Kim Davis may have invalidated marriage license forms, deputy clerk says

[Botany]

Source: CNN

(CNN)A deputy for Kim Davis, the Kentucky clerk of court who went to jail because she opposes same-sex marriage, is worried he's been issuing invalid marriage licenses, according to papers filed in federal court.

When Davis returned to work last Monday, she reiterated her opposition to gay marriage but said she wouldn't prevent her deputies from issuing licenses to such couples -- as long as those documents didn't carry her name or title.

Davis may have gone further than that, the lawyer for deputy Rowan County court clerk Brian Mason said in an update report Friday to a federal judge.

Davis replaced the old marriage license forms with forms that don't carry her name, the name of the county or any reference to a clerk or deputy clerk, said Mason's lawyer, Richard Hughes.

Read more: http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/19/us/kim-davis-same-sex-marriage-licenses-kentucky/

---

I thought she signed an agreement not to interfere w/marriage licenses?

[avebury]

1. I think that somebody needs to be sent back to jail,

for a much longer time.

I thought that it was a criminal act to intentionally alter a legal document. Any lawyers out there that could clarify this thought?

[RKP5637]

5. I'm not a lawyer, but I find it bizarre that a clerk can just modify legal agreements to

their liking. What about driver's licenses, estate documents and all the rest of the documents held by a clerks office. Take away the element of religion and all, and ask, can a clerk modify the document they just handed me to their liking, for example, the deed to my house? My car title and registration? I think not. IMO, she is way far over the line. Someone in another thread said she had also removed the county name from the licenses.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

23. Republicans would only care if she were screwing up business licenses.

[Purrfessor]

26. I wonder what Kentucky law says about altering official govt documents

[Xithras]

50. A municipal Clerk is considered to be a senior level public official, like a mayor.

While the word Clerk is used for all sorts of jobs, in this role an elected municipal clerk is a senior official who answers to only the voters, courts, and legislature. Elected municipal Clerks and Registrars are responsible for establishing any forms issued by their offices, and do have the right to change them however they see fit...so long as those changes don't violate the law.

Your local county Clerk actually CAN change your deed, your birth certificate, or anything else they want...as long as they don't change the DATA. The birth certificates issued by my local county today look vastly different than the birth certificates they issued when I was younger. The new design was invented, authorized, and put into use by our county Clerk. The new design doesn't violate state law, meets the legal requirements for a California birth certificate, and was approved by the Clerk, which makes it "official". When the next Clerk is elected, she or he can change it however they like.

What the Clerk CANNOT do is change the data on the certificate. The clerk can't change my birthdate, or my name, or my parents names, or any of the other information it carries. They also cannot remove any fields that are required by law.

Similarly, the county Clerk could update my deed or any of my other county records, so long as the original INFORMATION remained.

The only question here is whether this lady removed any fields that are required by law. Does the law require a signature? Does it require the county name? Does it require the Clerks name? If state law requires those fields, then the certificates are invalid and she violated the judges order. If state law doesn't require those fields, then the modifications are legal and she didn't violate the judges order. Without knowing which fields Kentucky law actually requires, it's hard to say whether the change was legal or not.

[RKP5637]

55. Thanks for the additional information, very interesting!!!

[roguevalley]

25. she needs to stand trial for tampering with documents and go to jail for ten years. if lying on a

document gets that sentence, then this should too. Nip this shit in the bud.

[sakabatou]

2. It does look like she's interfering.

[oldandhappy]

3. that was her intent, no surprise

[sulphurdunn]

4. I wonder if she can spell malfeasance?

Misfeasance? Nonfeasance? Take your pick?

[benld74]

18. Everytime she signs her name she is spelling malfeasance

[TubbersUK]

6. What a total cow:

In addition to everything else she's put her staff in an intolerable position:

"Hughes said: "Mr. Mason's concern is he does not want to be the party that is issuing invalid marriage licenses and he is trying to follow the court's mandate as well as his superior ordering him to issue only these changed forms. ..."

Over and above being jailed for contempt, she needs to be sued, sued and then sued again.

[peacebird]

7. She needs to be convicted for the violation of court order, and sued PERSONALLY.

[TubbersUK]

9. Exactly n/t

[RKP5637]

10. Definitely IMO she is implementing him into her nonsense too.

This I said in another post ...

"I'm not a lawyer, but I find it bizarre that a clerk can just modify legal agreements to their liking. What about driver's licenses, estate documents and all the rest of the documents held by a clerks office. Take away the element of religion and all, and ask, can a clerk modify the document they just handed me to their liking, for example, the deed to my house? My car title and registration? I think not. IMO, she is way far over the line. Someone in another thread said she had also removed the county name from the licenses."

[smirkymonkey]

20. I really want to see justice done in this case and that

would be if Davis lost her job and was sued for everything she was worth. She has no humility whatsoever. She's just an ant-gay bigot who is using this whole spectacle as an excuse to double down on her idiotic, backward religious views.

[gregcrawford]

8. Throw her sanctimonious fat ass back in the slammer and leave her there.

The malicious mental defectives that support her will soon be distracted by another shiny lost cause.

[jwirr]

11. Does that call for some real jail time for a real crime

that anyone else doing that would get.

I realize that refusing to obey the SCOTUS is a real crime but half of her state do not think so - I guess what I am asking is this a crime that has nothing to do with what people think?

[Democat]

12. If she isn't stopping anyone from getting married, why give her any more attention?

She probably wants nothing more than to be back in the spotlight.

As long as gay and lesbian couples are now able to get marriage licenses at her office, hopefully these clerical issues can be resolved without giving her the media attention she wants.

[avebury]

13. There is a huge difference between preventing someone from getting

married and having the marriage actually be legal. If her acitons have the effect of invalidating the legality of the marriages then her actions have long term consequences to all the couples involved.

[SCVDem]

21. Clerical issues?

These are legal documents because the form and format have been legally approved. Any deviation calls that into question.

This is more than a clerical issue.

[roguevalley]

27. she needs to pay the penalty that she knows she will face. Make it severe. Then it won't happen

again. I want to know if I record the deed to my house that it matches the law so someone can't take it away from me over some technicality. This is a serious offense.

[Democat]

34. The judge will decide what's legal

It sounds like he has already bypassed the original rules by allowing her name to be removed. I'm sure he and the legislature can make sure that the legally issued licenses remain legal.

She wants attention and no one is giving it to her anymore. Why give her what she wants?

[jberryhill]

53. Nonsense

First off, vital records these days are not even verified by reference to an original document.

If the data is making it into the database in which it is recorded, and if for $10 or whatever you get your print-out on security paper with a raised seal, then it's an official record - no matter what she does to the original form.

NOBODY - but nobody - on the planet is ever going to see one of these forms again for any purpose once it is recorded into the database.

People have a broken idea of how vital records are verified these days, which leads to some of the birther voodoo about birth certificates as well.

All we have is an appropriately-cautious 14 day report by the attorney assigned to the deputy doing his job. Not even that report states a conclusion with respect to any "validity" question.

Should anyone seek to make an issue of it, then they will file an appropriate motion with the court and the court will likely say that if she wants to doodle in the margins with crayon, she can do that too.

[Thespian2]

14. Why don't the courts

treat her as they do far too many black Americans?...put her in jail and forget to bring her to trial...

She's way past her 15 minutes of infamy...

[CanadianComrade]

15. What about her "lawyers"?

At what point do her lawyers, who allowed her to sign that she wouldn't interfere and then said she would interfere, be liable as well? Isn't that subborning purjory?

And you can bet they gave her the idea to change the forms to remove the county name and the mention of county clerks.

They are the puppet masters driving this, giving her the ideas. Because let's face it, this ignorant hayseed and her ridiculous husband are dumb as stumps.

[localroger]

37. I believe judge Bunning is playing a long game with these jackals

Judge Bunning knows who is really calling the shots here and it isn't Dim Kim. He knows that simply putting her back in jail will just feed her martyrdom complex. I suspect he is trying to feed the legal assholes enough rope for them to hang themselves. He does not seem to be at all the kind of guy to just let this stand as it is. They have dissed him and his office in his own courtroom. I don't think he will let that stand, but I think he's angling to do it in a way that won't play to their agenda. And not even because he is all that much in agreement with us; he's said repeatedly he doesn't like gay marriage much himself but the law is the law, and they've greatly disrespected the law in the way they've handled this.

[SmittynMo]

16. If she changed the forms,

I'm pretty sure it's illegal. She should be prosecuted to the fullest extend of the law.

[Botany]

32. I want her in jail or sued for getting on my last f***ing nerve

I am not a lawyer but I remember judge Bunning's office released a statement
that she had signed an agreement not to disrupt people getting their marriage
licenses and this seems to me like she went back on that agreement.

[treestar]

44. depends on where authority for the forms is

a statute may say what the certificates / licenses have to have on them.

[Paladin]

17. Back to jail with her.

And superior judicial authority in the state needs to take definitive action to validate marriages in that county, ending around this publicity-hungry, dishonest, religious lunatic of a clerk. Don't tell me that can't be accomplished.

[MurrayDelph]

19. This is the third thread I've said this in

Indict her for fraud, which is a felony. She is deliberately selling licenses she believes to be invalid.

[shenmue]

45. Oh yeah

[Geronimoe]

22. Clerk

She is a clerk, not an attorney and she isn't the county attorney. Modifying a legal document is practicing law without a license.

What does her God tell her about deceiving and defrauding others? Issuing an invalid license and collecting a fee.

[roguevalley]

28. God gave her free will. This is hers alone.

[BeanMusical]

24. She's fucking nuts and craving attention.

"I won't be ignored!!!"

[WinstonSmith4740]

29. I tried watching the interview with her lawyer.

I couldn't watch the whole thing because it made my head hurt. Anderson Cooper was way too easy in his questioning, but I really think he was kind of rocked back on his heels by the flat out, blatant hypocrisy displayed by her lawyer, along with his ability to talk about "the letter of the law" regarding her principles while supporting her refusal to do her job which requires her to follow "the letter of the law". Like I said, my head began to hurt. He also managed to work in the fact she spent 5 days in jail, which was somehow the judges fault, about 6 times in something like 4 minutes.

[sulphurdunn]

30. Her lawyers are supposidly

officers of the court, yet they are advising their client to break the law. When she goes back to jail, they need to join her.

[TeeYiYi]

31. I don't know how she's still got a job. ..nt

TYY

[jmowreader]

33. She's elected. She can't be fired, only impeached

[TeeYiYi]

36. Fired... Impeached...

...Makes no nevermind to me; just get rid of her stank ass already! She's well past her expiration date; the rotting stench is repugnant...
Time to take out the garbage.

TYY

[localroger]

38. Only the KY state lege can impeach her and they aren't in session

The governor refused to spend the money to call a special session to resolve this saying it was a waste of tax money. Also, being the KY state lege there's a definite possibility they'd fail to impeach her.

[jmowreader]

42. Failing to impeach would be worse than not trying

If she missed being cast out of office by as little as one vote, she would take that as an endorsement of her views and really go on a tear.

[jmowreader]

35. The Kentucky marriage statutes might help here

After Ol' Four Rings over there decided to become the most famous county clerk in Pig's Knuckle, Arkansas, I read the Kentucky marriage statute. I don't know the backstory behind this particular part of the code - maybe there were some fraudulent preachers running through the countryside illegally marrying people, maybe a state senator saw the Gilligan's Island episode where the Howells found out the officiant at their wedding was a crook and they'd been "living in sin" for thirty years. Whatever it is, Kentucky law says if the married couple went through the steps to procure a legal marriage and they have a sincere belief their marriage is legal, then it is.

In this case, the same-sex couples went to the office that issues valid marriage licenses and received what they were led to believe was a valid marriage license, so the "sincere belief" test has been met.

I don't know how many years you can get for violating a court order, interfering with official government business, tampering with government documents and interfering with the free expression of religion of the people she gave the mutilated marriage licenses to, but she deserves every minute of them.

[gvstn]

40. What is her goddamn problem?

The whole world is beginning to acknowledge same sex marriage. Does she really think she is going to stop it in fucking Arkansas?

Why do some people have so much hate for other people? It is disgusting. And somehow she is proud of it. Disgusting!

[jmowreader]

41. "Pig's Knuckle, Arkansas" is a line out of Animal House

She's from Rowan County, Kentucky - 23,866 population in the last census, so it's not large. It also contains 25 Evangelical Christian churches, one of which counts Kim Davis as a member.

[gvstn]

43. A month of this crap and I still got the state wrong.

I apologize to Arkansas people. Maybe they are better then a few Kentucky counties, or at least one. This woman just drives me batshit crazy. So self-righteous when there are people who have been together for decades and deserve to have their rights and commitment validated.

Every time I see this picture I want to smack her.

[RKP5637]

46. She is one grossly disturbed individual! n/t

[wordpix]

49. O, Invisible Man in the Sky, thank you for getting me out of jail!

[Gloria]

39. she should be FIRED!

not doing her job, and then undercutting the law deliberately...

She needs to GO!

[RKP5637]

47. Reading all of this, it looks like any clerk can go off and do what

they F'en please if they are the voted in as top dog clerk. This issue centers around gay marriage and religion, strip that away and where does it end. She is modifying forms and records as she sees fit. To me, this should be immediately illegal on so many grounds. As someone else said, the judge knows what he's doing and IMO is smarter than the entire heap of them piled together. I looked at an article from CNN. It appears only ONE clerk is issuing the licenses, his name is Mason, And he is the one that has brought the lawyer into the case because of his concerns, Mason's, about the legality of what he is doing. I don't blame him.

Here's the except from what CNN reported.

Bunning hasn't responded yet to Mason's concern. He assigned lawyers to all the deputy clerks to provide updates on the cases, such as the one Hughes filed on Friday.

Mason, by mutual agreement, is the only person in the office issuing same-sex marriage licenses, Hughes said.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/19/us/kim-davis-same-sex-marriage-licenses-kentucky/

[wordpix]

48. Fire the b----she refuses to do her job

I was an employer and I would not keep a person on if she refused to do her job. The job description is just that and if you can't/won't do it, goodbye.

[louis-t]

51. That was her intent, to invalidate. Messiah complex...

I really thought she would just give people the stink eye without interfering. I was wrong. Whomever is advising her is assuring she that goes back to jail.

[nichomachus]

52. Still no one has addressed the other end of the problem

Issuing the license is one thing -- and she's doing her best to throw a monkey wrench into that process.

However, even if the licenses are issued and are valid, once the wedding ceremony is complete, the licenses -- filled out by the officiant and the witnesses - have to go back to the country clerk who must certify and file them.

This certification and filing is actually what makes the wedding official. If she refuse to do that -- or just sits on the documents -- as far as the law in concerned, the wedding never took place. The people involved cannot prove they were married.

This is where she could really screw things up for everyone involved.

[jberryhill]

54. Yep

If the documents are recorded once the couple are married, then her notations on them don't have jack shit to do with anything.