General Discussion

jmowreader

(50,543 posts)

13. It says "conspire or go in disguise"

Fri Sep 4, 2015, 05:30 PM

Sep 2015

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."

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

41 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

"What law has Kim Davis broken?" [View all] jberryhill Sep 2015 OP

If she prevents me from marrying my one true love, or whoever, and my and my love's randys1 Sep 2015 #1

ROFL malaise Sep 2015 #2

I'm not sure I follow the English there, but... jberryhill Sep 2015 #3

Where was your issue with my English? randys1 Sep 2015 #5

The sentence fragment broken between the subject line and body jberryhill Sep 2015 #9

I wont bother you anymore...each time we interact you seem annoyed... randys1 Sep 2015 #10

Meh, I wouldn't let that put you off jberryhill Sep 2015 #15

I didn't see an annoyance. Plucketeer Sep 2015 #32

No, that's a regional/cultural grammatic construction jberryhill Sep 2015 #36

Too bad she's not in the military. lpbk2713 Sep 2015 #4

I think 1985 would be better, since the Christofascist law firm is pulling Davis' strings jmowreader Sep 2015 #6

Disguised as what? Decent human beings? jberryhill Sep 2015 #8

It says "conspire or go in disguise" jmowreader Sep 2015 #13

if she denied them a gun license Skittles Sep 2015 #7

Much simpler -- she was jailed for contempt of court nichomachus Sep 2015 #11

The order has to proceed from some underlying legal matter jberryhill Sep 2015 #14

Just contempt of court. The judge ordered her to do something. She did not do it. Contempt. LiberalArkie Sep 2015 #22

tell them if a judge orders them to pay Child Support....and they fail to do so... VanillaRhapsody Sep 2015 #29

I agree, because section 1983 is not a criminal statute and doesn't carry jail time. Jim Lane Sep 2015 #19

is this on point also ? steve2470 Sep 2015 #12

No, that's not what she's in jail for jberryhill Sep 2015 #16

ok thanks nt steve2470 Sep 2015 #17

It should be pretty obvious she defied a court order. Even the biggest dullard Rex Sep 2015 #18

Yeah, I'm not sure why it's a "thing" with them jberryhill Sep 2015 #20

It gives you a scary look into their collective mindset. It is like when Ted Cruz loves the SCOTUS Rex Sep 2015 #21

Fundies / Sovereign Citizens VanillaRhapsody Sep 2015 #30

I've heard something about "she never had a chance to appeal her jail sentence" MiniMe Sep 2015 #23

jberryhill - thank you - I find this whole KIM I'm a BAC -episode asiliveandbreathe Sep 2015 #24

They don't understand it because it is not in the second part of a sentence in the second Amendment world wide wally Sep 2015 #25

She is breaking the supreme law of the land...the U.S. Constitution. roamer65 Sep 2015 #26

Logic...... wolfie001 Sep 2015 #27

Not to mention cuckolding one husband by making him think the other husbands children are his... VanillaRhapsody Sep 2015 #31

No- she violated Title 18 criminal law. James48 Sep 2015 #28

The Constitution leaps to mind sarisataka Sep 2015 #33

always read the briefs! kiri Sep 2015 #34

I do that sometimes with cases on Pacer jberryhill Sep 2015 #35

See my DETAILED post from last nite JunkYardDogg Sep 2015 #37

God's law libodem Sep 2015 #38

Good one! Dark n Stormy Knight Sep 2015 #40

I try libodem Sep 2015 #41

Uh, yeah, try and unsee this: libodem Sep 2015 #39