Sunday Facepalm


(File Photo) The man's affidavit was not accepted by court due to his stated occupation Alfredo Estrella/AFP/Getty Images.

(File Photo) The man’s affidavit was not accepted by court due to his stated occupation Alfredo Estrella/AFP/Getty Images.

An Irish High Court judge has ruled a litigant could not describe his occupation as “Disciple of Jesus Christ” in a sworn statement.

The presiding judge, Mr Justice Richard Humphreys, criticised the litigant for attempting to challenge a decision by the Residential Tenancies Board to fix a market rate for his rent, describing the case as “frivolous, grandiose and vexatious”.

He upheld the decision by the Central Office of the High Court to refuse to accept the litigant’s affidavit as it did not comply with the rules of the court, reports the Irish Times.

The Tenancies Board had stated the man and another tenant were using such court actions as a “tactic to delay and frustrate proceedings”.

Mr Justice Richard Humphreys said: “The courts are not a playground in which litigants can amuse themselves at will.

“For the court to bask in self-congratulatory patience for quirky insouciance of applicants would be to play the role of a judicial free-rider.

“If such a mode of description were permitted, one could not stop the next deponent describing themselves in the opening of an affidavit as a ‘Guardian reader’ or the one after that as a ‘keen golfer’ and so on.”

Plus, we have Banana Jesus! Did this belong to Ray Comfort?

BananaJesus

There’s a slideshow at the link of various things people have found Jesus to be inexplicably occupying.

Via Independent.

Comments

  1. says

    Nothing in that slide show particularly looked like Jesus to me,* but what floored me was “Jesus” in wall paint (which looks unpleasantly like vomit), and apparently sold on ebay for $8,000. I don’t even…
     
    *Shouldn’t to anyone else, either, because no one knows what “Jesus” looked like.

  2. blf says

    Shouldn’t to anyone else, either, because no one knows what “Jesus” looked like.

    You mean all those blond, blue-eye, N.European-ish-looking portraits over the last many centuries are, um, made-up? Nah, couldn’t be, they had the previous century’s paintings to rely on…

    (Basically, turtles all the way down.)

Leave a Reply