IN A CASE OF FIRST IMPRESSION IN KENTUCKY, FEDERAL BANKRUPTCY JUDGE ALLOWS GAY COUPLE TO FILE JOINTLY IN BANKRUPTCY COURT.

Gay married couple allowed to file joint bankruptcy in Kentucky

(PICTURED ABOVE ARE Joey Lester, left, and Bob Joles lost their $200,000 investment in a downtown market). Written by Andrew Wolfson | Despite living together for 16 years, Bob Joles and Joey Lester of Louisville could not legally marry in the state of Kentucky. Even after they wed May 9 in Buffalo, N.Y., the state of Kentucky wouldn’t recognize their union. But that didn’t stop them in June from becoming the first gay married couple to file jointly for bankruptcy in Kentucky. Nor did it prevent a federal bankruptcy judge from confirming their reorganization plan July 24. Kentucky voters amended the state constitution in 2004 to say that “only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage.” But Joles and Lester were allowed to file a joint Chapter 13 bankruptcy in federal court because the Obama administration has decided it will no longer contest such filings by married same-sex couples. Joles and Lester, who lost more than $200,000 they invested in a downtown market — The Bodega at Felice — say the administration’s change was a blessing. It allowed them to save $306 on a second filing fee and let Joles, who managed the store and is now unemployed, keep his car. And it kept them from having to divide the stuff they had accumulated during their lives together, which Joles said would have been like going through a divorce. But the couple, who live in Clifton, said the real advantages of filing jointly were intangible. “It made our marriage seem more real,” said Joles, 48. “And it forced the court to recognize us as a married couple.” Lester, 47, a senior sales trainer for Verizon Wireless, said that while the couple regretted having to file for bankruptcy, it made sense to do it together. “We have been together for 16 years, and our money is our money and our debts are our debts,” he said. But opponents of gay marriage, including Martin Cothran, a policy analyst for the Family Foundation of Kentucky, said the Obama administration’s policy change is a “backdoor way of establishing same-sex marriage in the state” — violating the constitutional amendment his group helped get on the ballot. State Rep. Stan Lee, R-Lexington, agreed, saying, “For a bankruptcy trustee and judge to allow this to go forward in the commonwealth of Kentucky is an affront to the citizens of this state who spoke very loudly in 2004 when they passed the marriage amendment.” Lee, who has unsuccessfully fought to end partnership benefits for gays at Kentucky universities, also said he thinks it is “troubling that the Justice Department, at the direction of this president, would decide to choose what laws they enforce and not enforce. He is charged with enforcing all the laws, not just the ones he likes.” Change in direction Attorney General Eric Holder told Congress in February 2011 that the Justice Department would stop defending the Defense of Marriage Act, which bans recognition of gay marriages by the federal government. Holder said that President Barack Obama decided that treating gay married couples differently violates the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection under the law. In July 2011, the Justice Department announced that the U.S. Trustee, the department’s division charged with enforcing the bankruptcy code, would no longer oppose joint bankruptcy filings by married gay couples. Previously, it had done so vigorously. The Justice Department and the U.S. Administrative Office of the Court do not track how many bankruptcy cases have been filed jointly by gay married couples. But bankruptcy court officials in Louisville and Lexington confirmed that the Joles-Lester case is the first in Kentucky. The couple’s lawyer, Shannon Fauver, who said she plans to file a bankruptcy petition for a married lesbian couple in the next few weeks, said the court’s acceptance “gives them protections they didn’t have before. It is a big deal.” Chris Hartman, director of the Fairness Campaign, a civil rights group, said the change “is good news,” adding that there are more than 1,400 legal privileges, many of them money-saving, that are automatically afforded heterosexual couples yet almost universally denied to same-sex ones. Fauver said after she filed the Joles-Lester petition June 5 in U.S Bankruptcy Court in Louisville, she received an email from the court asking if she had meant “to file for two guys.” Her legal word-processing software gave her no choice but two list one of the two men as “wife.” “I said ‘yes’ — would you like to see their marriage license?” Fauver recalled. William Lawrence, who was assigned to the case as the creditors’ trustee, said such a petition had never been filed in the Western District of Kentucky. Jerry Truitt, bankruptcy clerk for the Eastern District of Kentucky, said none have been filed there. Lawrence said he asked Assistant U.S. Trustee Joseph Golden if he could accept it, and Golden informed him about the Justice Department’s new policy. Upholding the law Joles and Lester said they had no choice but to file after their banks declined to consolidate loans for their store at 829 E. Market St., which they ran from 2006 until it closed May 2009. They said they feared that creditors would come after their home and other assets. They filed a business bankruptcy as well. The couple’s petition listed assets of $414,443 and liabilities of $474,767, including loans from PNC, US Bank and Stock Yards Bank. Under their plan, which was confirmed by Bankruptcy Judge Alan Stout, they must pay secured creditors $398 every two weeks for five years. Unsecured creditors will get about 5 cents on the dollar. Justice Department spokeswoman Nanda Chitre said that while the department is no longer defending the Defense of Marriage Act when it is challenged in lawsuits, executive branch agencies are continuing to enforce it because it was enacted by Congress and it is the judiciary’s job to decide if it is constitutional. She said the department decided not to contest filings by married gay couples in bankruptcy court because House Republican lawyers, who have stepped in to defend the act in some litigation, chose not to challenge those filings. A spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, has said that would be too expensive and that bankruptcy cases are “unlikely to provide the path to the Supreme Court, where we imagine the question of constitutionality will ultimately be decided.” Two cases involving the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act appear headed to that court. A spokesman for Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign, Christopher Walker, said in an email that “as president, Gov. Romney has pledged to appoint an attorney general who will defend the Defense of Marriage Act.” For now, however, gay married couples may file bankruptcy jointly, which Joles said he appreciates. “We live here and pay taxes here,” he said. “It is nice to know we have the same rights as other Americans.” EDITOR'S NOTE: The federal Defense of Marriage Act “In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word ‘marriage’ means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word ‘spouse’ refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.” Kentucky Constitution Marriage is prohibited and void: (a) With a person who has been adjudged mentally disabled by a court of competent jurisdiction; (b) Where there is a husband or wife living, from whom the person marrying has not been divorced; (c) When not solemnized or contracted in the presence of an authorized person or society; (d) Between members of the same sex; (e) Between more than two persons Kentucky constitutional amendment, 2004: “Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Kentucky. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized.” Jurisdictions that permit same-sex marriage Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Vermont, Washington and Washington, D.C. EDITOR'S COMMENT: I WONDER IF THIS CASE WOULD MAKE IT TO THE SUPREME COURT SO THE COURT CAN CLARIFY IF GAY COUPLES CAN FILE JOINTLY IN BANKRUPTCY COURT.

In A Welcome News, Kentucky Supreme Court Limits Police Use Of "Protective Sweeps" That Do Away With Our Constitutional Right To "Be Secure In Our Homes Against Warrantless Searches And Seisures". There Is A God!

Ky. court limits 'protective sweeps' by police By BRETT BARROUQUERE LOUISVILLE, Ky. — Lexington police told Crystal Lynn Guzman that, unless she agreed to allow a search of her apartment, an officer would remain with her while another got a warrant. Guzman consented to a warrantless "protective sweep" search in the early hours of Sept. 10, 2008, which turned up cocaine and drug paraphernalia and resulted in Guzman's arrest. But the Kentucky Supreme Court ruled Thursday that the threat of getting a search warrant amounted to an impermissible ruse by officers, who had no probable cause for a warrant. The ruling and threw out Guzman's conviction as well as the evidence seized in the search. The ruling sets new limits in Kentucky on how far police officers may go to gain access to homes and vehicles without a search warrant. "Even when a search is authorized by consent, the scope of the search is limited by the terms of its authorization," five justices wrote in an unsigned opinion. Justice Bill Cunningham wrote in a concurring opinion that using the threat of a search warrant without probable cause to get the document has become a dangerous and much used technique that "could be an exploding land mine." "When you have consent to enter into one's living room, you are not invited into the kitchen, or the bedroom, or the basement," Cunningham wrote. "Here, we are talking about the suppression of drugs. When the issue appears squarely before us in full bloom, it could mean the suppression of a murder weapon. Hopefully, this writing will help us avoid that more critical situation." When making an arrest, police have the right to search and control the immediate area around where the incident happened for their own safety. But, when making an arrest in a home, officers generally need some evidence of criminal wrongdoing in another part of the residence to continue searching. Without consent or an emergency circumstance, officers have to stop the search unless a warrant is granted. In this case, officers went to Guzman's apartment after a neighbor complained about possible drug transactions. Officers found Guzman and a man on the floor having sex when they arrived. Once Guzman turned on a lamp, officers asked if anyone else was in the apartment, to which Guzman responded no. Officers saw a blanket covering a doorway and conducted a "protective sweep" of the apartment. During the sweep, an officer found a spoon in the kitchen sink that had drug residue on it. That's when an officer asked for permission to search the entire apartment. Guzman refused and officers threatened to get a warrant do to so. The justices noted that there was no evidence of criminal wrongdoing seen in the living room and were told that no one else was in the apartment. Without consent, officers should not have conducted the sweep or been in the kitchen, the justices wrote. The justices noted that the "ancient" Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, as well as Section 10 of the Kentucky Constitution, protect citizens from warrantless search and seizures and "do not discern between rich or poor." "This apartment, its occupants, and their unseemly activities may not have measured up to an acceptable standard of decency," the justices wrote, but that didn't give officers the right to search the home. Cunningham noted that the method used by police "is fraught with constitutional problems." "Misinformation or deception by a law enforcement officer for purposes of obtaining consent to search will not be upheld," Cunningham wrote. Read more here: http://www.kentucky.com/2012/06/21/2232923/ky-court-limits-protective-sweeps.html#storylink=cpy Editor's comment; A great win for "We, the people". Editor's note: The case is CRYSTAL LYNN GUZMAN V. COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY, 2010-SC-000415-DG (2012) and can be read here.

Justice John Minton Is Kentucky's New Chief Justice.

Here is th press release:

Kentucky Court of Justice
John D. Minton Jr. elected new chief justice of Kentucky
Press Release Date: Monday, May 12, 2008
Contact Information: Leigh Anne Hiatt, APR
Public Information Officer
502-573-2350, x 4064
Cell-502-545-2839
lhiatt@kycourts.net
http://courts.ky.gov


FRANKFORT, Ky. -- On Monday, May 12, the justices of the Supreme Court of Kentucky elected the first new leader of the Judicial Branch in a decade. The justices chose John D. Minton Jr. as the fifth chief justice of Kentucky. Justice Minton will succeed Chief Justice Joseph E. Lambert, who announced April 24 that he would retire June 27.

Chief Justice Lambert will administer the oath of office for Chief Justice-Elect Minton at a formal investiture service at the Capitol on Friday, June 27. The public and the media will be invited to attend the swearing-in ceremony.

"I am honored by the vote of my colleagues," said Justice Minton in response to being elected chief justice. "I look forward to working with the members of the Court and the Court of Justice family in service to the citizens of the Commonwealth."

"Justice Minton is an outstanding scholar and a person of unquestioned integrity," said Chief Justice Lambert. "His experience serving as a judge for three levels of Kentucky courts equips him well to be an outstanding chief justice. I am delighted with his election."

Other justices on the Supreme Court are Deputy Chief Justice Will T. Scott and Justices Lisabeth Hughes Abramson, Bill Cunningham, Mary C. Noble and Wil Schroder.

Profile of Justice Minton
Justice Minton, 56, was elected to the Supreme Court of Kentucky in November 2006 to represent the 2nd Supreme Court District. He had been appointed to the high court on July 24, 2006, to fill a vacancy created by Supreme Court Justice William S. Cooper, who retired June 30, 2006. Prior to his appointment to the Supreme Court, Justice Minton served as a judge for the Kentucky Court of Appeals, representing the 2nd Appellate District. He was elected to the Court of Appeals in November 2003 and served there until his appointment to the Supreme Court in July 2006.

He was a circuit judge from 1992 to 2003 for the 8th Judicial Circuit, which consists of Warren County, before being elected to the Court of Appeals. From 1996 to 2003, he also served by special appointment of the late Chief Justice Robert F. Stephens and Chief Justice Lambert as chief regional judge for the Green River Region, a 21-county area.

While on the circuit bench, Justice Minton was recognized by the Kentucky Court of Justice for his leadership in forming the Warren County Drug Court and for his commitment to law-related education programs. In 2003, the Kentucky Bar Association honored him with its Outstanding Judge Award. He is also a graduate of the National Judicial College.

Before his election to the Circuit Court bench, Justice Minton practiced law in Bowling Green for nearly 15 years. He earned a bachelor's degree with honors in history and English from Western Kentucky University in 1974 and a law degree from the University of Kentucky College of Law in 1977. Justice Minton is a member of Broadway United Methodist Church in Bowling Green. He serves on the board of the Student Life Foundation at Western Kentucky University. He is also a member and past president of the Bowling Green Rotary Club and a former member of the board of directors of Shakertown at South Union.

Originally from Cadiz, Ky., Justice Minton grew up in Bowling Green where he continues to reside. He is married to the former Susan Lenell Page, a Bowling Green native. They have a daughter, Page Sullivan Minton, and a son, John D. Minton III.

Justice Minton is the son of Dr. and Mrs. John D. Minton of Bowling Green. Dr. Minton previously served at Western Kentucky University as a history professor and as the fifth president of that institution.

Quotes From Professional Colleagues

John Stanley Palmore
Chief Justice of Kentucky, 1977-1982
"I am proud of Justice Minton. I have long known him and his father. As a fellow Bowling Green boy, I believe this is a great tribute to the Warren County Bar Association. Justice Minton is a wonderful person and will be a wonderful chief justice."

Sara W. Combs, Chief Judge
Kentucky Court of Appeals
"It was an unfailing pleasure to work with John Minton at the Court of Appeals before he joined the Supreme Court. His integrity, good will, intelligence and gentle manner all contribute to make him an ideal choice to lead the Court of Justice."

Robert W. McGinnis, Chief Regional Circuit Judge
Harrison, Nicholas, Pendleton and Robertson Counties
"Justice Minton's exceptional service as a trial judge and chief regional judge uniquely qualify him to perform both judicial and administrative functions as our next chief justice. His uncommon ability to get along with his fellow judges earned their utmost respect and will serve him well as he leads the judiciary."

Diane Thompson, Nelson County Circuit Court Clerk
President of the Kentucky Association of Circuit Court Clerks
"I have had the honor of working with Justice Minton for many years. His integrity and knowledge of all levels of our court system are unprecedented. I am confident that he will provide tremendous support to circuit court clerks because he understands the critical function of our office. The citizens of our Commonwealth will truly benefit from Justice Minton being elected our new chief justice."

Charles E. English, Attorney at Law
English, Lucas, Priest & Owsley LLP, Bowling Green, Ky.
"I have known Justice Minton for a long time. He is bright, kind and has a good judicial temperament. I believe he will make an excellent chief justice."

Supreme Court of Kentucky
The Supreme Court of Kentucky is the state's highest court. The seven justices are elected from seven appellate court districts and serve eight-year terms. The Kentucky Constitution provides that the Supreme Court justices elect one of their fellow justices to serve as chief justice for a term of four years. As executive head of the statewide judicial system, the chief justice oversees the Administrative Office of the Courts in Frankfort and the 4,000 statewide employees of the Kentucky Court of Justice, including elected justices, judges and circuit court clerks. The chief justice proposes a biennial budget to the General Assembly and executes the Judicial Branch budget.

Chief Justices of the Supreme Court of Kentucky
John D. Minton Jr., June 27, 2008-
Joseph E. Lambert, 1998-2008
Robert F. Stephens, 1982-1998
John Stanley Palmore, 1977-1982
Scott E. Reed, 1976-1977

Salary of the Chief Justice of Kentucky
$137,832

Judge: Kentucky's "concealed carry" law discriminates against non citizens.

Read the story, on Kentucky's gun law which provides that non citizens not be allowed to carry guns concealed.

The court found that the law discriminates against non citizens.

According to Judge Thomas Russell, "A blanket prohibition discriminating against aliens is not precisely drawn to achieve the goal of facilitating firearms purchases when there exists a nondiscriminatory way to achieve the same goals," while concluding that "Finally, it is in the public interest [for the court] to prevent the violation of an individual's constitutional rights [such as happened with the gun law]".