Surprisingly, Lawsuit Against ‘All Homosexuals’ Summarily Dismissed

by Joe Patrice 

Sylvia Ann Driskell’s dream of returning America to an era of glorious bigotry is over. The bright flame that was the “Ambassador to dog, and his, son, jesus christ” [sic] burned brightly before a federal judge unceremoniously snuffed it out. Cue Sir Elton for another remake of Candle In The Wind. Or… on second thought Driskell may not be a fan.
No sooner did we learn about “boastful” gays turning America into New Sodom, than Judge John Gerrard (who replaced the inimitable Judge Kopf as an active status judge… we were so close!) consigned us all to our fate.
“And you will know my name is the JUDGE when I lay my 12(h)(3) upon thee.” I think that’s Ezekiel 25:17.

Here, the plaintiff does not set forth any factual or legal basis for a federal claim under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. 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. Therefore, the Court finds subject-matter jurisdiction is not proper in this action pursuant to either 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 or 1332.

Judge Gerrard could have sent Driskell packing with that alone, but he couldn’t help but take a few detours into issues he didn’t even reach. Like her flagrant whiff on the basics of Rule 8, her woeful lack of standing, her inability to come close to effecting service, and the general impropriety of seeking religious answers from a federal court, citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Ballard: “‘[t]he law knows no heresy, and is committed to the support of no dogma, the establishment of no sect.'”
And lest you’re getting your hopes up for Driskell v. Homosexuals II: Electric Boogaloo, Judge Gerrard is having none of that noise.

The Court will not give the plaintiff an opportunity to amend her complaint in this matter because it is obvious that amendment would be futile. Even liberally construed, the plaintiff does not set forth any discernible claim for relief over which this Court has jurisdiction. This Court is not the place to seek opinions regarding theological matters; this particular forum is closed and the case will be dismissed.

Emphasis in original. So that’s not coming back any time soon.
As we turn the page from this latest episode of “pro sanity,” it’s important to remember that poor Ambassador Driskell may have lost, but through her efforts, the rest of us all won. Let’s throw a rave to celebrate.