Kim Davis's Approach To Email More Outdated Than Her Views On Marriage

from the literally-does-not-compute dept

Kim Davis -- yes, THAT Kim Davis -- is proving to be as willfully obtuse in her other duties as a Kentucky county clerk as she has been in refusing to recognize the Supreme Court's decision on same-sex marriage. Her brief stint in the local jail for contempt charges hasn't dampened her indomitable spirit, much to the chagrin of her critics, fellow employees (except her son, who works in her office as a deputy clerk) and anyone still attempting to make their way past her refusal to separate church and state.

Shawn Musgrave has requested all of Kim Davis's emails (sent or received) from August 1st through September 16th. It would appear Davis's current status as a pariah/hero (mileage varies greatly) has resulted in an outpouring of support/hate. According to her estimate, there are 6,000 emails responsive to Musgrave's request. So, of course, she has decided to handle her office's response in the least efficient way possible.

Hello,

I have received your request and need to confirm, I can furnish you with all that you have requested. There are well over 6000 or so emails received/sent during the time period you have ask for. With that being said, there will be considerable time and paper consumed in the processing of your request. I am estimating approximately 40 hours of labor at $12.50 per hour to retrieve and print all emails, along with a copy fee of $.10 per copy and the open records $3.00 fee plus postage for mail (estimated $100.00) for the request. This would make the approximate amount due $1,203.00. Once that amount is received, ($1,203.00 will be considered a deposit until all the records have been processed, if it is less, I will refund you the difference, and if more is due, I will contact you with the additional amount due prior to releasing said records), your request can begin to be processed.

Respectfully,

Kim Davis
Rowan County Clerk
Yes, as you probably would have guessed even without seeing it in [print] pixels, Kim Davis is one of THOSE people. The kind of person who still thinks email is a passing fad/tool of the devil and views trips to the post office as social events. And if she isn't one of THOSE people, she's one of those OTHER people -- the kind of public servant who thinks the government's job is to be as much of a standoffish dick as possible to the "little people" who pay their salaries. (Think every DMV you've ever set foot in...)

Davis's response was probably meant to dissuade Musgrave from pursuing this further. She picked the wrong FOIA warrior to tangle with.

Musgrave's immediate followup was to ask why in the name of all that is considered holy by certain people/not-so-holy by others would someone print out 6,000 emails and hand them off to the next Pony Express rider?
Is it possible to avoid copying time and fees by sending electronic copies of the emails?

Best,
Shawn
Davis's tone then shifts from deliberately unhelpful to "I'm in charge here" dismissiveness.
Dear Sir,

I have responded to and conveyed what all was needed to be able to process your request. I do not have the means to transfer electronic and the email dated 9-16-2015 is still my response. Once you have sent the fees as I had indicated in the email dated 9-16-2015, your request will be processed as timely as possible.
I think what Davis is trying to say is she doesn't have the "technical capability" needed to "transfer electronic." And I'm going to assume she's above asking for help. If not, then she's just trying to make Musgrave pay for inconveniencing her with an open records request.

Musgrave asks for clarification on the inability to "transfer electronic" and receives nothing more than Davis impatiently tapping her finger on the printout of her original response to his request.

Musgrave then tries to get some assistance on appealing her decision to ramp up fees by felling a forest. Davis basically tells him he's screwed.
Dear Mr. Musgrave,

Your consideration regarding my response contrary to the spirit and letter of the KRS in estimating cost to your KORA request is not substantiated. The Attorney General Opinion from 2012 states 'the agency may, but is not required to, provide the requested format. The agency may then recover staff costs as well as any actual costs it incurs.'

I was trying to be fair in this request, while I do retain the right, through the Kentucky Open Records Law, to refuse your request all together, as it is an 'overly burdensome request'. Again, I will refer to the email dated 09-16-2015 for the cost of this request and upon receipt, your request will be processed in as timely manner as possible.
Nah. There's nothing "fair" about her response. It's now clear she's taken this open records request up as Yet Another Personal Crusade in which Davis abuses her elected position to withhold for as long as legally possible something the law requires her to hand over.

Musgrave then tells Davis he will be filing a complaint with the District Attorney over the excessive fees, as is provided for in Kentucky's open records laws. No dice.
Mr. Musgrave,

I have tried to be obliging to you and your request, however, if you feel I have not, you may do as you have stated in your email.

With that being said, if you feel reviewing and printing or transmitting well over 6000 emails is not a burdensome task, I am sorry. I have said many times prior and will say again in this email, I will be happy to complete your request, for the fees as discussed in the email dated 09-16-2015…
Musgrave says, "Let me help you lower the cost."
Ms. Davis -

That is a substantial number of emails, admittedly. I am attempting to lower your manhour requirement (as well as the cost) by requesting that emails be sent in electronic format, rather than printed. As printing comprises approximately half of your fee estimate, eliminating the print requirement would cut down the cost considerably.)
And with that, Davis is done discussing this with Musgrave. After two more attempts to have the unresolved issue (the unnecessary printing of electronic mail) cleared up -- and receiving no response from Kim Davis -- Musgrave utilizes a communication Davis might be more familiar with.
Ms. Davis -

As you've stopped replying to emails regarding my two open requests — both of which you initially acknowledged by email — I am reaching out by fax.
Apparently Davis still answers faxes. But her answer is the same obstinate recital of her first estimate and a brief reminder that nothing will be returned to him until payment is made. A little more back-and-forth confirms Davis believes she's entirely in the right and that Musgrave's threatened appeal will go nowhere.

Because it appears nothing will move forward without payment and/or the District Attorney weighing in on the massive tree cull Davis has planned, Musgrave is crowdfunding the release of these emails over at MuckRock. The final total appears to be nearly $1,400. For 6000 emails that could easily fit on a single $10 USB stick/$1 blank DVD.

What makes Davis' response even worse is that when the emails finally arrive in paper format, Musgrave will have to spend his own time converting them back to electronic format. It's yet another case where government employees begrudgingly follow the letter of the law while steamrolling right over its spirit.

Hide this

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: charges, email, fees, foia, kentucky, kim davis, public records, shawn musgrave


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • icon
    TheResidentSkeptic (profile), 14 Oct 2015 @ 11:19am

    Of course they have to be printed out.

    1) clerk prints them all out.
    2) They are redacted with a real black marker.
    3) clerk makes copies of the redacted pages.
    4) redacted copies are bundled, packaged, and mailed.

    Of course this is the process they must follow. Just be glad you aren't being charged extra for the markers required to black out 6,000 pages of text.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 14 Oct 2015 @ 11:52am

    your assuming davis will follow through at all.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    radix (profile), 14 Oct 2015 @ 11:55am

    I do not have the means to transfer electronic


    What does the "e" in "email" stand for, egghead?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 14 Oct 2015 @ 11:59am

    I'm faxing her office 6,000 pages with the lyrics to "Never Gonna Give You Up" every day for the rest of my life.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Baron von Robber, 14 Oct 2015 @ 12:01pm

    CD: $1
    CD Burner: $50
    Refusing to use either as a public servant to look like a complete idiot: priceless

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 14 Oct 2015 @ 12:08pm

    Send her everything she might need to send electronic

    Send her a laptop, gateway, cables and anything else she might conceivably need and then send the USB stick that you want back with the emails on it. It will still end up being cheaper than her printing everything out and handling it like this was the 1980's.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 14 Oct 2015 @ 12:11pm

      Re: Send her everything she might need to send electronic

      I forgot to mention the Outlook for Dummies that seems to be the real problem.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 14 Oct 2015 @ 12:12pm

    She has found the way of dealing with emails for bureaucrats that want to foil FOI requests, print and file email on receipt, and destroy the originals.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Berenerd (profile), 14 Oct 2015 @ 12:13pm

    If he ends up bringing this to court, does this not go as a repeat offender?her refusing to do her job yet again?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Rich Kulawiec, 14 Oct 2015 @ 12:16pm

    Only 6000 messages?

    That's not even worth physical media. To pick an illustrative sample date point: the linux-kernel mailing list carried approximately 19,220 messages from 9/21 to 10/13. Stored in (standard) Unix mbox format and compressed (with gzip) they occupy 37M.

    Some of those messages were thousands of lines long (extensive patches, new code, bug reports with traces, etc.), thus the average length of a message there was likely far greater than the length of a message sent to a political official approving/disapproving of their position. But even if we make this a large overestimate and presume that average message sizes are equivalent, then the expected size of the 6,000-message mailbox in question is about 11.5M.

    That's not worth a DVD. That's not worth a USB stick. That's something that could be easily transferred via FTP or even possibly via SMTP (if the mail systems on each side will permit messages that large).

    Responding to this request should be trivial, and if it's not, the only reason it's not is deliberate obstruction by the responder.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 14 Oct 2015 @ 12:19pm

    Can he not appeal to the AG's office, like we can in Texas?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Kennesaw59 (profile), 14 Oct 2015 @ 12:20pm

    Printing Emails

    I seem to remember something about Hillary Clinton responding the the State Department request for her official emails with a few hundred boxes containing 60,000 pages of paper that she printed all her emails on.

    I guess Hillary and Kim both have about the same technical skill set.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 14 Oct 2015 @ 12:58pm

      Re: Printing Emails

      "I guess Hillary and Kim both have about the same technical skill set."

      Don't forget my mom! She prints emails too. Good thing is I don't have to facepalm on the inside in the future because my mom might know more about 'tech' as the next president. At least she doesn't have to tell people to print it out for her.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 14 Oct 2015 @ 2:52pm

        Re: Re: Printing Emails

        If you think Hillary sat there at a computer and printed all those emails ...

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 14 Oct 2015 @ 4:29pm

          Re: Re: Re: Printing Emails

          Heck no! That's why I said my mom knows more about 'tech' than her. Because afaik Clinton told her staffers to print it. reading is hard! I know...

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      PaulT (profile), 15 Oct 2015 @ 12:08am

      Re: Printing Emails

      "I seem to remember something about Hillary Clinton responding the the State Department request for her official emails with a few hundred boxes containing 60,000 pages of paper that she printed all her emails on. "

      As she was required to do when the request was issued? What a dinosaur!

      https://www.hillaryclinton.com/p/briefing/factsheets/2015/07/13/email-facts/

      Why was the State Department given printed copies?

      That is the requirement. The instructions regarding electronic mail in the Foreign Affairs Manual (the Department's policy manual) require that "until technology allowing archival capabilities for long-term electronic storage and retrieval of email messages is available and installed, those messages warranting preservation as records (for periods longer than current E-mail systems routinely maintain them) must be printed out and filed with related records." [5 FAM 443.3].

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Chip, 15 Oct 2015 @ 5:32am

      Re: Printing Emails

      Why was the State Department given printed copies?

      That is the requirement. The instructions regarding electronic mail in the Foreign Affairs Manual (the Department's policy manual) require that "until technology allowing archival capabilities for long-term electronic storage and retrieval of email messages is available and installed, those messages warranting preservation as records (for periods longer than current E-mail systems routinely maintain them) must be printed out and filed with related records." [5 FAM 443.3].

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 14 Oct 2015 @ 12:24pm

    If God had intended for email to be sent electronically, He would have created some sort of electronic mail transfer system.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Dark Helmet (profile), 14 Oct 2015 @ 12:33pm

      Re:

      "It's Adam and Eve, not Send and Receive!"

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 14 Oct 2015 @ 2:16pm

      Re:

      And that they* did, praised be GOD! They* created that system through us. Those who shall not use the GOD given system and therefor stray away from GOD shall receive justice whatever this or the other words written before and after shall mean!.

      * King James version Genesis 1:26
      "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness" clearly states GOD was a corporation of beings therefor plural.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    limbodog (profile), 14 Oct 2015 @ 12:26pm

    Anyone know when her term ends?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 14 Oct 2015 @ 12:26pm

    I take particular notice of this comment:

    I was trying to be fair in this request, while I do retain the right, through the Kentucky Open Records Law, to refuse your request all together, as it is an 'overly burdensome request'.

    They're required by law to retain all of these records, must produce them upon request, with the ability to recover costs, however, they have an "out" in that they can simply say "meh, it's too hard?"

    Someone really needs to explain to this hypocritical douche exactly what it means to be a "public servant" - because she appears to be anything but.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    abb3w, 14 Oct 2015 @ 12:28pm

    Has she not read KRS 61.874(2)a, or is she claiming that her office keeps all email records only in dead tree format?

    Because if her email is kept in electronic format, then that section plus a request would appear to legally obligate her to providing the records in a "standard electronic" format - regardless of whether or not she claims her office presently lacks the capability to provide copies in electronic format.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 14 Oct 2015 @ 12:33pm

    WHY IS THIS WOMAN STILL EVEN EMPLOYED AS A GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL? SHE CLEARLY LACKS THE COMPETENCE OR COMPASSIOON TO DO HER JOB.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Roger Strong (profile), 14 Oct 2015 @ 12:36pm

      Re:

      SOMEONE MUST PROTECT THE SANCTITY OF TRADITIONAL BIGOTRY!

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      John85851 (profile), 14 Oct 2015 @ 1:17pm

      Re:

      I'm sure this is a rhetorical question, but:
      1) She's an elected official so she can't be fired. I'm guessing the people in her district would have to file official impeachment charges. If she's not upholding the laws set by the Supreme Court, then I don't see why this isn't happening, other than the fact that the people in her district enjoy what she's doing.

      2) As reported by a lot of media outlets, she's making around $80,000 a year. She's never going to voluntarily walk away from an income like that.

      3) Vote her out of office when her term ends. However, see item #1 above: the people of her district may very well re-elect her.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Mason Wheeler (profile), 14 Oct 2015 @ 1:22pm

        Re: Re:

        If she's not upholding the laws set by the Supreme Court

        ...then something is very wrong already, as the Supreme Court has no authority to "set" laws, only to interpret them. It was just as wrong now as when they laid down the Citizens United ruling, regardless of what you think of the details of either of those rulings.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          BradK (profile), 14 Oct 2015 @ 1:31pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          By that logic, SCOTUS similar interpretation of the 14th amendment in Loving V. Virginia and Brown V. Board of Education must be equally invalid.

          Obergefell did not define or create a right to same-sex marriage. It ruled that if the States freely choose to issue marriage licenses to couples (as all do) then they cannot arbitrarily deny them only to same-sex couples.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 14 Oct 2015 @ 2:30pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Hmm, it's almost like SCOTUS made a ruling in a case by applying a law. We should have a phrase for this. Maybe...case law?

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 14 Oct 2015 @ 2:30pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Hmm, it's almost like SCOTUS made a ruling in a case by applying a law. We should have a phrase for this. Maybe...case law?

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 14 Oct 2015 @ 2:15pm

        Re: Re:

        1) Impeachment of an elected official is left to the Kentucky legislature, which is currently not in session.
        1a) It's possible for a state court (emphasis on state) to declare her incapable of doing her job, but the standard for that is very, very high (i.e. she would need to be in a coma).

        3. i suspect that she'll be looking for a new job.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Jason, 14 Oct 2015 @ 12:37pm

    Who's the boss?

    I've often wondered at what point politicians completely forget that they work for the people, because it always seems to happen sooner or later.

    Clearly the phenomenon isn't limited to national level political offices. It goes right down to the local level.

    Or, I don't know, maybe we've finally reached the full Beeblebroxian ideal... anyone interested in running for a political office is, by definition, not qualified to hold it.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      PaulT (profile), 15 Oct 2015 @ 12:15am

      Re: Who's the boss?

      "I've often wondered at what point politicians completely forget that they work for the people"

      Here's the problem with Davis - she's not forgotten she's working for "the people". It's just that in her mind, "the people" means straight people, gays don't count because her religious sect tell her they don't. Her problem is, she can't deal with the fact that she's been told her job now has to apply to everyone regardless of sexuality.

      The biggest problem isn't that there's an ignorant bigot trying to pick and choose which federal rights apply to which people. It's that she still has a job despite violating laws and refusing to perform her elected duties.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    BradK, 14 Oct 2015 @ 12:52pm

    First you need to consider that absolutely everything coming out of that festering hole that passes for a mouth or any other communications bearing her loathsome name have at least been run by -- if not originated from -- her duplicitous mouthpiece Mat Staver.

    This is the attorney who advised his client on a course of action which could only lead to her incarceration, something no respectable, ethical officer of the court should ever do.

    This is the man who put forth the wholly fabricated depiction of her meeting with the Pope, spinning it as one of the most significant events of his visit to the U.S. When the Vatican contradicted Staver's story in its entirely, his retort was to then call the Pope a liar.

    Kimmy Boo Boo is just a tool for his agenda. It's a wonder she can even send and receive electronic mail, let alone gather and redistribute it electronically. Her dodging and weaving at the FOIA request is pure Staver.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    John Cressman, 14 Oct 2015 @ 12:53pm

    Seriously?

    Techdirt NORMALLY call out the legal stuff pretty well... but here... REALLY?!

    The first line starts with "im Davis -- yes, THAT Kim Davis -- is proving to be as willfully obtuse in her other duties as a Kentucky county clerk as she has been in refusing to recognize the Supreme Court's decision on same-sex marriage. "

    Ok... let's CHECK on the ACTUAL facts. First, the SCOTUS CAN NOT PASS LEGISLATION. PERIOD. END OF DISCUSSION. If you wish to dispute this, please first read the Constitution.

    That said... they ruled that laws cannot discriminate on marriage based on sex. What does that do? It invalidates EXISTING marriage laws.

    That means, existing laws (like Tennessee - Tennessee Code - Title 36: Domestic Relations - Chapter 3: Marriage - Part 1: License - Acts 1996, ch. 1031, § 1.) that say marriage is between a man and a woman ARE INVALID.

    That doesn't mean the law just suddenly changes or omits. SCOTUS DOESN'T AND NEVER HAS had the power to change law - only to strike it down and even THAT isn't explicitly stated in the Constutition.

    SO... that means, technically, there are NO marriage laws in those states that have not passed NEW marriage laws since SCOTUS struck down their old law.

    Consequently... Kim Davis was RIGHT but... she didn't take it far enough. She shouldn't have approved ANY licenses because she no longer had legal basis to do so.

    SCOTUS doesn't have a line item veto, nor can they change laws. They INTERPRET laws. That's their purpose yet they are CONSTANTLY giving themselves more and more power that the Constitution never intended them to have - if it did, it would have enumerated those powers.

    So give her a break and get upset at SCOTUS for overreaching, States for not doing what they should have and passing new laws and idiots for not understanding what the ruling REALLY meant.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Rich, 14 Oct 2015 @ 12:59pm

      Re: Seriously?

      Wow, and you must be right because of all the capital letters you used.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Mason Wheeler (profile), 14 Oct 2015 @ 1:19pm

      Re: Seriously?

      Well sure, but this is the same SCOTUS that handed down the Citizens United ruling. Legislating from the bench is just fine with them.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Roger Strong (profile), 14 Oct 2015 @ 1:33pm

      Re: Seriously?

      Meanwhile back in reality....

      The Supreme Court's job IS to decide if actions by the Legislative and Executive branches are in keeping with the U.S. Constitution, and, if not, to rule them unconstitutional. That is what it has always done, and that is what it has done here.

      Your "this decision wiped out ALL marriage laws" fantasy doesn't pass the giggle test either. Specific details of law get shot down all the time without all the related law being invalidated.

      As for your last paragraph, States can pass all the laws they want. But those laws have to be constitutional, and not violate the Supreme Court's ruling on the subject.

      The Supreme court was not "overreaching"; civil rights are within its purview. Civil rights are not optional, something individual states can opt out of.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 14 Oct 2015 @ 1:42pm

      Re: Seriously?

      Consequently... Kim Davis was RIGHT but... she didn't take it far enough.

      This ERRONEOUSLY assumes she is following the LACK of marriage law resulting FROM the Supreme Court decision.

      Alas, she's just a hypocritical religious fucktard interested in discrimination, rather than some sort of law scholar - so TECHNICALLY she's NOT RIGHT.

      AT ALL.

      And given I also capitalized words in a PATHETIC ATTEMPT to TRY and MAKE a POINT, it makes MINE EQUALLY as valid as YOURS.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      ottermaton (profile), 14 Oct 2015 @ 2:16pm

      Re: Seriously?

      ...that means, technically, there are NO marriage laws in those states that have not passed NEW marriage laws since SCOTUS struck down their old law.

      So, did that mean that when SCOTUS ruled that executing mentally retarded people was unconstitutional that all executions were barred?

      Yea, didn't think so.

      Kim Davis was RIGHT but... she didn't take it far enough.

      Wow. Just wow.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 14 Oct 2015 @ 2:54pm

        Re: Re: Seriously?

        >> Kim Davis was RIGHT but... she didn't take it far enough.

        You mean like burning people at the stake, beheading people who didn't meet her ideals (whilst breaking every single commandment on a daily basis)?

        religion is a crock of shit

        The pope says 'priests shouldn't have sex'..but has illegitimate children.

        Islamic clerics get drunk on a regular basis then murder children for breaking minor rules

        The last two popes were paedophiles, and the current guy is a wanted murderer/hitman....

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 14 Oct 2015 @ 2:30pm

      Re: Seriously?

      Go read a Constitution.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 14 Oct 2015 @ 4:06pm

      Re: Seriously?

      And where does a legal decision translate into passing legislation? Or do you not understand how courts or our constitution work?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      techflaws (profile), 14 Oct 2015 @ 9:56pm

      Re: Seriously?

      Seeing all you righteous BOLD anger vanish in a puff of better arguments made my others made me chuckle.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Almost Anonymous (profile), 15 Oct 2015 @ 9:01am

      Re: Seriously?

      12/10 troll points, you win. You got bonus points for totally ignoring what the article was actually about and going off on a completely different tangent.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      JMT (profile), 15 Oct 2015 @ 6:16pm

      Re: Seriously?

      "So give her a break..."

      Not a damn change, she deserves all the scorn and vitriol she's getting. She's a horrible human being and a poster child for everything wrong with religious dogma.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    John85851 (profile), 14 Oct 2015 @ 1:20pm

    Who's the DA?

    Who's the DA for that area of the state? How much would it cost to file the necessary paperwork to file a complaint with him against Davis?
    Or is there a risk that he would side with her and agree to the pages and pages of redacted print-outs?
    Or is he looking for some publicity by going against her? :)

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 14 Oct 2015 @ 1:37pm

    I hope for a better tomorrow....

    when technical incompetence can't be used to obstruct or when it isn't spewed out in public as a matter of pride.
    You should never be proud of or able to use as an excuse what you could ask ANY 10 year old to do.
    It is not a badge of honor when the answer to: "are you smarter than the dumbest 3'rd grader?" is NO.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      tqk (profile), 14 Oct 2015 @ 4:30pm

      Re: I hope for a better tomorrow....

      when technical incompetence can't be used to obstruct or when it isn't spewed out in public as a matter of pride.

      You appear to have greatly misunderstood how politics and gov't work. Just to start you on your way, when they say "public servant", you're not who they're thinking of serving. Pretty much all of what we think of as dysfunctional gov't has been standard practice for millenia.

      Davis appears to have learned a lot about politics during, or from, those multiple failed marriages she's slogged through. How she can suggest she's qualified to say who deserves to get a licence is a mystery. Those who voted her into office, I can understand. They're ignorant bible belt hicks who never learned any better. They'll always vote for whichever candidate is the louder of the bible belt hicks on offer.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      nasch (profile), 14 Oct 2015 @ 6:45pm

      Re: I hope for a better tomorrow....

      I hope for a better tomorrow....
      when technical incompetence can't be used to obstruct or when it isn't spewed out in public as a matter of pride.


      In 30 years, the response will indicate that the county clerk is not familiar with "email" and cannot produce any responsive records.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Glenn, 14 Oct 2015 @ 2:34pm

    Apparently, hers is the "WWJD answer" to the request--he wasn't very good with email either.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    connermac725 (profile), 14 Oct 2015 @ 4:44pm

    Meh Its Kentucky

    aren't they one of those internet back waters where their government officials are fighting to keep the internet slow and their ISP's fat and happy
    if so that might be why she is a no nothing fool about email
    printing might be faster in that case lol

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Kronomex, 14 Oct 2015 @ 5:33pm

    A thoroughly nasty little bag of tricks is Davis.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 14 Oct 2015 @ 6:07pm

    Separation of Church and state

    I have noted that many of the respondents to this article (as well as the author) appear to have missed the specificity of what is separation of Church and state.

    Marriage has been for millennia a religious activity, covered by the various religious hierarchies of their respective times.

    If the state wishes to define various civil unions of whatever kinds (how soon will whatever jump in), they are entitled to do so. However, Marriage is not one of them. Marriage is a religious ceremony. State sanctioned relations are by definition state sanctioned relationships.

    So if the state wishes to redefine the relationships as marriage then they have to be tolerant of people who will not abide by any definition that moves away from the traditional definition. The state is infringing upon church matters. There are many who are intolerant of church infringing on state matters, they should be no less intolerant when the reverse occurs.

    Everyone has a religious belief of some kind. Even atheists and secularists are religious people. Religion is about who or what you bow down and worship. Whether that is a thing like money or a statue, an ideal (like the greenies), an organisation, a philosophy (like secularism and its high priests Richard Dawkins and Stephen Hawking et al), nature or spirits, or a specific God or gods.

    There are three fundamental varieties of religious belief. All beliefs can be classified into these three groups:

    a). The natural universe is the only thing that exists.
    b). That everything is god (that is all the universe is a manifestation of god and is god) and only god exists.
    c). That God exists and is separate from His creation which also exists.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      tqk (profile), 14 Oct 2015 @ 8:00pm

      Re: Separation of Church and state

      Marriage has been for millennia a religious activity ...

      Yes, and which is now used fully by the state in determination of taxable income, among many other things.
      If the state wishes to define various civil unions of whatever kinds (how soon will whatever jump in), they are entitled to do so.

      Yes, but they're not willing to extend married benefits to civil unions.
      Even atheists and secularists are religious people.

      That is the silliest trope the religious have ever come up with, other than their religions in the first place. The religious posit that something exists which the non-religious deny. It's up to the religious to offer proof of that existence if they want to be taken seriously. The non-religious are under no obligation to prove that what doesn't exist doesn't exist.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 15 Oct 2015 @ 2:24am

        Re: Re: Separation of Church and state

        That is the silliest trope the religious have ever come up with, other than their religions in the first place. The religious posit that something exists which the non-religious deny. It's up to the religious to offer proof of that existence if they want to be taken seriously. The non-religious are under no obligation to prove that what doesn't exist doesn't exist.
        If you want to be taken seriously, then you need to provide proof that only the material universe exists. If you cannot prove this then you are in no position to deny anyone their point of view.

        So, my question to you is this:- Who created your creator? If you believe you are a product of evolution and you believe evolution is a product of the physical universe (your creator) and the universe has a beginning, what the caused the beginning?

        Do you believe in good and evil? if so, why? If you are a product of evolution, there can be no evil, it just that things happen. There are no morals with evolution. If you try to argue otherwise, your argument had better be perfect.

        Do you believe in free will or even freedom? Again why? There is no free will or freedom under evolution?

        In point of fact, why exist if you haven't any progeny or if your progeny has reach reproductive age and you no longer provide a purpose for the survival of the gene pool?

        As a product of evolution, can we just dispense with your sort and turn you directly into fertiliser? You seem to be a non-productive member of the species.

        I could go on asking questions that you would need to provide to convince me to your particular philosophical bent, but I await for the logical spectacular reasoning that won't come forth from one such as you.

        I have had people of your ilk try to persuade me before and none of the arguments passed even the simplest of tests. Give it a try, but better men and women before have tried and failed.

        Now your arguments are one thing. However, from my perspective, you are valuable irrespective of your beliefs or actions, as you are a member of mankind and my God created each of us as individuals and He considers each of us as valuable. I may not like what you do (or say), if fact I can even hate your actions. But I am NOT allowed to hate you, I am expected to (if necessary) to lay down my life for yours.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          PaulT (profile), 15 Oct 2015 @ 2:59am

          Re: Re: Re: Separation of Church and state

          "If you want to be taken seriously, then you need to provide proof that only the material universe exists"

          Several fallacies here. First is the insistence that someone prove a negative, which often may not be possible. Second is the assertion that someone who doesn't believe in "god" must therefore only believe in the material universe. There are supernatural beliefs that don't include a god or Christianity.

          Thirdly is the sad fact that what "god" is, and what proof would be needed to disprove him is regularly shifted to fit modern day understanding. Anything offered is usually either rejected or forced inelegantly into

          "the universe has a beginning, what the caused the beginning?"

          We have no solid answer for that, yet. In fact, there may be no answer (some theories address the idea that time only existed as a dimension after the big bang, for example, while others describe time as a loop with no beginning as human beings are capable of).

          However, rational people can state "we don't know" as a valid answer. In fact, it's the "I don't know" that leads to exploration, discovery and ultimately wisdom about the world around us. The device you're typing on now only exists because some people tried learning the truth about the properties of electricity and many other things.

          It's certainly a more valid answer than "we don't know, so it must the one creation story out of thousands that exists, some of which predate the Christian one". I notice that no creationist ever tries to invoke the Hindu or Norse creation myths.

          "There are no morals with evolution. If you try to argue otherwise, your argument had better be perfect."

          I haven't read all the literature, but your simplistic premise has been addressed. But, why does the argument of the non-believer have to be perfect, when the arguments of the religious are so often found to be lacking, if not outright falsehoods? Here's one example of an argument, but there are many out there (which often boil down to the idea that morality, along with altruism and other emotional reactions, etc., is part of the result of evolution itself. The processes that shaped your body also shaped your mind, and natural selection ensured that those traits that helped us thrive remained within us.

          http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-biology/

          "As a product of evolution, can we just dispense with your sort and turn you directly into fertiliser?"

          As a product of "god", why are the majority of inmates in US prisons Christian? By your logic, shouldn't they be filled with Atheists instead?

          Or is it that a truly moral person doesn't need the fear of a supernatural entity or an afterlife to do the right thing? It's the immoral who need religion to tell them how to act righteously. Not that there aren't immoral Atheists, of course, but it's always suspicious when someone states they don't know why people act morally without external force.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            That One Guy (profile), 15 Oct 2015 @ 6:22am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Separation of Church and state

            Not that there aren't immoral Atheists, of course, but it's always suspicious when someone states they don't know why people act morally without external force.

            A fitting quote from a YT comment section of all places:

            Whenever someone tries to start one of these moral arguments and asks where I get mine from, all I hear is “I don’t care about other people at all. All I care about is being rewarded for being a good boy after I die, and I am so completely lacking in empathy that absent that reward from sky-daddy, I can’t imagine a reason you wouldn’t act as terribly as I would." –DoctorDissonance

            Anyone who argues that you need religion to be moral has basically admitted that they are either a terrible person, a liar, or both. Because what they're really saying is that absent their religion of choice, they would absolutely do all the horrible things that they claim are only held in check by their religious belief, and they can't understand why anyone else wouldn't act similarly in the same situation. Basically they're admitting that they're a sociopath, and they're surprised that everyone else isn't.

            On the other hand, if upon having this pointed out they claim that losing their religion would not cause them to go on a sudden crime-spree, then clearly they are a liar, as the presence or absence of their religion has no bearing on how they would act towards others, they know it, and yet claimed otherwise.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              PaulT (profile), 15 Oct 2015 @ 6:55am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Separation of Church and state

              Yeah, my first thought when I'm told that is not "oh no I must turn to Jesus to make me good", it's "so, you're thinking of killing me now, and it's only your fear of hell that's stopping you?".

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          tqk (profile), 15 Oct 2015 @ 9:16am

          Re: Re: Re: Separation of Church and state

          If you want to be taken seriously, then you need to provide proof that only the material universe exists.

          So, you admit the Easter Bunny exists? No-one's yet proved it doesn't. Ditto Santa Clause, the Tooth Fairy, Vampires, Zombies, and the religious' supernatural sky fairies. No, I do not have to prove gods don't exist.
          So, my question to you is this:- Who created your creator?

          The question is irrelevant. Existence exists. It's an axiom. You don't need any more knowledge of the situation to go forward and continue productively.
          If you are a product of evolution, there can be no evil, it just that things happen.

          You don't need gods to tell you what is good or evil. For humans, evil is anti-life. Jeffrey Dahmer and Ted Bundy were evil for thinking only their twisted versions of reality mattered to them and they needn't consider their victims' point of view. Their way of thinking was broken or twisted and they should have been locked up or destroyed long before they could hurt anyone else.
          In point of fact, why exist if you haven't any progeny or if your progeny has reach reproductive age and you no longer provide a purpose for the survival of the gene pool?

          Personally, I couldn't give a rat's ass about the gene pool. However, lots of people have done great things long after their teenage rutting years. Having children is not the only way to contribute. It's just the only way to make your mark on the gene pool, about which I don't care. I think we're pretty good as is and have pretty much all we need to go forward. Our command of technology is all we really need to go forward from here.

          I'm not trying to convince anyone to give up their religious beliefs. I pity them for having them. We all should have outgrown the need for them centuries ago. What I'm doing is simply standing up on my hind legs and refusing to accept bullshit because it's bullshit. I praise the good and condemn what's bad, as everyone should.

          You do what you want, as will I, and we both accept the consequences of our actions. I think religion is evil as it twists the perception of objective reality in destructive ways leading weak minds to prey on others weaker than themselves, just as Dahmer and Bundy did.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            Dark Helmet (profile), 15 Oct 2015 @ 9:28am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Separation of Church and state

            "If you are a product of evolution, there can be no evil, it just that things happen."

            Why do people still make this argument? Logic and reason provide everything you need for morality. No God is necessary for good and evil to exist....

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              That One Guy (profile), 15 Oct 2015 @ 7:23pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Separation of Church and state

              Some of them don't know any better, and are just repeating what they've been told. Some of them though probably feel that they have to lie, because the alternative would be to admit to being wrong.

              If they claim that morals come from their particular god, and you have to be religious to be moral, then the mere existence of people who aren't religious and are still moral people shoots their claim to pieces.

              At that point they can either be honest and admit to being wrong, go the dishonest route, ignoring the moral non-religious people and just repeating their claim, or scramble about and try and find some other excuse for why morality comes from their god, yet people who don't follow their god are still moral.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              PaulT (profile), 16 Oct 2015 @ 12:50am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Separation of Church and state

              I skipped over that particular bit of foolishness before, but yeah I don't get the argument either. Joseph Frizl was an evil man, regardless of whether his existence was the product of evolution or he was created by some magic. The absence of the magic doesn't change the evil.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          ottermaton (profile), 15 Oct 2015 @ 11:14am

          Re: Re: Re: Separation of Church and state

          If you want to be taken seriously, then you need to provide proof that only the material universe exists

          False.

          That the material universe exists is already proven. If you insist there is something more to it that that it is YOUR burden to prove that it exists.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 14 Oct 2015 @ 9:15pm

      Re: Separation of Church and state

      It's so difficult to find any argument on the semantics of marriage related issues that doesn't descend instantly into equivocation.

      Keep trying.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      PaulT (profile), 15 Oct 2015 @ 12:44am

      Re: Separation of Church and state

      "Marriage has been for millennia a religious activity"

      it has also been a secular activity. Why do you think you have to fill in government forms as well as attend your church when you get married? Because there's 2 elements - the religious sacrament and the legal status. You can have one without the other (though, of course, the government won't recognise your marriage without the forms even if your god tells you it's valid).

      "Marriage is a religious ceremony."

      No, it's not. If someone gets married in a civil ceremony with zero religious aspects, it's still a marriage. you can have civil unions as well - but if you're married legally, you're married whether or not you stepped foot in a church, mosque, synagogue or Moonie camp.

      Look, I know it must be hard to have to realise that not only are there many people who aren't religious out there, but that they believe that people who some (though certainly not all) sects of Chistianity wish to treat as inferior human beings have equal rights as the "righteous". It must sting to be told that they have equal rights to a secular status that religion tried co-opting as its own. But, this is reality.

      "Even atheists and secularists are religious people"

      Bullshit. Some atheists, sure. But if you look at the definition of "religion" many, many of them have no such beliefs, no dogma, no scripture. Don't try to drag the rest of us into your mess just because you don't understand how someone can lack a belief in the supernatural *and* not need to replace your dogma with a similar thing of a different flavour. Your attempt to reduce all beliefs down 3 categories simple enough for your mind I laughable, but sad.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Beth, 15 Oct 2015 @ 8:20am

      Re: Separation of Church and state

      Unfortunately for your stance, the word "marriage" no longer has a singular religious meaning and has not for quite some time - long before you or I were ever born, I'm certain - nor is there any religious test for getting married regardless of which genders are standing at the altar nor has there been for quite some time (at least before I was born, but not knowing how old you are, perhaps that one was within your lifetime).

      Further, those who view marriage primarily as a religious institution have no qualms about accepting the government benefits of marriage, so they have to be tolerant of the fact that the government can decide who gets access to the government provided benefits of marriage by way of getting married under government rules.

      Ergo, Ms. Davis and others in her position are not allowed to dictate who gets access to government benefits simply because they are stuck in a long out-dated notion that "marriage" is solely a religious institution and that religion gets to dictate who has access to it.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 14 Oct 2015 @ 6:20pm

    COCKADOODIE EMAILS
    The paper she'll send it printed on will be Eaton's smudge-prone Corrasable Bond paper.


    you can't make this shit up.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    John David Galt (profile), 14 Oct 2015 @ 6:27pm

    Why hasn't the state legislature just impeached her by now? No one disputes that she is determined not to do her job.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Mabart, 14 Oct 2015 @ 8:20pm

    PII Data

    I am by no means a Davis supporter, but they have privacy laws that must be followed. You have a right to the emails, but they have to ensure they don't infringe on other citizens right to privacy by providing what is called PII data. It's a fairly common record keeping practice.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 14 Oct 2015 @ 9:17pm

      Re: PII Data

      That...is true, but completely unrelated to the issue of delivering electronic or paper copies of emails.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      DanA, 14 Oct 2015 @ 9:18pm

      Re: PII Data

      Absolutely.

      The request for fees to cover redacting any PII is completely legitimate, though her estimate on how long it would take seems high. What isn't legitimate is arbitrarily deciding to send it in a format that it does not currently exist in in order to artificially drive up the expense of acquiring documents that the public is entitled to.

      If what Davis is trying to do here were deemed legitimate than it would be equally legitimate for a government to require a requestee to pay to convert a document and transmit it via semaphore or send a document as several thousand boxes of ordered black and white cards spelling out the binary code of a pdf.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      JMT (profile), 15 Oct 2015 @ 6:18pm

      Re: PII Data

      Not sure how anything you said is relevant to her refusal to provide electronic communication in an electronic manner.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous, 14 Oct 2015 @ 11:09pm

    Traditional Definition

    States or the feds don't have to do or not do something because something is seen as "traditional" e.g. as in the traditional definition of marriage. Tradition is just something that people have done over and over for a period of time. That has no legal meaning.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 14 Oct 2015 @ 11:28pm

    Surprised someone else on staff hasn't responded with "Hey Musgrave, I can get you that pst file on Dropbox for like, half of what she's asking."

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Nelson, 15 Oct 2015 @ 6:49pm

      Re: Surprised someone else on staff hasn't responded with "Hey Musgrave, I can get you that pst file on Dropbox for like, half of what she's asking."

      This one made me laugh!!! That would totally be me

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    TDR, 15 Oct 2015 @ 1:10am

    Please understand, those of you who put down God and/or people who follow him, that by putting down the beliefs of those different from you, you are yourselves doing what you demand not be done to you. Yet you won't show those who believe differently the same courtesy. It's not so different from what the LGBT lobby has been doing to Christian businesses, badgering and threatening them until they either given in or shut down. Which is wrong. If they want their point of view respected, they need to tolerate that of others. Here's a very important concept, one that it would be wise to remember:

    Disagreement is not always equal to discrimination.

    And SCOTUS was indeed trying to make law, not merely interpret it. Anything else is merely apologizing for their corruption. The original concept of separation of church and state, from the founders' point of view, was that in so doing, it helped people to worship God better if their faith was kept separate from their public service (or at least as much as was feasible, given that laws - good ones, anyway - are made from the morals upon which that faith was based.

    And I say faith because there is a very clear difference between that and religion. Jesus was quite hard on the religious folk of his day because of their hypocrisy and lack of caring for those around them. It isn't following a set of rules or going to church every Sunday that saves you. Those things can't and never will. Nothing we can do ever will. What Jesus was about, and still is about, is grace. It's not a get-out-of-jail-free card, either. Accepting that grace, doing it honestly, involves a genuine change of direction of one's life. If you've honestly accepted him and his grace, it changes you, and you no longer want to do whatever wrong things you once did.

    Christians are not perfect people, no one is, so please don't ever expect them to be. Jesus said you would know a person by how he or she lived (his or her fruit, as he said). And don't ever base your view of Christians and the faith on what you may have seen in public figures or the media. You will never get an accurate picture that way. Honest Christians don't attempt to live two lives, what you see in them is who they are. If you see someone calling themselves a Christian, but their lifestyle and actions don't match the values Jesus taught, the love and grace he shared, then they aren't who they say they are. Not everyone who calls themselves a Christian really is one. Please know that. I feel that sometimes the bad experiences of people who distrust the faith may have come from people who didn't truly represent it but who those affected by it may have thought they did.

    Also know that, unlike most other belief systems in the world, anyone can come to Christ. It doesn't matter what you've done or who you are, and there are no requirements to knowing him. Grace is for everyone. And don't think someone can say outwardly they believe but live differently and God not know about it. He knows who is honest and who isn't, and someone trying to pretend will find themselves quite far from where they think they'll be.

    Regardless of what some people may think, God loves all of us, not based on our gender preference but rather because of what Jesus did on the cross through his death and resurrection. Christians are called to love and embrace others, not judge them. And we would appreciate not being judged as well. Jesus came for broken people, not those who already think they're good enough (I'm not talking about anyone specific, just generalizing so it's easier to understand). Anyway, I've rambled on enough, for now, I think.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      PaulT (profile), 15 Oct 2015 @ 1:36am

      Re:

      Sorry, a refusal to accept your bigotry is not in and of itself bigotry. It's not intolerance if you refuse to accept intolerance. I'm sorry that some businesses who refuse to give equal service to gay people have been shocked to have been criticised for it, but that's what you get when you open a public business in a secular country.

      "Disagreement is not always equal to discrimination."

      It is when someone in a position of power uses their position to discriminate against someone when they disagree with them, as Kim Davis did.

      You can disagree with the SCOTUS decision all you want and disagree with gay marriage all you want. However, you cannot block one set of people from receiving the same rights as others when they are legally entitled to those rights.

      "Regardless of what some people may think, God loves all of us"

      Regardless of what some people think, God doesn't exist. So, while it's nice that he loves us, that means as much as the love the Care Bears have for us. I'd rather see everyone treated the same without people hiding their bigotry behind religion than receive empty platitudes about the opinions of a fictional deity. OK?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Ninja (profile), 15 Oct 2015 @ 6:02am

        Re: Re:

        Regardless of what some people think, God doesn't exist. So, while it's nice that he loves us, that means as much as the love the Care Bears have for us. I'd rather see everyone treated the same without people hiding their bigotry behind religion than receive empty platitudes about the opinions of a fictional deity. OK?

        Awesome. I'm catholic but I wholeheartedly agree with you even if that fictional doesn't ring with me. God should not be used to deny people of their rights. If you disagree with something religiously use speech as a tool to discourage such thing but do not block those who have different faith or no faith at all from exercising their rights.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          PaulT (profile), 15 Oct 2015 @ 7:01am

          Re: Re: Re:

          "Awesome. I'm catholic but I wholeheartedly agree with you even if that fictional doesn't ring with me"

          Nice to hear it, I was being deliberately confrontational. I'm a lapsed Catholic myself (raised as one, but I've not really believed any of it for decades), but I have no issue with those who do have faith without feeling the need to try and force everyone else to conform.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Dan (profile), 15 Oct 2015 @ 4:02am

    Providing electronic copies

    This post (and all the comments I've seen that actually discuss the subject of the post, rather than heading off on tangents) seems to assume that Davis and/or her office are using a traditional email client (Outlook, Thunderbird, etc.). If that's the case, then yes, making electronic copies would be trivial. For that matter, printing the emails would also be (relatively) trivial--Ctrl-A, Ctrl-P, repeat for each folder with responsive emails, done.

    But what if she's using some sort of hosted webmail product? If she's on Google Apps for Business, Office 365, or something of that ilk, it could well be that there's no obvious or easy way to save individual emails to disk, nor to print large numbers of messages in one fell swoop. It could still be done, no doubt, but it may be that the only way is to forward the messages to another account.

    This, of course, conflicts with the "Kim Davis is an ignorant hick" narrative, but it really should have been considered, given the prevalence of webmail systems.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      PaulT (profile), 15 Oct 2015 @ 4:39am

      Re: Providing electronic copies

      "But what if she's using some sort of hosted webmail product? If she's on Google Apps for Business, Office 365, or something of that ilk"

      https://support.google.com/accounts/answer/3024190

      A quick search suggests that Office365 data can be downloaded easily with an Outlook client, other options appear in results but I never use the product myself so I don't know which is best. Export as a PST seems relatively easy from those documents.

      But, I found both of these in 5 seconds. Presumably, Davis also has access to IT staff employed to perform these kinds of admin tasks should they not be available to her personal level of expertise. It would certainly be easier and cheaper to as an IT employee to perform the required task than to employ someone to spend a day printing individual pages from a webmail interface. She's a poor manager if she decided to take the most expensive and least efficient solution rather than ask the people who can perform the work more efficiently.

      Sorry, but poor excuse is still a poor excuse. Maybe she's mistaken, maybe she's lying, maybe she's trying to put people off making requests on her data or maybe there's another reason. The one presented is a poor excuse.

      About the only acceptable excuse is if rules prevent her from providing documents in digital formats (as seems to have happened with Clinton). But then, the reply should have been "under statue X, I'm afraid we can only provide paper documents" rather than the gibberish she wrote.

      "This, of course, conflicts with the "Kim Davis is an ignorant hick" narrative"

      Most of that "narrative" has nothing to do with her mastery of PC technology.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 15 Oct 2015 @ 6:31am

        Re: Re: Providing electronic copies

        She only has 6 employees, if I recall correctly. I think they outsource IT functions.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          PaulT (profile), 15 Oct 2015 @ 6:52am

          Re: Re: Re: Providing electronic copies

          "She only has 6 employees, if I recall correctly. I think they outsource IT functions."

          Now, here's why my knowledge is weak, but aren't there government guidelines they have to follow with procurement of the systems they're using? Or, is the office so small that it actually doesn't apply? I'd be very concerned if a government office is simply implementing whatever software a 3rd party is recommending without some oversight, no matter how small, when surely they're processing some confidential data?

          Anyway, the comments above apply. She still has support, even if it's not in her office. In fact, I'd wager that external IT services make it more likely they'll be using a standard off-the-shelf system than some dated bespoke system, so it should be easy to provide the digital files, absent any law that says that's not acceptable.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      nasch (profile), 15 Oct 2015 @ 6:45am

      Re: Providing electronic copies

      But what if she's using some sort of hosted webmail product? If she's on Google Apps for Business, Office 365, or something of that ilk, it could well be that there's no obvious or easy way to save individual emails to disk, nor to print large numbers of messages in one fell swoop.

      If it's possible to print the emails, then it's possible to print them to PDF. There is something preventing her from doing this that she did not mention in her responses, because the impossibility of the task is not plausible. It seems to me the most likely factor is that she doesn't want to do it.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        PaulT (profile), 16 Oct 2015 @ 12:55am

        Re: Re: Providing electronic copies

        There's 3 possibilities:

        1 - She refuses to do the work in a manner that would save time & money for the recipient (presumably to make it difficult enough that they retract the request).

        2 - She's too dumb to know that this is actually possible and/or won't ask an expert how to do this.

        3 - She's blocked from providing electronic copies by some law or statute, and simply tried to communicate that in the most stupid way possible.

        Since she's someone who is in the news for outright refusing to do her job when it benefited someone she didn't like, I'm betting on option 1, but the others are realistic possibilities.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          nasch (profile), 16 Oct 2015 @ 6:48am

          Re: Re: Re: Providing electronic copies

          I think for it to be 2 she would also have to be really stubborn since the guy told her it should be possible. If she were dumb but willing to help at that point she would have at least tried to do something right. Also, could someone so dumb she can't figure out how to send someone emails other than by printing them out be able to figure out how to get elected county clerk? I doubt it, so she would have needed help. Which means she is at least sometimes willing to recognize areas where she needs help and ask for it. I also think 1 is most likely.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Dark Helmet (profile), 15 Oct 2015 @ 6:51am

    Comments

    The pure level of dumb and misunderstanding of what SCOTUS did in invoking the equal protections clause of the Constitution to invalidate discriminating state marriage laws, not to mention that silliness above about the separation of church and state, is absolutely astounding. Apparently some people need remedial civics lessons and a firmer understanding of what secular government is and does....

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    pouar (profile), 18 Oct 2015 @ 6:16pm

    Even though I'm mostly on her side over marriage (and I (and apparently everyone else, including her) am ok with the compromise where other people can sign the marriage licenses, but she doesn't have to sign it herself), I still have to say her printing 6000 emails instead of emailing them in a 11 MB file is really stupid of her.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Close

Add A Reply

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Insider Shop - Show Your Support!

Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it
Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.