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.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 17 points 15 hours ago (17 children)

If a person has ugly thoughts, it begins to show on the face. And when that person has ugly thoughts every day, every week, every year, the face gets uglier and uglier until you can hardly bear to look at it.

A person who has good thoughts cannot ever be ugly. You can have a wonky nose and a crooked mouth and a double chin and stick-out teeth, but if you have good thoughts they will shine out of your face like sunbeams and you will always look lovely.

Roald Dahl, The Twits

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 14 hours ago (16 children)

    Yeah, this concept and this specific quote especially make me feel uneasy, as it implies anyone looking good and charismatic is a good person. I don't think it generally works that way :(

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 14 hours ago (14 children)

    Read it again. It specifically points out that even if your facial features are "ugly" it's your demeanor that is actually what your face shows holistically.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 13 hours ago) (1 child)

    It also implies, that if a person is not ugly they are not thinking ugly thoughts every moment of their time. Which is false

    Edit: I mean, I can see how it tries to imply that uglyness is not in the actual facial features, but it's demonstrated in research that people treat others at face value

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 4 hours ago (11 children)

    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 :/

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 3 hours ago (10 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 3 hours ago (9 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago) (8 children)

    Whatever dude.

    Not constructive.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 hours ago (7 children)

    Not a dude, either. Get yourself together

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago) (4 children)

    Your ugliness is showing.

    Not constructive. I apologize.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 hours ago (3 children)

    You are projecting imo because you just exposed yourself as someone who judges morality by appearance.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 hours ago (2 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 2 hours ago (1 child)

    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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment