Kentucky: Oath Keepers Say They Will Protect Kim Davis From The Law

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

The judge COULDN'T "go around her". She was elected and this was his ONLY recourse!

The Oath Keepers say she should've been offered a Trial by Jury.

I don't see that - - as she clearly broke the law by refusing a direct order to abide by the Supreme Court decision.

Hence the contempt ruling. Their is no trial. Its really basic law.

Even a murderer who kill sin public in front of thousands of witnesses gets a trial even if they admit their guilt. It s a right.

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

The judge COULDN'T "go around her". She was elected and this was his ONLY recourse!

The Oath Keepers say she should've been offered a Trial by Jury.

I don't see that - - as she clearly broke the law by refusing a direct order to abide by the Supreme Court decision.

Hence the contempt ruling. Their is no trial. Its really basic law.

Thanks. I do wish I knew law better.

The Oath Keepers don't seem to know it correctly either.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

THE SAME JUDGE released her because her deputies started handing out licenses while she was in jail.

Even though her "lawyer" claimed they were 'invalid'.
What a load of crap.

Did you see the sick video they released?

Watch: Insane Video Presented by Kim Davis' Law Group at Extremist Christian Campus

The lawyers representing Kim Davis, the Rowan County, Kentucky clerk refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, have made their own headlines of late. Attorney Mathew Staver, for one, likened marriage licenses for gays and lesbians to granting "a license to sodomize children or something of that nature."

Staver is founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel, a law group that describes itself as devoted to "advancing religious freedom, the sanctity of life, and the family."


In addition to defending government employees who refuse to follow the law, they also organize an annual conference called the "The Awakening," described as "a unique and inspirational God and Country event."

(I don't know how to embed non-youtube vids, so if someone can help out with getting the vid that's in the sourced article to show up, I'd appreciate it. Otherwise, you have to look at the article to see the very disturbing video.)

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

The judge COULDN'T "go around her". She was elected and this was his ONLY recourse!

The Oath Keepers say she should've been offered a Trial by Jury.

I don't see that - - as she clearly broke the law by refusing a direct order to abide by the Supreme Court decision.

ISnt it a right to a trial by your peers if you break the law? They didnt do it though because sh ewould had walke din kentucky.

Did her lawyer ask for a jury trial?

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

I don't get it, how many counties does her jurisdiction span, I mean, supposedly her town is a small one how many same sex couples are there.

The way this issue is been projected it makes it sound like the town is majority same sex couples or that is been an invasion of them just to get their licenses there.

Something doesn't add here.

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

The judge COULDN'T "go around her". She was elected and this was his ONLY recourse!

No its a contempt of court ruling. I just posted the ACTUAL law. Read it. No trial she broke the law from the first trial. Its onvious she broke the law. She admits to breakimg the law. A jury could not rule in her favor...she broke the law and admits it.



The Oath Keepers say she should've been offered a Trial by Jury.

I don't see that - - as she clearly broke the law by refusing a direct order to abide by the Supreme Court decision.

ISnt it a right to a trial by your peers if you break the law? They didnt do it though because sh ewould had walke din kentucky.

Its a contempt of court ruling. Its not the same. She was ordered to court they told her what would happen if she continued to violate the law she continued and admitted it. There is no trial for contempt read my post of the actual law. There is no trial for this circumstance and she shouldnt waste any more time or money. Hopefully she gets hit hard with fines to pay for the mess she is creating for the tax payers.

And lets say there could be a jury...the judge Can Not rule in favor of someone who admits to breakimg the law even if the jury votes for her. This is how due process works.

Imagine a racist community that a jury allows an admitted murderer to go free because the jury is also racist. Our forfathers were pretty smart and deeply philosophical. They missed some stuff but they were very good at predicting problems down the line.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

The judge COULDN'T "go around her". She was elected and this was his ONLY recourse!

The Oath Keepers say she should've been offered a Trial by Jury.

I don't see that - - as she clearly broke the law by refusing a direct order to abide by the Supreme Court decision.

Hence the contempt ruling. Their is no trial. Its really basic law.

Thanks. I do wish I knew law better.

The Oath Keepers don't seem to know it correctly either.

HAve you ever seen someone get slapped with contempt? I mean really. it depends alot on the Judges mood. No ton anything else. I nearly got charged for sneezing. a sneeze. That when you know they have too much power.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

The judge COULDN'T "go around her". She was elected and this was his ONLY recourse!

The Oath Keepers say she should've been offered a Trial by Jury.

I don't see that - - as she clearly broke the law by refusing a direct order to abide by the Supreme Court decision.

ISnt it a right to a trial by your peers if you break the law? They didnt do it though because sh ewould had walke din kentucky.

Did her lawyer ask for a jury trial?

Her lawyer is an idiot.

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

The judge COULDN'T "go around her". She was elected and this was his ONLY recourse!

The Oath Keepers say she should've been offered a Trial by Jury.

I don't see that - - as she clearly broke the law by refusing a direct order to abide by the Supreme Court decision.

Hence the contempt ruling. Their is no trial. Its really basic law.

Thanks. I do wish I knew law better.

The Oath Keepers don't seem to know it correctly either.

HAve you ever seen someone get slapped with contempt? I mean really. it depends alot on the Judges mood. No ton anything else. I nearly got charged for sneezing. a sneeze. That when you know they have too much power.

I watch a lot of TV court cases. I find them interesting.

Yes, the judge is the judge. It's his courtroom.

originally posted by: amicktd
Anti-gay Christian = Racist

There I said it, because frankly it's the truth. To all the christians out there that doesn't want to oppress an entire group of people due to sexual preference, I say thank you.

Flame on, because I don't give a ****

Uhhh, you should probably look up the definition of "racist". Doesn't have anything to do with sexual preferences.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs
Here ya go Buzzy (I couldn't watch it all)

She's a good girl - she diddin no nuffin - her mama said.

On another note - this is treason by the soldiers and and officers involved.
The soldiers should be dishonorably discharged and charged with treason.
The officers should be immediately fired and placed on watch lists as possible
domestic terrorist. They're willing to die for a traitor to the country so let them rot.

-Toy the Bear

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

The judge COULDN'T "go around her". She was elected and this was his ONLY recourse!

The Oath Keepers say she should've been offered a Trial by Jury.

I don't see that - - as she clearly broke the law by refusing a direct order to abide by the Supreme Court decision.

Hence the contempt ruling. Their is no trial. Its really basic law.

Thanks. I do wish I knew law better.

The Oath Keepers don't seem to know it correctly either.

HAve you ever seen someone get slapped with contempt? I mean really. it depends alot on the Judges mood. No ton anything else. I nearly got charged for sneezing. a sneeze. That when you know they have too much power.

In this case its perfectly logical. Also she admits to breaking the law what do you think a jurry would do? She admits to breaking the law read that again.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

The judge COULDN'T "go around her". She was elected and this was his ONLY recourse!

The Oath Keepers say she should've been offered a Trial by Jury.

I don't see that - - as she clearly broke the law by refusing a direct order to abide by the Supreme Court decision.

Hence the contempt ruling. Their is no trial. Its really basic law.

Thanks. I do wish I knew law better.

The Oath Keepers don't seem to know it correctly either.

HAve you ever seen someone get slapped with contempt? I mean really. it depends alot on the Judges mood. No ton anything else. I nearly got charged for sneezing. a sneeze. That when you know they have too much power.

I watch a lot of TV court cases. I find them interesting.

Yes, the judge is the judge. It's his courtroom.

Well real lif e is Much more intertesting. ANd Its THE PEOPLES courtroom not HIS. These Judges(sic) are all power hungry people who liek to delight in peoples misery.

When i could be put in jail for a freaking sneeze something wrong. DOnt you think there is anything wrong with the judicial system when one person can violate anyones rights just because he dont feel good?

more thoughts:

what she's doing with her actions is assuming the state has the authority to make a marriage divine and as a result, she thinks signing the document implicates her in a form of anti-god behavior. but the state can't make anything divine. a pastor/priest/cleric also can't make a marriage divine. only one entity in her world view, can make a marriage divine, and as a result, she's not being asked to sign a divinely ordained marriage document. therefore, the argument is null and void (from the religious perspective)

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

The judge COULDN'T "go around her". She was elected and this was his ONLY recourse!

The Oath Keepers say she should've been offered a Trial by Jury.

I don't see that - - as she clearly broke the law by refusing a direct order to abide by the Supreme Court decision.

Hence the contempt ruling. Their is no trial. Its really basic law.

Thanks. I do wish I knew law better.

The Oath Keepers don't seem to know it correctly either.

HAve you ever seen someone get slapped with contempt? I mean really. it depends alot on the Judges mood. No ton anything else. I nearly got charged for sneezing. a sneeze. That when you know they have too much power.

In this case its perfectly logical. Also she admits to breaking the law what do you think a jurry would do? She admits to breaking the law read that again.

I fi da been on a jury id a hung it because i see it as judge over reach.

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

The judge COULDN'T "go around her". She was elected and this was his ONLY recourse!

The Oath Keepers say she should've been offered a Trial by Jury.

I don't see that - - as she clearly broke the law by refusing a direct order to abide by the Supreme Court decision.

Hence the contempt ruling. Their is no trial. Its really basic law.

Even a murderer who kill sin public in front of thousands of witnesses gets a trial even if they admit their guilt. It s a right.

Not the same. Read the law. This is like a probation violation. She can have a hearing thats it. Again what would a trial do? The judge told her their would be a punishment if she continued to break the law.

originally posted by: TOYBEAR
. . . this is treason by the soldiers and and officers involved.
The soldiers should be dishonorably discharged and charged with treason.
The officers should be immediately fired and placed on watch lists as possible
domestic terrorist. They're willing to die for a traitor to the country so let them rot.

I was wondering about that.

Are some really active military?

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

The judge COULDN'T "go around her". She was elected and this was his ONLY recourse!

The Oath Keepers say she should've been offered a Trial by Jury.

I don't see that - - as she clearly broke the law by refusing a direct order to abide by the Supreme Court decision.

Hence the contempt ruling. Their is no trial. Its really basic law.

Thanks. I do wish I knew law better.

The Oath Keepers don't seem to know it correctly either.

HAve you ever seen someone get slapped with contempt? I mean really. it depends alot on the Judges mood. No ton anything else. I nearly got charged for sneezing. a sneeze. That when you know they have too much power.

In this case its perfectly logical. Also she admits to breaking the law what do you think a jurry would do? She admits to breaking the law read that again.

I fi da been on a jury id a hung it or tried to use nullification.

That isnt the law. It doeant work at all how you are suggesting. The jury can be over ruled by the judge and would be because.....SHE ADMITS TO BREAKING THE LAW.

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

The judge COULDN'T "go around her". She was elected and this was his ONLY recourse!

The Oath Keepers say she should've been offered a Trial by Jury.

I don't see that - - as she clearly broke the law by refusing a direct order to abide by the Supreme Court decision.

Hence the contempt ruling. Their is no trial. Its really basic law.

Thanks. I do wish I knew law better.

The Oath Keepers don't seem to know it correctly either.

HAve you ever seen someone get slapped with contempt? I mean really. it depends alot on the Judges mood. No ton anything else. I nearly got charged for sneezing. a sneeze. That when you know they have too much power.

I watch a lot of TV court cases. I find them interesting.

Yes, the judge is the judge. It's his courtroom.

Well real life is Much more interesting.

Something I try to avoid. Real life court and a judge.

And have, except for uncontested divorce.