Thanks to the Iraq judiciary, 2007 begins with one dictator less in the world. But what will happen when the world's last dictator is to be eliminated? Consider the following hypothetical case:

A sort of super-police has finally hunted down the last dictator, and is dragging a bearded and unkempt God out of a spider-hole where he hid the last 250 years. Now God is brought before the International Criminal Court in The Hague, under charge of mass murder committed in 1755.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1755_Lisbon_earthquake

Just as with Saddam, the prosecution is concentrating on this particular case at first, and intends to deal with other crimes later. As God claims omnipotence, he will be held responsible for natural disasters, death, pain, and suffering happening in the world, and thus especially for the 1755 earthquake of Lisboa that killed 60,000.

The court will judge according to international law. God has hired the lawyer of O.J.Simpson for his defense. Now they are discussing on which arguments they could build their strategy:

1. Not guilty because I didn't do it.

2. Although I did do it, it was justified for the following reason: (...).

3. This court is not competent and its laws do not apply (Saddam's defense).

4. Not guilty due to insanity.

5. Not guilty due to statute of limitations.

6. I have created life and thus can also take it away whenever I feel like to.

7. Some other defense I didn't think about...

I'm just curious and am forwarding this question to Christian fundamentalists - what would be God's best defense strategy in such a case?