Kentucky Clerk Kim Davis Found in Contempt of Court - Jail

a reply to: Phage
She asked for an accommodation in a legal manner. She avoided the charge of discrimination by her lack of action. Her inaction caused no harm.
Had her intention been to defy the court's instruction she would have simply refused to issue licenses to same-sex applicants. I realize it's a fine point in the law, but the devil is always in the details isn't it?
What I was saying is that demands for charges against her are silly if the same charges aren't brought against those who should have acted on her legal request and did not---failure to carry out the duties of the office.
There are about a dozen clerks across the country who are apparently defying the courts. Why their cases aren't being examined under a microscope should make you ask why Mrs. Davis was chosen as the focus of the media.

a reply to: diggindirt

Had her intention been to defy the court's instruction she would have simply refused to issue licenses to same-sex applicants.

She was instructed by the court to issue marriage licenses (part of her job). She refused and was held in contempt.

Why their cases aren't being examined under a microscope should make you ask why Mrs. Davis was chosen as the focus of the media.

I don't know. Ask the media.

a reply to: diggindirt

how can you say that there was no harm when the whole country was denied a service they were entitled to obtain in the country? and now, it seems like some crazy lawmaker might think it's reasonable for those who wish to get married to spend 6 hours drive time just to get a marriage license? na, that ain't no harm done, is it?? a whole day wages stripped to get a license...nope not at all....
but, hey have the little islamic clerk down at your neighborhood 7/11 refuse to sell someone beer, and oh that is just too unreasonable to think that they might have to drive an extra block to get it!!!!

Why their cases aren't being examined under a microscope should make you ask why Mrs. Davis was chosen as the focus of the media.

the politicians could only fit in a trip for just one of the clerks to make their political statements???

a reply to: Phage
Indeed. Jailed by a Federal Judge. Another sad day for US justice when people who are no threat to society are put behind bars. This shows the need for real scrutiny of Federal Judgeship appointments.

I suspect the backstory to this story will become the subject of a book someday. I wouldn't be surprised if the tome was titled Boomerang. Let's just say some politicians couldn't wait to get their faces on camera. For some that worked out, others didn't fare so well.

a reply to: diggindirt

I suspect the backstory to this story will become the subject of a book someday.

I don't. At least not one that many people would bother reading.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: diggindirt

I suspect the backstory to this story will become the subject of a book someday.

I don't. At least not one that many people would bother reading.

The current interest in Christian books and movies says otherwise. Fireproof, God is not Dead, etc.

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: diggindirt

how can you say that there was no harm when the whole country was denied a service they were entitled to obtain in the country? and now, it seems like some crazy lawmaker might think it's reasonable for those who wish to get married to spend 6 hours drive time just to get a marriage license? na, that ain't no harm done, is it?? a whole day wages stripped to get a license...nope not at all....
but, hey have the little islamic clerk down at your neighborhood 7/11 refuse to sell someone beer, and oh that is just too unreasonable to think that they might have to drive an extra block to get it!!!!

Why their cases aren't being examined under a microscope should make you ask why Mrs. Davis was chosen as the focus of the media.

the politicians could only fit in a trip for just one of the clerks to make their political statements???

I'm sorry I was unclear. I was not expressing my personal opinion on the case, but what an attorney will argue under the legal definition of harm. Yes, feeling were hurt and people were angry. But the actions of Mrs. Davis affected only Rowan County, Kentucky, not the entire country. Had the applicants wished to obtain a marriage license, in less time than it took them to file a lawsuit, they could have driven to the next county and gotten the license.
In less time than it takes to drive across Rowan County, the governor could have solved the problem with his pen and phone.
I would give you a heaven full of stars for your insight into the back of this story if I could! The campaign season in Kentucky was just kicking off as this hit the news. Both parties thought they had a winning plan. The Democrats took a beating. There is a fair-to-middlin' chance there could be defections from the Kentucky House that would flip the majority of that body to Republican, making a clean sweep.

Perhaps I should make my standard statement again since some seem confused. I do not share the same religious beliefs as Mrs. Davis. I am not defending her religious beliefs, I am defending her right under current Kentucky statutes to seek accommodation for those beliefs. If she can be jailed for a non-violent offense while attempting to find a legal remedy to a mess created by the Supreme Court, anyone can be jailed on the whim of a witless, media-hungry Federal Judge.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: diggindirt

I suspect the backstory to this story will become the subject of a book someday.

I don't. At least not one that many people would bother reading.

Only those interested in learning about the entire process of politics and the law. Those interested in understanding why certain events happened as they did. Beyond the Facebook and Twitter crowd's comprehension no doubt. The interesting stuff is what msm didn't present.

a reply to: diggindirt

sorry about that for some reason my counties always seem to want to be countries. have no idea why, old age I guess...
but, if all those in that county just took to driving to the next county (which really isn't that small of a drive depending on where you are at...I forgot just how far the furthest I found was) instead of taking it to court, then the people in that county would still probably be having to drive to the next county, wouldn't they? all spending extra gas money (who knows, maybe it was the grocery money), all spending more time (what the heck some people feel that their time is worth a thousand or so dollars and hour if you look at the salaries of some of those ceo's out there), and those nearby counties would be taking on the extra workload (which, I am sorry, but they aren't getting any of the tax money from these new people they are serving to pay for any extra staff they might need to handle the extra workload). to me, it's unreasonable to think that such an arrangement should have to be tolerated for even the month or so that it was!
and well, do you realize just how many journalists, as well as many others have been imprisoned for contempt of court for various reasons....with the journalists it's been them refusing to give up their sources.... little kimmie spent what? one week??

During the grand jury, McDougal stated her full name "for the record", then refused to answer any questions. In her book, McDougal explained that "I feared being accused of perjury if I told the grand jury the truth. The OIC had accepted David Hale's lies as the truth. They were also now relying on Jim McDougal's lies, which they'd carefully helped him construct. If I came in and directly contradicted those two -- whose testimony had been used to convict me of four felonies -- I feared the OIC would next accuse me of perjury." She also writes that she feared the same fate as Julie Hiatt Steele[8] who had contradicted the testimony of White House aide Kathleen Willey: "Simply telling the truth cost Steele everything she had, almost landed her in jail [for perjury], and jeopardized her custody of her adopted son."[9]

McDougal's grand jury testimony included her response, "Get another independent counsel and I'll answer every question."[10] She was publicly rebuked for refusing to answer "three questions"[11] about whether President Clinton had lied in his testimony during her Whitewater trial, particularly when he denied any knowledge of an illegal $300,000 loan. U.S. District Court Judge Susan Webber Wright sentenced her for civil contempt of court.

From September 9, 1996 until March 6, 1998, McDougal spent the maximum possible 18 months imprisonment for civil contempt, including 8 months in solitary confinement, and was subjected to "diesel therapy" (the practice of hauling defendants around the country and placing them in different jails along the way).[12] In her case, Susan was shuffled from Arkansas to "Los Angeles to the Oklahoma City transfer center, and then on to the Pulaski County Jail in Little Rock, Arkansas".[13]

en.wikipedia.org...

she claims that they believed that she would be convicted of purjury if she told the truth, so she just refused to answer...

out of the 22 months she served, 18 of them was for refusing to answer three questions.... most of those who were convicted on felony charges in the whitewater investigation didn't serve any jailtime....

kim served a supervisory role as county clerk, she had deputies under her. she didn't have to talk to any of these homosexuals, she could have let those deputies do most of the work. she wouldn't let them do that work, even if they had a sincere belief that not doing so would go against their religious beliefs. the judge gave her the option of letting those deputies do it before he sent her to jail for contempt...again she refused. now, it's my understanding that they are using different forms and she it still petitioning the court to remove the restraining order that keeps her from not letting the deputies do these marriage licenses. I really think that what it amounts to is she don't want her little country clerk office to issue the gay marriage and there is no other accommodation that will be acceptable to her outside of that little county clerk office not issuing them... whatever solution is found, it should be uniform across the state, so well if they decide that little county clerk office shouldn't be issuing them, then no country clerk office should be. so well, who should be? and who's to say that the next group that they appoint to issue them won't have a few in that group with the same concern as kim does? and, I'm sorry but since when is signing a paper while doing your job the same as actually doing the sin to begin with? my god, what's next? are we gonna have clerks who's responsibility to place orders for stores refusing to place any orders that contain cigarettes, beer, or x-rated movies? religious accommodations I do believe were originally intended to allow employees off during certain religious holidays and sabbaths.... taking things this far is gonna result in there just not being any accommodations offered!

a reply to: dawnstar
I'm sorry but I don't fear the disarray and dissolution of state and county government because religious beliefs are accommodated. I see the slippery slope as the constriction of freedom rather than the broadening. I've got strong libertarian tendencies so my arguments will always come from that perspective.

I'm not sure I understand this passage:

but, if all those in that county just took to driving to the next county (which really isn't that small of a drive depending on where you are at...I forgot just how far the furthest I found was) instead of taking it to court, then the people in that county would still probably be having to drive to the next county, wouldn't they? all spending extra gas money (who knows, maybe it was the grocery money), all spending more time (what the heck some people feel that their time is worth a thousand or so dollars and hour if you look at the salaries of some of those ceo's out there), and those nearby counties would be taking on the extra workload (which, I am sorry, but they aren't getting any of the tax money from these new people they are serving to pay for any extra staff they might need to handle the extra workload). to me, it's unreasonable to think that such an arrangement should have to be tolerated for even the month or so that it was!

You do realize that the clerk's office was up and running, doing the myriad of other duties that they perform, during this whole debacle? They simply weren't issuing marriage licenses. I have no idea how many marriage license applications they have per month but with a population of less than 25,000, I can't imagine it being more than one or two a day. Since marriage records are public, I'm sure some tech savy person could have a look to see how many were issued in the county last year. I don't think it is normally considered a destination for wedding... but I could be wrong. It is certainly a most beautiful place.
Nobody had to hire extra staff except to serve the members of the media and the protesters. The janitors at the office had a heavier workload due to the press and the protesters.
The business of the office of county clerk can go on without her physical presence in the building. Indeed it did, during her absence.

My opinion is that Mrs. Davis committed a political sin rather than a crime. She defied the governor when she didn't cave to his demands to follow the Party Line. I've stated before that he threw her under the bus. I've recently changed my mind on that---he threw her to the wolves, nothing as quick as death by blunt object.

I'm well aware that people are tossed into prisons and jails every day who are no threat to society. Putting people behind bars is big bucks for a lot of people invested in the system. That's why I constantly protest the jailing of people for non-violent illegal acts.

I'm in awe daily of people who have this kind of courage---to know that you're headed to a jail cell---in the midst of a media circus----and keep your cool through all of that. I see the courage and convictions in her that I saw in Dr. King during the civil rights marches. How I long to see some leader enter the scene with the skill Dr. King possessed for uniting people with love rather than dividing people with hate.

I am in violation of federal law as I type this post. I have defied the law that says I must purchase health insurance. For that crime I will pay a fine next April as I did this past April. Do I belong in jail for defying the federal government's edict?

a reply to: diggindirt

lol.... I think everyone I know is in violation of that stupid law, not because they want to be lawbreakers, or even that they want to protest the law. they just can't see the purpose of buying a policy at the insane rates they are charging and then when you add in the deductible to the cost, well, the insurance company is eating up over half their year's pay, which well, most of that pay they are using to live, so what can I say. it's an impossibility for them to get any benefit from the insurance...since they don't have the funds to meet the premiums and the deductibles. I guess I am lucky in that I don't have any income whatsoever, and no one they can legally hold responsible to insure me..... they can write any laws they wish at this point, but well, you can't get blood out of a stone.

in probably 99% of the cases where people have been sent to jail for contempt of court, I would probably disagree with, but a judge can legally do it.... so I guess one could say that kim broke the law just by refusing the court order....sorry.
and I disagree with the "slippery slope" idea of yours. I graduated in an area of the country where there was a tendency to not hire women, after all the men had a family to support, the women had a man to support them. when the economy wasn't great, well, the only jobs women could get were in those fields that were traditionally women's work...ya know, the low paid waitress jobs, fast food, ect. unless of course things were so bad that that was the only job some man could get, then of course the man would get the job. I see this idea that businesses, public officials, ect, being able to act on religious doctrines over the laws on the books to protect the people much more a threat to women than to gays really! which might because I'm a women and have experience first hand just how badly the religious doctrines embedded in men's minds can harm people! To be honest, I really don't understand why the gays want to get married...but well they want to and quite frankly, I also don't understand what harm allowing them to could do! I think it's just a foot in the door thing for the far right christian community. they want much more than that. they want their obedient little wives at home tending their five or six kids and being their servant instead of having the ability to decide how they will live their own lives themselves. after all, God did create women to serve men now, didn't he?

Did you think the story was over? Thought that the matter was put to rest??
sorry, to tell ya but she is still fighting the good fight!!
Believe it or not.

Kim Davis Is Back in Court, Defiant as Ever
www.advocate.com...


how many court cases will this make? who knows, I certainly don't... seems like it's been a lot though.

a reply to: dawnstar

Kill Me, please....

Looks like Davis is attempting to stretch out those 15 minutes of infamy.

a reply to: zazzafrazz

First thing Burnie or others should do when they become POTUS is make positions like that non elective government jobs, just so they can be fired for incompetence, corruption or just plain not doing their job.

a reply to: Spider879

First thing Burnie or others should do when they become POTUS is make positions like that non elective government jobs, just so they can be fired for incompetence, corruption or just plain not doing their job.

It is not the purview of the President to determine how states (or counties) choose their officials. Any such attempt would immediately be declared unconstitutional.

In my county, the clerk is not elected.

can you be jailed just for wasting a court's time? because at this point, it does so very much seem like a waste of time. she's gotten what she supposedly wanted, her name off the licenses. I've read the story serveral times, and I am still not quite sure what she wants now.

a reply to: dawnstar

can you be jailed just for wasting a court's time?

No. Not for bringing lawsuits. Else Orly Taitz would surely be behind bars.

I've read the story serveral times, and I am still not quite sure what she wants now.

The appeal asks, in addition to having Bunning’s injunctions against Davis reversed, that the court’s September 3 contempt order that landed her behind bars be reversed also.

a reply to: dawnstar

In all honesty, she just needs to officially endorse Ted Cruz. Or, better yet, be on his short list of VP considerations. That way he can fairly compete with the Trump/Palin circus.

After all, Kim considers her personal bigotry to be a mission directed by God himself.

a reply to: Phage

court’s September 3 contempt order that landed her behind bars be reversed also.

shall we go back in time and give her three days back?
so, maybe I am right, maybe I am wrong...
but does she want to be able to again go back to refusing to issue licenses or allowing her deputies to, along with an apology for putting in jail for contempt...
which she was in contempt, I don't see any way around that one. the judge told her to do something, and she ignored his order. that is contempt. judges make stupid orders in their court room all the time, heck one ordered a guy to marry his girlfriend or go to jail. if I am remembering right, the girlfriend didn't do anything wrong, and yet that judge thought that he had the right to order her to get married! but well, they rushed their wedding and got married.
there's been a lot of judges that have sent people to prison, some much longer than three days and well, regardless of weather we agree with them or not. they do seem to get away with it.