Kim Davis Tries To Avoid Contempt Charge With New Defense: ‘Compliance Is Factually Impossible’

 
 

Attorneys for Kim Davis just filed a new motion explaining why she should not be held in contempt of court.

As we noted earlier this evening, U.S. District Judge David Bunning has ordered Kim Davis and her attorneys to explain to him why he should not hold her in contempt of court.

Davis, along with all her deputy clerks, Thursday morning at 11:00 will appear before him to face contempt charges requested by the ACLU, who represent the four couples that sued Davis.

Davis, an Apostolic Christian, and her Liberty Counsel attorneys tonight managed to come up with a rather interesting defense for Davis' continued refusal to obey a U.S. District Judge, the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, and the U.S. Supreme Court: her "compliance is factually impossible."

Davis' lawyers cite legal precedence. Where "compliance is impossible, neither the moving party nor the court has any reason to proceed with the civil contempt action."

That's their goal, to end the compliance proceeding, and this legal language is what they hope will convince Judge Bunning to let her continue to hold onto her job, stay out of jail, not be fined, and continue to use her religious beliefs to evade the law and discriminate against LGBT people.

"The court's power to impose coercive civil contempt is limited by an individual's ability to comply with the court's coercive order. A party may defend against a contempt by showing that his compliance is factually impossible."

Note that last part: "compliance is factually impossible."

The filing continues. Davis, it states, "is unable to comply with the August 12, 2015 order" — which directs her to issue marriage licenses to all couples — they claim, "because it irreparably and irreversibly violates her conscience by directing her to authorize and issue SSM licenses bearing her name and approval."

They also claim "Davis should not be held in contempt because it will violate her due process rights," because she has brought suit against the Governor of Kentucky. 

Why?

She claims his statement to all county clerks â€” over whom he has no direct authority â€” telling them they should do their jobs and issue marriage licenses to couples regardless of gender, violated her First Amendment rights.

Why are Davis and her Liberty Counsel attorneys doing all this?

Here's why.

Want to know more? Here's every article, all 40, NCRM has published on Kim Davis.

 

Image by Mike Wynn via Twitter
Hat tip: Buzzfeed

 

Don't let Silicon Valley control what you read. Get more stories like this in your inbox each day.

* indicates required