Notice: Forums will be shutdown by June 2019

To focus on better serving our members, we've decided to shut down the POF forums.

While regular posting is now disabled, you can continue to view all threads until the end of June 2019. Event Hosts can still create and promote events while we work on a new and improved event creation service for you.

Thank you!

Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Off Topic  > Should Davis, the Court Clerk, Be in Jail      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 deetristate
Joined: 12/4/2014
Msg: 1
Should Davis, the Court Clerk, Be in JailPage 1 of 10    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10)
What stopped the judge from just ordering the others to issue the licenses in the first place?

People were a bit surprised given that the judge's father is/was some big republican conservative.

Is this another power grab of the federal government over state concerns? Domestic Relations, Elections,

What would you have done?

Will the state legislature amend the law to accommodate people like Davis or force them not to run for such offices?
 trinity818
Joined: 9/1/2006
Msg: 2
Should Davis, the Court Clerk, Be in Jail
Posted: 9/5/2015 6:06:56 AM
She should resign from her position since her religious beliefs prevent her from following the Supreme court ruling.

I really don't see any room for debate on the subject. She is entitled to her beliefs. She is not entitled to use those beliefs to infringe on other people's rights as established by the courts.
 funchesf
Joined: 6/27/2014
Msg: 3
Should Davis, the Court Clerk, Be in Jail
Posted: 9/5/2015 7:07:03 AM
she was supposedly doing the work of the Lord by not issuing marriage licenses to gay couples which in the eyes of the courts were discrimination and she could have been placed in jail for contempt of court,

but her lawyers had her do a smart thing by refusing to issue marriage licenses to anyone and therefore it was no longer a case of discrimination but of impeachment for not doing the job she was elected to do which means at this point in time it was no longer in the court's hands to take any action ....this means that she should not be in jail

but even though, she is still not off the hook because now because she is an elected official that refuse to issue marriage license to anyone she can now be charged with using a government facility and the power of her position to violate the civil rights of American Citizens
 HalftimeDad
Joined: 5/29/2005
Msg: 4
Should Davis, the Court Clerk, Be in Jail
Posted: 9/5/2015 7:13:44 AM
He found her in contempt of court, so he has a lot of leeway.

But nobody wanted to see her go to jail. She's being paid to do a job she refuses to do; it would have been more appropriate to fine her a day's wages plus one dollar for every day she refuses to do her job. However, even before she went to jail there was a lot of money being raised in her name, so a series of fines would have actually meant she would come out financially ahead. So the judge may have just thought that if a fine wasn't going to work he had to go the other route.
 02saltydog
Joined: 8/21/2015
Msg: 5
Should Davis, the Court Clerk, Be in Jail
Posted: 9/5/2015 7:17:53 AM
Her interpretation of her beliefs resulted in her not being capable of doing her job. She should have been fired. Not laid off, not fined but fired.

I don't think jail is the best place for this woman but it does set an example.
 cotter
Joined: 10/17/2005
Msg: 6
view profile
History
Should Davis, the Court Clerk, Be in Jail
Posted: 9/5/2015 7:21:21 AM

What stopped the judge from just ordering the others to issue the licenses in the first place?
Hmmm ... let's see.

I'm a licensed nurse. I apply for a job working in a clinic that (among other things) counsels young single people on "safe sex practices". I know that will be part of my job as well. My religious beliefs prevent me from counseling young people on "safe sex practices" because I do not believe in sex before marriage. In spite of that, I take the job. Then the day comes when the clinic asks me to actually do some counseling with young patients.

You know what? I think instead of doing the job I applied for and was hired to do, I'll just get some judge to order my other fellow nurses to do that part of my job ... but I'll still expect to get paid for doing my job even if I refuse to do my job.

Yeah ... that's the way it should be ... right?

People were a bit surprised given that the judge's father is/was some big republican conservative.
So "conservatives" don't have to enforce the law on other "conservatives"?

I suppose if the judge's father is/was some big Democrat the woman would have been hollering about what the "librul" just did to her. I mean ... how dare that woman take a job and then actually have to do the job ... right?

Liberal or conservative ... shouldn't people just expect to have to follow the laws of our land?

Is this another power grab of the federal government over state concerns? Domestic Relations, Elections,
Power grab? Power grab? How can "equal rights" for all be any kind of "power grab"?

What would you have done?
I would have done the same thing the judge did.

Since she is an elected official who refuses to follow the law of the land and cannot be fired in the sense that a non-elected official can be fired, then the appropriate step is to put her behind bars. Additionally, I certainly hope they are also holding her pay. If she's going to break the law, she certainly should not be rewarded with pay as well.

Will the state legislature amend the law to accommodate people like Davis or force them not to run for such offices?
Are you somehow saying that state legislatures should amend laws to enable people to "break the law"? Seriously?
 benartflick
Joined: 3/8/2012
Msg: 7
Should Davis, the Court Clerk, Be in Jail
Posted: 9/5/2015 7:23:30 AM

I really don't see any room for debate on the subject



I disagree. Many people think something - then that's the way it is - no discussing needed because nothing will ever change their mind. While others with opposing views are willing to discuss things and might change their outlook.

I believe a mayor SHOULD have the authority to remove a town public servant if they're clearly NOT doing their job. Reason for the removal must be valid and logical. Any abuse of power (by the mayor) should result in a severe penalty.

ALL public employees should answer to a higher up WHEN their actions are extreme and inexcusable (like in this case).

Some so-called Americans have NO PROBLEM whatsoever with a person being thrown in jail without due process? No formal charges - no bail - no trial by her peers. Why bother with B S - right? Unless a judge decides YOU pissed him off and tosses YOU in jail. It happens, often. It shouldn't happen AT ALL!

I'm an firm advocate for an opportunity to post reasonable bail and a trial by your peers before being thrown in jail or prison.

If a judge has the authority to temporary remove a town clerk from her elected position - that's okay with me.

Our constitutional rights to freedom and due process of law should be sacred to all of us.

(On a side note - it simply astonishes me that there's much B S over a couple of gays getting a piece of paper stating they're married - and little support for a stubborn woman being tossed in jail because of her religious beliefs. It happened in Kentucky - not Salem - right?)
 IgorFrankensteen
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 8
view profile
History
Should Davis, the Court Clerk, Be in Jail
Posted: 9/5/2015 7:26:52 AM
I have yet to have read an explanation of how the applicable laws were written for this situation. If the existing laws are such that refusing to perform her job as directed, and doing so in the manner that she did, is punishable by imprisonment, then it was right for her to be imprisoned.

Laws are mechanical things, in our society. That's the point of Rule of Law. This woman has chosen so far, to oppose the Rule of Law, and she is being dealt with accordingly.

Way back when I was a very young protester, opposing American conduct of the war in Southeast Asia, I carefully observed and thought through how protest of various kinds was designed to work. I saw then, that the whole point of protesting a law by refusing to follow it, was to BE arrested, and to BE imprisoned. It hasn't been straight out stated so far, whether this woman intended to be jailed as a part of her protest, or expected to be allowed to ignore the law entirely, and thereby become the law unto herself. If the former, then she should be very pleased at this point, and be looking forward to her case being prosecuted, since that is how such protests accomplish their goals: the hope is, that enough people will be upset by the protester's entirely legal prosecution, that they will clamor for the laws to be changed.

The trick with that here, however, is that this woman isn't protesting a LAW. She is protesting the interpretation of the Constitution of the United States, by the one court that has the power to do so. In fact, she is opposing a large number of such interpretations, including many very fundamental ones. In order to overturn those rulings, it will take many Constitutional Amendments, which all current polls show would be opposed by large majorities of the citizenry.
 mark/1948
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 9
view profile
History
Should Davis, the Court Clerk, Be in Jail
Posted: 9/5/2015 7:45:19 AM
whoa nelly, you must be living in some fantasy world. in your world the people in public offices would just get a slap on the wrist for not doing their jobs. then what would be the purpose of an oath. i'll do as i like, come take a dollar. by the by she might not get the money you think she will: https://www.gofundme.com/blog/2015/04/29/protecting-our-community/ unless some people who don't understand the constituion. i'm glad she has principles, as most of us do to some degree. i've quit jobs because it went against what i believed to be fair treatment. i've also stated what i believe to be fair treatment. through it all, our word is our bond, and she took an oath w/no caveats. let's mach backward, and only have church tell us their was is the only way. even the grand poobah the pope is seeking inclusion not exclusion........PEACE
 gtomustang
Joined: 6/16/2007
Msg: 10
Gee, if she was a liberal standing for a liberal cause, what would the uproar be?
Posted: 9/5/2015 7:50:56 AM
perhaps the fact the judge is a RepCon should suggest the case WAS airtight. Just like this four-times-married woman might want to consider God is indeed sending her a message...stop legislating from her own bench. This isn't a power grab, RepCons complain all the time about state workers who burn up tax dollars by not doing their job well.

I was concerned putting her into jail (hey, "Stupidity should be painful", right? funny the conservatives don't sing that one anymore) would make her a martyr. Then I saw her supporters in her office, and realize those who hate everyone else who feels offended....were already finding a reason to be offended. Its a new Terry Shivo case. So, send her to jail, give her the 15 seconds of fame she can't get elsewhere, its an election season so she can be this year's Joe the Plumber. it apparently sent a message, b/c the other 5 deputies prayed, "Holy Shit! we better do the job we're hired for!"

She's a state worker, i'm sure she could have been transferred to another $80,000 a year job. I guarantee, if she was a liberal standing up for a liberal stance--the environment, for example--every rabid Republican (rush, etc) would be SCREAMING to punish this state worker, who's "proof" that government has gotten too onerus. and who really thinks that wouldn't be the case?
 benartflick
Joined: 3/8/2012
Msg: 11
Gee, if she was a liberal standing for a liberal cause, what would the uproar be?
Posted: 9/5/2015 8:00:37 AM

"If the existing laws are such that refusing to perform her job as directed, and doing so in the manner that she did, is punishable by imprisonment, then it was right for her to be imprisoned."


Do YOU actually believe that's remotely possible? That somehow makes sense to you?

You would be hard-pressed to find an example where it's written ANYWHERE that refusing to do your job is punishable by imprisonment.

Do YOU believe the Supreme Court made a law requiring imprisonment if someone didn't abide by their decision?

This should be a simple argument. A judge held her in contempt for disobeying his order. And he has the authority to throw her in jail for refusing to do so.

My ONLY argument IS I don't believe a judge should have that power. It's abused MINDLESSLY too often. We should NEVER lose our right to a trial by our peers prior to being thrown in jail or prison.

One recent case involved a lawyer advising his client NOT TO ANSWER the judge's question. The judge threw the lawyer in jail. A few of us Americans think that's absurd and clearly unconstitutional.

Funny how some words are clear and should be easy to understand, but aren't. While others have to be interpreted by 9 people who usually disagree - 5 to 4.
 _mungojoe_
Joined: 10/1/2014
Msg: 12
Gee, if she was a liberal standing for a liberal cause, what would the uproar be?
Posted: 9/5/2015 8:18:39 AM

Laws are mechanical things, in our society. That's the point of Rule of Law. This woman has chosen so far, to oppose the Rule of Law, and she is being dealt with accordingly.

That is ultimately the gist of it... When she first started this... her public claim was... that she was required to follow the Rule of Law... that she had taken an oath to do so... even pointing out that it was an "oath to the Constitution"... and that she could do no less...

However... when the courts finally explained to her... just what the Rule of Law required... that she perform her legal duties... as required and in keeping with the Constitution... which did not allow her to take the stand she did...

It turns out... her idea of Rule of Law meant... what she thought it should be... the Rule of God's Law... not what it was... She might have been able to slide under the "jail thing"... if she had promised not to interfere with the Deputy Clerks issuing licences... which certainly seems to fit the description of what she wanted... not to issue those licences with which she was uncomfortable...

She refused to do even that... somehow feeling it was her "religious right" to prevent others from doing what she didn't like... and is even attempting to do so still... MOST spitefully... from her jail cell... by attempting to declare... through her lawyer... the licences issued by the Deputy Clerks... invalid... And this... despite the fact that the Gov't... as expressed through it's attorney... says they are...

She has taken this far beyond... simply following the Rule of Law on her own part... She is actually attempting to define the law... contrary to what it is... for others who obviously don't share her same depth of conviction... considering they preferred to issue rather than defy the court... as well...

Does she deserve to be in jail for her individual refusal...? Questionable...

Does she deserve to go to jail for... using her elected position to attempt to interfere... with others who are trying to follow the law...? Yes... it is an abuse of power... The very kind of abuse of power that Rule of Law and the Constitution are meant to preclude...

It seems pretty clear that her efforts... are little more than an attempt... to insert her view of "God's Law"... into the Constitutional Law of the US...

She's a state worker, i'm sure she could have been transferred to another $80,000 a year job. I guarantee, if she was a liberal standing up for a liberal stance--the environment, for example--every rabid Republican (rush, etc) would be SCREAMING to punish this state worker, who's "proof" that government has gotten too onerus. and who really thinks that wouldn't be the case?

Too right there... We would be hearing endless diatribes about... the Rule of Law and the Constitution... and how those overrule her "personal feelings"... and likely a lot of sneering about the "feelings" part...

You would be hard-pressed to find an example where it's written ANYWHERE that refusing to do your job is punishable by imprisonment.

This isn't simply a question of "not doing her job"... as in "being behind" on the paperwork...

This is a question of fulfilling her elected duties according to the law and Constitution... and THAT has plenty of precedence as criminal...
 gtomustang
Joined: 6/16/2007
Msg: 13
Gee, if she was a liberal standing for a liberal cause, what would the uproar be?
Posted: 9/5/2015 8:27:15 AM
http://www.liberalamerica.org/2015/09/03/the-bible-absolutely-condemns-kentucky-clerk-kim-daviss-actions/

happens to cover the parts of the Bible that tells her, she MUST do things she has sworn an oath to do. So apparently she doesn't even follow the authority she believes in, much less a Federal one.

Render unto Caesar, what is Caesar's.
 HalftimeDad
Joined: 5/29/2005
Msg: 14
Gee, if she was a liberal standing for a liberal cause, what would the uproar be?
Posted: 9/5/2015 8:31:00 AM
Okay, I admit I don't know the ins and outs of being a county clerk in America. But I'd be pretty surprised if it meant taking an oath. She' s not exactly a model citizen, but I doubt that she broke an oath.
 Maleman999
Joined: 2/14/2010
Msg: 15
Gee, if she was a liberal standing for a liberal cause, what would the uproar be?
Posted: 9/5/2015 8:48:05 AM
I'm sure glad I never took a job where if you don't do your job to your boss's satisfaction, you would be thrown in jail. The biggest threat at jobs I've had is being fired if I refuse to do the work. Tossing someone in jail partly because of their religious beliefs sounds a little Draconian to me. Is this the dark ages?
 IgorFrankensteen
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 16
view profile
History
Gee, if she was a liberal standing for a liberal cause, what would the uproar be?
Posted: 9/5/2015 8:52:10 AM

Do YOU actually believe that's remotely possible? That somehow makes sense to you?

You would be hard-pressed to find an example where it's written ANYWHERE that refusing to do your job is punishable by imprisonment.

Do YOU believe the Supreme Court made a law requiring imprisonment if someone didn't abide by their decision?

This should be a simple argument. A judge held her in contempt for disobeying his order. And he has the authority to throw her in jail for refusing to do so.

My ONLY argument IS I don't believe a judge should have that power. It's abused MINDLESSLY too often. We should NEVER lose our right to a trial by our peers prior to being thrown in jail or prison.

One recent case involved a lawyer advising his client NOT TO ANSWER the judge's question. The judge threw the lawyer in jail. A few of us Americans think that's absurd and clearly unconstitutional.

Funny how some words are clear and should be easy to understand, but aren't. While others have to be interpreted by 9 people who usually disagree - 5 to 4.


* "You would be hard-pressed to find an example where it's written ANYWHERE that refusing to do your job is punishable by imprisonment."

To begin with, I didn't make that claim. It is your re-interpretation of what I did say. However, it is not at all hard to find examples where refusing to do your job will get you jailed. Easiest: any military member who refuses to follow lawful orders can, and very often are, jailed immediately.

Again, as I said and you failed to read, I have not seen a direct explanation of exactly why she has been jailed. My suspicion is that she was lawfully jailed for failing to follow a lawfully given order to comply with the law. It is the same reason why you could, and would likely be arrested and jailed, if you parked your car in the center of the street, and refused to move it when directed to by police.

* "Do YOU believe the Supreme Court made a law requiring imprisonment if someone didn't abide by their decision?"

You are accusing me of knowing even less about the Constitution than you seem to. The Supreme Court does not "make" laws.

* "My ONLY argument IS I don't believe a judge should have that power. It's abused MINDLESSLY too often. We should NEVER lose our right to a trial by our peers prior to being thrown in jail or prison."

Good luck with that. It has never been the law of the land here, or any other nation I've heard or read about. Without the power to arrest and confine, all laws change to being polite suggestions and requests.

Comparing what you say in one place of your post with what you say in another, I suggest that your objections in this situation aren't based on principles of law at all, but rather on the fact that you chance to support the beliefs of the particular lawbreaker of the moment.
 Behind-Blue-Eyes_53
Joined: 12/19/2011
Msg: 17
Gee, if she was a liberal standing for a liberal cause, what would the uproar be?
Posted: 9/5/2015 8:53:08 AM

halftimedad:
Okay, I admit I don't know the ins and outs of being a county clerk in America. But I'd be pretty surprised if it meant taking an oath. She' s not exactly a model citizen, but I doubt that she broke an oath.


IDK, How they do things in Canada, but in the USA, Elected Officials take an Oath of Office, which includes.....
Supporting & Defending the Constitution of the United States...


Here is the oath of office taken by county clerks in Kentucky:

———

Section 228 of the Kentucky Constitution, oath of officers and attorneys:

Members of the General Assembly and all officers, before they enter upon the execution of the duties of their respective offices, and all members of the bar, before they enter upon the practice of their profession, shall take the following oath or affirmation:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be) that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of this Commonwealth, and be faithful and true to the Commonwealth of Kentucky so long as I continue a citizen thereof, and that I will faithfully execute, to the best of my ability, the office of ——————— according to law; and I do further solemnly swear (or affirm) that since the adoption of the present Constitution, I, being a citizen of this State, have not fought a duel with deadly weapons within this State nor out of it, nor have I sent or accepted a challenge to fight a duel with deadly weapons, nor have I acted as second in carrying a challenge, nor aided or assisted any person thus offending, so help me God."
 motowncowgirl
Joined: 3/24/2015
Msg: 18
Should Davis, the Court Clerk, Be in Jail
Posted: 9/5/2015 9:05:58 AM

That is ultimately the gist of it... When she first started this... her public claim was... that she was required to follow the Rule of Law... that she had taken an oath to do so... even pointing out that it was an "oath to the Constitution"... and that she could do no less...

However... when the courts finally explained to her... just what the Rule of Law required... that she perform her legal duties... as required and in keeping with the Constitution... which did not allow her to take the stand she did...

yeah that's right. she was only interested in upholding the Constitution while she thought doing so would allow her to bar gay people from getting married. she should run for president. that's how they all do and end-run around what they were sworn to uphold and defend, by talking out of both sides of their lying mouths.....
 BigBadNIrish
Joined: 1/31/2011
Msg: 19
Gee, if she was a liberal standing for a liberal cause, what would the uproar be?
Posted: 9/5/2015 9:06:12 AM

I admit I don't know the ins and outs of being a county clerk in America. But I'd be pretty surprised if it meant taking an oath. She' s not exactly a model citizen, but I doubt that she broke an oath.


Well, Kim Davis did take an oath:


"I do solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be) that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of this Commonwealth, and be faithful and true to the Commonwealth of Kentucky so long as I continue a citizen thereof, and that I will faithfully execute, to the best of my ability, the office of ——————— according to law; and I do further solemnly swear (or affirm) that since the adoption of the present Constitution, I, being a citizen of this State, have not fought a duel with deadly weapons within this State nor out of it, nor have I sent or accepted a challenge to fight a duel with deadly weapons, nor have I acted as second in carrying a challenge, nor aided or assisted any person thus offending, so help me God."



She's being paid to do a job she refuses to do; it would have been more appropriate to fine her a day's wages plus one dollar for every day she refuses to do her job.


The judge would have liked to fine Ms. Davis instead of jailing her. But, he was concerned that her legal defense fund would have paid the fine and Ms. Davis would have suffered no discomfort or financial loss.


You would be hard-pressed to find an example where it's written ANYWHERE that refusing to do your job is punishable by imprisonment.


Ms. Davis was not jailed for failing to do her job. She was jailed for being in contempt of court.


Her interpretation of her beliefs resulted in her not being capable of doing her job. She should have been fired. Not laid off, not fined but fired.


As an elected public official in Kentucky Ms. Davis can only be impeached by the Kentucky legislature or charged with misconduct by the state attorney general. The Kentucky general assembly doesn't meet for another 4 months and is unlikely to convene a special session just to impeach a county clerk.
 IgorFrankensteen
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 20
view profile
History
Gee, if she was a liberal standing for a liberal cause, what would the uproar be?
Posted: 9/5/2015 9:09:57 AM

Okay, I admit I don't know the ins and outs of being a county clerk in America. But I'd be pretty surprised if it meant taking an oath. She' s not exactly a model citizen, but I doubt that she broke an oath.


You've never had an employer/employee contract? Every job I've had, at least since being a paperboy, involved signing a series of employment agreements. Only some of them had the word "Oath" in their title, but they all had the same effect.
 benartflick
Joined: 3/8/2012
Msg: 21
Gee, if she was a liberal standing for a liberal cause, what would the uproar be?
Posted: 9/5/2015 9:20:54 AM

This isn't simply a question of "not doing her job"... as in "being behind" on the paperwork...This is a question of fulfilling her elected duties according to the law and Constitution... and THAT has plenty of precedence as criminal...



Nah, it's a simple matter of NOT doing her job and disobeying a court order. In American our criminal laws are written and CAN be found on the internet. Ya can't find something that's NOT written. I know, most people prefer to tell and not show.

I'm not aware of 'contempt' being criminal. It's kinda like ignoring a parent or talking back with an extreme penalty. Could be written somewhere, but I doubt it.

If failure to fulfill elected duties was criminal, our prisons would be filled with Senators, Congressmen and a President or two.



" Easiest: any military member who refuses to follow lawful orders can, and very often are, jailed immediately."


Somehow military justice is relevant?


"It is the same reason why you could, and would likely be arrested and jailed, if you parked your car in the center of the street, and refused to move it when directed to by police."


Really? You live in America - right? I gotta stay out of your town or city.


" "We should NEVER lose our right to a trial by our peers prior to being thrown in jail or prison." --- It has never been the law of the land here, or any other nation I've heard or read about. Without the power to arrest and confine, all laws change to being polite suggestions and requests.


Fifth Amendment
No person...; nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;

Sixth Amendment
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed; which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor; and to have the assistance of counsel for his defence.
 dragonbytes
Joined: 12/25/2014
Msg: 22
Gee, if she was a liberal standing for a liberal cause, what would the uproar be?
Posted: 9/5/2015 9:23:11 AM
I haven't read what people have posted, maybe this is a repeat.

They should impeach her, then remove her from office.

Davis is an elected official, so she would have to be impeached by the state legislature.

If it isn't already a condition of being an elected official, they should have to sign an oath that they will uphold the laws of the land.

I can see the problem here, this is a new law and perhaps she did sign such an oath.

If she were ethical, she would resign since she cannot perform her elected duties, but she isn't a very ethical person. So impeach her.
 cotter
Joined: 10/17/2005
Msg: 23
view profile
History
Gee, if she was a liberal standing for a liberal cause, what would the uproar be?
Posted: 9/5/2015 9:35:29 AM
Message 11 ...
My ONLY argument IS I don't believe a judge should have that power. It's abused MINDLESSLY too often. We should NEVER lose our right to a trial by our peers prior to being thrown in jail or prison.
Thanks ... but I've worked in the jails and I'd rather the suspected murderer be in jail while the attorneys argue than have them out on the street murdering still more people.

When DNA proves (for example) that a person got raped and is grounds for an arrest, then can we please have your permission to put that person in jail until they get a trial by their peers?
 Behind-Blue-Eyes_53
Joined: 12/19/2011
Msg: 24
Gee, if she was a liberal standing for a liberal cause, what would the uproar be?
Posted: 9/5/2015 10:04:57 AM

Nah, it's a simple matter of NOT doing her job and disobeying a court order. In American our criminal laws are written and CAN be found on the internet. Ya can't find something that's NOT written. I know, most people prefer to tell and not show.

I'm not aware of 'contempt' being criminal. It's kinda like ignoring a parent or talking back with an extreme penalty. Could be written somewhere, but I doubt it.

If failure to fulfill elected duties was criminal, our prisons would be filled with Senators, Congressmen and a President or two.


What would make You think this is a Criminal Case? You do know that the Same Courts handle both Criminal & Civil Cases, don't You?

Jailing someone for Contempt of Court, is one of a few Powers a Civil Court has for someone who refuses to follow a Court Order... If the Court Feels You're purposely hiding Money to avoid paying a Judgement against You, then the court could Jail You for Contempt of Court, too....
 benartflick
Joined: 3/8/2012
Msg: 25
Gee, if she was a liberal standing for a liberal cause, what would the uproar be?
Posted: 9/5/2015 10:35:55 AM

"Ms. Davis was not jailed for failing to do her job. She was jailed for being in contempt of court"


I knew that since I wrote it a few times. Why are you referencing part of a quote by me implying I don't know that simple fact?


"Thanks ... but I've worked in the jails and I'd rather the suspected murderer be in jail while the attorneys argue than have them out on the street murdering still more people."


The town clerk is in jail for contempt - not murder. Huge disparity!


"When DNA proves (for example) that a person got raped and is grounds for an arrest, then can we please have your permission to put that person in jail until they get a trial by their peers?"


What if the defendant claims it WAS consensual?

The following 2 minute video happened to me many years ago. I DID NOT RAPE HER I called the police and was almost arrested:
http://www.moviestorm.co.uk/community/index.php?page=videos§ion=view&vid_id=111259

I take it you don't favor reasonable bail? Perhaps guilt by allegation?

I believe the woman should be removed from her job.

The judge put her in jail for disobeying his order. Removing her from the job makes more sense.

For 50 years that I know of, many tax payers have been thrown in jail for contempt. Failure to appear is a common one. Many have VALID excuses. Doesn't matter. The judge is the accuser and jury.

I HATE injustice or lack of fairness. Sorry!
Show ALL Forums  > Off Topic  > Should Davis, the Court Clerk, Be in Jail