Kentucky Clerk’s Office Defies Court Order to Issue Same-Sex Marriage Licenses

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Kanluwen**

Ouze wrote:
There's no evidence she hasn't received death threats and honestly I'd be a little surprised if she hasn't.

Disbarring lawyers for taking unpopular cases seems like the slipperiest of slopes to me.

Ouze--it's not "taking unpopular cases".

It's crap like this:

In 2000, Liberty Counsel threatened legal action against a public library for awarding a "Hogwarts' Certificate of Accomplishment" to young students who read J. K. Rowling's Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire in its entirety. Staver said that "witchcraft is a religion, and the certificate of witchcraft endorsed a particular religion in violation of the First Amendment establishment clause."

In December 2005, Liberty Counsel issued a press release accusing an elementary school in Dodgeville, Wisconsin of changing the lyrics of Christmas songs to make them more "secular" and said it would sue the school district "if the district does not immediately remedy the situation." The school was putting on the play "The Little Tree's Christmas Gift," written by Dwight Elrich, a former church choir director.The Dodgeville school district attempted to seek a retraction and apology from Liberty Counsel, as well as reimbursement of $20,000 spent in personnel, security, and attorney fees to fight the accusation. Liberty Counsel's Staver refused, asserting, "There is nothing to apologize for or retract."

**d-usa**

Heck, aren't the WBC folks still active lawyers? Or am I mistaken there?

**Frazzled**

Ouze wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:
Her pay should be garnished, refunded to the taxpayers, and her lawyers(who are advocates from a so-called Christian group called "Liberty Counsel") should be disbarred.

Too far, man. What precisely would the grounds for disbarment be?

Indeed. There has been no aspersion that they have completed a breach of the relevant state ethical code in defending their client. If you have a charge you should make it. Saying they should be disbarred (a legal death threat) because they are saying their client gets death threats is almost funny. Do you have any proof she hasn't? Further defendant attorneys have a wide leeway to say all kinds of things like: their client is innocent etc.

**Kanluwen**

d-usa wrote:
Heck, aren't the WBC folks still active lawyers? Or am I mistaken there?

Yep, they are.

Because, annoyingly, it seems to take a hell of a lot to qualify for disbarment.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:
Ouze wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:
Her pay should be garnished, refunded to the taxpayers, and her lawyers(who are advocates from a so-called Christian group called "Liberty Counsel") should be disbarred.

Too far, man. What precisely would the grounds for disbarment be?

Indeed. There has been no aspersion that they have completed a breach of the relevant state ethical code in defending their client. If you have a charge you should make it.

Again:

"Credible death threats have been received by our client and her family".
She's not dead, is she?

Not too credible then, are they?

**Frazzled**

Er...death threat and saying someone killed their client is what we call completely separate things. Did you mean to type that?

My wife has had death threats but it still alive.

**d-usa**

It's easy to be disbarred. You start with breaking the law usually, and lawyers are usually pretty good at just staying this side of legal.

Being douches isn't against the law though.

**whembly**

I have a problem that this elected Democrat official has the key to the office under lock to prevent other officials from issuing licences.

Why hasn't she been held in contempt yet?

This sets an awful precedent the longer this goes...

Rhetorically asking here... what's the response if she's in charge of issue "shall issue CCW" permits, and refuses? What about refusing to follow VoterID regulations?

**Kanluwen**

Frazzled wrote:
Er...death threat and saying someone killed their client is what we call completely separate things. Did you mean to type that?

My wife has had death threats but it still alive.

I meant what I typed.

"Credible death threats" means that you have evidence suggesting that the threat is imminent; i.e. someone is going to make an attempt.

There have been NO reported attempts on her life, so unless the death threats were about assassinating her character(or lack thereof)..."credible death threats" is perjury.

**agnosto**

Ouze wrote:
I'm thinking about trying that double breaded thing that was suggested earlier.

Do it. Your doctor won't thank me but your stomach will. It's also a good way to ensure a fresh sandwich.

**WrentheFaceless**

whembly wrote:
I have a problem that this elected Democrat official has the key to the office under lock to prevent other officials from issuing licences.

Why hasn't she been held in contempt yet?

This sets an awful precedent the longer this goes...

Rhetorically asking here... what's the response if she's in charge of issue "shall issue CCW" permits, and refuses? What about refusing to follow VoterID regulations?

Think her and all members of her office were supposed to report to court today regarding Contempt charges

**Frazzled**

WrentheFaceless wrote:
whembly wrote:
I have a problem that this elected Democrat official has the key to the office under lock to prevent other officials from issuing licences.

Why hasn't she been held in contempt yet?

This sets an awful precedent the longer this goes...

Rhetorically asking here... what's the response if she's in charge of issue "shall issue CCW" permits, and refuses? What about refusing to follow VoterID regulations?

Think her and all members of her office were supposed to report to court today regarding Contempt charges

Exactly.

I meant what I typed.

"Credible death threats" means that you have evidence suggesting that the threat is imminent; i.e. someone is going to make an attempt.

There have been NO reported attempts on her life, so unless the death threats were about assassinating her character(or lack thereof)..."credible death threats" is perjury.

please show where thats a legal standard for disbarment.

**Ouze**

Kanluwen wrote:
"Credible death threats have been received by our client and her family".
She's not dead, is she?

Not too credible then, are they?

Ehh. I think you're being a bit unreasonable on this one, but I don't think I'm going to convince you, and you're not going to convince me, so - there we are.

The other stuff you listed seems like grounds for complaints to the state bar, to be examined as possible frivolous litigation.

**Kanluwen**

Frazzled wrote:
WrentheFaceless wrote:
whembly wrote:
I have a problem that this elected Democrat official has the key to the office under lock to prevent other officials from issuing licences.

Why hasn't she been held in contempt yet?

This sets an awful precedent the longer this goes...

Rhetorically asking here... what's the response if she's in charge of issue "shall issue CCW" permits, and refuses? What about refusing to follow VoterID regulations?

Think her and all members of her office were supposed to report to court today regarding Contempt charges

Exactly.

Hope the judge slams her and her staff(which is nothing but family members from what earlier stories have said).

I meant what I typed.

"Credible death threats" means that you have evidence suggesting that the threat is imminent; i.e. someone is going to make an attempt.

There have been NO reported attempts on her life, so unless the death threats were about assassinating her character(or lack thereof)..."credible death threats" is perjury.

please show where thats a legal standard for disbarment.

You trying to say that perjury isn't a legal standard for disbarment?

**Ouze**

I think we haven't yet seen evidence of perjury. The fact she has not been killed doesn't mean threats weren't made, and whether they were "credible" or not is probably not a determination made by her camp, but rather by law enforcement.

I'd certainly rather that police (who already getting paid anyway) err on the side of reasonable caution. Adding a few uniforms to the office doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

**Kanluwen**

Ouze wrote:
I think we haven't yet seen evidence of perjury. The fact she has not been killed doesn't mean threats weren't made, and whether they were "credible" or not is probably not a determination made by her camp, but rather by law enforcement.

The reason I state it's perjury is that it was NOT law enforcement that made the statement, but her lawyers from Liberty Counsel that made the statement.

They used the fact that law enforcement was present at the court house for the protests as "evidence" that the threats were credible.
Law enforcement are always at protests, ergo--lying sacks of crap.

**Polonius**

Perjury is a false statement under oath. Even if it were perjury, you'd have to show that the lawyer, and not his client made the false statement.

**Ouze**

Lets try another tack: lets say you report a death threat to the police.

You call your lawyer, who advises you call the police. You do so., They determine it's credible by whatever metric they use.

The person who issued the death threat now sees the increase police presence and decides their plan is no longer tenable and calls it off.

The lawyer who suggested calling the police should now face disbarment for perjury, since as you weren't killed, the threat couldn't have been credible.

Am I fairly characterizing what you're saying here? Because that is how I am reading what you're saying.

**Polonius**

Also, a statement made to the media or general public cannot be perjury.

**Kanluwen**

Ouze wrote:
Lets try another tack: lets say you report a death threat to the police.

You call your lawyer, who advises you call the police. You do so., They determine it's credible by whatever metric they use.

The person who issued the death threat now sees the increase police presence and decides their plan is no longer tenable and calls it off.

The lawyer who suggested calling the police should now face disbarment for perjury, since as you weren't killed, the threat couldn't have been credible.

Am I fairly characterizing what you're saying here? Because that is how I am reading what you're saying.

No, what I'm saying is this:
Your lawyer claims as part of an ongoing trial that you have received "credible death threats", citing the presence of law enforcement at protests surrounding your office as evidence of the credibility of said death threats.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Polonius wrote:
Also, a statement made to the media or general public cannot be perjury.

Damn well should be in situations like this, where it's a lawyer representing someone in a controversial case like this.

**Ouze**

I see the distinction. Still, I feel like there is no evidence presented to support that there have been no threats.

**Polonius**

Kanluwen wrote:

Polonius wrote:
Also, a statement made to the media or general public cannot be perjury.

Damn well should be in situations like this, where it's a lawyer representing someone in a controversial case like this.

I'd like you to meet my good friend, Zealous Representation! He's having a party with his pals Due Process, Freedom of Speech, and the Fourth Estate.

He's a jackass lawyer representing a jackass the only way possible: by being a jackass. Enjoy watching them lose, and leave it at that.

**Kanluwen**

Ouze wrote:
I see the distinction. Still, I feel like there is no evidence presented to support that there have been no threats.

I didn't say that "clearly there have been no threats", I said "credible death threats".

I would be astonished if there hadn't been death threats made, as I said earlier in the thread, by teenagers who thought it would be funny.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Polonius wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:

Polonius wrote:
Also, a statement made to the media or general public cannot be perjury.

Damn well should be in situations like this, where it's a lawyer representing someone in a controversial case like this.

I'd like you to meet my good friend, Zealous Representation! He's having a party with his pals Due Process, Freedom of Speech, and the Fourth Estate.

He's a jackass lawyer representing a jackass the only way possible: by being a jackass. Enjoy watching them lose, and leave it at that.

I don't want them just to lose, I want their whole damn Liberty Counsel torn down and the earth salted beneath their feet.

*grumble*

**Polonius**

Kanluwen wrote:
Ouze wrote:
I see the distinction. Still, I feel like there is no evidence presented to support that there have been no threats.

I didn't say that "clearly there have been no threats", I said "credible death threats".

I would be astonished if there hadn't been death threats made, as I said earlier in the thread, by teenagers who thought it would be funny.

In Maryland, where I work but not where I am licensed, virtually any death threat would allow an individual to secure a temporary restraining order. Only at a hearing for a permanent RO would you have to show that it was a credible threat.

Not every action of the law requires the same standards of proof.

**kronk**

Polonius wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:

Polonius wrote:
Also, a statement made to the media or general public cannot be perjury.

Damn well should be in situations like this, where it's a lawyer representing someone in a controversial case like this.

I'd like you to meet my good friend, Zealous Representation! He's having a party with his pals Due Process, Freedom of Speech, and the Fourth Estate.

He's a jackass lawyer representing a jackass the only way possible: by being a jackass. Enjoy watching them lose, and leave it at that.

I agree with this statement. She's an asshat and her penalty day is coming. Lawyers do what lawyers do for their clients, right Frazz!? I don't see the disbarment issue here. What's said in a public forum is 100% different than what's said under oath.

Now if the lawyers named persons X, Y, and Z for doing acts 1, 2, and 3, then there could be libel/slander issues, but that's a whole different conversation.

Also, I am not a librarian.

**Frazzled**

Polonius wrote:
Also, a statement made to the media or general public cannot be perjury.

Polonius has enlightened us with both his posts on the topic. I'll go with him.

**Kanluwen**

Polonius wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:
Ouze wrote:
I see the distinction. Still, I feel like there is no evidence presented to support that there have been no threats.

I didn't say that "clearly there have been no threats", I said "credible death threats".

I would be astonished if there hadn't been death threats made, as I said earlier in the thread, by teenagers who thought it would be funny.

In Maryland, where I work but not where I am licensed, virtually any death threat would allow an individual to secure a temporary restraining order. Only at a hearing for a permanent RO would you have to show that it was a credible threat.

Not every action of the law requires the same standards of proof.

Right, but by all accounts, she and her family have not gotten any restraining orders on protesters or individuals--temporary or not.

Her lawyers stated she received credible death threats, citing the increased law enforcement presence(which coincides with the fact that there are active protests as it's something like 10-15 officers which is roughly standard for these kinds of protest control) as evidence of the credibility of these threats.

That's what is such nonsense about this.

**Polonius**

Kanluwen wrote:
That's what is such nonsense about this.

I can 100% assure you: spouting nonsense will never get a lawyer disbarred.

**Kanluwen**

Polonius wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:
That's what is such nonsense about this.

I can 100% assure you: spouting nonsense will never get a lawyer disbarred.

It damn well should when they're commenting on a case they are representing.

**Frazzled**

Polonius wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:
That's what is such nonsense about this.

I can 100% assure you: spouting nonsense will never get a lawyer disbarred.

Its how I passed the bar!

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kanluwen wrote:
Polonius wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:
That's what is such nonsense about this.

I can 100% assure you: spouting nonsense will never get a lawyer disbarred.

It damn well should when they're commenting on a case they are representing.

Should is not relevant. Is is only relevant.

Or as the immortal bard said: "what???"

**agnosto**

Polonius wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:
That's what is such nonsense about this.

I can 100% assure you: spouting nonsense will never get a lawyer disbarred.

Case in point, the GW v Chapterhouse lawsuit.