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

originally posted by: dawnstar
. . . and am wondering if she is now trying to renege on the agreement she made with the judge to get out of jail. and plans on going back to interfering with the deputies issuing the licenses.

Did she ever really agree to anything?

Or did the judge just lay it out and say: "This is how its going to be" - - or you will find yourself back in jail.

here's the link again...

Rowan County clerk's latest motion says judge's order is 'moot,' should be dismissed

www.wkyt.com...

did that order have anything else in it except that she should not interfer with her deputies issuing the licenses?

a reply to: Annee
the articles I read said she agreed.....
although given the two options, I'd say it was a bit coerced...

This topic certainly deserves more space. The primary issue that no one here or on the media bring up, is that the underlying tenet has nothing to do with davis' belief or other's perception of it. Think of it this way. for whatever reason, this elected official stops doing her job of issuing marriage licenses. Put anyone of any color, gender orientation, religion, what have you. Everyone is asking why; instead of asking how to relieve her of her job. Ultimately, this is a legal question of how to remove a person from office; not forcing a person to do something they don't want to do. Badly written state/local constitutions produce bad results. a court cannot have jurisdiction over an issue that is not presented in proper form. the court can hear civil lawsuits brought upon injured parties due to not having their marriage licenses approved: and yes, there will be civil lawsuits brought against the gov'tal entity that the clerk works for. what the court did was most likely a gov'tal response, so that when the lawsuits eventually come, the gov'tal entity can legally say that it was the impetus to what the court did. everyone misses the bigger picture. there are some jobs that have a criminal/civil penalty if you don't do your job. many times, the person is fired first. however, in this situation, the elected official cannot be fired, and there is nothing in the local/state constitution that can criminally punish her for not doing her job; except for impeachment.

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: Annee
the articles I read said she agreed.....
although given the two options, I'd say it was a bit coerced...

I think it was a "take it - or leave it".

originally posted by: dawnstar
she's still bucking!!!

Rowan County clerk's latest motion says judge's order is 'moot,' should be dismissed

www.wkyt.com...

I'd comment if I actually understood what I just read.....

anyone care to try?

Basically, it sounds like a ploy to buy time, and keep fighting the good fight, while they figure out what they're going to try next. I'm not so sure they have a leg to stand on if I'm reading it right. But I'm no legal expert. So I'll leave it to someone who knows more than I do.

Attorneys for Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis on Friday filed an emergency stay motion in federal appeals court.

The motion says U.S. District Judge David Bunning expanded an injunction against Davis while it was already on appeal. It says that expansion went beyond the original plaintiffs without notice, violating a fundamental rule of due process.

"The injunction against Kim Davis ordering her to issue marriage licenses cannot, without proper notice and briefing, be expanded to cover the entire world," Mat Staver, Founder and Chairman of Liberty Counsel said. "That original injunction is moot and should be dismissed. We are asking the court of appeals to stay its enforcement now that plaintiffs received what they sought."

Davis objects to same-sex marriage for religious reasons and stopped issuing all marriage licenses in June after the U.S. Supreme Court legalized gay marriage. The ACLU filed a lawsuit against Davis, and Bunning later ordered Davis to issue the licenses. She refused to do it saying she could not betray her conscience.

Bunning held Davis in contempt of court and sent her to jail for disobeying his order. Her deputy clerks then issued marriage licenses to gay couples, and Bunning released her earlier this week.

Davis' attorneys released a statement that says Bunning broadened the expanded injunction "to cover anyone in the world who seeks a license for same-sex marriage."

"Once the initial Injunction was appealed by Kim Davis to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, Judge Bunning had no jurisdiction over it, and thus no authority, to expand the Injunction," the statement says, noting that the original injunction ordering her to issue marriage licenses "should be moot and dismissed because it applied only to the named plaintiffs who have no further claim."

Legal wrangling at it finest.

originally posted by: Lawgiver
. . everyone misses the bigger picture. there are some jobs that have a criminal/civil penalty if you don't do your job. many times, the person is fired first. however, in this situation, the elected official cannot be fired, and there is nothing in the local/state constitution that can criminally punish her for not doing her job; except for impeachment.

No, we got all that.

She was sued for not issuing the license.

a reply to: dawnstar

Looks like a question of "jurisdiction".

Hmmm.

Maybe everybody involved is "over-reacting" start to finish so far.

a reply to: dawnstar

I think you're right.

There were 2 orders here. One, issued by the governor (I think), back before her jail time. That order was to issue marriage licenses from her office (which she disobeyed). The second order was given by Judge Bunning, when she was released from jail, to NOT interfere with her deputies and to allow marriage licenses to continue to be issued from her office (an expansion of the original order).

This new case claims that the judge didn't have jurisdiction to expand on the original order, and therefore, it should be dismissed. The plaintiffs in the case against Kim (2 gay and 2 straight couples) all have licenses now, and this lawyer is saying that the judge had no jurisdiction to ADD that she be prohibited from interfering with the deputies.

That's my take, but I could very well be wrong. I'm not that knowledgeable about the different levels of courts.

Sounds like if they get the first order dismissed, she won't have to follow it, so she can go back to acting JUST as she was before, NOT issuing licenses and NOT allowing her deputies to do so, because the judge had no jurisdiction to expand on the original order.

a reply to: dawnstar

What???? Am I reading that right? Her attorney is arguing that the judge's order, issue same sex licenses, is moot because the couple in question already got their licenses, so in effect, the order is requiring Davis to license any same sex couple in the whole world!

"That original injunction is moot and should be dismissed. We are asking the court of appeals to stay its enforcement now that plaintiffs received what they sought."

Davis' attorneys released a statement that says Bunning broadened the expanded injunction "to cover anyone in the world who seeks a license for same-sex marriage."

"Once the initial Injunction was appealed by Kim Davis to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, Judge Bunning had no jurisdiction over it, and thus no authority, to expand the Injunction," the statement says, noting that the original injunction ordering her to issue marriage licenses "should be moot and dismissed because it applied only to the named plaintiffs who have no further claim."

LOL! Lawyers. They have us all go through this every time a same sex couple walks through her door looking to a license!

originally posted by: Annee
Or did the judge just lay it out and say: "This is how its going to be" - - or you will find yourself back in jail.

Yes. That one. She didn't agree. She doesn't have to agree with a court order.

a reply to: marg6043

Its this what America has become now, a fight between religious zealots against the rest of the population?

And people are told be afraid of Islam. The war on the separation of church and state is ramping up.

according to this, that is exactly what they want:

They also say that all but one of the individuals who originally sued Davis have gotten their marriage licenses, and the last plaintiff "never intended to get a license and does not want a license." They say because of that the original injunction should be moot and dismissed.
“The injunction against Kim Davis ordering her to issue marriage licenses cannot, without proper notice and briefing, be expanded to cover the entire world. That original injunction is moot and should be dismissed. We are asking the court of appeals to stay its enforcement now that plaintiffs received what they sought,” said Mat Staver, Founder and Chairman of Liberty Counsel.

www.wsaz.com...

if the actual motion helps it can be found here:

www.liberty.edu... df

this is the second time I posted the link to the motion, if it doesn't work, well, the link is available on the right side of the story I posted a link to above.

I'm sorry people, but I am ready for this crazy story to go away!! God!
so I guess we get to play the game again, only this time, with a small army backing her.
I still say just close down the country clerks office and let them all go without pay or services awhile.

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: luthier

Did you read the article dawnstar posted? Quid pro quo nes pa?

Yep and?

Its a motion. Do you know what a motion is?

originally posted by: dawnstar
according to this, that is exactly what they want:

They also say that all but one of the individuals who originally sued Davis have gotten their marriage licenses, and the last plaintiff "never intended to get a license and does not want a license." They say because of that the original injunction should be moot and dismissed.
“The injunction against Kim Davis ordering her to issue marriage licenses cannot, without proper notice and briefing, be expanded to cover the entire world. That original injunction is moot and should be dismissed. We are asking the court of appeals to stay its enforcement now that plaintiffs received what they sought,” said Mat Staver, Founder and Chairman of Liberty Counsel.

if the actual motion helps it can be found here:

www.liberty.edu... df

I'm sorry people, but I am ready for this crazy story to go away!! God!
so I guess we get to play the game again, only this time, with a small army backing her.
I still say just close down the country clerks office and let them all go without pay or services awhile.

Link didnt work.

a reply to: luthier

the link is on the right hand side of the story I posted above it.
the story is here:

www.wsaz.com...

I don't know why the link isn't working but I tried to do it two times.

Gotta love the white, religious right of America. Always for liberty... for themselves and those who them deem fit.

What a world.

And people are against abortion, birth control and euthanasia!

Derek

a reply to: dawnstar
Let's see if this works
Link To Motion

Big Question is...what if Kim Davis had been a Muslim. Would the Oath Keepers be coming and would Huckabee have been at her press conference?

And then why not? Is one religion now better than another? And what about denominations? Is one denomination of one religion better than another?

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic
for future reference..
how'd you do it?