A federal judge said in a November 6 legal filing that former Kentucky county clerk Kim Davis issued false responses about her assets in an inquiry to decide how she can repay her court-ordered payment of $565,000 to David Ermold and David Moore. Davis discriminated against the same-sex couple in 2015 when she illegally denied a marriage license to them, shortly after the US Supreme Court’s landmark Obergefell v. Hodges ruling legalized same-sex marriage nationwide.
Moore and Ermold said that the list of personal assets Davis shared with the court after it ordered her to pay the aforementioned sum was “materially false.” Davis said she owned no real estate, made no large transfers, and was not a beneficiary of any estate, WKYT reported. However, the couple said they discovered certified records in Rowan County showing that she had inherited 50% of her mother’s estate as well as signed deeds in 2025 transferring that property to her family members.
The men’s lawyers had asked Davis to produce documents “relating to any other real property you own, including deeds,” “reflecting transfers of property or assets made by you… in the past five years…exceeding $1,000,” and “reflecting any trusts or estate interests where you were designated as a beneficiary.”
In response, Davis submitted documents claiming that she “owns no real property” or any interest in real property, “made no transfers” that exceeded $2,000, and “is not designated as a beneficiary in any trust or estate.”
Ew. I’m ND and it shows on my face. It’s a nightmare that people judge me based on their perception of my physical features. You’re not on to something here :/
I’m explaining a quote from a children’s book. Not promulgating some universal absolute truth.
Also, doing so in the context of one particular person.
Everyone has read Roald Dahl it doesn’t make you come off smart the way you’re trying to flex that. It’s super annoying and your quote is unsuited for the post.
Whatever dude.Not constructive.
Not a dude, either. Get yourself together
just a side note here, but how is a random stranger on the internet supposed to know that?
Basic literacy, not gendering people you don’t know the gender of.
Your ugliness is showing.Not constructive. I apologize.
You are projecting imo because you just exposed yourself as someone who judges morality by appearance.
Sigh. No, I don’t.
First, I apologize for the insult earlier, it was not constructive nor warraned.
You’ve failed to divine Dahl’s meaning behind the quote from The Twits. Or more likely I’ve failed to explain it in way that saticfies your needs (which is on me, not you).
Dahl’s point, which I generally agree with, is that a person’s demeanour is shown on their face by their expressions. A person with an ‘ugly’ demeanor probably has ‘ugly’ expressions.
Dahl’s point is that your expressions convey information and he draws a distinction between having ‘bad’ features versus having ‘bad’ expressions.
In the vast and complex field of neurodivergence that generalisation can fall apart when one’s expressions no longer convey information about your thoughts.
That explanation is better but for me it still lands too close to the idea of following intuition or gut feeling to determine who is good and who is bad. Which certifiably does not hold well