A federal judge has ordered Kim Davis released from jail

republicanchick

New member




[/url]

kind of subjective words, those

"indirectly"

Does that mean she cannot talk to anyone about her beliefs... since that may "indirectly intefere"?

it could be construed that way... to a nut job... aka liberal... antichrist person

sigh

all this subjectivity... what to do, what to do...



__
 

drbrumley

Well-known member
KY Judge Backs Down


By Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.

The tyrannical occupation official releases her, because the world-wide blowback was too intense over his putting her in a cage by his personal edict. Note that Judge Nepotism is the son of a then-sitting US senator, and was appointed thanks to the evil Mitch McConnell.
 

Jonahdog

BANNED
Banned
KY Judge Backs Down


By Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.

The tyrannical occupation official releases her, because the world-wide blowback was too intense over his putting her in a cage by his personal edict. Note that Judge Nepotism is the son of a then-sitting US senator, and was appointed thanks to the evil Mitch McConnell.

"Tyrannical occupation official"? I dont think he gave a rat's behind about any "world-wide blow back" because I dont think the rest of the world cared either.

Nonsense. He released her when it was obvious that holding her in contempt was pointless. Nonetheless, despite the efforts of Staver and Liberty Counsel the Federal court showed it more important than the local KY county clerk.

Remember, she thumbed her nose at the court, she deserved what she got and if she were represented from day one her lawyers should have told her to expect it.
 

Angel4Truth

New member
Hall of Fame
They tried...Kim Davis refused.

That is a lie, her name was on them even when a deputy clerk signed off on them, the licenses given out while she was in jail, were altered to remove her printed name from them.

Her name is on them, whether she signs off on them or not. She asked that her name be removed, but the judge initially did not agree and sent her to jail, while in jail, she still objected to her name being on them - so they were altered.

The judge should have done that to begin with , HE refused and put her in jail instead.

Marriage licenses issued since Friday in Rowan County were altered to remove Kim Davis' name

Copies of licenses issued to three of the couples who sued Davis, which were included in the court record, show that where Davis' name ordinarily would be, the words "Rowan County" were used instead. So instead of the forms saying they were issued on a certain date "in the office of Kim Davis, Rowan County County Clerk," which would be standard, the examples included in the court file say the licenses were issued "in the office of Rowan County, Rowan County County Clerk."

Read more here: http://www.kentucky.com/2015/09/08/4025586_marriage-licenses-issued-friday.html?rh=1#storylink=cpy

All she has wanted since the beginning was her name removed from them. The judge didnt have that done till after she was jailed when she threatened to sue over her being authorizing on them when she didnt authorize them, that would be fraud.

Jailed Kentucky Clerk Kim Davis Offers 'Remedy' in Same-Sex Marriage License Battle

Marriage licenses in Kentucky are required to include an authorization statement of the county clerk issuing the license. Some state lawmakers, as well as the Kentucky County Clerks Association, have suggesting having clerks' names removed from marriage licenses.

Her name was on them whether she signed off on them or a deputy clerk signs off on them.

Get your facts straight troll.
 

Jose Fly

New member
her name was on them even when a deputy clerk signed off on them, the licenses given out while she was in jail, were altered to remove her printed name from them.

IOW, it was trivially easy to issue licenses without her name on them, something she could have done the first time the first gay couple walked in to her office.

But instead, she unilaterally declared that her office wouldn't issue any marriage licenses to anyone. And that brought the courts into the matter.

So the question is, if this is what she wanted all along, why didn't she just consult with the county attorney (who we know agrees that her name can be removed and the licenses stay valid) and make the changes that were later made while she was in jail?

Why didn't she do that?

Her name is on them, whether she signs off on them or not.

Except for the ones they've been issuing since she was in jail. IOW, it can be done (and pretty easily too).

She asked that her name be removed, but the judge initially did not agree

Do you have something to support the claim that the judge was presented this alternative and rejected it? THIS ARTICLE says Davis, "later rejected a proposal to allow her deputies to process same-sex marriage licenses that could have prompted her release."

And THIS ARTICLE goes into a bit more detail...

"after Davis was taken into custody, five of her deputies who attended the hearing on Thursday agreed to issue same-sex marriage licenses. The Judge then offered to drop the civil contempt charge against Davis, but she told her lawyer that she could not grant her staff the authority to issue same-sex marriage licenses."​

So her staff agreed to the compromise and she still refused.

All she has wanted since the beginning was her name removed from them.

Then why didn't she remove it?

And why are her and her lawyer contradicting themselves? Once her name was removed and the deputies started issuing the licenses, she and her lawyer still objected. I mean....that part is in the first link you posted.

"One of Davis' attorneys, Mat Staver, has said Davis thinks the licenses are not valid.

"They are not being issued under the authority of the Rowan County clerk's office. They are not worth the paper that they are written on," Staver said Friday."​

This isn't making sense at all. If this is as you claim, then....

After the Obergefell decision, Davis understands that her office will be expected to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples, but due to her religious beliefs, she doesn't want her name on those licenses. So, she could have contacted the county attorney and checked to see if the licenses could be issued without her name. That way her office follows the law and she doesn't violate her conscience.

But instead, she declares that her office will not issue marriage licenses to anyone.

Naturally the taxpayers get a bit upset and take it to court. The court orders Davis to get back to issuing marriage licenses. Once again, Davis has an opportunity to check with the county attorney and have the licenses altered and her name removed, thereby solving the problem.

But instead she refuses. The judge holds her in contempt and puts her in jail. She's offered a compromise that her staff agrees to, but she still refuses.

While she's in jail, the clerk's office, in line with advice from the county attorney office's advice, alters the licenses to remove Davis' name and begins issuing them again. While this is going on, Davis and her attorney object publicly, basically saying "they can't do that".

Why is she objecting if the end result is what you say she wanted all along? :idunno:

And why didn't she just make those simple changes herself at the start? :idunno:

Get your facts straight troll.

Fundamentalist Christians.....:chuckle:
 

bybee

New member
IOW, it was trivially easy to issue licenses without her name on them, something she could have done the first time the first gay couple walked in to her office.

But instead, she unilaterally declared that her office wouldn't issue any marriage licenses to anyone. And that brought the courts into the matter.

So the question is, if this is what she wanted all along, why didn't she just consult with the county attorney (who we know agrees that her name can be removed and the licenses stay valid) and make the changes that were later made while she was in jail?

Why didn't she do that?



Except for the ones they've been issuing since she was in jail. IOW, it can be done (and pretty easily too).



Do you have something to support the claim that the judge was presented this alternative and rejected it? THIS ARTICLE says Davis, "later rejected a proposal to allow her deputies to process same-sex marriage licenses that could have prompted her release."

And THIS ARTICLE goes into a bit more detail...

"after Davis was taken into custody, five of her deputies who attended the hearing on Thursday agreed to issue same-sex marriage licenses. The Judge then offered to drop the civil contempt charge against Davis, but she told her lawyer that she could not grant her staff the authority to issue same-sex marriage licenses."​

So her staff agreed to the compromise and she still refused.



Then why didn't she remove it?

And why are her and her lawyer contradicting themselves? Once her name was removed and the deputies started issuing the licenses, she and her lawyer still objected. I mean....that part is in the first link you posted.

"One of Davis' attorneys, Mat Staver, has said Davis thinks the licenses are not valid.

"They are not being issued under the authority of the Rowan County clerk's office. They are not worth the paper that they are written on," Staver said Friday."​

This isn't making sense at all. If this is as you claim, then....

After the Obergefell decision, Davis understands that her office will be expected to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples, but due to her religious beliefs, she doesn't want her name on those licenses. So, she could have contacted the county attorney and checked to see if the licenses could be issued without her name. That way her office follows the law and she doesn't violate her conscience.

But instead, she declares that her office will not issue marriage licenses to anyone.

Naturally the taxpayers get a bit upset and take it to court. The court orders Davis to get back to issuing marriage licenses. Once again, Davis has an opportunity to check with the county attorney and have the licenses altered and her name removed, thereby solving the problem.

But instead she refuses. The judge holds her in contempt and puts her in jail. She's offered a compromise that her staff agrees to, but she still refuses.

While she's in jail, the clerk's office, in line with advice from the county attorney office's advice, alters the licenses to remove Davis' name and begins issuing them again. While this is going on, Davis and her attorney object publicly, basically saying "they can't do that".

Why is she objecting if the end result is what you say she wanted all along? :idunno:

And why didn't she just make those simple changes herself at the start? :idunno:



Fundamentalist Christians.....:chuckle:

Why did the gay couple demand a wedding cake from an anti-gay baker?
People!
 

Totton Linnet

New member
Silver Subscriber
It is a badly thought through law in which there was too little consultation...we are living with the consequences.
 
Top