Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Document: 43
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 1
No. 15-5880
__________________________
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
__________________________
APRIL MILLER, Ph.D; KAREN ANN ROBERTS; SHANTEL BURKE;
STEPHEN NAPIER; JODY FERNANDEZ; KEVIN HOLLOWAY; L. AARON
SKAGGS; and BARRY SPARTMAN,
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.
KIM DAVIS, Individually,
Defendant-Appellant.
__________________________
On Appeal From The United States District Court
For The Eastern District of Kentucky
In Case No. 15-cv-00044 Before The Honorable David L. Bunning
__________________________
APPELLANT KIM DAVIS EMERGENCY MOTION FOR IMMEDIATE
CONSIDERATION AND MOTION TO STAY DISTRICT COURTS
SEPTEMBER 3, 2015 INJUNCTION ORDER PENDING APPEAL
__________________________
A.C. Donahue
DONAHUE LAW GROUP, P.S.C.
P.O. Box 659
Somerset, Kentucky 42502
(606) 677-2741
ACDonahue@DonahueLawGroup.com
Case: 15-5880
Document: 43
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 2
Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 8(a)(2) and 27, Appellant Kim Davis (Davis)
hereby moves this Court, on an emergency basis, for a stay pending appeal of the
district courts September 3, 2015 injunction order. (R.74.)
INTRODUCTION
This appeal began with the district courts entry of its August 12, 2015
preliminary injunction ordering Davis to issue marriage licenses to the named
Plaintiffs. (R.43 (the Injunction).) Davis immediately filed a notice of appeal of
the Injunction, bringing it within this Courts jurisdiction, and depriving the district
court of jurisdiction to alter or expand the Injunctions scope.1 (R.44 (Injunction and
notice of appeal attached hereto as Exhibit A).) But the district court did just that,
without fair notice or hearing, by entering a new injunction order that materially
expanded the original Injunction while it was already on appeal to this Court. (R.74
(the Expanded Injunction).) The district courts Expanded Injunction lays waste
to well-established principles of jurisdiction and due process in the federal court
system while an appeal is pending. And, under color of the Expanded Injunction, the
district court has coopted a supervisory role over the operations of the Rowan
County, Kentucky Clerks Office.
Case: 15-5880
Document: 43
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 3
Case: 15-5880
Document: 43
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 4
Case: 15-5880
Document: 43
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 5
After allowing all of Plaintiffs evidence and hearing argument, the district court
continued in progress the July 13, 2015 hearing (R.21, Prelim. Inj. Hrg Tr. July
13, 2015, PgID 207:2-4), and concluded the hearing on July 20, 2015 (R.26, Prelim.
Inj. Hrg Tr. July 20, 2015). Plaintiffs evidence at both hearings was limited
exclusively to the named Plaintiffs claims.3
On August 12, 2015, the district court granted Plaintiffs motion for
preliminary injunction by its Memorandum Opinion and Order (R.43 (the
Injunction).) Exactly as requested by Plaintiffs in their motion and proposed order
(R.2, 2-2), the Injunction enjoins Davis from applying her no marriage licenses
policy to future marriage license requests submitted by Plaintiffs. (R.43, Inj.,
PgID 1173 (emphasis added).) Thus, there was complete agreement between what
Plaintiffs requested and what the district court ordered.4
Case: 15-5880
Document: 43
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 6
Case: 15-5880
Document: 43
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 7
The effect of this order was to stay all proceedings on Plaintiffs class certification
motion until this Court decides the appeal of the Injunction on the merits.
Plaintiffs Motion to Clarify the Injunction and the Hearing
Despite the unambiguous agreement between what Plaintiffs requested in
their motion for preliminary injunction and what the district court granted in the
Injunction, Plaintiffs manufactured a disingenuous motion to clarify the Injunction
to encompass a class of persons not covered by the Injunction. (R.68, Pls. Mot.
Clarify Prelim. Inj.) Specifically, Plaintiffs moved:
for an order to clarify or, in the alternative, to modify the
preliminary injunction to state unambiguously that the
preliminary injunction applies not only to future
marriage license requests submitted by the four named
Plaintiff couples in this action, but also to requests
submitted by other individuals who are legally eligible
to marry in Kentucky.
(R.68, Pls. Mot. Clarify Prelim. Inj., PgID 1488 (emphasis added).) Thus, rather
than a motion to clarify, Plaintiffs actually sought to convert the Injunctions
relief, which was limited and personal to them by their own request, into a classwide preliminary injunction even though (1) they had never previously requested a
class-wide injunction (R.2-2, Proposed Prelim. Inj. Order), (2) they presented no
actual evidence regarding the purported other members of the putative class (R.68,
Pls. Mot. Clarify Prelim. Inj., PgID 1489); and (3) their actual motion for class
certification was stayed. (R.57, Virtual Order Aug. 25, 2015.)
6
Case: 15-5880
Document: 43
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 8
Case: 15-5880
Document: 43
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 9
as Exhibit C).) Before taking up the contempt motion, however, and without any
advance notice to Davis, the district court called up Plaintiffs motion to clarify
the Injunction. (R.78, Contempt Hrg, PgID 1570:21-1571:22, 1572:19-1573:19.)
Davis counsel objected to proceeding on the motion to clarify due to lack of fair
notice, and due to the district courts lack of jurisdiction to expand the Injunction
because it was already on appeal. (R.78, Contempt Hrg, PgID 1573:20-1580:19.)
The district court acknowledged that the motion to clarify was not noticed
for hearing. (R.78, Contempt Hrg, PgID 1571:18-20 (The case wasnt noticed for
that hearing.).) The district court also acknowledged that the so-called
clarification sought by Plaintiffs was, in fact, to add relief to the Injunction which
was not sought by Plaintiffs in their motion for preliminary injunction. (R.78,
Contempt Hrg, PgID 1578:20-25 (I recognize they did not request it in the
original motion. (emphasis added)).) Nonetheless, over Davis objection, and
without taking any evidence to support this class-wide relief, the district court
granted the expansion of the Injunction. (R.78, Contempt Hrg, PgID 1580:3-15.)
After expanding the Injunction, the court immediately passed the issue to this Court.
(R.78, Contempt Hrg, PgID 1580-81 (Well just include that as part of the appeal.
. . . And the Sixth Circuit can certainly decide if thats appropriate.).)
Having expanded the Injunction, the district court then proceeded with
hearing the only motion the court noticed for hearing, Plaintiffs contempt motion.
8
Case: 15-5880
Document: 43
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 10
(R.78, Contempt Hrg, PgID 1581:18-19 (Let me now turn to the actual merits of
the matter thats before the Court.).) The court ordered Davis to jail as a contempt
sanction for Davis refusal to issue a marriage license, in violation of her conscience,
to one Plaintiff couple.7 (R.78, Contempt Hrg, PgID 1659:22-1661:25.) The
condition for Davis release would be her compliance with the Expanded Injunction,
not the original Injunction (R.78, Contempt Hrg, PgID 1661:18-1662:16.) The
district court then appointed criminal defense counsel for each of Davis deputy
clerksall of whom had been summoned in advance to the hearingand
interrogated each deputy clerk as to whether each of them would issue marriage
licenses without Davis authorization. (R.78, Contempt Hrg, PgID 1667:19-
The district court memorialized this most severe of contempt sanctions against
Davis by a mere minutes order (R.75 (the Contempt Order)); no formal written
order has been entered. (R.78, Contempt Hrg, PgID 1651:21-24 (I havent decided
if Im going to enter a written order or not. I probably will enter some sort of written
order following up the Courts decision.).) Davis separately appealed the Contempt
Order to this Court (R. 83, Contempt Order Notice of Appeal), which appeal has
been docketed as Case No. 15-5978. Davis also filed therein, on September 8, 2015,
an emergency motion to stay the Contempt Order pending appeal. As shown in
Davis emergency motion to stay the Contempt Order, and as will be more fully
developed in Davis brief on the merits of that order at the appropriate time, the
district court failed to provide Davis requisite due process in the contempt
proceedings. Among other fundamental errors, the district court provided no notice
that it would significantly expand and alter its Injunction at the contempt hearing,
while the Injunction was already on appeal, and then confine Davis to prison based
upon the ultra vires and expanded preliminary injunction.
9
Case: 15-5880
Document: 43
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 11
1730:6.) All but one (Davis son) were coerced by the threat of contempt sanctions
to answer yes.8 (Id.)
On September 8, 2015, the sixth day of Davis incarceration, Plaintiffs filed a
status report, showing the district court that the Plaintiffs had received marriage
licenses from the deputy clerks.9 (R.84, Status Report.) Following the status report,
the district court ordered Davis released, stating in its order the court was satisfied
that the Rowan County Clerks Office is fulfilling its obligation to issue marriage
licenses under the Injunction. (R.89 (the Release Order), PgID 1827-28.) The
Release Order commands, however, Davis shall not interfere in any way, directly
One deputy clerk, Kristie Plank, has the primary responsibility within the
Rowan County Clerks Office for servicing automobile dealers, a critical position
within the office which does not include the issuance of marriage licenses. (R.78,
Contempt Hrg, PgID 1698:25-1705:5.) She expressed concern with assenting to the
issuance of marriage licenses to the extent it would interfere with her legitimate
existing responsibilities. (Id.) Another deputy clerk, Melissa Thompson, tearfully
agreed to issue licenses under the courts order, but was clearly under duress, stating,
I dont really want to, but I will comply with the law. Im a preachers daughter,
and this is the hardest thing Ive ever done in my life . . . . None of us hate anybody.
Its just hard. (R.78, Contempt Hrg, 1692:17-1697:8.)
9
The status report showed that three of the four Plaintiff couples had received
marriage licenses. (R.84, Status Report, PgID 1798.) Plaintiffs had previously shown
the court, however, that as of August 13, 2015, Plaintiffs Burke and Napier were
making new wedding arrangements. (R.46, Pls. Resp. Mot. Stay Prelim. Inj.,
PgID 1235.) This fourth couple has never testified in this case or otherwise supplied
verified proof that they are qualified to obtain a marriage license, or that they have
not received one, both prerequisites to injunctive relief. (R.29, Resp. Pls. Mot.
Prelim. Inj., PgID 359.) Moreover, based on the status report, the district court found,
Plaintiffs have obtained marriage licenses . . . . (R.89, Release Order, PgID 1827.)
10
Case: 15-5880
Document: 43
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 12
or indirectly, with the efforts of her deputy clerks to issue marriage licenses, on
pain of new sanctions for contempt. (R.89, Release Order, PgID 1828.) The order
also requires the deputy clerks, through their appointed criminal defense counsel, to
file status reports with the district court every fourteen days. (R.89, Release Order,
PgID 1828.)
Emergency Motion to Stay
Davis now moves this Court for an order staying the September 3, 2015
Expanded Injunction pending appeal. Seeking a ruling from the district court on a
stay request is impracticable under Fed. R. App. P. 8(a)(2)(A)(i), due to the
extraordinary doggedness of the district court to expand the Injunction, without
jurisdiction or fair notice and opportunity to be heard, and the district courts haste
to pass the matter to this Court for determinationthe Sixth Circuit can certainly
decide if thats appropriate (R.78, Contempt Hrg, PgID 1580-81). Accordingly,
Davis now seeks a stay from this Court.
ARGUMENT
In deciding a motion for stay pending appeal, this Court balances the same
four factors that are traditionally considered in evaluating a motion for preliminary
injunction: (1) the likelihood that the party seeking the stay will prevail on the
merits of the appeal; (2) the likelihood that the moving party will be irreparably
harmed absent a stay; (3) the prospect that others will be harmed if the court grants
11
Case: 15-5880
Document: 43
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 13
the stay; and (4) the public interest in granting the stay. Mich. Coal. of Radioactive
Material Users, Inc. v. Griepentrog, 945 F.2d 150, 153 (6th Cir. 1991).
I.
12
Case: 15-5880
Document: 43
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 14
district court's order is null and void since that court was without jurisdiction . . .
after the appeal had been taken.).
Plaintiffs Motion for Preliminary Injunction expressly, and only, sought to
enjoin Davis to issue licenses to the Named Plaintiffs. The resulting Injunction
enjoined Davis to issue licenses, expressly and only, to the Plaintiffs. The scope
of the Injunction could not be clearer. There is no confusion as to the Orders
scope, as Plaintiffs facetiously allege in their thinly-veiled motion to clarify.
(R.68, Pls. Mot. Clarify Prelim. Inj., PgID 1489.) Thus, expanding the class of
persons entitled to licenses pursuant to the Injunctionto include anyone in the
world who wants a marriage license in Rowan Countycan in no way be described
as a clarification. The expansion of the class is an expansion of the Injunction, which
the district court had no jurisdiction to do. Thus, the Expanded Injunction is a nullity,
and unquestionably is due to be reversed on the merits.
II.
this Court generally considers three factors: (1) the substantiality of the injury
alleged; (2) the likelihood of its occurrence; and (3) the adequacy of the proof
provided. Michigan Coal., 945 F.2d at 154. The key word in this consideration
13
Case: 15-5880
Document: 43
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 15
is irreparable, and the harm must be both certain and immediate, rather than
speculative or theoretical. Id.
Given the strength of Davis position on the merits, her required showing on
irreparable injury is reduced. The probability of success that must be demonstrated
is inversely proportional to the amount of irreparable injury [the moving party] will
suffer absent the say. Simply stated, more of one excuses less of the other. Mich.
Coal., 945 F.2d at 153 (internal citation omitted). In other words, a stay may be
granted with either a high probability of success and some injury or vice versa.
State of Ohio v. Nuclear Regulatory Commn, 812 F.2d 288, 290 (6th Cir. 1987).
Nonetheless, Daviss harm from the denial of a stay will be both real and irreparable.
Pursuant to the Release Order, the district court is now supervising the
operations and personnel of the Rowan County Clerks Office, including Davis as
the Clerk, and her deputy clerks. (R.89, Release Order, PgID 1828.) Far from being
straightforward, however, the Release Orders command that Davis shall not
interfere in any way, directly or indirectly, with the efforts of her deputy clerks to
issue marriage licenses substantially and ambiguously interferes with Davis ability
to manage the legitimate affairs of her office which are unrelated to her individual
position on marriage licensing.
For example, Davis management judgment to assign a particular deputy clerk
or clerks exclusively to non-marriage-licensing dutiesbased on the needs of the
14
Case: 15-5880
Document: 43
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 16
See supra, n. 8.
See supra, n. 8.
15
Case: 15-5880
Document: 43
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 17
only the Plaintiffs were granted relief in the original Injunction, and the district court
is already satisfied that Plaintiffs have received their ordered relief. (R.89, Release
Order, PgID 1827-28.) Thus, the district court only has an enforcement interest
under the Expanded Injunction which, as shown herein, is null and void as exceeding
the district courts jurisdiction. Only a stay of the Expanded Injunction pending
Davis appeal will avoid this onerous and improper exercise of enforcement power.
In stark contrast to the threat of sanctions hanging over Davis each day she
enters her office while waiting for relief from an impartial audience in this Court on
her appeals, Plaintiffs will suffer no harm if the Expanded Injunction is stayed
pending appeal. Plaintiffs have already received the benefits of the Injunction, to the
satisfaction of the district court. (R.89, Release Order, PgID 1827-28.) Plaintiffs
received no additional relief from the Expanded Injunction; staying its enforcement
pending Daviss appeal cannot harm them.
III.
jurisdiction. To the contrary, the public is only served by the disregard of any such
order, which is null and void. See Holloway, 740 F.2d at 1382.
Furthermore, the federal court supervision over Davis office imposed by the
Release Order, in enforcement of the Expanded Injunction, violates established
principles of federalism and comity, usurping the role of a publicly elected official
16
Case: 15-5880
Document: 43
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 18
in the Commonwealth of Kentucky and invading the province, discretion, and affairs
of her office. It is also contrary to contempt principles, for in devising enforcement
remedies, federal courts are to take into account the interests of state and local
authorities in managing their own affairs, consistent with the Constitution. Milliken
v. Bradley, 433 U.S. 267, 280-81 (1977). Indeed, it is incumbent upon federal district
courts that sanctions imposed against state officials should be the least intrusive
remedy available. See Kendrick v. Bland, 740 F.2d 432, 438 (6th Cir. 1984);
Spallone v. U.S., 493 U.S. 265, 276 (1990). The public is not served by the violation
of such principles for any length of time.
As shown herein, from the commencement of this case, Plaintiffs have
received procedural preferences, notwithstanding even fundamental jurisdictional
defects. Davis has received the opposite, culminating in incarceration for
conscience, and the threat of more severe sanctions under an invalid order which the
district court had no jurisdiction to enter. For all of the foregoing reasons, Davis
requests the following:
17
Case: 15-5880
Document: 43
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 19
RELIEF REQUESTED
Appellant Kim Davis respectfully requests that this Court: (1) grant
immediate consideration and (2) enter an order staying the district courts September
3, 2015 Expanded Injunction pending final resolution of the appeal in this Court.
DATED: September 10, 2015
Respectfully submitted:
/s/ Roger K. Gannam
A.C. Donahue
Horatio G. Mihet, Counsel of Record
Donahue Law Group, P.S.C.
Roger K. Gannam
P.O. Box 659
Jonathan D. Christman
Somerset, Kentucky 42502
Liberty Counsel, P.O. Box 540774
(606) 677-2741
Orlando, Florida 32854
ACDonahue@DonahueLawGroup.com (800) 671-1776
hmihet@lc.org / rgannam@lc.org /
jchristman@lc.org
Counsel for Appellant Kim Davis
18
Case: 15-5880
Document: 43
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 20
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on this 11th day of September, 2015, I caused the
foregoing document to be filed electronically with the Court, where it is available
for viewing and downloading from the Courts ECF system, and that such electronic
filing automatically generates a Notice of Electronic Filing constituting service of
the filed document upon the following:
William Ellis Sharp
ACLU of Kentucky
315 Guthrie Street, Suite 300
Louisville, KY 40202
sharp@aclu-ky.org
Daniel J. Canon
Laura E. Landenwich
Leonard Joe Dunman
Clay Daniel Walton Adams, PLC
462 S. Fourth Street, Suite 101
Louisville, KY 40202
dan@justiceky.com
laura@justiceky.com
joe@justiceky.com
Daniel Mach
Heather L. Weaver
ACLU Foundation
915 15th Street, NW, Suite 6th Floor
Washington, DC 20005
dmach@aclu.org
hweaver@aclu.org
James D. Esseks
Ria Tabacco Mar
ACLU Foundation
125 Broad Street, 18th Floor
New York, NY 10004
jesseks@aclu.org
rmar@aclu.org
Case: 15-5880
Document: 43
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 21
Case: 15-5880
Document: 43
Filed: 09/11/2015
EXHIBIT A
Page: 22
Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB
Case: 15-5880 Doc
Document:
#: 44 Filed:
43 08/12/15
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 1 of 4Page:
- Page23ID#: 1174
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Plaintiffs,
v.
KIM DAVIS, ET AL.,
Defendants.
KIM DAVIS,
Third-Party Plaintiff,
v.
STEVEN L. BESHEAR, in his official
capacity as Governor of Kentucky, and
WAYNE ONKST, in his official capacity
as State Librarian and Commissioner,
Kentucky Department for Libraries and
Archives,
Third-Party Defendants.
CIVIL ACTION
0:15-CV-00044-DLB
DISTRICT JUDGE
DAVID L. BUNNING
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
NOTICE OF APPEAL
Notice is hereby given that Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff Kim Davis (Davis), by and
through her undersigned counsel, hereby appeals to the United States Court of Appeals for the
Sixth Circuit from the August 12, 2015 Memorandum Opinion and Order granting Plaintiffs
Motion for Preliminary Injunction (D.E. 43).
A copy of the August 12, 2015 Memorandum Opinion and Order from which Davis appeals
is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB
Case: 15-5880 Doc
Document:
#: 44 Filed:
43 08/12/15
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 2 of 4Page:
- Page24ID#: 1175
Davis has paid by ECF online payment in the amount of $505.00 for the notice of appeal
fee specified by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentuckys Fee
Schedule.
The parties to the order appealed from and the names and addresses of their attorneys are
as follows:
Plaintiffs: April Miller, Karen Ann Roberts, Shantel Burke, Stephen Napier, Jody
Fernandez, Kevin Holloway, L. Aaron Skaggs, and Barry Spartman
Attorneys for Plaintiffs:
Daniel J. Canon
L. Joe Dunman
Laura E. Landenwich
CLAY DANIEL WALTON ADAMS, PLC
462 S. Fourth Street, Suite 101
Louisville, KY 40202
William Ellis Sharp
ACLU OF KENTUCKY
315 Guthrie Street, Suite 300
Louisville, KY 40202
Defendant: Rowan County
Attorneys for Rowan County:
Jeffrey C. Mando
Claire Parsons
ADAMS, STEPNER, WOLTERMANN & DUSING, PLLC
40 West Pike Street
Covington, KY 41011
Third-Party Defendants: Steven L. Beshear, Governor of Kentucky and Wayne Onkst,
Commissioner of Kentucky Department for Libraries and Archives
Attorneys for Gov. Beshear and Commr. Onkst:
No appearances have yet been filed.
Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB
Case: 15-5880 Doc
Document:
#: 44 Filed:
43 08/12/15
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 3 of 4Page:
- Page25ID#: 1176
Respectfully submitted:
/s/ Jonathan D. Christman
Roger K. Gannam
Jonathan D. Christman
Liberty Counsel
P.O. Box 540774
Orlando, Florida 32854
Tel: (800) 671-1776
Fax: (407) 875-0770
rgannam@lc.org
jchristman@lc.org
Attorneys for Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff
Kim Davis
Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB
Case: 15-5880 Doc
Document:
#: 44 Filed:
43 08/12/15
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 4 of 4Page:
- Page26ID#: 1177
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was filed via the Courts ECF
filing system and therefore service will be effectuated by the Courts electronic notification system
upon all counsel or parties of record:
Daniel J. Canon
L. Joe Dunman
Laura E. Landenwich
CLAY DANIEL WALTON ADAMS, PLC
462 S. Fourth Street, Suite 101
Louisville, KY 40202
dan@justiceky.com
joe@justiceky.com
laura@justiceky.com
Jeffrey C. Mando
Claire Parsons
ADAMS, STEPNER, WOLTERMANN &
DUSING, PLLC
40 West Pike Street
Covington, KY 41011
jmando@aswdlaw.com
cparsons@aswdlaw.com
Attorneys for Rowan County
I also hereby certify that two (2) true and correct copies of the foregoing will be sent via
U.S.P.S. first class mail to the Attorney General of Kentucky on behalf of Third-Party Defendants
Steven L. Beshear, Governor of Kentucky, and Wayne Onkst, Commissioner of the Kentucky
Department for Libraries and Archives, at the following location:
Attorney General Jack Conway
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
700 Capitol Avenue, Suite 118
Frankfort, KY 40601-3449
Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB
Case: 15-5880Doc Document:
#: 44-1 Filed:
43 08/12/15
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 1 of 29
Page:
- Page
27 ID#: 1178
Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB
Case: 15-5880Doc Document:
#: 44-1 Filed:
43 08/12/15
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 2 of 29
Page:
- Page
28 ID#: 1179
Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB
Case: 15-5880Doc Document:
#: 44-1 Filed:
43 08/12/15
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 3 of 29
Page:
- Page
29 ID#: 1180
Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB
Case: 15-5880Doc Document:
#: 44-1 Filed:
43 08/12/15
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 4 of 29
Page:
- Page
30 ID#: 1181
Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB
Case: 15-5880Doc Document:
#: 44-1 Filed:
43 08/12/15
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 5 of 29
Page:
- Page
31 ID#: 1182
Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB
Case: 15-5880Doc Document:
#: 44-1 Filed:
43 08/12/15
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 6 of 29
Page:
- Page
32 ID#: 1183
Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB
Case: 15-5880Doc Document:
#: 44-1 Filed:
43 08/12/15
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 7 of 29
Page:
- Page
33 ID#: 1184
Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB
Case: 15-5880Doc Document:
#: 44-1 Filed:
43 08/12/15
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 8 of 29
Page:
- Page
34 ID#: 1185
Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB
Case: 15-5880Doc Document:
#: 44-1 Filed:
43 08/12/15
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 9 of 29
Page:
- Page
35 ID#: 1186
Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB
Case: 15-5880
Doc #:
Document:
44-1 Filed:
43 08/12/15
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 10 of 29
Page:
- Page
36 ID#: 1187
Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB
Case: 15-5880
Doc #:
Document:
44-1 Filed:
43 08/12/15
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 11 of 29
Page:
- Page
37 ID#: 1188
Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB
Case: 15-5880
Doc #:
Document:
44-1 Filed:
43 08/12/15
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 12 of 29
Page:
- Page
38 ID#: 1189
Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB
Case: 15-5880
Doc #:
Document:
44-1 Filed:
43 08/12/15
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 13 of 29
Page:
- Page
39 ID#: 1190
Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB
Case: 15-5880
Doc #:
Document:
44-1 Filed:
43 08/12/15
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 14 of 29
Page:
- Page
40 ID#: 1191
Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB
Case: 15-5880
Doc #:
Document:
44-1 Filed:
43 08/12/15
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 15 of 29
Page:
- Page
41 ID#: 1192
Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB
Case: 15-5880
Doc #:
Document:
44-1 Filed:
43 08/12/15
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 16 of 29
Page:
- Page
42 ID#: 1193
Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB
Case: 15-5880
Doc #:
Document:
44-1 Filed:
43 08/12/15
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 17 of 29
Page:
- Page
43 ID#: 1194
Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB
Case: 15-5880
Doc #:
Document:
44-1 Filed:
43 08/12/15
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 18 of 29
Page:
- Page
44 ID#: 1195
Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB
Case: 15-5880
Doc #:
Document:
44-1 Filed:
43 08/12/15
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 19 of 29
Page:
- Page
45 ID#: 1196
Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB
Case: 15-5880
Doc #:
Document:
44-1 Filed:
43 08/12/15
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 20 of 29
Page:
- Page
46 ID#: 1197
Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB
Case: 15-5880
Doc #:
Document:
44-1 Filed:
43 08/12/15
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 21 of 29
Page:
- Page
47 ID#: 1198
Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB
Case: 15-5880
Doc #:
Document:
44-1 Filed:
43 08/12/15
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 22 of 29
Page:
- Page
48 ID#: 1199
Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB
Case: 15-5880
Doc #:
Document:
44-1 Filed:
43 08/12/15
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 23 of 29
Page:
- Page
49 ID#: 1200
Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB
Case: 15-5880
Doc #:
Document:
44-1 Filed:
43 08/12/15
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 24 of 29
Page:
- Page
50 ID#: 1201
Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB
Case: 15-5880
Doc #:
Document:
44-1 Filed:
43 08/12/15
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 25 of 29
Page:
- Page
51 ID#: 1202
Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB
Case: 15-5880
Doc #:
Document:
44-1 Filed:
43 08/12/15
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 26 of 29
Page:
- Page
52 ID#: 1203
Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB
Case: 15-5880
Doc #:
Document:
44-1 Filed:
43 08/12/15
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 27 of 29
Page:
- Page
53 ID#: 1204
Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB
Case: 15-5880
Doc #:
Document:
44-1 Filed:
43 08/12/15
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 28 of 29
Page:
- Page
54 ID#: 1205
Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB
Case: 15-5880
Doc #:
Document:
44-1 Filed:
43 08/12/15
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 29 of 29
Page:
- Page
55 ID#: 1206
Case: 15-5880
Document: 43
Filed: 09/11/2015
EXHIBIT B
Page: 56
Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB
Case: 15-5880 Doc
Document:
#: 82 Filed:
43 09/08/15
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 1 of 4Page:
- Page57ID#: 1785
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Plaintiffs,
v.
KIM DAVIS, ET AL.,
Defendants.
KIM DAVIS,
Third-Party Plaintiff,
v.
STEVEN L. BESHEAR, in his official
capacity as Governor of Kentucky, and
WAYNE ONKST, in his official capacity
as State Librarian and Commissioner,
Kentucky Department for Libraries and
Archives,
Third-Party Defendants.
CIVIL ACTION
0:15-CV-00044-DLB
DISTRICT JUDGE
DAVID L. BUNNING
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
NOTICE OF APPEAL
Notice is hereby given that Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff Kim Davis (Davis), by and
through her undersigned counsel, hereby appeals to the United States Court of Appeals for the
Sixth Circuit from the September 3, 2015 Order granting Plaintiffs Motion Pursuant to Rule 62(c)
to Clarify the Preliminary Injunction Pending Appeal (D.E. 74). A copy of the September 3, 2015
Order from which Davis appeals is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB
Case: 15-5880 Doc
Document:
#: 82 Filed:
43 09/08/15
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 2 of 4Page:
- Page58ID#: 1786
Davis has paid by ECF online payment in the amount of $505.00 for the notice of appeal
fee specified by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentuckys Fee
Schedule.
The parties to the order appealed from and the names and addresses of their attorneys are
as follows:
Plaintiffs: April Miller, Karen Ann Roberts, Shantel Burke, Stephen Napier, Jody
Fernandez, Kevin Holloway, L. Aaron Skaggs, and Barry Spartman
Attorneys for Plaintiffs:
Daniel J. Canon
L. Joe Dunman
Laura E. Landenwich
CLAY DANIEL WALTON ADAMS, PLC
462 S. Fourth Street, Suite 101
Louisville, KY 40202
William Ellis Sharp
ACLU OF KENTUCKY
315 Guthrie Street, Suite 300
Louisville, KY 40202
Third-Party Defendants: Steven L. Beshear, Governor of Kentucky and Wayne Onkst,
Commissioner of Kentucky Department for Libraries and Archives
Attorneys for Gov. Beshear and Commr. Onkst:
William M. Lear, Jr.
Palmer G. Vance II.
STOLL KEENON OGDEN PLLC
300 West Vine Street, Suite 2100
Lexington, KY 40507-1380
DATED: September 8, 2015
A.C. Donahue
Donahue Law Group, P.S.C.
P.O. Box 659
Somerset, Kentucky 42502
Tel: (606) 677-2741
Respectfully submitted:
/s/ Jonathan D. Christman
Roger K. Gannam
Jonathan D. Christman
Liberty Counsel
P.O. Box 540774
Orlando, Florida 32854
2
Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB
Case: 15-5880 Doc
Document:
#: 82 Filed:
43 09/08/15
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 3 of 4Page:
- Page59ID#: 1787
Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB
Case: 15-5880 Doc
Document:
#: 82 Filed:
43 09/08/15
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 4 of 4Page:
- Page60ID#: 1788
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was filed via the Courts ECF
filing system and therefore service will be effectuated by the Courts electronic notification system
upon all counsel or parties of record:
Daniel J. Canon
L. Joe Dunman
Laura E. Landenwich
CLAY DANIEL WALTON ADAMS, PLC
462 S. Fourth Street, Suite 101
Louisville, KY 40202
dan@justiceky.com
joe@justiceky.com
laura@justiceky.com
Jeffrey C. Mando
Claire Parsons
ADAMS, STEPNER, WOLTERMANN &
DUSING, PLLC
40 West Pike Street
Covington, KY 41011
jmando@aswdlaw.com
cparsons@aswdlaw.com
Attorneys for Rowan County
Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB
Case: 15-5880DocDocument:
#: 82-1 Filed:
43 09/08/15
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 1 of 2
Page:
- Page
61ID#: 1789
Case:
Case:0:15-cv-00044-DLB
0:15-cv-00044-DLB
Case: 15-5880Doc
Doc
Document:
#:#:82-1
74 Filed:
Filed:
43 09/03/15
09/08/15
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page:
Page:12ofof12
Page:
- -Page
Page
62ID#:
ID#:1557
1790
Case: 15-5880
Document: 43
Filed: 09/11/2015
EXHIBIT C
Page: 63
Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB
Case: 15-5880DocDocument:
#: 78 Filed:
4309/05/15
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 1 of 181
Page:
- Page
64 ID#: 1563
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
VS.
KIM DAVIS, et al.,
Defendants.
13
14
16
17
18
20
21
22
23
24
25
15
19
Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB
Case: 15-5880DocDocument:
#: 78 Filed:
4309/05/15
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 2 of 181
Page:
- Page
65 ID#: 1564
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Other Parties
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB
Case: 15-5880DocDocument:
#: 78 Filed:
4309/05/15
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 3 of 181
Page:
- Page
66 ID#: 1565
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
For Melissa
Thompson:
11
12
13
14
15
For Roberta
Earley:
41129
41129
41129
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB
Case: 15-5880DocDocument:
#: 78 Filed:
4309/05/15
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 4 of 181
Page:
- Page
67 ID#: 1566
4
THE COURT:
All right.
DEPUTY CLERK:
Ashland
THE COURT:
Okay.
MR. SHARP:
Counsel.
MR. CANON:
14 plaintiffs.
15
MS. LANDENWICH:
16 plaintiffs.
17
THE COURT:
18
MR. GANNAM:
All right.
Good morning, Your Honor.
Roger
MR. CHRISTMAN:
MR. DONAHUE:
MS. PARSONS:
25
THE COURT:
Claire --
Go ahead.
A.
Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB
Case: 15-5880DocDocument:
#: 78 Filed:
4309/05/15
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 5 of 181
Page:
- Page
68 ID#: 1567
5
MS. PARSONS:
THE COURT:
All right.
MR. WATKINS:
5 Rowan County.
6
MR. VANCE:
Gene
THE COURT:
Okay.
MR. FLEENOR:
13
THE COURT:
14 seats.
Yes.
MR. FLEENOR:
THE COURT:
Okay.
Thank you.
Well,
MR. DONAHUE:
21
THE COURT:
22 place now.
23
All right.
Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB
Case: 15-5880DocDocument:
#: 78 Filed:
4309/05/15
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 6 of 181
Page:
- Page
69 ID#: 1568
6
15 office, and the phone was ringing off the hook for and
16 against everyone in this case, so we just decided that
17 it would be best not to listen to those calls.
We
Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB
Case: 15-5880DocDocument:
#: 78 Filed:
4309/05/15
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 7 of 181
Page:
- Page
70 ID#: 1569
7
Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB
Case: 15-5880DocDocument:
#: 78 Filed:
4309/05/15
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 8 of 181
Page:
- Page
71 ID#: 1570
8
We've got to
7 consider the case based upon the law and the facts as
8 set forth here in the courtroom.
We're in federal
Okay.
Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB
Case: 15-5880DocDocument:
#: 78 Filed:
4309/05/15
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 9 of 181
Page:
- Page
72 ID#: 1571
9
Is that
2 right?
3
DEPUTY CLERK:
THE COURT:
Okay.
Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB
Case: 15-5880
Doc Document:
#: 78 Filed:4309/05/15
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 10 of 181
Page:
- Page
73 ID#: 1572
10
I'm
You
And it was
Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB
Case: 15-5880
Doc Document:
#: 78 Filed:4309/05/15
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 11 of 181
Page:
- Page
74 ID#: 1573
11
That
9 I think 49?
51?
MR GANNAM:
15
THE COURT:
Okay.
Because I
MR. GANNAM:
We
This
Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB
Case: 15-5880
Doc Document:
#: 78 Filed:4309/05/15
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 12 of 181
Page:
- Page
75 ID#: 1574
12
THE COURT:
7 case.
8
MR. GANNAM:
THE COURT:
Okay.
Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB
Case: 15-5880
Doc Document:
#: 78 Filed:4309/05/15
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 13 of 181
Page:
- Page
76 ID#: 1575
13
MR. GANNAM:
THE COURT:
MR. GANNAM:
THE COURT:
MR. GANNAM:
10
THE COURT:
MR. GANNAM:
THE COURT:
16
MR. GANNAM:
That I stayed.
-- which has been stayed.
THE COURT:
MR. GANNAM:
Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB
Case: 15-5880
Doc Document:
#: 78 Filed:4309/05/15
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 14 of 181
Page:
- Page
77 ID#: 1576
14
THE COURT:
MR. GANNAM:
THE COURT:
MR. GANNAM:
THE COURT:
Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB
Case: 15-5880
Doc Document:
#: 78 Filed:4309/05/15
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 15 of 181
Page:
- Page
78 ID#: 1577
15
MR. GANNAM:
THE COURT:
11
MR. GANNAM:
THE COURT:
15 to marry.
16
MR. GANNAM:
THE COURT:
Okay.
All right.
What's your
21 response?
22
MR. SHARP:
Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB
Case: 15-5880
Doc Document:
#: 78 Filed:4309/05/15
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 16 of 181
Page:
- Page
79 ID#: 1578
16
The
Obviously, we're
THE COURT:
20
MR. GANNAM:
All right.
A brief reply.
THE COURT:
I know.
They're requesting it
25 original motion.
Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB
Case: 15-5880
Doc Document:
#: 78 Filed:4309/05/15
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 17 of 181
Page:
- Page
80 ID#: 1579
17
MR. GANNAM:
And so it can't be a
And we would
THE COURT:
All right.
MS. PARSONS:
Ms. Parsons?
16 this, Judge.
17
THE COURT:
All right.
Mr. Watkins?
18
MR. WATKINS:
19
THE COURT:
Mr. Vance?
20
MR. VANCE:
21
THE COURT:
All right.
No, Judge.
I must apologize --
I may
Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB
Case: 15-5880
Doc Document:
#: 78 Filed:4309/05/15
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 18 of 181
Page:
- Page
81 ID#: 1580
18
All right.
Thank you.
All right.
2 version.
3
Madam
Thank you.
16
DEPUTY CLERK:
17
THE COURT:
18
MR. GANNAM:
19
THE COURT:
20
MR. GANNAM:
THE COURT:
24 of the appeal.
25
That's
Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB
Case: 15-5880
Doc Document:
#: 78 Filed:4309/05/15
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 19 of 181
Page:
- Page
82 ID#: 1581
19
MR. SHARP:
THE COURT:
Okay.
3 include that.
Very well.
So you can
And the
14 motion.
All right.
Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB
Case: 15-5880
Doc Document:
#: 78 Filed:4309/05/15
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 20 of 181
Page:
- Page
83 ID#: 1582
20
I read it on my phone
Any
11 objection to that?
12
MR. SHARP:
13
THE COURT:
MR GANNAM:
16
MR. WATKINS:
17
MR. VANCE:
18
THE COURT:
Okay.
MR. FLEENOR:
21
THE COURT:
All right.
25
MR. GANNAM:
Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB
Case: 15-5880
Doc Document:
#: 78 Filed:4309/05/15
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 21 of 181
Page:
- Page
84 ID#: 1583
21
1 question?
2
THE COURT:
MR. GANNAM:
Yes.
Will the Court take up our
THE COURT:
MR. GANNAM:
THE COURT:
Okay.
I'm not sure if I'm going to rule
This is Docket 70
Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB
Case: 15-5880
Doc Document:
#: 78 Filed:4309/05/15
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 22 of 181
Page:
- Page
85 ID#: 1584
22
1 here again.
2
MR. GANNAM:
THE COURT:
All right.
Mr. Christman.
I'm
5 sorry.
6
MR. CHRISTMAN:
THE COURT:
MR. CHRISTMAN:
THE COURT:
MR. CHRISTMAN:
Correct.
Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB
Case: 15-5880
Doc Document:
#: 78 Filed:4309/05/15
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 23 of 181
Page:
- Page
86 ID#: 1585
23
THE COURT:
Right.
The issue --
But I really
And if we
20 get a resolution of that by the Circuit, that will -21 the decision will be germane to these other motions,
22 so that's why I stayed that.
23
Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB
Case: 15-5880
Doc Document:
#: 78 Filed:4309/05/15
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 24 of 181
Page:
- Page
87 ID#: 1586
24
MR. CHRISTMAN:
THE COURT:
21 completely agree.
22
MR. CHRISTMAN:
Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB
Case: 15-5880
Doc Document:
#: 78 Filed:4309/05/15
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 25 of 181
Page:
- Page
88 ID#: 1587
25
THE COURT:
Correct.
MR. CHRISTMAN:
THE COURT:
That's correct.
Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB
Case: 15-5880
Doc Document:
#: 78 Filed:4309/05/15
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 26 of 181
Page:
- Page
89 ID#: 1588
26
I -- I recognize that.
I want to
Mr. Vance?
MR. VANCE:
On behalf of
THE COURT:
Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB
Case: 15-5880
Doc Document:
#: 78 Filed:4309/05/15
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 27 of 181
Page:
- Page
90 ID#: 1589
27
Does everybody
MR. SHARP:
THE COURT:
Everybody's nodding
6 affirmatively.
7
Mr. Christman?
MR. CHRISTMAN:
THE COURT:
Okay.
MR. CHRISTMAN:
THE COURT:
Okay.
If you would,
If you think
Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB
Case: 15-5880
Doc Document:
#: 78 Filed:4309/05/15
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 28 of 181
Page:
- Page
91 ID#: 1590
28
MR. VANCE:
10
THE COURT:
MR. VANCE:
Yes.
13
THE COURT:
MR. VANCE:
And
THE COURT:
All right.
Thank you.
21
MR. VANCE:
THE COURT:
Yes.
22 filed.
23
Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB
Case: 15-5880
Doc Document:
#: 78 Filed:4309/05/15
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 29 of 181
Page:
- Page
92 ID#: 1591
29
MR. SHARP:
MR. CHRISTMAN:
THE COURT:
Your Honor --
Yes, sir?
5 clarification.
6
THE COURT:
All right.
MR. CHRISTMAN:
8 ordered and directed, does that mean that you will not
9 have an order on the motion for injunction pending
10 appeal prior to September 11th?
11
THE COURT:
12
MR. CHRISTMAN:
13 pending appeal.
On your motion?
On the motion for injunction
THE COURT:
No.
18 yesterday.
I think the
So I'm not
Is
MR. CHRISTMAN:
Yes.
THE COURT:
Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB
Case: 15-5880
Doc Document:
#: 78 Filed:4309/05/15
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 30 of 181
Page:
- Page
93 ID#: 1592
30
MR. CHRISTMAN:
5 I mean ...
6
MR. CHRISTMAN:
Correct.
As I said
THE COURT:
MR. CHRISTMAN:
25
THE COURT:
Okay.
Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB
Case: 15-5880
Doc Document:
#: 78 Filed:4309/05/15
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 31 of 181
Page:
- Page
94 ID#: 1593
31
3 18th.
4
MR. CHRISTMAN:
THE COURT:
13
MR. CHRISTMAN:
14
THE COURT:
15 for that.
16
Okay.
Let's see.
We have -- oh.
We're
All right.
I initially had
Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB
Case: 15-5880
Doc Document:
#: 78 Filed:4309/05/15
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 32 of 181
Page:
- Page
95 ID#: 1594
32
If
And
Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB
Case: 15-5880
Doc Document:
#: 78 Filed:4309/05/15
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 33 of 181
Page:
- Page
96 ID#: 1595
33
It
Well, here in
Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB
Case: 15-5880
Doc Document:
#: 78 Filed:4309/05/15
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 34 of 181
Page:
- Page
97 ID#: 1596
34
2 for filing and reply because I went ahead and set this
3 matter today at the request of counsel.
4
MR. GANNAM:
THE COURT:
Mr. Christman.
Mr. Christman.
And
Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB
Case: 15-5880
Doc Document:
#: 78 Filed:4309/05/15
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 35 of 181
Page:
- Page
98 ID#: 1597
35
MR. CHRISTMAN:
It is a
THE COURT:
Okay.
Why is it factually
11 impossible here?
12
MR. CHRISTMAN:
THE COURT:
Okay.
16
MR. CHRISTMAN:
What -- go ahead.
17 conscience.
18
THE COURT:
Okay.
19 -20
MR. CHRISTMAN:
THE COURT:
Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB
Case: 15-5880
Doc Document:
#: 78 Filed:4309/05/15
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 36 of 181
Page:
- Page
99 ID#: 1598
36
I'm Catholic.
I mean, that's
In essence, it's
Or it
Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB
Case: 15-5880DocDocument:
#: 78 Filed:
4309/05/15
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 37 of 181
Page:
- Page
100 ID#: 1599
37
MR. CHRISTMAN:
THE COURT:
MR. CHRISTMAN:
-- there is no -- there is no
THE COURT:
MR. CHRISTMAN:
16 impossible.
It wouldn't be factually
Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB
Case: 15-5880DocDocument:
#: 78 Filed:
4309/05/15
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 38 of 181
Page:
- Page
101 ID#: 1600
38
And as this
THE COURT:
MR. CHRISTMAN:
Correct.
17 here.
18
THE COURT:
Okay.
19
MR. CHRISTMAN:
The
Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB
Case: 15-5880DocDocument:
#: 78 Filed:
4309/05/15
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 39 of 181
Page:
- Page
102 ID#: 1601
39
THE COURT:
MR. CHRISTMAN:
Right.
She's factually
And her
THE COURT:
Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB
Case: 15-5880DocDocument:
#: 78 Filed:
4309/05/15
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 40 of 181
Page:
- Page
103 ID#: 1602
40
MR. CHRISTMAN:
THE COURT:
All right.
MR. CHRISTMAN:
THE COURT:
16
MR. CHRISTMAN:
THE COURT:
Right.
Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB
Case: 15-5880DocDocument:
#: 78 Filed:
4309/05/15
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 41 of 181
Page:
- Page
104 ID#: 1603
41
1 thank you.
Thank you.
2 Thank you.
3
THE COURT:
The
12 limited jurisdiction.
13 social policy.
14
And I
If the -- as
Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB
Case: 15-5880DocDocument:
#: 78 Filed:
4309/05/15
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 42 of 181
Page:
- Page
105 ID#: 1604
42
If there's a change
MR. CHRISTMAN:
THE COURT:
Correct.
It would be to the
19 sanction perhaps.
20
MR. CHRISTMAN:
-- but it is a consideration
THE COURT:
25
MR. CHRISTMAN:
Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB
Case: 15-5880DocDocument:
#: 78 Filed:
4309/05/15
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 43 of 181
Page:
- Page
106 ID#: 1605
43
1 -2
THE COURT:
That's what
MR. CHRISTMAN:
THE COURT:
All right.
14
MR. CHRISTMAN:
THE COURT:
18 characterizations.
19
MR. CHRISTMAN:
No.
Those characterizations
Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB
Case: 15-5880DocDocument:
#: 78 Filed:
4309/05/15
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 44 of 181
Page:
- Page
107 ID#: 1606
44
That she
I'm not
The
THE COURT:
23
MR. CHRISTMAN:
24
THE COURT:
25 yet.
Okay.
Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB
Case: 15-5880DocDocument:
#: 78 Filed:
4309/05/15
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 45 of 181
Page:
- Page
108 ID#: 1607
45
MR. CHRISTMAN:
THE COURT:
5 new governor.
6
MR. CHRISTMAN:
And
She's entitled to
THE COURT:
Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB
Case: 15-5880DocDocument:
#: 78 Filed:
4309/05/15
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 46 of 181
Page:
- Page
109 ID#: 1608
46
9 number of things.
22 to be heard on that.
23
MR. SHARP:
Despite
Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB
Case: 15-5880DocDocument:
#: 78 Filed:
4309/05/15
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 47 of 181
Page:
- Page
110 ID#: 1609
47
1 unwillingness.
Here, it --
Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB
Case: 15-5880DocDocument:
#: 78 Filed:
4309/05/15
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 48 of 181
Page:
- Page
111 ID#: 1610
48
THE COURT:
All right.
The statute
MR. SHARP:
THE COURT:
MR. SHARP:
Exactly.
19
THE COURT:
Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB
Case: 15-5880DocDocument:
#: 78 Filed:
4309/05/15
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 49 of 181
Page:
- Page
112 ID#: 1611
49
All right.
2 proceed now?
3 --
MR. GANNAM:
We'd like to
THE COURT:
6
7 do that.
10
You can
11
THE COURT:
12
THE WITNESS:
13
THE COURT:
14
THE WITNESS:
15
THE COURT:
16 Here we go.
17 need that.
18
That's fine.
8
9
All right.
All right.
MR. GANNAM:
You might
Thank you.
THE COURT:
I -- I will, yes.
Anything that
Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB
Case: 15-5880DocDocument:
#: 78 Filed:
4309/05/15
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 50 of 181
Page:
- Page
113 ID#: 1612
50
THE WITNESS:
THE COURT:
MR. GANNAM:
Good afternoon.
All right.
DIRECT EXAMINATION
5
6
BY:
Q.
MR. GANNAM:
Ms. Davis, what is your -- your current
8 religious denomination?
9
A.
10
Q.
11
A.
Q.
14 Christian?
15
A.
Yes.
January 23rd.
And we went
Q.
MR. SHARP:
Objection, relevance.
24
THE COURT:
Overruled.
25
A.
Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB
Case: 15-5880DocDocument:
#: 78 Filed:
4309/05/15
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 51 of 181
Page:
- Page
114 ID#: 1613
51
Q.
A.
No.
Q.
A.
And
I promised to
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Every day.
25
Q.
Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB
Case: 15-5880DocDocument:
#: 78 Filed:
4309/05/15
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 52 of 181
Page:
- Page
115 ID#: 1614
52
A.
Yeah.
Q.
4 belief?
5
A.
6 one woman.
7
Q.
A.
No.
10
Q.
A.
No.
14
Q.
15 religious belief?
16
A.
It is.
17
Q.
A.
No.
21
Q.
22 about that?
23
A.
No.
24
Q.
Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB
Case: 15-5880DocDocument:
#: 78 Filed:
4309/05/15
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 53 of 181
Page:
- Page
116 ID#: 1615
53
A.
No.
Q.
4 matter?
5
A.
I cannot.
Q.
MR. SHARP:
Objection.
Relevance.
11
THE COURT:
Overruled.
I don't think it
13
A.
14
Q.
A.
No.
19
Q.
A.
No.
24
Q.
Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB
Case: 15-5880DocDocument:
#: 78 Filed:
4309/05/15
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 54 of 181
Page:
- Page
117 ID#: 1616
54
A.
5 I'm sorry.
6
Q.
A.
No.
11
Q.
A.
No.
16
Q.
A.
No.
MR. GANNAM:
23 Your Honor.
24
THE COURT:
Any cross?
25
MR. SHARP:
Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB
Case: 15-5880DocDocument:
#: 78 Filed:
4309/05/15
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 55 of 181
Page:
- Page
118 ID#: 1617
55
CROSS-EXAMINATION
1
2
BY:
MR. SHARP:
Q.
A.
Good afternoon.
Q.
A.
I am.
Q.
A.
I did.
12
Q.
A.
Correct.
17
Q.
18
A.
Yes.
19
Q.
20
A.
Yes.
21
Q.
22 Supreme Court?
23
A.
Yes.
24
Q.
Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB
Case: 15-5880DocDocument:
#: 78 Filed:
4309/05/15
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 56 of 181
Page:
- Page
119 ID#: 1618
56
A.
Yes.
Q.
I'm sorry?
A.
Yes.
Q.
A.
Yes.
Q.
10
A.
Q.
13 testified?
14
A.
Q.
A.
21
Q.
Yes, ma'am.
22
A.
23 to do?
24
Q.
Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB
Case: 15-5880DocDocument:
#: 78 Filed:
4309/05/15
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 57 of 181
Page:
- Page
120 ID#: 1619
57
1 decision?
2
A.
3 I can't recall.
4
Q.
Do you
A.
Q.
10
A.
11 probably did.
12
Q.
A.
17
Q.
Yes, ma'am.
18
A.
There
Q.
A.
Correct, yes.
24
Q.
Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB
Case: 15-5880DocDocument:
#: 78 Filed:
4309/05/15
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 58 of 181
Page:
- Page
121 ID#: 1620
58
1 case?
2
A.
No, sir.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
12
Q.
13
A.
Yes.
14
Q.
15
A.
I don't know if
Q.
18 Court's decision?
19
A.
20
Q.
A.
24
Q.
I'm sorry?
25
A.
Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB
Case: 15-5880DocDocument:
#: 78 Filed:
4309/05/15
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 59 of 181
Page:
- Page
122 ID#: 1621
59
Q.
A.
Correct.
Q.
A.
Correct.
Q.
A.
That's right.
13
Q.
A.
16
Q.
17
A.
Yes, sir.
18
Q.
A.
I do.
21
Q.
22
A.
I do.
23
Q.
24 natural law?
25
A.
I do.
Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB
Case: 15-5880DocDocument:
#: 78 Filed:
4309/05/15
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 60 of 181
Page:
- Page
123 ID#: 1622
60
Q.
A.
I have.
Q.
A.
I don't -- I
10 there.
11
Q.
A.
That's correct.
15
Q.
A.
20
Q.
A.
Correct.
23
Q.
A.
You're correct.
Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB
Case: 15-5880DocDocument:
#: 78 Filed:
4309/05/15
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 61 of 181
Page:
- Page
124 ID#: 1623
61
Q.
A.
That's correct.
Q.
4 licenses?
5
A.
We do.
Q.
A.
I do.
Q.
A.
12
Q.
13 clerks?
14
A.
15 that work in my office, and six that are front line -16 five that are front line.
17
Q.
A.
20
Q.
A.
No.
25
Q.
Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB
Case: 15-5880DocDocument:
#: 78 Filed:
4309/05/15
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 62 of 181
Page:
- Page
125 ID#: 1624
62
A.
That's correct.
Q.
A.
It is.
Q.
A.
I am.
12
Q.
A.
I am.
16
Q.
A.
20
Q.
A.
23
Q.
Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB
Case: 15-5880DocDocument:
#: 78 Filed:
4309/05/15
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 63 of 181
Page:
- Page
126 ID#: 1625
63
MR. GANNAM:
It calls
THE COURT:
Overruled.
THE WITNESS:
THE COURT:
A.
I guess me.
Q.
A.
No.
13
Q.
A.
Q.
20
A.
21
Q.
Liberty Counsel?
22
A.
People want to
Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB
Case: 15-5880DocDocument:
#: 78 Filed:
4309/05/15
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 64 of 181
Page:
- Page
127 ID#: 1626
64
THE COURT:
THE WITNESS:
THE COURT:
10
A.
Okay.
11 from anybody.
12
Q.
13 behalf?
14
A.
15
Q.
A.
18
Q.
A.
No.
Q.
24
A.
County Attorney.
25
Q.
Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB
Case: 15-5880DocDocument:
#: 78 Filed:
4309/05/15
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 65 of 181
Page:
- Page
128 ID#: 1627
65
A.
No.
Q.
A.
Q.
Thank you.
A.
Sure it is.
14
Q.
I'm sorry?
15
A.
16
Q.
17
A.
About that.
18
Q.
THE COURT:
21
MR. SHARP:
Yes, sir.
22
THE COURT:
23
Q.
Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB
Case: 15-5880DocDocument:
#: 78 Filed:
4309/05/15
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 66 of 181
Page:
- Page
129 ID#: 1628
66
A.
Correct.
Q.
3 those oaths meant that you also would uphold the moral
4 law of God?
5
A.
Yes.
Q.
A.
Yes.
Q.
9 and convictions?
10
A.
Yes.
11
Q.
A.
No.
Q.
A.
My conscience is.
19
Q.
A.
Yes.
23
Q.
I'm sorry.
24 answer.
25
A.
I said yes.
Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB
Case: 15-5880DocDocument:
#: 78 Filed:
4309/05/15
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 67 of 181
Page:
- Page
130 ID#: 1629
67
THE COURT:
Q.
A.
Yes.
10
Q.
A.
Yes.
14
Q.
A.
Yes.
18
Q.
19
A.
Yes.
20
MR. SHARP:
21
THE COURT:
All right.
Anything else
MS. PARSONS:
25
THE COURT:
No, Judge.
Mr. Vance?
Ms. Parsons,
Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB
Case: 15-5880DocDocument:
#: 78 Filed:
4309/05/15
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 68 of 181
Page:
- Page
131 ID#: 1630
68
MR. VANCE:
THE COURT:
Mr. Gannam?
MR. GANNAM:
THE COURT:
REDIRECT EXAMINATION
5
6
BY:
Q.
MR. GANNAM:
Ms. Davis, does your office receive any
A.
No.
THE COURT:
11
I remember we talked
14 about that.
15
MR. GANNAM:
16
THE COURT:
17 small.
18
Q.
A.
That's correct.
22
Q.
Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB
Case: 15-5880DocDocument:
#: 78 Filed:
4309/05/15
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 69 of 181
Page:
- Page
132 ID#: 1631
69
A.
3 Honor.
THE COURT:
All right.
THE WITNESS:
12
THE COURT:
Yes?
Yes.
All right.
THE WITNESS:
16
THE COURT:
17 well.
Yes.
All right.
18
THE WITNESS:
19
MR. GANNAM:
All right.
Very
Thank you.
Thank you.
Your Honor, may I have just a
THE COURT:
21
Sure.
22 questions, so ...
REDIRECT EXAMINATION
23
24
BY:
25
Q.
MR. GANNAM:
Ms. Davis, as the clerk who employed eight
Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB
Case: 15-5880DocDocument:
#: 78 Filed:
4309/05/15
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 70 of 181
Page:
- Page
133 ID#: 1632
70
A.
Yes.
MR. GANNAM:
6 Honor.
7
THE COURT:
All right.
THE WITNESS:
18
THE COURT:
It is.
All right.
Okay.
Anything else?
Thank you.
I don't mean
MR. SHARP:
Okay.
That's fine.
Thank you.
Mr. Gannam?
Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB
Case: 15-5880DocDocument:
#: 78 Filed:
4309/05/15
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 71 of 181
Page:
- Page
134 ID#: 1633
71
MR. CHRISTMAN:
THE COURT:
MR. CHRISTMAN:
THE COURT:
Mr. Sharp.
MR. SHARP:
No?
No, Your Honor.
The
THE COURT:
10
8
9
That's fine.
11
THE WITNESS:
14
THE COURT:
Okay.
Thanks.
Good catch.
Awesome.
DIRECT EXAMINATION
16
17
BY:
MR. CANON:
18
Q.
19
A.
Good afternoon.
20
Q.
21 the record.
22
A.
April Miller.
23
Q.
24 County?
25
A.
I do.
Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB
Case: 15-5880DocDocument:
#: 78 Filed:
4309/05/15
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 72 of 181
Page:
- Page
135 ID#: 1634
72
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Yes.
Q.
A.
7 State University.
8
Q.
A.
Q.
Very good.
13 that position?
14
A.
Nine years.
15
Q.
16
A.
I do.
17
Q.
18 Rowan County?
19
A.
I do.
20
Q.
21 election?
22
A.
Yes, I did.
23
Q.
24
A.
25
Q.
Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB
Case: 15-5880DocDocument:
#: 78 Filed:
4309/05/15
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 73 of 181
Page:
- Page
136 ID#: 1635
73
A.
Yes, I am.
Q.
3 the Court.
4
A.
THE COURT:
Q.
A.
Yes, sir.
12
Q.
13
A.
14 Karen Roberts.
Q.
20 years approximately?
21
A.
Yes.
Q.
24 Ms. Roberts?
25
A.
I am.
Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB
Case: 15-5880DocDocument:
#: 78 Filed:
4309/05/15
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 74 of 181
Page:
- Page
137 ID#: 1636
74
Q.
2 married to her?
3
A.
Q.
9 engagement?
10
A.
Yes, sir.
11
Q.
12 entire 11 years?
13
A.
Q.
17 places.
18
A.
The second
Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB
Case: 15-5880DocDocument:
#: 78 Filed:
4309/05/15
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 75 of 181
Page:
- Page
138 ID#: 1637
75
Q.
A.
Yes, sir.
Q.
4 of that?
5
A.
Q.
A.
11 country.
Elated.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Uh-huh (affirmatively).
25
Q.
Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB
Case: 15-5880DocDocument:
#: 78 Filed:
4309/05/15
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 76 of 181
Page:
- Page
139 ID#: 1638
76
A.
Yes.
Q.
10 week.
A.
14 Supporters of Equality, and we actually sang with -15 along with Kim Davis's supporters, "Amazing Grace."
16
Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB
Case: 15-5880DocDocument:
#: 78 Filed:
4309/05/15
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 77 of 181
Page:
- Page
140 ID#: 1639
77
We were
We said,
Q.
A.
Yes.
Q.
A.
Correct.
19
Q.
At that time?
20
A.
Yes.
21
Q.
A.
Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB
Case: 15-5880DocDocument:
#: 78 Filed:
4309/05/15
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 78 of 181
Page:
- Page
141 ID#: 1640
78
This is going to be
14
Q.
A.
Yeah.
It's permanent.
This
It's a part
Q.
Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB
Case: 15-5880DocDocument:
#: 78 Filed:
4309/05/15
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 79 of 181
Page:
- Page
142 ID#: 1641
79
2 else?
3
A.
4 there.
5 Rowan County.
I pay taxes
I work in
8 yes.
9
Q.
10 Rowan County?
11
A.
We are.
12
Q.
A.
16 pretty demoralizing.
17 marginalizes us again.
Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB
Case: 15-5880DocDocument:
#: 78 Filed:
4309/05/15
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 80 of 181
Page:
- Page
143 ID#: 1642
80
We don't want
4 you here."
5
Q.
6 Ms. Roberts?
7
A.
Oh, yeah.
Q.
9 planning to do that?
A.
12 marriage license.
We are waiting
Q.
19
A.
20
Q.
Why not?
21
A.
And if I
Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB
Case: 15-5880DocDocument:
#: 78 Filed:
4309/05/15
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 81 of 181
Page:
- Page
144 ID#: 1643
81
Q.
A.
Oh, yeah.
Yes, sir.
11
Q.
A.
No.
14
Q.
A.
No.
17
Q.
18
A.
19
MR. CANON:
Nothing further.
20
THE COURT:
Any cross?
21
MR. GANNAM:
22
THE COURT:
23 Thank you.
24
MR. SHARP:
25
THE COURT:
All right.
Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB
Case: 15-5880DocDocument:
#: 78 Filed:
4309/05/15
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 82 of 181
Page:
- Page
145 ID#: 1644
82
1 on, please.
2
THE COURT:
All right.
All right.
Do you
MR. SHARP:
THE COURT:
Counsel?
12
MR. CHRISTMAN:
THE COURT:
You have.
15
MR. CHRISTMAN:
But we
22 specifically -23
THE COURT:
I understand that.
MR. CHRISTMAN:
Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB
Case: 15-5880DocDocument:
#: 78 Filed:
4309/05/15
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 83 of 181
Page:
- Page
146 ID#: 1645
83
1 address contempt.
2
THE COURT:
MR. CHRISTMAN:
But that's a
Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB
Case: 15-5880DocDocument:
#: 78 Filed:
4309/05/15
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 84 of 181
Page:
- Page
147 ID#: 1646
84
In addition to that --
THE COURT:
Thank you.
MR. CHRISTMAN:
Go ahead.
But
THE COURT:
In your response.
19
MR. CHRISTMAN:
-- in prior -- in prior
20 briefing.
21
THE COURT:
But the
MR. CHRISTMAN:
25
THE COURT:
Correct.
All right.
Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB
Case: 15-5880DocDocument:
#: 78 Filed:
4309/05/15
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 85 of 181
Page:
- Page
148 ID#: 1647
85
MR. CHRISTMAN:
2 alternatives.
THE COURT:
Completely agreed.
Completely
5 agreed.
6
MR. CHRISTMAN:
THE COURT:
Okay.
Thank you.
Is Governor
MR. VANCE:
22 anything.
23
THE COURT:
Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB
Case: 15-5880DocDocument:
#: 78 Filed:
4309/05/15
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 86 of 181
Page:
- Page
149 ID#: 1648
86
By executive order, I
MR. VANCE:
THE COURT:
All right.
14
MR. CHRISTMAN:
15
THE COURT:
Hold on.
16
MR. SHARP:
17
THE COURT:
18
MR. SHARP:
Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB
Case: 15-5880DocDocument:
#: 78 Filed:
4309/05/15
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 87 of 181
Page:
- Page
150 ID#: 1649
87
THE COURT:
I'm going to
MR. CHRISTMAN:
With
THE COURT:
20
MR. CHRISTMAN:
THE COURT:
Right.
25
MR. CHRISTMAN:
Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB
Case: 15-5880DocDocument:
#: 78 Filed:
4309/05/15
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 88 of 181
Page:
- Page
151 ID#: 1650
88
We're in
By that
10 concession -11
THE COURT:
12
MR. SHARP:
13
MR. CHRISTMAN:
THE COURT:
16 -- hold on.
I never have
I mean, I
THE COURT:
24
MR. CHRISTMAN:
Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB
Case: 15-5880DocDocument:
#: 78 Filed:
4309/05/15
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 89 of 181
Page:
- Page
152 ID#: 1651
89
THE COURT:
8 change it now.
9
10
THE COURT:
All right.
Well -- I do plan,
Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB
Case: 15-5880DocDocument:
#: 78 Filed:
4309/05/15
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 90 of 181
Page:
- Page
153 ID#: 1652
90
It's a 1985
Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB
Case: 15-5880DocDocument:
#: 78 Filed:
4309/05/15
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 91 of 181
Page:
- Page
154 ID#: 1653
91
1 finding."
6
7 ma'am.
I simply
16 account.
17
In fact,
Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB
Case: 15-5880DocDocument:
#: 78 Filed:
4309/05/15
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 92 of 181
Page:
- Page
155 ID#: 1654
92
And the
Ms. Davis
Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB
Case: 15-5880DocDocument:
#: 78 Filed:
4309/05/15
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 93 of 181
Page:
- Page
156 ID#: 1655
93
And if a Catholic
And
Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB
Case: 15-5880DocDocument:
#: 78 Filed:
4309/05/15
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 94 of 181
Page:
- Page
157 ID#: 1656
94
The Court
However, this is
So
Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB
Case: 15-5880DocDocument:
#: 78 Filed:
4309/05/15
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 95 of 181
Page:
- Page
158 ID#: 1657
95
The Court
Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB
Case: 15-5880DocDocument:
#: 78 Filed:
4309/05/15
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 96 of 181
Page:
- Page
159 ID#: 1658
96
1 contempt proceeding.
2
But it's
I don't
11 write law.
12
16 on a clean slate.
Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB
Case: 15-5880DocDocument:
#: 78 Filed:
4309/05/15
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 97 of 181
Page:
- Page
160 ID#: 1659
97
If
To do
And the
Society
17 Court's authority.
19 believe that.
Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB
Case: 15-5880DocDocument:
#: 78 Filed:
4309/05/15
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 98 of 181
Page:
- Page
161 ID#: 1660
98
13
And
It's necessary in
Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB
Case: 15-5880DocDocument:
#: 78 Filed:
4309/05/15
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 99 of 181
Page:
- Page
162 ID#: 1661
99
So I'm going to
19 by indicating compliance.
20 deadline on it.
So
Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB
Case: 15-5880
Doc Document:
#: 78 Filed:4309/05/15
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 100 of 181
Page:
- Page
163 ID#: 1662
100
2 Thank you.
3
THE DEFENDANT:
THE COURT:
All right.
All right.
Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB
Case: 15-5880
Doc Document:
#: 78 Filed:4309/05/15
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 101 of 181
Page:
- Page
164 ID#: 1663
101
MR. GANNAM:
13
THE COURT:
14
MR. GANNAM:
15
THE COURT:
16
MR. GANNAM:
Okay.
And I would simply assert that
THE COURT:
They do.
They do.
And we're
MR. CHRISTMAN:
Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB
Case: 15-5880
Doc Document:
#: 78 Filed:4309/05/15
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 102 of 181
Page:
- Page
165 ID#: 1664
102
THE COURT:
3 moment.
MR. CHRISTMAN:
THE COURT:
14 important ruling.
I do.
I do.
I certainly haven't
MR. CHRISTMAN:
THE COURT:
Because a contempt
Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB
Case: 15-5880
Doc Document:
#: 78 Filed:4309/05/15
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 103 of 181
Page:
- Page
166 ID#: 1665
103
1 certified.
2
MR. CHRISTMAN:
THE COURT:
12
MR. CHRISTMAN:
THE COURT:
DEPUTY CLERK:
19
THE COURT:
Yes, sir.
Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB
Case: 15-5880
Doc Document:
#: 78 Filed:4309/05/15
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 104 of 181
Page:
- Page
167 ID#: 1666
104
MR. CHRISTMAN:
THE COURT:
Okay.
All right.
We'll make
9
10 that?
MR. SHARP:
11
12 I mean, we --
THE COURT:
13
14 that.
I understand
15
MR. CHRISTMAN:
THE COURT:
22
MR. CHRISTMAN:
23 that motion.
24
25 denied.
THE COURT:
Okay.
Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB
Case: 15-5880
Doc Document:
#: 78 Filed:4309/05/15
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 105 of 181
Page:
- Page
168 ID#: 1667
105
MR. SHARP:
THE COURT:
MR. CHRISTMAN:
THE COURT:
14 well.
15
Okay.
Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB
Case: 15-5880
Doc Document:
#: 78 Filed:4309/05/15
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 106 of 181
Page:
- Page
169 ID#: 1668
106
Up to
13 five.
14
Okay.
All right.
But if
MR. DAVIS:
17
THE COURT:
Nathaniel Davis?
18
MR. DAVIS:
Yes.
19
THE COURT:
Okay.
21
MS. PLANK:
Kristie Plank.
22
THE COURT:
23
MS. PLANK:
Plank, P-L-A-N-K.
24
THE COURT:
Plank, P-L-A-N-K?
25
MS. PLANK:
Uh-huh (affirmatively).
All right.
And you,
20 ma'am?
Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB
Case: 15-5880
Doc Document:
#: 78 Filed:4309/05/15
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 107 of 181
Page:
- Page
170 ID#: 1669
107
THE COURT:
All right.
MR. MASON:
Brian Mason.
THE COURT:
B-R-Y-A-N?
MR. MASON:
B-R-I-A-N.
THE COURT:
Okay.
MR. MASON:
Yes, M-A-S-O-N.
THE COURT:
MR. MASON:
M-A-S-O-N.
THE COURT:
Okay.
10
MS. RUSSELL:
11
THE COURT:
Sir?
Mason --
You, ma'am?
Kim Russell.
MS. RUSSELL:
14
THE COURT:
15
MS. RUSSELL:
16
THE COURT:
R-U-S-S-E-L-L.
All right.
Kim, K-I-M?
Yes.
All right.
17 ma'am?
18
MS. THOMPSON:
19
THE COURT:
20
MS. THOMPSON:
21
THE COURT:
Melissa Thompson.
Melissa Thompson?
Uh-huh (affirmatively).
Okay.
Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB
Case: 15-5880
Doc Document:
#: 78 Filed:4309/05/15
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 108 of 181
Page:
- Page
171 ID#: 1670
108
DEPUTY CLERK:
THE COURT:
Yes.
All right.
He's a member of
6 Michael Fox.
7
That's
15 each of you.
16
17 Mr. Hughes.
18 Mr. Joy.
19 Mr. Markelonis.
20
21
MR. CLARK:
22
THE COURT:
23 All right.
24
MS. EARLEY:
Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB
Case: 15-5880
Doc Document:
#: 78 Filed:4309/05/15
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 109 of 181
Page:
- Page
172 ID#: 1671
109
THE COURT:
4 licenses, though?
5
MS. EARLEY:
6 do not do it now.
7
THE COURT:
Okay.
MS. EARLEY:
12
THE COURT:
Okay.
What we're going to do -- I know
And
So
18 respective lawyers.
Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB
Case: 15-5880
Doc Document:
#: 78 Filed:4309/05/15
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 110 of 181
Page:
- Page
173 ID#: 1672
110
9 chambers.
10
11 of this.
DEPUTY MARSHAL:
14
THE COURT:
15 attorneys.
We'll come
19 back in at 1:45.
20
MR. CHRISTMAN:
THE COURT:
23
MR. CHRISTMAN:
Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB
Case: 15-5880
Doc Document:
#: 78 Filed:4309/05/15
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 111 of 181
Page:
- Page
174 ID#: 1673
111
THE COURT:
9 overruled.
10 lawyers.
11
MR. CHRISTMAN:
12
THE COURT:
13
14
15
THE COURT:
All right.
19
MS. EARLEY:
20
THE COURT:
21
MS. EARLEY:
22
THE COURT:
23
MS. EARLEY:
Earley, E-A-R-L-E-Y
24
THE COURT:
Is that E -- E-A-R-L?
25
MS. EARLEY:
Mine?
Yes.
Roberta Earley.
Earley?
E-A-R-L-E-Y.
Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB
Case: 15-5880
Doc Document:
#: 78 Filed:4309/05/15
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 112 of 181
Page:
- Page
175 ID#: 1674
112
THE COURT:
Okay.
All right.
And I had
Or a completely
Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB
Case: 15-5880
Doc Document:
#: 78 Filed:4309/05/15
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 113 of 181
Page:
- Page
176 ID#: 1675
113
MR. CHRISTMAN:
4 lawful order -5
THE COURT:
I mean, giving
Of
MR. CHRISTMAN:
THE COURT:
What statute?
19
MR. CHRISTMAN:
The
THE COURT:
MR. CHRISTMAN:
THE COURT:
Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB
Case: 15-5880
Doc Document:
#: 78 Filed:4309/05/15
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 114 of 181
Page:
- Page
177 ID#: 1676
114
MR. CHRISTMAN:
THE COURT:
MR. CHRISTMAN:
8 -9
10
THE COURT:
Correct.
MR. CHRISTMAN:
THE COURT:
MR. CHRISTMAN:
THE COURT:
Okay.
So I can't -- so taking
20 that to its logical conclusion, though, if someone -21 an employer tells an employee to do something, and
22 they -- just general agency principals, if they're an
23 agent, why, under Rule 65(d)(2)(B), shouldn't they be
24 bound by the Court's preliminary injunction?
25
MR. CHRISTMAN:
Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB
Case: 15-5880
Doc Document:
#: 78 Filed:4309/05/15
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 115 of 181
Page:
- Page
178 ID#: 1677
115
THE COURT:
You're --
THE COURT:
Okay.
9 do it, but a court says they have to, they still -10 you're saying they can't do it because she said they
11 couldn't?
12
MR. CHRISTMAN:
20 here.
21
THE COURT:
All right.
Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB
Case: 15-5880
Doc Document:
#: 78 Filed:4309/05/15
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 116 of 181
Page:
- Page
179 ID#: 1678
116
MR. SHARP:
THE COURT:
Okay.
MR. WATKINS:
Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB
Case: 15-5880
Doc Document:
#: 78 Filed:4309/05/15
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 117 of 181
Page:
- Page
180 ID#: 1679
117
THE COURT:
Ms. Parsons?
So -- so it's the
MR. WATKINS:
THE COURT:
MS. PARSONS:
10
THE COURT:
Absolutely.
All right.
Ms. Parsons?
All right.
All right.
Let me
11 now turn to the actual individuals in play here and -12 I can't remember who was appointed to represent who,
13 so maybe you all can help me.
14
15
MR. CAMPBELL:
16 Mr. Davis.
17
THE COURT:
MR. CAMPBELL:
20
THE COURT:
All right.
MR. CAMPBELL:
24
THE COURT:
I did.
All right.
Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB
Case: 15-5880
Doc Document:
#: 78 Filed:4309/05/15
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 118 of 181
Page:
- Page
181 ID#: 1680
118
MR. DAVIS:
I did, sir.
THE COURT:
Okay.
5 right?
6
MR. DAVIS:
THE COURT:
Okay.
All right.
Again, we go
Mr. Campbell?
MR. CAMPBELL:
12 Honor.
13
THE COURT:
All right.
Okay.
I'm going to
Thank you.
15
16
MR. FOX:
I represent
17 Ms. Plank.
18
THE COURT:
Ms. Plank?
19
MS. PLANK:
Yes.
20
THE COURT:
All right.
MR. FOX:
25
THE COURT:
All right.
Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB
Case: 15-5880
Doc Document:
#: 78 Filed:4309/05/15
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 119 of 181
Page:
- Page
182 ID#: 1681
119
MS. PLANK:
I did.
THE COURT:
Okay.
MR. JOY:
THE COURT:
All right.
Mr. Joy?
Yes, sir.
Let me make a note here.
6 Campbell, Fox.
7
MR. JOY:
THE COURT:
Ms. Russell?
All right.
MR. JOY:
12
THE COURT:
MR. JOY:
15
THE COURT:
All right.
MS. PLANK:
I did.
18
THE COURT:
Okay.
All right.
Thank you.
MR. HUGHES:
21
THE COURT:
Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB
Case: 15-5880
Doc Document:
#: 78 Filed:4309/05/15
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 120 of 181
Page:
- Page
183 ID#: 1682
120
MR. HUGHES:
THE COURT:
Yes, I did.
All right.
MR. MASON:
Yes, Judge.
THE COURT:
Okay.
6 who's left?
And Mr. --
MR. MARKELONIS:
THE COURT:
9 questions.
Thank you.
MR. MARKELONIS:
13
THE COURT:
I did, Judge.
All right.
MS. THOMPSON:
16
THE COURT:
I did, Judge.
Okay.
Thank you.
And,
MS. THOMPSON:
19
THE COURT:
I did.
MR. CLARK:
23
THE COURT:
Okay.
MS. EARLEY:
I did.
Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB
Case: 15-5880
Doc Document:
#: 78 Filed:4309/05/15
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 121 of 181
Page:
- Page
184 ID#: 1683
121
THE COURT:
Okay.
All right.
Now, up to
MR. HUGHES:
20
THE COURT:
21
MR. HUGHES:
Mr. Mason
22 was the one that had discussed that with Ms. Davis,
23 and he'd already indicated to her that he would issue
24 those licenses, if he were allowed to do so.
25
Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB
Case: 15-5880
Doc Document:
#: 78 Filed:4309/05/15
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 122 of 181
Page:
- Page
185 ID#: 1684
122
4 overcome.
10
Perhaps this
THE COURT:
15
16 sorry.
I'm
17 Mr. Hughes.
18
19 oath.
20
I'm sorry.
Mr. Mason, I
23 apologize, sir.
24
25
Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB
Case: 15-5880
Doc Document:
#: 78 Filed:4309/05/15
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 123 of 181
Page:
- Page
186 ID#: 1685
123
follows:]
THE COURT:
All right.
MR. MASON:
10 either.
11
THE COURT:
12 been a deputy?
13
MR. MASON:
14 January of 2014.
15
THE COURT:
Okay.
MR. MASON:
Yes.
18
THE COURT:
19
MR. MASON:
Yes.
Ms. Bailey.
20
THE COURT:
Okay.
All right.
You've
Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB
Case: 15-5880
Doc Document:
#: 78 Filed:4309/05/15
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 124 of 181
Page:
- Page
187 ID#: 1686
124
1 right?
2
MR. MASON:
Yes.
THE COURT:
All right.
You -- you
And what
18 parties.
You are
Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB
Case: 15-5880
Doc Document:
#: 78 Filed:4309/05/15
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 125 of 181
Page:
- Page
188 ID#: 1687
125
MR. JOY:
THE COURT:
MR. JOY:
Yes, sir.
Mr. Joy?
10 back up.
11
THE COURT:
12
MR. JOY:
Right.
I think if
THE COURT:
I -- I believe it to be a valid
19 order.
20
MR. JOY:
Right.
21
THE COURT:
But
MR. JOY:
Correct.
Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB
Case: 15-5880
Doc Document:
#: 78 Filed:4309/05/15
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 126 of 181
Page:
- Page
189 ID#: 1688
126
4 a license.
THE COURT:
MR. JOY:
Absolutely.
13
THE COURT:
All right.
MR. SHARP:
Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB
Case: 15-5880
Doc Document:
#: 78 Filed:4309/05/15
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 127 of 181
Page:
- Page
190 ID#: 1689
127
1
2 illegal.
THE COURT:
3 Court's order.
4
MR. SHARP:
She employs
THE COURT:
16 deputy clerk.
I previously found
Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB
Case: 15-5880
Doc Document:
#: 78 Filed:4309/05/15
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 128 of 181
Page:
- Page
191 ID#: 1690
128
THE COURT:
17 control that.
18
MR. HUGHES:
19
THE COURT:
Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB
Case: 15-5880
Doc Document:
#: 78 Filed:4309/05/15
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 129 of 181
Page:
- Page
192 ID#: 1691
129
1 situation; I don't.
2 operates.
3
MR. HUGHES:
He recognizes that.
He just --
THE COURT:
Okay.
I will proceed.
Thank you.
Mr. Davis --
You
Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB
Case: 15-5880
Doc Document:
#: 78 Filed:4309/05/15
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 130 of 181
Page:
- Page
193 ID#: 1692
130
MR. CAMPBELL:
THE COURT:
I mean, that's
Mr. Markelonis?
15
MR. MARKELONIS:
16 the podium.
17
THE COURT:
Sure.
Come around.
And this is
18 Ms. Thompson?
19
MS. THOMPSON:
Yes.
20
MR. MARKELONIS:
21
THE COURT:
Yes, sir.
All right.
Thank you.
23
24
25
as follows:]
Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB
Case: 15-5880
Doc Document:
#: 78 Filed:4309/05/15
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 131 of 181
Page:
- Page
194 ID#: 1693
131
THE COURT:
Because frankly, we
Legally
I understand what's
I know folks
Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB
Case: 15-5880
Doc Document:
#: 78 Filed:4309/05/15
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 132 of 181
Page:
- Page
195 ID#: 1694
132
5 do that.
6 sides do.
7
8 times.
But
I'm
16 sorry.
17
DEPUTY CLERK:
Yes, I did.
18
THE COURT:
19
MR. MARKELONIS:
20
THE COURT:
21
MR. MARKELONIS:
Okay.
Judge, if I could?
Yes.
I spoke at some length, like
I would say
Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB
Case: 15-5880
Doc Document:
#: 78 Filed:4309/05/15
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 133 of 181
Page:
- Page
196 ID#: 1695
133
THE COURT:
3 there?
4
MR. MARKELONIS:
No.
5 while.
6
THE COURT:
That's
7 what I thought.
8
MR. MARKELONIS:
THE COURT:
MR. MARKELONIS:
But she's
THE COURT:
All right.
MS. THOMPSON:
Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB
Case: 15-5880
Doc Document:
#: 78 Filed:4309/05/15
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 134 of 181
Page:
- Page
197 ID#: 1696
134
THE COURT:
Okay.
MS. THOMPSON:
4 a year-and-a-half.
5
THE COURT:
Okay.
MS. THOMPSON:
THE COURT:
MS. THOMPSON:
10
THE COURT:
Okay.
Okay.
MS. THOMPSON:
I don't
I'm a
THE COURT:
20 don't -21
MS. THOMPSON:
22
THE COURT:
Now,
MS. THOMPSON:
25
THE COURT:
Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB
Case: 15-5880
Doc Document:
#: 78 Filed:4309/05/15
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 135 of 181
Page:
- Page
198 ID#: 1697
135
1 does.
2
MS. THOMPSON:
THE COURT:
None of us hate --
4 the courtroom -5
MS. THOMPSON:
It's
6 just hard.
7
THE COURT:
No one does.
I appreciate that;
8 I really do.
9
10 speak the loudest because they want -- they don't -11 they sometimes don't have all the information and they
12 -- someone sends an email and says, "Look what's going
13 on in Kentucky.
14
I don't blame
18 clearly.
I appreciate that.
19 hesitation.
Both
Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB
Case: 15-5880
Doc Document:
#: 78 Filed:4309/05/15
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 136 of 181
Page:
- Page
199 ID#: 1698
136
I mean, I don't
Are
MR. WATKINS:
THE COURT:
Yes, sir.
MR. WATKINS:
Yes, sir.
Yes, sir.
Usually
THE COURT:
Okay.
I know
MR. WATKINS:
17
MS. EARLEY:
18
THE COURT:
19
MS. EARLEY:
20
THE COURT:
There is.
Roberta Earley.
You're the chief deputy?
I am.
Okay.
Roberta Earley.
Thank you.
23
24
MS. PLANK:
Ms. Plank.
25
THE COURT:
Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB
Case: 15-5880
Doc Document:
#: 78 Filed:4309/05/15
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 137 of 181
Page:
- Page
200 ID#: 1699
137
All right.
Thank
2 you.
3
4
as follows:]
THE COURT:
Okay.
MS. PLANK:
12
THE COURT:
Okay.
MS. PLANK:
Yes.
16
THE COURT:
All right.
17
MR. FOX:
18 quite length.
Mr. Fox?
We did speak at
THE COURT:
23
MR. FOX:
24
THE COURT:
Be what?
Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB
Case: 15-5880
Doc Document:
#: 78 Filed:4309/05/15
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 138 of 181
Page:
- Page
201 ID#: 1700
138
MR. FOX:
I'm sorry.
THE COURT:
MR. FOX:
Go ahead, sir.
She is a mother of an
THE COURT:
15 everyone's doing.
16
MR. FOX:
But these
Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB
Case: 15-5880
Doc Document:
#: 78 Filed:4309/05/15
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 139 of 181
Page:
- Page
202 ID#: 1701
139
And if
Our discussion
THE COURT:
Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB
Case: 15-5880
Doc Document:
#: 78 Filed:4309/05/15
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 140 of 181
Page:
- Page
203 ID#: 1702
140
1 the Court?
2
MR. FOX:
That's right.
That's right.
And
Her duties
This is a large --
THE COURT:
15 licensing of autos?
16
MR. FOX:
THE COURT:
MR. FOX:
And
Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB
Case: 15-5880
Doc Document:
#: 78 Filed:4309/05/15
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 141 of 181
Page:
- Page
204 ID#: 1703
141
THE COURT:
Right.
MS. PLANK:
Yes, sir.
11
THE COURT:
Okay.
12
MR. FOX:
Okay.
MS. PLANK:
We
MR. FOX:
Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB
Case: 15-5880
Doc Document:
#: 78 Filed:4309/05/15
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 142 of 181
Page:
- Page
205 ID#: 1704
142
1 office.
2
THE COURT:
Understood.
Understood.
All
3 right.
4
All
MR. CHRISTMAN:
DEPUTY CLERK:
11
THE COURT:
12 earlier.
13
MR. CHRISTMAN:
14
THE COURT:
15 heads-up.
Okay.
Thank you.
16
DEPUTY CLERK:
17
THE COURT:
Okay.
Thank you.
So setting
Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB
Case: 15-5880
Doc Document:
#: 78 Filed:4309/05/15
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 143 of 181
Page:
- Page
206 ID#: 1705
143
MS. PLANK:
Yes.
THE COURT:
MS. PLANK:
Yes.
THE COURT:
Yes?
5 you.
Okay.
All right.
Thank
All right.
MR. HUGHES:
THE COURT:
MR. HUGHES:
I know you
THE COURT:
It's --
The
Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB
Case: 15-5880
Doc Document:
#: 78 Filed:4309/05/15
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 144 of 181
Page:
- Page
207 ID#: 1706
144
MR. WATKINS:
THE COURT:
MR. WATKINS:
THE COURT:
Randy.
Is that correct?
Randy Thompson.
He was the
MR. FOX:
That's correct.
11
THE COURT:
I don't know.
MR. HUGHES:
She resigned
17 her office.
18
Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB
Case: 15-5880
Doc Document:
#: 78 Filed:4309/05/15
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 145 of 181
Page:
- Page
208 ID#: 1707
145
1 or they're incapacitated.
THE COURT:
MR. HUGHES:
THE COURT:
23 marriage.
24
MR. HUGHES:
Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB
Case: 15-5880
Doc Document:
#: 78 Filed:4309/05/15
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 146 of 181
Page:
- Page
209 ID#: 1708
146
THE COURT:
MR. CHRISTMAN:
THE COURT:
MR. CHRISTMAN:
Go ahead.
The
THE COURT:
Mr. Hughes?
11
MR. CHRISTMAN:
Mr. Hughes.
I'm sorry.
THE COURT:
I just wanted to
MR. CHRISTMAN:
-- immediately.
But the --
THE COURT:
THE COURT:
23
MR. HUGHES:
Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB
Case: 15-5880
Doc Document:
#: 78 Filed:4309/05/15
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 147 of 181
Page:
- Page
210 ID#: 1709
147
THE COURT:
All right.
MR. CHRISTMAN:
That if somebody
THE COURT:
Recognizing -- sure.
14
MR. CHRISTMAN:
And there's
21 -22
THE COURT:
Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB
Case: 15-5880
Doc Document:
#: 78 Filed:4309/05/15
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 148 of 181
Page:
- Page
211 ID#: 1710
148
MR. CHRISTMAN:
What
THE COURT:
MR. CHRISTMAN:
11
THE COURT:
No.
12 though.
13
MR. CHRISTMAN:
No.
THE COURT:
All right.
Mr. Watkins?
Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB
Case: 15-5880
Doc Document:
#: 78 Filed:4309/05/15
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 149 of 181
Page:
- Page
212 ID#: 1711
149
MR. WATKINS:
2 inaccurate statement.
It says
THE COURT:
All right.
Well, ultimately
MR. CHRISTMAN:
12 wants?
13
THE COURT:
You're
No.
Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB
Case: 15-5880
Doc Document:
#: 78 Filed:4309/05/15
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 150 of 181
Page:
- Page
213 ID#: 1712
150
THE COURT:
Correct.
MR. CHRISTMAN:
Is
THE COURT:
Okay.
Okay.
MR. CHRISTMAN:
THE COURT:
The
MR. CHRISTMAN:
Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB
Case: 15-5880
Doc Document:
#: 78 Filed:4309/05/15
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 151 of 181
Page:
- Page
214 ID#: 1713
151
THE COURT:
2 now.
3
MR. CHRISTMAN:
THE COURT:
Correct.
MR. CHRISTMAN:
THE COURT:
Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB
Case: 15-5880
Doc Document:
#: 78 Filed:4309/05/15
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 152 of 181
Page:
- Page
215 ID#: 1714
152
MR. CHRISTMAN:
You
2 have forced -3
THE COURT:
4 analogy?
5
THE COURT:
MR. CHRISTMAN:
THE COURT:
Well, or non-religious.
I mean,
14 I think ...
15
MR. CHRISTMAN:
THE COURT:
I know that.
MR. CHRISTMAN:
THE COURT:
I have.
24
MR. CHRISTMAN:
Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB
Case: 15-5880
Doc Document:
#: 78 Filed:4309/05/15
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 153 of 181
Page:
- Page
216 ID#: 1715
153
So her ability to
THE COURT:
No.
16
MR. CHRISTMAN:
You're taking
THE COURT:
Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB
Case: 15-5880
Doc Document:
#: 78 Filed:4309/05/15
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 154 of 181
Page:
- Page
217 ID#: 1716
154
MR. CHRISTMAN:
THE COURT:
It's --
4 her.
5
MR. CHRISTMAN:
And our
THE COURT:
MR. CHRISTMAN:
But go ahead.
THE COURT:
All right.
22
MR. CHRISTMAN:
23
THE COURT:
Thank you.
24 Ms. Parsons?
25
MS. PARSONS:
No.
Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB
Case: 15-5880
Doc Document:
#: 78 Filed:4309/05/15
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 155 of 181
Page:
- Page
218 ID#: 1717
155
We believe it is a -- if a religious
THE COURT:
All right.
MS. PARSONS:
THE COURT:
All right.
MR. VANCE:
15
THE COURT:
No?
16
MR. SHARP:
No.
17 the county.
18
THE COURT:
All right.
MR. DAVIS:
22
23
MS. EARLEY:
24
THE COURT:
Yes.
Yes.
Where are we?
Okay.
Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB
Case: 15-5880
Doc Document:
#: 78 Filed:4309/05/15
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 156 of 181
Page:
- Page
219 ID#: 1718
156
MS. EARLEY:
Yes.
THE COURT:
Okay.
MR. CLARK:
Clark.
THE COURT:
I'm sorry.
MR. JOY:
13
THE COURT:
14
MR. JOY:
Different answers.
THE COURT:
All right.
Mr. Clark?
18
MR. CLARK:
THE COURT:
All right.
21
MR. CAMPBELL:
Mr. Campbell?
We don't
THE COURT:
All right.
Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB
Case: 15-5880
Doc Document:
#: 78 Filed:4309/05/15
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 157 of 181
Page:
- Page
220 ID#: 1719
157
I'm trying
I'm sorry.
23
24
as follows:]
25
THE COURT:
Okay.
Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB
Case: 15-5880
Doc Document:
#: 78 Filed:4309/05/15
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 158 of 181
Page:
- Page
221 ID#: 1720
158
MS. EARLEY:
THE COURT:
MS. EARLEY:
THE COURT:
11
MS. EARLEY:
12
THE COURT:
13
MS. EARLEY:
Okay.
Uh-huh (affirmatively).
So do you work with -Recording, and work -- assist
THE COURT:
Okay.
MS. EARLEY:
18
THE COURT:
19
MS. EARLEY:
20
THE COURT:
Right.
-- they are pointed toward you?
Right.
Now, how long have you been with
MS. EARLEY:
23
THE COURT:
MS. EARLEY:
I did.
Okay.
So
Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB
Case: 15-5880
Doc Document:
#: 78 Filed:4309/05/15
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 159 of 181
Page:
- Page
222 ID#: 1721
159
THE COURT:
Okay.
MR. CLARK:
THE COURT:
Yes.
MR. CLARK:
THE COURT:
13 so, right.
14
MR. CLARK:
Yeah.
THE COURT:
MR. CLARK:
No.
I've explained to
Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB
Case: 15-5880
Doc Document:
#: 78 Filed:4309/05/15
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 160 of 181
Page:
- Page
223 ID#: 1722
160
MS. EARLEY:
2 uh-huh.
3
MR. CLARK:
Yeah.
And she
THE COURT:
MR. CLARK:
Yes.
12
THE COURT:
MR. CLARK:
And I think
But
THE COURT:
MR. CLARK:
THE COURT:
Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB
Case: 15-5880
Doc Document:
#: 78 Filed:4309/05/15
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 161 of 181
Page:
- Page
224 ID#: 1723
161
4 is that right?
5
MS. EARLEY:
And
THE COURT:
MS. EARLEY:
THE COURT:
There's a lot
19 of discussion -20
MS. EARLEY:
21
THE COURT:
Uh-huh.
-- but at its very core, the
MS. EARLEY:
24
THE COURT:
I understand that.
And whether or not a marriage
Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB
Case: 15-5880
Doc Document:
#: 78 Filed:4309/05/15
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 162 of 181
Page:
- Page
225 ID#: 1724
162
20 that, great.
Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB
Case: 15-5880
Doc Document:
#: 78 Filed:4309/05/15
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 163 of 181
Page:
- Page
226 ID#: 1725
163
And
MS. EARLEY:
THE COURT:
All right.
Thank you.
Mr. Joy,
12 Ms. Russell.
13
All right.
14 oath, please.
15
16
17
follows:]
18
THE COURT:
All right.
MS. RUSSELL:
22
THE COURT:
23
MR. JOY:
24
THE COURT:
25 microphone.
Yes, sir.
All right.
Mr. Joy.
Your Honor, in speaking with her -If you'd speak close to the
Thank you.
Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB
Case: 15-5880
Doc Document:
#: 78 Filed:4309/05/15
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 164 of 181
Page:
- Page
227 ID#: 1726
164
MR. JOY:
10 hearing.
11
12 issue she has right now, is she does not believe she
13 has authority to go forward and issue, from Ms. Davis,
14 that is, no authority to issue a marriage license.
15
THE COURT:
24 alternative of jail.
25
MR. JOY:
But I believe
Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB
Case: 15-5880
Doc Document:
#: 78 Filed:4309/05/15
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 165 of 181
Page:
- Page
228 ID#: 1727
165
THE COURT:
MS. RUSSELL:
THE COURT:
All right.
Thank you.
All
Mr. Campbell?
19
MR. CAMPBELL:
20
THE COURT:
21
MR. CAMPBELL:
Your Honor?
Yes, sir?
Since we have so many people
THE COURT:
and
Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB
Case: 15-5880
Doc Document:
#: 78 Filed:4309/05/15
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 166 of 181
Page:
- Page
229 ID#: 1728
166
1 I recognize that -2
MR. DAVIS:
I would, yes.
THE COURT:
Pardon?
MR. DAVIS:
I said, I would.
THE COURT:
MR. DAVIS:
Yes.
THE COURT:
Okay.
All right.
I don't think
MR. CAMPBELL:
THE COURT:
All right.
13 then.
14
Okay.
Now,
Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB
Case: 15-5880
Doc Document:
#: 78 Filed:4309/05/15
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 167 of 181
Page:
- Page
230 ID#: 1729
167
I recognize that.
I recognize there's a
I recognize
15 issues which are part of this case which have not yet
16 been adjudicated.
17
22 compliance.
I'm seeking
And now I have
23 multiple deputies.
24
Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB
Case: 15-5880
Doc Document:
#: 78 Filed:4309/05/15
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 168 of 181
Page:
- Page
231 ID#: 1730
168
Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB
Case: 15-5880
Doc Document:
#: 78 Filed:4309/05/15
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 169 of 181
Page:
- Page
232 ID#: 1731
169
1 early as tomorrow.
2 holiday.
3
22 you all.
23
That's not up
Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB
Case: 15-5880
Doc Document:
#: 78 Filed:4309/05/15
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 170 of 181
Page:
- Page
233 ID#: 1732
170
1 the order.
2
13 revisit that.
14
And it will
They
I'm
Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB
Case: 15-5880
Doc Document:
#: 78 Filed:4309/05/15
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 171 of 181
Page:
- Page
234 ID#: 1733
171
1 of her.
2 the licenses.
3
MR. SHARP:
Our --
THE COURT:
MR. SHARP:
Okay.
12
THE COURT:
MR. SHARP:
17
THE COURT:
MR. SHARP:
20
THE COURT:
Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB
Case: 15-5880
Doc Document:
#: 78 Filed:4309/05/15
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 172 of 181
Page:
- Page
235 ID#: 1734
172
MR. SHARP:
And
THE COURT:
18 adverse employment.
We've --
I mean, that
MR. SHARP:
And we understand.
You know,
She
Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB
Case: 15-5880
Doc Document:
#: 78 Filed:4309/05/15
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 173 of 181
Page:
- Page
236 ID#: 1735
173
THE COURT:
MR. SHARP:
Perhaps
THE COURT:
10 thoughts on that?
11
MR. WATKINS:
12
THE COURT:
13
MR. GANNAM:
Mr. Gannam?
Your Honor, now that the Court
Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB
Case: 15-5880
Doc Document:
#: 78 Filed:4309/05/15
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 174 of 181
Page:
- Page
237 ID#: 1736
174
And any
THE COURT:
8 do this.
9 see if she -- if I purge the contempt, and she then -10 well, I've had several deputy clerks that have
11 indicated that they're going to be issuing the
12 licenses so that they're not in violation of my order.
13
MR GANNAM:
17 question?
THE COURT:
We'll be
23
24
THE COURT:
All right.
We had given
Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB
Case: 15-5880
Doc Document:
#: 78 Filed:4309/05/15
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 175 of 181
Page:
- Page
238 ID#: 1737
175
MR. GANNAM:
You offered to
THE COURT:
MR. GANNAM:
Correct.
At this point, we're prepared
THE COURT:
MR. GANNAM:
Yeah.
THE COURT:
Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB
Case: 15-5880
Doc Document:
#: 78 Filed:4309/05/15
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 176 of 181
Page:
- Page
239 ID#: 1738
176
MR. GANNAM:
THE COURT:
All right.
Fair enough.
5 Fair enough.
6
Okay.
Again, I -- I
Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB
Case: 15-5880
Doc Document:
#: 78 Filed:4309/05/15
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 177 of 181
Page:
- Page
240 ID#: 1739
177
There's no marriage
And I
Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB
Case: 15-5880
Doc Document:
#: 78 Filed:4309/05/15
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 178 of 181
Page:
- Page
241 ID#: 1740
178
1 compliance.
2
All right.
3 minute order.
4 until tomorrow.
5 accurate.
9 take up specifically?
10
MR. HUGHES:
Mr. Hughes?
Judge, only just some
11 housekeeping.
12
THE COURT:
13 Mr. Mason?
14
MR. HUGHES:
15
THE COURT:
16
MR. HUGHES:
Yes.
All right, sir.
Yes, sir.
And
THE COURT:
24
DEPUTY MARSHALL:
25
THE COURT:
Yes, sir.
Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB
Case: 15-5880
Doc Document:
#: 78 Filed:4309/05/15
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 179 of 181
Page:
- Page
242 ID#: 1741
179
The
And that
12 -- and I haven't been outside, but I can hear it -13 can be peaceful, and will continue to be so.
And I am
But know
Because
Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB
Case: 15-5880
Doc Document:
#: 78 Filed:4309/05/15
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 180 of 181
Page:
- Page
243 ID#: 1742
180
6 in this action.
So I hope
I would
21 Ashland tomorrow.
22 Saturday.
Okay.
Case: 0:15-cv-00044-DLB
Case: 15-5880
Doc Document:
#: 78 Filed:4309/05/15
Filed: 09/11/2015
Page: 181 of 181
Page:
- Page
244 ID#: 1743
181
1 today?
2
MR. SHARP:
THE COURT:
3 Honor.
4
5 Mr. Christman?
6
MR. GANNAM:
THE COURT:
MS. PARSONS:
THE COURT:
Ms. Parsons?
No, Judge.
Mr. Watkins?
10
MR. WATKINS:
11
THE COURT:
Mr. Vance?
12
MR. VANCE:
13
THE COURT:
All right.
Very well.
Court
14 will be in recess.
15
16
17
22
23
COURT REPORTER
24
25
Date:
09/05/2015