HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » "What law has Kim Da...

Fri Sep 4, 2015, 04:05 PM

"What law has Kim Davis broken?"


I've been seeing that question quite a bit on Twitter from idiots.

If your favorite idiot has asked that question, the answer is:

42 U.S.C. §1983

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1983

If they want to know specifically how she broke that law, the manner in which she did so is described in detail here:

http://www.aclu-ky.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Rowan-complaint.pdf

There, they can also find the law on which jurisdiction by the court is premised, the law she has violated, and the law under which the court can order her to stop violating it or hold her in contempt.

It is a desperately stupid question.

41 replies, 5262 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 41 replies Author Time Post
Reply "What law has Kim Davis broken?" (Original post)
jberryhill Sep 2015 OP
randys1 Sep 2015 #1
malaise Sep 2015 #2
jberryhill Sep 2015 #3
randys1 Sep 2015 #5
jberryhill Sep 2015 #9
randys1 Sep 2015 #10
jberryhill Sep 2015 #15
Plucketeer Sep 2015 #32
jberryhill Sep 2015 #36
lpbk2713 Sep 2015 #4
jmowreader Sep 2015 #6
jberryhill Sep 2015 #8
jmowreader Sep 2015 #13
Skittles Sep 2015 #7
nichomachus Sep 2015 #11
jberryhill Sep 2015 #14
LiberalArkie Sep 2015 #22
VanillaRhapsody Sep 2015 #29
Jim Lane Sep 2015 #19
steve2470 Sep 2015 #12
jberryhill Sep 2015 #16
steve2470 Sep 2015 #17
Rex Sep 2015 #18
jberryhill Sep 2015 #20
Rex Sep 2015 #21
VanillaRhapsody Sep 2015 #30
MiniMe Sep 2015 #23
asiliveandbreathe Sep 2015 #24
world wide wally Sep 2015 #25
roamer65 Sep 2015 #26
wolfie001 Sep 2015 #27
VanillaRhapsody Sep 2015 #31
James48 Sep 2015 #28
sarisataka Sep 2015 #33
kiri Sep 2015 #34
jberryhill Sep 2015 #35
JunkYardDogg Sep 2015 #37
libodem Sep 2015 #38
Dark n Stormy Knight Sep 2015 #40
libodem Sep 2015 #41
libodem Sep 2015 #39

Response to jberryhill (Original post)

Fri Sep 4, 2015, 04:08 PM

1. If she prevents me from marrying my one true love, or whoever, and my and my love's

religion teaches premarital sex is not allowed, thus preventing us from having sex.


....??? $$$


I have seen damages for this when someone is injured and deprived of sex.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randys1 (Reply #1)

Fri Sep 4, 2015, 04:09 PM

2. ROFL

You win the thread

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randys1 (Reply #1)

Fri Sep 4, 2015, 04:12 PM

3. I'm not sure I follow the English there, but...

What you are looking at in the OP is the lawsuit from which the current preliminary order of interest has issued.

And, no, insofar as I can understand your question, you are asking whether a loss of consortium claim could be premised on refusal to issue the license to a couple who did not believe in premarital sex. The short answer is no, because it is your own religious belief and/or choice of partner who is the proximate reason why you are not having sex.

The long answer is a lot longer, but it also ends in "no".

Clever, but no.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #3)

Fri Sep 4, 2015, 04:14 PM

5. Where was your issue with my English?

I do try and speak in short hand sometimes when I assume the person I am addressing knows what I am talking about, but I am curious.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randys1 (Reply #5)

Fri Sep 4, 2015, 04:19 PM

9. The sentence fragment broken between the subject line and body


...followed by "....??? $$$"

I wasn't sure whether that signaled a question or was some sort of pornographic emoticon.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #9)

Fri Sep 4, 2015, 04:21 PM

10. I wont bother you anymore...each time we interact you seem annoyed...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randys1 (Reply #10)

Fri Sep 4, 2015, 04:40 PM

15. Meh, I wouldn't let that put you off


A lot of people find me annoying. There are worse things in life.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randys1 (Reply #10)

Fri Sep 4, 2015, 06:39 PM

32. I didn't see an annoyance.

 

But it had me scratching my cranium as well. I spent an inordinate amount of time reading the title line of your post too - trying to discern if it was intentional or a typo

Specifically ", and my and my loves" I concluded it was a typo you overlooked. I do such myself sometimes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Plucketeer (Reply #32)

Fri Sep 4, 2015, 07:12 PM

36. No, that's a regional/cultural grammatic construction


Yes, "my and my love's" is, to a lot of people, an awkward construction.

It is more usual to say "our religion" instead of "my and my love's religion".

The thing is, since he is addressing another person, the phrase "our religion" as used here, could ambiguously include the audience. Now, what you would normally do is quickly resolve that ambiguity to mean him and his beloved, because you know that "our" to include you... just wouldn't make sense.


BUT, there are English speaking cultures where repeating possessive pronouns, and repetitive pronouns in general, are much more common. Malaise, for example, could probably give us a dissertation on "I and I" as a personal pronoun.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Original post)

Fri Sep 4, 2015, 04:13 PM

4. Too bad she's not in the military.




If they couldn't think of a specific violation they could always hit you with UCMJ #134.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Original post)

Fri Sep 4, 2015, 04:15 PM

6. I think 1985 would be better, since the Christofascist law firm is pulling Davis' strings

(3) Depriving persons of rights or privileges
If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire or go in disguise on the highway or on the premises of another, for the purpose of depriving, either directly or indirectly, any person or class of persons of the equal protection of the laws, or of equal privileges and immunities under the laws; or for the purpose of preventing or hindering the constituted authorities of any State or Territory from giving or securing to all persons within such State or Territory the equal protection of the laws; or if two or more persons conspire to prevent by force, intimidation, or threat, any citizen who is lawfully entitled to vote, from giving his support or advocacy in a legal manner, toward or in favor of the election of any lawfully qualified person as an elector for President or Vice President, or as a Member of Congress of the United States; or to injure any citizen in person or property on account of such support or advocacy; in any case of conspiracy set forth in this section, if one or more persons engaged therein do, or cause to be done, any act in furtherance of the object of such conspiracy, whereby another is injured in his person or property, or deprived of having and exercising any right or privilege of a citizen of the United States, the party so injured or deprived may have an action for the recovery of damages occasioned by such injury or deprivation, against any one or more of the conspirators.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jmowreader (Reply #6)

Fri Sep 4, 2015, 04:17 PM

8. Disguised as what? Decent human beings?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #8)

Fri Sep 4, 2015, 04:30 PM

13. It says "conspire or go in disguise"

Kim Davis and Liberty Council are "conspiring" to strip same-sex couples seeking marriage licenses of their civil rights.

The parts in this statute that talk about going in disguise and on the highway look, at least to me, like the government wanted to enable people to file federal civil rights suits against the Ku Klux Klan.

This will scare the hell out of you: there is a tiny but noisy faction in America today that believes it's unconstitutional to require anyone not driving commercially to have a license or to register their car, and that you can sue a cop who pulls you over. They use this statute as the core of their belief - the claim is a police uniform is a "costume."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Original post)

Fri Sep 4, 2015, 04:15 PM

7. if she denied them a gun license

they'd be singing a different tune

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Original post)

Fri Sep 4, 2015, 04:22 PM

11. Much simpler -- she was jailed for contempt of court

The judge told her to do something. She refused. She went to jail.

It's no different than if you went into a courtroom and put your feet up on a table. The judge tells you to remove your feet and you don't -- contempt of court, go to jail. There doesn't even need to be a specific law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nichomachus (Reply #11)

Fri Sep 4, 2015, 04:37 PM

14. The order has to proceed from some underlying legal matter


I think they know she was jailed for contempt. Or maybe I'm too generous in that assessment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #14)

Fri Sep 4, 2015, 05:18 PM

22. Just contempt of court. The judge ordered her to do something. She did not do it. Contempt.

I think what surprised her and her backers was the jail time. I wonder he she will be in as long as Susan Mc Dougal?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #14)

Fri Sep 4, 2015, 06:26 PM

29. tell them if a judge orders them to pay Child Support....and they fail to do so...

 

Contempt of Court....go directly to jail....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nichomachus (Reply #11)

Fri Sep 4, 2015, 04:48 PM

19. I agree, because section 1983 is not a criminal statute and doesn't carry jail time.

 

It's clearer to say that she was jailed for refusing to comply with a court order.

If, at this week's hearing, she had said, "All right, you perverts, I'll give you your license and send two more souls to Satan," then under section 1983 she might still have had financial liability (the plaintiffs could have recovered their attorney's fees), but she would not have gone to jail. No one can be imprisoned solely because of a violation of section 1983.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Original post)

Fri Sep 4, 2015, 04:28 PM

12. is this on point also ?

http://www.lrc.ky.gov/lrcpubs/ib114.pdf

Scroll down to page 53 in Chapter 5.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to steve2470 (Reply #12)

Fri Sep 4, 2015, 04:46 PM

16. No, that's not what she's in jail for


I was amusing myself with the #FreeKimDavis hashtag, and the moron contingent seems to be at a loss to understand why she is in jail, other than at the whim of a black-robed tyrant.

While she may be in violation of a penal statute of Kentucky, this proceeding in this court has nothing to do with that. She hasn't been charged with any crime, much less convicted of one. Whether she is charged with the KY misdemeanor in question is a matter that is up the KY AG and the KY courts.

The statutory basis of this federal action is 42 USC 1983.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #16)

Fri Sep 4, 2015, 04:47 PM

17. ok thanks nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Original post)

Fri Sep 4, 2015, 04:47 PM

18. It should be pretty obvious she defied a court order. Even the biggest dullard

 

should be able to see that. However, we are talking about fundies...so thinking they can understand simple legal concepts might be wishful thinking.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rex (Reply #18)

Fri Sep 4, 2015, 04:52 PM

20. Yeah, I'm not sure why it's a "thing" with them


They apparently believe the judge simply did this on some sort of perverse whim, and that she'd been arrested and charged with some criminal violation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #20)

Fri Sep 4, 2015, 04:58 PM

21. It gives you a scary look into their collective mindset. It is like when Ted Cruz loves the SCOTUS

 

(Hobby Lobby) until they make a ruling he does not like - then all the sudden the SCOTUS did something unlawful and is out of control. Just like that, they were a law abiding body - until they aren't.

Such flippant people should not be in charge of even delivering pizza. They are stupid, angry and violent. Not a good combo.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rex (Reply #18)

Fri Sep 4, 2015, 06:28 PM

30. Fundies / Sovereign Citizens

 

Its where the 2 conflate....they do not think ANY law they dislike applies to them...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Original post)

Fri Sep 4, 2015, 05:29 PM

23. I've heard something about "she never had a chance to appeal her jail sentence"

That was some right wing idikot on the radio. I was in my car screaming at the radio.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Original post)

Fri Sep 4, 2015, 05:39 PM

24. jberryhill - thank you - I find this whole KIM I'm a BAC -episode

playing like reality TV - perhaps this could take the place of the Duggars....people seem to be so fascinated could be some AD money to be made...National attention...who knows - they might learn what LAW!

The plot line - the BAC - the feigned indignation (no, I do not buy into her 4 times married indignation) children?? - which husband..I am so confused.., the development of her marriages - her election to county clerk - her son working for her - and let's not forget she worked for her mom..more plot - the people of the community who voted her in - more lot - the religious bystanders outside the court house or the prison...

Pathetic rituals..pathetic all around...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Original post)

Fri Sep 4, 2015, 05:41 PM

25. They don't understand it because it is not in the second part of a sentence in the second Amendment

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Original post)

Fri Sep 4, 2015, 05:42 PM

26. She is breaking the supreme law of the land...the U.S. Constitution.

She is violating the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Original post)

Fri Sep 4, 2015, 06:03 PM

27. Logic......

......can't work with these hateful, rednecked, freeperville bible thumpers. Funny how jeebus and gawd are supposed to overlook this person's three divorces/four marriages (latest tally, may change). I call hypocrite!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wolfie001 (Reply #27)

Fri Sep 4, 2015, 06:30 PM

31. Not to mention cuckolding one husband by making him think the other husbands children are his...

 

apparently unbeknownst to him as it appears it was part of the divorce proceedings....and now public knowledge...poor kids!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Original post)

Fri Sep 4, 2015, 06:09 PM

28. No- she violated Title 18 criminal law.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/part-I/chapter-21


18 USC 401:

"A court of the United States shall have power to punish by fine or imprisonment, or both, at its discretion, such contempt of its authority, and none other, as—
(1) Misbehavior of any person in its presence or so near thereto as to obstruct the administration of justice;
(2) Misbehavior of any of its officers in their official transactions;
(3) Disobedience or resistance to its lawful writ, process, order, rule, decree, or command."

At this moment, she is being held in jail under 18 USC 401(3) for disobedience to a lawful order.

And some point, this transitions to 18 USC 402.


18 USC 402:


"Any person, corporation or association willfully disobeying any lawful writ, process, order, rule, decree, or command of any district court of the United States or any court of the District of Columbia, by doing any act or thing therein, or thereby forbidden, if the act or thing so done be of such character as to constitute also a criminal offense under any statute of the United States or under the laws of any State in which the act was committed, shall be prosecuted for such contempt as provided in section 3691 of this title and shall be punished by a fine under this title or imprisonment, or both.

Such fine shall be paid to the United States or to the complainant or other party injured by the act constituting the contempt, or may, where more than one is so damaged, be divided or apportioned among them as the court may direct, but in no case shall the fine to be paid to the United States exceed, in case the accused is a natural person, the sum of $1,000, nor shall such imprisonment exceed the term of six months."

--

She's in jail right now for failing to obey the Judge's order. That's only temporary.

If she continues to refuse, at some point, the case should be referred to the U.S. Attorney's office for prosecution under 402.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Original post)

Fri Sep 4, 2015, 06:58 PM

33. The Constitution leaps to mind

The 14th Amendment in particular.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Original post)

Fri Sep 4, 2015, 07:01 PM

34. always read the briefs!


These court filings contain enormous information and thoughtful arguments beyond media and even DU information.
They are good reading.

But--a secret revealed--the briefs contain the contact information to all the attorneys involved!

The urge--give a piece of one's mind'; share a worthwhile thought;---should be engaged circumspectly.

These court filings contain enormous information and thougthful arguments beyond media and even DU information.
They are good reading. Wonderfully researched. I always learn something.

But--a secret revealed--the briefs contain the contact information to all the attorneys involved!

The urge--give a piece of one's mind; share a worthwhile thought;---should be engaged circumspectly.

Remember: "plaintiffs do not win cases; attorneys win cases." [Quoted from Schempp of Abington v. Schempp, 1963. Landmark in separation of church and state.]

Histrionics and hysteria of plaintiffs make for TV and blogging, but really have little effect on the courts and law.







Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kiri (Reply #34)

Fri Sep 4, 2015, 07:04 PM

35. I do that sometimes with cases on Pacer


Especially if I see a favorable motion in someone's briefs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Original post)

Fri Sep 4, 2015, 07:54 PM

37. See my DETAILED post from last nite

go to :
Kentucky clerk’s actions are about deprivation of rights under color of law

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027139022

I actually did a significant amount of research on this
and there is a much more detailed explanation

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Original post)

Fri Sep 4, 2015, 09:53 PM

38. God's law

[img][/img]

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to libodem (Reply #38)

Sat Sep 12, 2015, 07:04 PM

40. Good one!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dark n Stormy Knight (Reply #40)

Sun Sep 13, 2015, 10:57 AM

41. I try

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Original post)

Fri Sep 4, 2015, 09:55 PM

39. Uh, yeah, try and unsee this:

[img][/img]

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread