Kim Davis Ask Appeals Court To Halt Marriages In Her County
Source: TPM/BuzzFeed
Kim Davis -- the Kentucky clerk who stopped issuing all marriage licenses after the Supreme Court gay marriage ruling -- is taking another stab at stopping same-sex marriages in her county.
Her lawyers filed a petition Friday with the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals asking the court to halt an order by a district judge requiring that marriage licenses be issued to all couples seeking them, Buzzfeed reported.
The district judge, Judge David Bunning, initially ordered Davis on Aug 12 to issue licenses to the four couples who brought a lawsuit against her for refusing to oversee their marriages. A stay to that order brought by Davis' lawyers was denied by the appeals court as well as the Supreme Court.
Bunning expanded the order Sept. 3 to apply to all Kentucky couples seeking for marriage licenses in the county, which Davis' lawyers say in Friday's petition "lays waste to well-established principles of jurisdiction and due process in the federal court system."
-snip-
Read more: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/kim-davis-expanded-order
jtuck004
(15,882 posts)a great use.
Roy Rolling
(6,853 posts)Her attorney did go to college, huh? Was it Clown College? Barber College?
eggplant
(3,893 posts)skamaria
(325 posts)I think it was Liberty university the ghost of Falwell rears its ugly head😱
underpants
(182,279 posts)Liberty Counsel is making BANK off her supporters
cloudbase
(5,486 posts)but Sally Struthers signed his diploma.
jmowreader
(50,453 posts)...and a law degree from Pensacola Christian College, whose dean is still sitting there going, "We have a law school? Why doesn't anyone tell me these things?"
padfun
(1,780 posts)she is making a mockery of her state and position.
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)You are embarrassing us here in Kentucky. Maybe Kansas will take you.
-none
(1,884 posts)Something about a budget crunch so bad only the governor and the Republican Legislature are assured of getting paid.
mahatmakanejeeves
(56,897 posts)Fortunately, I can go home and start drinking in 5 ... 4 ... 3 ....
ETA: 244 pages! Doesn't he know why they're called briefs? The first 25 pages are new, and the rest consists of Exhibits, probably recycled from the earlier filings.
Someone asked: Mathew Staver
Staver received his B.A. in theology from Southern Missionary College, his M.A. in Religion from Andrews University, and his J.D. from the University of Kentucky. He has argued before the Supreme Court of the United States twice and has argued before most of the federal courts of appeals.
csziggy
(34,120 posts)Not a good omen for any future cases.
geomon666
(7,512 posts)Just go away, go away already!
SoapBox
(18,791 posts)Angry Dragon
(36,693 posts)Gore1FL
(21,034 posts)If she wants to be an imprisoned "martyr" on the wrong side of history, I am happy to oblige her.
George II
(67,782 posts)RKP5637
(67,032 posts)libdem4life
(13,877 posts)davidpdx
(22,000 posts)Kick her off the stage.
BillZBubb
(10,650 posts)Why haven't they demanded she resign?
Liberalagogo
(1,770 posts)She was let out on the promise she would not interfere. And she's interfering. Jail her nasty ass for good this time.
squirecam
(2,706 posts)It at least violates the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 11
Under FRCP 11, a court may impose sanctions against an attorney, law firm, or party when a complaint is filed for an improper purpose such as harassment or delay, when the claims in the complaint are unwarranted under either existing law or a nonfrivolous argument for extension of the law, or when the allegations in the complaint are without evidentiary support and unlikely to have evidentiary support after further investigation and discovery. FRCP 11(b) & (c). When evaluating whether a complaint is frivolous or without evidentiary support, the court must conduct a two-prong inquiry to determine (1) whether the complaint is legally or factually baseless from an objective perspective, and (2) if the attorney has conducted a reasonable and competent inquiry before signing and filing it. Christian v. Mattel, Inc., 286 F.3d 1118, 1127 (9th Cir.2002) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). As shorthand for this test, the Ninth Circuit uses the word frivolous to denote a filing that is both baseless and made without a reasonable and competent inquiry. Townsend v. Holman Consulting Corp., 929 F.2d 1358, 1362 (9th Cir.1990) (en banc). Whether a complaint is frivolous is determined using an objective standard of reasonableness. Id. Not all of a complaint's claims must be frivolous for Rule 11 sanctions to be appropriate. Id. at 1363.
Chao v. Westside Drywall, Inc., 709 F. Supp. 2d 1037, 1080 (D. Or. 2010), as amended (May 13, 2010)
A federal court may levy sanctions under its inherent power for willful disobedience of a court order, when the losing party has acted in bad faith, vexatiously, wantonly, or for oppressive reasons, and against counsel who willfully abuse judicial processes. Fink v. Gomez, 239 F.3d 989, 99192 (9th Cir.2001) (citing Roadway Express, Inc. v. Piper, 447 U.S. 752, 766, 100 S.Ct. 2455, 65 L.Ed.2d 488 (1980)) (internal quotations omitted). The inherent power extends to a full range of litigation abuses, however, the litigant must have engaged in bad faith or willful disobedience of a court's order. Id. at 992 (citing Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 4647, 111 S.Ct. 2123, 115 L.Ed.2d 27 (1991)) (emphasizing the continuing need for resort to the court's inherent power).
Chao v. Westside Drywall, Inc., 709 F. Supp. 2d 1037, 1080 (D. Or. 2010), as amended (May 13, 2010)
JustABozoOnThisBus
(23,283 posts)He made the condition, didn't hear that she agreed to it.
Fantastic Anarchist
(7,309 posts)... it's pretty much non-negotiable.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)The comment about it being sanctionable is nonsense.
One always has the right to file an appeal of an order. That's not "interfering" with an order.
Asking and getting are, of course, two different things.
squirecam
(2,706 posts)You cannot repeatedly file the same motion over and over without consequences. The Supreme Court ruled. There will not be any change. Filing for more stays is an abuse of the litigation process and justifies sanctions.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)...of the initial preliminary order. I'll check tomorrow, but I'm not even sure the substantive appeal of that order was heard by the 6th Circuit yet, but..
The preliminary order was amended once, and there was an additional order concurrent with her release. There is also a pending motion to dismiss, so the 6th Circuit is more likely to take the route of throttling down any additional filings pending some substantive progress in the district court.
Our resident vexatious litigant might drop by and relate his personal experience with courts exercising docket control short of sanctions.
RKP5637
(67,032 posts)reasonable. Frankly, I hope he throws the book at her if she violates his order/agreement. She is thumbing her nose at SCOTUS, the Federal gov., and a Federal judge. She can't seem to comprehend this is a nation of laws. And, she is severely abusing her position and power by trying to force her brand of religion onto others. She was not jailed for her religion, but rather for abuse of her office to thrust her religion onto others.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)I haven't checked whether all of the named plaintiffs got their licenses yet, but whether she is contempt is going to require someone showing up for a license Monday.
bluestateguy
(44,173 posts)She is under contempt, meaning she has no regard for the court's authority. So now she wants the court to intervene on her behalf?
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)She is not currently in contempt. But even if one is in contempt of court, one may of course appeal both the order and the contempt ruling.
Are you seriously suggesting that people should not have a right to appeal court orders?
RKP5637
(67,032 posts)her clerks from issuing licenses. Can she do this and say an appeal is in the works?
Jamastiene
(38,187 posts)to try to get their way. Her temper tantrums are getting tiresome. Throw her ass in jail and throw away the key. She is not fucking queen of the USA. The judge needs to get strict with her and show her that. She obviously won't get it otherwise with her attention seeking temper tantrums.
smirkymonkey
(63,221 posts)She is just such an A-hole! What on earth is wrong with her! I can't even say what I would like to have happen to her or I would be banned for life.
left-of-center2012
(34,195 posts)I agree with the comment which said she'll say they can't issue any marriage licenses while it's being appealed.
orpupilofnature57
(15,472 posts)jmowreader
(50,453 posts)Correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't Dewey, Cheatham and Howe (aka her quack legal team) already appealed this to the Supreme Court, and lost? It's going to look bad for her if Governor Beshear has to send the National Guard in to enforce this, but it currently looks like he needs to.
Geronimoe
(1,539 posts)She is being played for the fool that she is by her attorneys, fringe religious fanatics, and politicians such as Hucklenuts and Cruz.
Lots of money to be made off the ignorant clinging to their Bible and guns, as these vultures rearrange chairs on the Titanic.
Word of the day for these nitwits is "secular". As in Kim's $80K job requires she issue secular marriage licenses. She should be impeached but, we know the entire Kentucky legislature lack one pair of balls. Otherwise they would shutdown mountaintop coal mining.
RKP5637
(67,032 posts)for others agendas, and some $$$$$'s in the process.
marble falls
(56,359 posts)ArcticFox
(1,249 posts)Seriously, let her rot in there until she resigns or is impeached or voted out.
That's my ruling. If only I were a judge in that jurisdiction . . .
JustADumbFireman
(59 posts)This woman (and I use the term loosely) needs to be permanently committed to a lock-down psych ward.