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
[–] 1 point 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago) (4 children)

Your ugliness is showing.

Not constructive. I apologize.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 hour 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 1 hour 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 56 minutes 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