God & Jesus v. Homosexuals [UPDATE: now with proposed response]

Well, to be precise, I Sylvia Ann Driskell Ambassador for Plaintiff's God, and His, Son, Jesus Christ v. Their Given Name Homosexuals Their, Alis Gay, filed May (not April) 1 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska. Check it out, both the handwritten original and the transcription, at Friendly Atheist. But wait! What about the Ambassador Reception Clause?

UPDATE: A proposed response (not actually filed):

APPEARANCE AND AUTHORIZATION TO REPRESENT

THE DEFENDANTS, Homosexuals, hereby give permission and authorization for TRACY C. COYLE to represent them in the matter captioned above.

Tracy C. Coyle
Tracy C. Coyle, a homosexual

Dated this 6th day of May, 2015

…

Response to the Petition of Plaintiff

The Defendants by their representative Tracy C. Coyle responds to the Petition and affirmatively states:

1. Counsel has failed to present a Notice and Authorization to Appear by Plaintiffs.

2. This Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.

3. This Court lacks personal jurisdiction.

4. This Court is an improper venue.

5. The Petition fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

6. Plaintiffs failed to serve Defendants Notice of the Petition.

Alternatively, Defendants affirmatively state:

Paragraph 1: Counsel for the Plaintiffs has failed to provide Ambassadorial Papers.

Paragraph 2: Defendants neither admit nor deny and demand strict proof of their homosexuality.

Paragraph 3: Defendants neither admit nor deny pleadings and demand strict proof of their statements.

Paragraph 4: Defendants neither admit nor deny pleadings and demand strict proof of their sexual orientation.

Paragraph 5: Defendants neither admit nor deny pleadings and demand strict proof of Plaintiffs' statements; Female Defendants request dismissal from further proceedings.

Paragraph 6: Defendants neither admit nor deny pleadings and demand strict proof of Plaintiffs' interference in Free Will.

Paragraph 7: Defendants neither admit nor deny pleadings and demand strict proof of Plaintiffs' invasion of privacy of the Defendants.

Paragraph 8: Defendants can not admit or deny pleadings as Plaintiffs admit to forcing actions upon the Defendants.

Paragraph 9: Plaintiffs state a conclusion and no response is possible.

Paragraph 10: Plaintiffs state a conclusion and no response is possible; Defendants demand strict proof of religious law.

Paragraph 11: Plaintiffs state a conclusion and no response is necessary.

Paragraph 12: Defendants neither admit nor deny pleadings and demand strict proof of one flesh after joining.

Paragraph 13: Plaintiffs state a paradox with regard to Paragraph 12 and no response is possible.

Paragraph 14: Defendants neither admit nor deny pleadings and demand strict proof that they can't be parents.

Paragraph 15: Plaintiffs state a conclusion and no response is needed.

Paragraph 16: Plaintiff's Counsel states a conclusion and Defendants demand strict proof of her conclusion.

Paragraph 17: Defendants neither admit nor deny walking or talking the walk or the talk and demand strict proof Plaintiffs have.

Paragraph 18: Defendants neither admit nor deny pleadings and demand strict proof of Plaintiffs' household upbringing.

Paragraph 19: Defendants neither admit nor deny pleadings and demand strict proof thereof.

Paragraph 20: Plaintiffs state a conclusion and Defendants demand strict proof of their statements.

Paragraph 21: Plaintiffs state a conclusion and Defendants demand strict proof of their intentions.

Paragraph 22: Defendants neither admit nor deny pleadings and demand strict proof Plaintiffs did interfere in their free will … again.

Paragraph 23: Plaintiffs state a conclusion and no response is needed.

Paragraph 24: Plaintiffs state a conclusion and Defendants thank them.

Paragraph 25: Plaintiffs state a conclusion and Defendants acknowledge it.

Paragraph 26: Plaintiffs state a prophecy and Defendants demand strict proof; Plaintiffs state a conclusion; Plaintiffs state a run on sentence and no response is possible.

Paragraph 27: Plaintiffs contradict their conclusions and Defendants neither support nor defend them.

Paragraph 28: Plaintiffs address the Court in prose and state a conclusion that Defendants demand strict proof as to Counsel's age.

Paragraph 28(a): Plaintiffs' pleadings seek a jury trial of 10 peers and Defendants demand strict proof of their righteousness.

Paragraph 29: Defendants neither admit nor deny pleadings but concede the need for principled citizens and no further response is needed.

WHEREFORE, Defendants pray the Court dismiss the Petition with all costs assessed to Plaintiffs.

Tracy C. Coyle
Tracy C. Coyle

May 6, 2015