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.”

all 26 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 38 points 8 hours ago (12 children)

Why does she look like someone pulled her straight out of a Beavis and Butthead episode?

  • source
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 20 points 7 hours ago (11 children)

    Because evil shows on your face

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 7 hours ago (10 children)

    This seems like a dangerous statement. See physiognomy.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 7 hours ago (4 children)

    I don't mean to imply that you should judge people based on their face, never do that.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 4 hours ago (3 children)
  • [–] 5 points 2 hours ago (4 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 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 hour ago (3 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 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 hour ago (2 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 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 57 minutes 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
  • [–] 38 points 5 hours ago (1 child)

    "Your Honor, I hid my assets because that's a fuckload of money that I don't want taken from me."

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 34 points 7 hours ago
    [–] 24 points 7 hours ago

    The question is the answer

  • source
  • [–] 14 points 4 hours ago

    What can I say other than lol.

  • source
  • [–] 14 points 3 hours ago

    Court gives Kim Davis four days to explain why she hid her assets

    I can think of a few...

    to avoid paying a gay couple $565K

    Oh, so you already knew the answer.

  • source
  • [–] 10 points 6 hours ago*

    I cannot wait for the court to take her assets. What an evil hypocrite 'christian'. May she burn in the hell she believes in. I hope she is homeless for decades up until her death.

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 2 hours ago

    You'll find the answer to your question "Why did she hide her assets to avoid paying gay couple?" within the question.... To avoid paying gay couple

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 4 hours ago (2 children)

    And she's going to get away with it again. IOKIYAR

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

    IOKIYAR

    I only kill in Yangzhou and Rio?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [+] -8 points 4 hours ago (1 child)

    That's rediculously large fine though. Something I would expect as compensation for crime as serious as causing wrongful death.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment