seeking a permanent injunction against the Almighty.

Good luck with that.


14 thoughts on “At Least He’s Not Your Legislator

      1. I asked Colorado Pol to remove the thread they started but they didn’t.  I asked the Steamboat Pilot not to publish the articles they wrote about me that Colorado Pols republished but they said they could publish anything they wanted about me and I can’t stop them. 
        If you visit my old home on Princeton Ave in Steamboat Springs you will see that the property at the end of the road, 701 Princeton, has 4 buildings.  If you look up 701 Princeton on the Routt County tax accessor’s data base, you will see that it shows one residential building built in 1950 and nothing since.  If you look up the building department records, you will see two additional buildings with central heating, plumbing and multiple rooms, built in 2000.  The low density residential zoning allows one residential building not three. 
        Some people don’t believe in zoning but I had a masters in city planning and believed in it. Also, the City of Steamboat was having multiple meetings every month on the importance of zoning and city planning.  The city tried to tear down a guy’s house because he had to build emergency support beams that went one foot into the setback. They ordered another city employee Lisa Subrey to pay her neighbor $10,000 because they built about 100 square feet they weren’t supposed to.  So it seemed entirely appropriate to complain that my neighbors were building extra dwelling units 10 feet from my property. Colorado law expressly gives that a right to adjoining property owners to rely on the zoning. I quoted the laws their construction violated and tried to pay the city $450 to compare their construction to the law.  The important factor is that my neighbor was President of the City Council when he was building the extra buildings.
        Jane Bennett’s lawyer introduced the city planning services director Wendy Schulenburg who claimed in court under penalty of perjury to be a member of the American Institute of Certified Planners. However, they say they never had a member by that name.  You can email or call them and they will confirm that.
        Jane Bennett’s lawyer claimed in court that I had “molested’ her and therefore a restraining order should issue on me.  However, she never accused me of ‘molesting’ her and no witness said I ‘molested’ her.  Jane Bennett said there was no offensive touching, that I hadn’t been following her around town, and that I hadn’t called her in years.  Her employee said that he saw me 60 times going about normal business coming and going to my home.  No one ever testified in court or signed any document saying they saw me on my neighbor’s property either. There was never a warrant for my arrest. There was never a police signature that they saw me commit a crime or were aware that I committed a crime.  I never ever even thought about wanting to have sex with Jane Bennett. She is a mature woman who claims to be competent and has a driver’s license–molestation is normally a word meaning to have sex with a child or incompetent adult.
        What do you think I did that was supposedly “mean” or “crazy”?

        Kay Sieverding 641 Basswood Ave Verona, WI 53593 608 848 5721

        1. First, keep in mind that I am not a lawyer. In fact, other than dealing with my Ex in court, I have had only 1 other dealings in court (in 1986, supposed theft of gas; I did not do it; long story).

          None of what you wrote about is in the papers. Out of curiosity sake, I had googled you and found a number of stories, but none of them were giving your side. They make it sound like you are simply filing suit after suit as a form of nuisance. If I can make a suggestion, you obviously are bothered by ppl thinking of you in the light that I have taken it. I think that it is fair to say that I am not the only person who would have read the press in the same fashion.  I seriously doubt that you will get the press to write up your story (after all, it would mean going against gov. ppl and when that happens, the govs. quit giving access to information). So why not write up your story on a web site? Make it accessible for others to read. You may find that ultimately the indi press AND bloggers will take up the story, which will lead to other press looking at it. Be sure to link to the stories about you and show how little information was given concerning your side. Bloggers will pick it up as a way of showing that the free press is broken in America (sadly, it very much is).

          BTW, we tend to think of molesting in a sexual context, but the truth is that it is not. It simply means to bother you. Technically, A dog barking at you is molesting you. Obviously, a lawyer is playing word games with you.

  1. … you might be very pleased to have him as your legislator. He serves his constituents in Omaha quite well. (He’s been serving in the legislature for nearly as long as God.) The lege just recently passed term limits specifically to dislodge Ernie from their collective sides. He has been willing to say and do what many think (but are too concerned about a few votes to say it out loud).

    Plus, maybe he’ll be successful with his suit?

    For example, in the quoted passages above, I don’t see anything that Ernie has attributed to God to be false (unless, of course, you don’t believe in God!).

    1. How will Chambers serve a summons? Will they serve the most prominent Haggard/Dobson type in Nebraska? Will that person then go to court and deny the allegation?

  2. * Sovereign immunity (if you’re King in the Kingdom of Heaven, you have no liablity in tort, only liability on contracts, and these are clearly tort claims).  Specifically, jurisdictional Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) of 1976 (28 USC Sections 1602-1611) applies.  This may be weak, however, as there are exceptions for terrorism, torture and torts committed within the U.S.

    * Lack of service of process, and hence, no personal jurisdiction (although surely, service by publication or prayer ought to suffice, as the Defendant is known as a matter of judicial notice to be omnipotent, also the FSIA provides a number of alternative means of service of process).

    * Failure to state a claim (if God does it, it’s legal).

    * Lack of capacity to sue or be sued (only persons, including corporations, but not including God, have that right).

    * Statute of limitations (generally one year for intentional torts, and if God does it, it must be intentional).

    * If the acts were indeed committed by angels, and not God himself, there is no subject matter jurisdiction in a state court, because the U.S. Supreme Court has exclusive original jurisdiction: “In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be a party. . .” U.S. Const. Article III, Section 2, Clause 2.

    * The First Amendment establishment clause (ruling that jurisdiction over God exists presumes the existence of a particular God which amounts to establishment of a religion).

    * Forum non conviens (more evidence is available in the afterlife, so why not let the suit be handled there, even if jurisdiction is theoretically available in Nebraska).

    * Standing.  The Plaintiff did not suffer a legally cognizable injury from the particular tortious acts complained of, which in fact, injured other people instead.

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments

Posts about

Donald Trump

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo

Posts about

Colorado House

Posts about

Colorado Senate

91 readers online now


Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!