Friday, Dec. 2, 2016    Login | Register        

Marijuana semantics ; Gadfly files suit over language in Senoia ordinance

Senoia resident Don Rehman has filed suit against the mayor and city council over a city ordinance dealing with the misdemeanor offense of possession of less than an ounce of marijuana. Rehman’s March 15 filing in Coweta County Superior Court contends that the Senoia city ordinance essentially mandates that males are required to be in possession of more than an ounce of marijuana to be considered law abiding citizens. City attorney Drew Whalen in response to the filing said he did not understand Rehman’s twisted logic.

At issue in the suit is city ordinance Section 46-7 that pertains to possession of less than one ounce of marijuana. The code section reads, “It shall be unlawful for any person to have in his possession less than an ounce of marijuana.” Rehman is asking the court require that the city revoke the ordinance or declare it unconstitutionally or legally defective or void.

Possession of less than one ounce of marijuana is a misdemeanor violation under state law, Whalen said Georgia law allows certain misdemeanors, such as possessing less than an ounce of marijuana, to be tried in city court. Possession of more than an ounce of marijuana is a felony in Georgia and is not tried in city courts.

Rehman contends that the wording of the ordinance essentially mandates that all males within the city limits must have in their possession one ounce or more of marijuana. Obeying the ordinance as written would make criminals out of law abiding citizens, the suit said.

The suit includes a copy of an email sent by Rehman to the Senoia City Council. That email includes what Rehman called a hypothetical warning by the council that he said demonstrates the error in the current ordinance and what it could be interpreted to mandate. The ordinance as written, Rehman maintains, makes criminals out of law-abiding citizens.

The hypothetical warning that he claims could be issued by the council reads: “All males within the city limits of Senoia (irrespective of age - babies through elderly) are required by Senoia law to have in their possession one ounce or more of marijuana. Females (irrespective of age - babies through elderly) are exempt under the law.”

Rehman in the suit maintains that, “Any law or ordinance which states ‘It shall be unlawful to any person to have in his possession less than one ounce of marijuana’ is mandating that a person must be in possession of one ounce or more of marijuana otherwise to have less than one ounce is supposedly unlawful.

Commenting Wednesday on the suit and its contention, Whalen said,” I do not understand that twisted logic. It’s a free country and (Rehman) can believe anything he wants to.”

Rehman in the filing said he had attempted to have the Senoia City Council address the alleged discrepancy but had been unsuccessful.

Though he will represent himself, Rehman in the filing also asked that the mayor and council pay his court costs and legal expenses, reimburse the city for its legal costs and publicly apologize to the citizens.



I can't believe this guy can not get elected to office. He's perfect.

bringinabroom's picture

Mr. Rehman is dead on correct. If you travel to Senoia and you have ZERO marijuana on your person, you are in violation of a criminal law. If you have one ounce of marijuana on you, you are not in violation of this law (although the state law).

This is a case of a stubborn council paying a lawyer getting fat by writing a lousy ordinance and then getting paid to fix his own screwup in court. The lawyer should have just admitted his mistake and moved on.

Mr. Rehman is right, undeniably, but he will lose. Whatever judge is assigned to the case is elected, which means he sucks up to the Senoia politicians and not to Rehman the "Gadfly". It is indeed amusing how in some articles someone like Rehman is described with the pejorative "Gadfly" or, in other cases, the dignified "Community Activist".

Although you may lose, good for you, Mr. Rehman.

"The whole thing stinks--- time for a Spring Cleaning."

Mr. Rehman is dead on incorrect. The ordinance as written simply allows, as Mr. Whalen explained, that possession of marijuana, in an amount less than one ounce, may be tried in the city court. No more, no less.
Also, you obviously ignored the article's statement that the suit was filed in Coweta County Superior Court. Knowing that, why would the judge be beholden to the Senoia politicians? Similar twisted logic to that attributed to Mr. Rehman.
Might be useful if you actually knew your facts.


thcomments: I am not sure but I wonder if you are an Attorney. It would be shocking to me that any Attorney [other than the Respondent's/Defendent's] would make the kind of judgemental statement you did, without reading the filed Petition to look at the Petitioner's/Plaintiff's presentation of the case. If you are an Attorney, then no doubt you have access to the Coweta County Superior Court Docket. I therefore suggest you bring up on your computer screen, case number: 2013 V 311 and take a look at the 14 pages plus Exhibits in that filing. When you have done that, please do come back and share your views on the case with all of us; and in so doing your views will have perhaps a bit more credibility.

On the matter of the case being filed in Coweta County Superior Court, that is the Court that has jurisdiction in Mandamus matters with regard to Senoia and its Elected Government Officials.

Slowly put the "roach" down.I think you are in dire need of some real legal advice. Silly, silly, silly.

This is exactly the type of toxic behavior that keeps the kind of people we want out of elected positions. I find it very disappointing that this person continues to waste his time opposing any and everything that seems to benefit the city. To petition the government is one thing, but the line is crossed when my tax dollars are spent defending ridiculous things like this. This same person filed a frivolous ethics complaint against Fisher a number of years ago. More wasted time, energy and money spent.

The ethics complaint against Senoia Councilman Fisher was not found to be frivolous by the Senoia Ethics Board and they pursued the matter and looked at the case. Their conclusion was that supposedly Fisher, as a Senoia Councilman, did not mean to harm Rehman [in the Fisher attempt to destroy the Rehman reputation in the Subdivision where Rehman lives]; and the Ethics Board instructed Fisher that he could have handled the matter better than what he did. THAT IS THE ABSOLUTE TRUTH! As regards the Mandamus matter let us see what the Court Case results are before hurling the supposedly "frivolous" case smear upon it without having read it! As for the reporter's use of the word "Gadfly" in the subject/title of the article - that is intended to mean "thinker" and a raising of questions. See:

Your absolute truth is not truthful, not factual. The board did not attempt to determine whether or not the complaint was frivolous because that was not their task. They were only tasked with conducting the hearing and making a determination. Their determination was simply that there was no ethics violation.
Further, you state regarding use of the word 'Gadfly' inthe subject/title , 'that is intended to mean "thinker"'. How do you know that was the writer's intent? He might have meant the definition of gadfly as 'a person who annoys, especially by persistent criticism'. Having attended several Senoia City Council meetings, observations of Mr. Rehman's rhetoric would lead one to think the 'annoys' definition was not only intended but also accurate. That's the REAL TRUTH!


thcomments: You must not have been at the Senoia Ethics Board hearing of the Complaint against Councilman Fisher. Had you been there, you would have heard that the first thing that happened was one of the Board Members [I believe possibly a former Senoia Elected Government Official] tried to not have the Hearing and wanted the Complaint dismissed as frivolous. He was unable to get a majority agreement because Board Members said they wanted to hear testimony and learn more about the issues; so the Board proceeded with the case.

As regards the timing of the Ethics Complaint, Rehman was neither a candidate for Office in the forthcoming election nor did he support other candidates - the truth is it appears that in doing what he did that created the Complaint, Councilman Fisher must have miscalculated by assuming Rehman was going to be a candidate for Councilman in the next Election and thereby would be "opposition" for Councilman Fisher's election to office thus it was in Councilman Fisher's interest to attempt to destroy Rehman's reputation in the Subdivision where he lived. Rehman told the Ethics Board on the record, at the hearing that he believed that Councilman Fisher had done what he did because of the pending election and stated that was the only logical reason that could explain Councilman Fisher's conduct in what he did.

As regards your comment about how do I know what the Reporter Ben Nelms meant by his use of the word "Gadfly" in the headline for his story - it is because I asked him last night when he was at the Senoia Mayor & City Council Meeting covering those events. He used that term in the "positive sense" and if you don't believe that - contact him then consider putting your "factual findings" in this matter as a followup posting.

Actually, I was in attendance and heard the proceedings. The statement by the one board member recommending dismissal of the complaint made no mention of the term frivolous. My previous statement is accurate, again you err. Also, while Mr. Rehman may have stated that 'he believed that Councilman Fisher had done what he did because of the pending election and stated that was the only logical reason that could explain Councilman Fisher's conduct', statements made by other members of the audience indicated other logical reasons the councilman might have acted the way he did, statements indicating harassing or intimidating actions by Mr. Rehman.

As far as your statement regarding Mr. Nelm's reply to you last evening, maybe I will follow up with him on that. However, I should not waste his time. Simply reading the article could lead one to believe the 'annoys' definition is more accurate with regards to Mr. Rehman.

Are you a close friend to Mr. Rehman? If not, how do you know 'nor did he support other candidates'? Curious statement.


I completely agree that a ???Gadfly?۝ can be beneficial in the manner that you speak. I believe that you must question your government. In as much, and of equal weight and merit, it can also be interpreted as a persistent annoyance that can rise to the point of abusiveness.

The date of the ethics complaint filing was no coincidence. It appears that Rehman filed this complaint three months before an election. I will assume that he supported another candidate?۪s political agenda. In reading the article it appears that Fisher was simply accused of not being politically correct. Although there was no mention of frivolity there was also no mention of the complaint having any merit or substance. All of the presented testimony by witnesses appears to have supported the claim that Rehman harassed and intimidated residents in several subdivisions. I don?۪t think his telling the truth about something [politically correct or not] equates to an ethics violation. In view of the 2009 election results the voting public didn?۪t think he acted unethically either.

Social Realist: It was refreshing to read your comments about the meaning of the word "Gadfly" as used by Reporter Ben Nelms in his article.

Now for "THE REST OF THE STORY" about the Ethics Complaint filing. In July 2009 Councilman Fisher wrote an officail E-mail as Senoia Councilman, with disparaging remarks about Rehman, sent it to one of Rehman's neighbors and then gave permission to that neighbor to post the disparaging of Rehman remarks on the Subdivision Electronic Message Board for all Subdivision Residents to see. Councilman Fisher did that "harmful deed" about 4 months or so before the November 2009 election for Senoia Councilmen and before the period of time for filing of the form to qualify to be in the November 2009 Election for Councilman. Fisher refused to ask Rehman's Subdivision Neighbor to take down the E-mail from the Message Board. Rehman went to see Mayor Belisle and asked him to call both Fisher and Rehman to his office and resolve this matter. Mayor Belisle told Rehman, that he, the Mayor could not do that but the Mayor told Rehman his only recourse was to use the Senoia Ethics Ordinance. Rehman had never heard of that Ordinance nor knew what it said; looked it up and filed the Ethics Complaint against Fisher on August 10, 2009 and the Ethics Board Hearing occurred on September 3, 2009. [The Senoia Mayor and each Councilman get to appoint 2 Ethics Board Members each, total of 10, out of which 5 are selected at random to hear each Ethics Complaint. Fisher had as one of his 2 selections his next door neighbor of about 7 years. The City Attorney ruled on Rehman's objections to the Board composition and the fact that the Accused selections for Board Members remain in the "pool" of names even though placed there by the Accused; and the City Attorney ruled that the Complainant has no right to challenge the selection of any Member to serve on the Ethics Board.]

So, all of this nonsence about Rehman tried to "get" Fisher because of an impending Election is pure "baloney".

With regard to the Rehman candidate in the 2011 Election for City Councilman, it is doubtful that the Ethics matter in 2009 had any outcome whatsoever on that election. I think a total of about 516 persons voted out of a Senoia population of several thousand voters, and Rehman in the first run for public office in his lifetime received only 100 votes against Councilmen Incumbants, One incumbent Councilman would have lost re-election had another challenger, not Rehman, received about 59 more votes.

Finally, an item of information, in about the March 2009 timeframe, when there was a Councilman vacancy on the Senoia City Council, Rehman wrote an E-mail to the Mayor and Councilmen praising Fisher in glowing terms and urged that Fisher be appointed to the vacant Senoia Councilman seat - Fisher was appointed. The July 2009 Councilman Fisher E-mail that attempted to destroy Rehman in his Subdivision where he lived, that caused the Ethics Complaint against Fisher, must have been Fisher's unique way of thanking Rehman for Fisher being appointed to the vacant Councilman seat.

There are to many variables or moving parts here to gain a truthful perspective. Not sure what all that's about but I can see why a "gadfly" might act out in a vindictive manner against the city. Rehman seems to have made it personal and now political. Its tough to do business when your angry.

Interesting note about Mr. Rehman?۪s run for office in 2011. You say he got 100 votes from about 516 voters? I have heard from folks in Senoia that anyone running against an incumbent will get about 20% of the vote just because they are not an incumbent. Looking at the numbers, it seems that Mr. Rehman did not quite get even that. That appears to have been a resounding NO to the Rehman candidacy from the voters!


I simply don't understand. Fisher makes a statement that gets verified by residents. Rehman doesn't like the wording but must admit that Fisher was telling the truth because of the residents statements. Ethics complaint gets filed. Where is the conflict of interest here? I need more than one ounce after after this...

For whatever its worth, it appears that Rehman's negative confrontations with the Senoia government escalated after he lost his bid for elected office. Are there any public examples of this person working well with others? All I can find is negative article after negative article. I ask this question because it would assist me in determining how "gadfly" might have been used above.

I frequently attend these meetings. The term "gadfly" in this article was intended to have a negative meaning because of how Rehman acts. I simply find it to be disruptive to all that is positive in our successful town.

"Social Realist" and "12bTrue": Wonder no more, comment no more, give it a rest please, on your wrong interpretations of what Ben Nelms meant when he used the term Gadfly in his article on the Mandamus Lawsuit. Below is Ben's explanation [I'm hopeful he would not mind my using his words to educate others] - If you read this Ben Nelms, thank you for being the "Scholar" that you are:

As with most things in life??_ or in print, the perception is in the mind of the beholder. Put another way, and as Francis Bacon (or one of those guys several hundred years ago) said, "What a man were to be true he more readily believes."
Please recall that the British monarchy considered our Founding Fathers gadflies and worse since they continuously stirred up trouble leading to the American Revolution. If they hadn't been "troublemakers" with novel notions about independence we would still be subjects of the British Crown.

Also consider the following from Wikipedia under the Social Gadfly heading:

"A gadfly is a person who upsets the status quo by posing upsetting or novel questions, or just being an irritant.
The term "gadfly" (Ancient Greek: ?_??????, m?_ops[1]) was used by Plato in the Apology[2] to describe Socrates' relationship of uncomfortable goad to the Athenian political scene, which he compared to a slow and dimwitted horse.[citation needed]
During his defense when on trial for his life, Socrates, according to Plato's writings, pointed out that dissent, like the gadfly, was easy to swat, but the cost to society of silencing individuals who were irritating could be very high. "If you kill a man like me, you will injure yourselves more than you will injure me," because his role was that of a gadfly, "to sting people and whip them into a fury, all in the service of truth." This may have been one of the earliest descriptions of gadfly ethics.
In modern politics, a gadfly is someone who persistently challenges people in positions of power, the status quo or a popular position.[3] For example, Morris Kline wrote "There is a function for the gadfly who poses questions that many specialists would like to overlook. Polemics are healthy."[4] The word may be uttered in a pejorative sense, while at the same time be accepted as a description of honourable work or civic duty.[5]"

So "Social Realist" and "12bTrue" now that you have read the article writer's comments, I say again, why not give the matter a rest!

"As with most things in life??_ or in print, the perception is in the mind of the beholder".

I sometimes attend these meetings and I have witnessed his interactions with the public and government. I just finished rereading the articles about the city charter change and sale of the unused water tower. If Rehman was in any way correct in his complaint against the charter change it wouldn't have passed the Senate and House with the ease in which it did. Take this and add it to the frivolous article above and it gives me a very negative perception of this person. I am obviously not the only person here that has interpreted this article this way. Just my opinion.

I don't get the big fuss over a little POT.

When someone is elected to Public Office, like Senoia Mayor or Senoia Councilman they gain a "measure of Power" not possessed by the persons/Citizens/Residents/Visitors of the City of Senoia. To ensure that Power of Office is not used to defame, slander, discredit, disgrace, etc., certain restrictions are placed upon the acts and speech of Elected Officials and that is done through an Ethics Code of Conduct:

government service; Article IV. Code of Ethics for City Officials; Senoia Ethics Ordnance]
INTEREST. [Sec. 2-82(5) Ethics for government service;
Article IV. Code of Ethics for City Officials; Senoia Ethics Ordnance]
[Sec. 2-86(j) Standards of conduct;
Article IV. Code of Ethics for City Officials;

So, when you boil down all of the above, Councilman Fisher cannot in his official capacity go around the City of Senoia initiating communications to "destroy" citizens and whether or not there is any truth to whatever he uses in a "destroy a Constituant" communication - speech, written, etc., it is a violation of his Ethics duty to TREAT ALL CITIZENS WITH COURTESY, IMPARTIALITY, FAIRNESS AND EQUALITY UNDER THE LAW. The only reason Councilman Fisher was not "convicted" by the Senoia Ethics Board was they came up with the "novel" reason that he supposedly did not mean to "hurt" Rehman.

Anyway, enough of opinions - why don't we all wait until the Court hears and decides the Mandamus matter, then our comments can resume.

were facts. Fisher wasn't reprimanded because there was a lack of real evidence. There isn't an ethics commission in this state that would have done anything any differently. A conviction is something that normally comes with criminal activity. Should you prove to be guilty that is. You're not saying it had criminal intent were you? Maybe this guy should stop harassing other people like the residents stated.

12bTrue: I did not use the word "conviction" in the criminal sense. When/if an Ethics Board determines that the "Accused/Respondent" is "guilty" of having committed the acts which the "Complaint" cites, I see that as the equivalent of an Administrative Conviction of the Ethics violation[s] alleged in the Complaint.

I certainly appreciate the explanation. Since he was proven innocent of any violation and it was unanimously proven by a vote that there was no intent to harm anyone I don't understand why this guy is still angry? I mean, didn't Rehman fail to prove a negative intent? Isn't that a requirement by law? So how could anything be damaged if it couldn't be proven?

Interesting note about Mr. Rehman?۪s run for office in 2011. You say he got 100 votes from about 516 voters? I have heard from folks in Senoia that anyone running against an incumbent will get about 20% of the vote just because they are not an incumbent. Looking at the numbers, it seems that Mr. Rehman did not quite get even that. That appears to have been a resounding NO to the Rehman candidacy from the voters!


thcomments: Your pronouncement that Rehman should have gotten 20% of the vote since he was not an Incumbent is facinating - so let's see - My electronic calculator [had to use one because even if I take off my shoes and socks I would not have enough fingers and toes for this mathematical calculation] - My calculator says 20% of 516 votes = 103.2 votes. Now if we apply the normal rules of math to make 103.2 into a whole number - with .4 or less rounding down - the 103.2 votes becomes 103 votes - however, that might provoke a whole new controversy - so I will avoid that by rounding 103.2 up to 104 votes. So Rehman, by getting 100 votes was shy of your pronouncement that he should of gotten 104 votes - by only 4 votes. Thus you tell everyone the 4 votes Rehman did not get amount to supposedly "resounding No to the Rehman Candidacy from the Senoia voters'!

After going through all the above analysis, from the thcomments I need to rest for a while.

Thank you. Your calculator proved my point. The resounding NO was simply that the ONLY votes he got were those voting against the incumbents. No votes actually FOR him, only AGAINST incumbents.


You basically say the truth doesn't matter? Well, where I come from the truth is nearly everything. You said,

"To ensure that Power of Office is not used to defame, slander, discredit, disgrace, etc., certain restrictions are placed upon the acts and speech of Elected Officials and that is done through an Ethics Code of Conduct:"

I don't believe it is considered defamation or slander if it is proved to be truthful. If Rehman harassed and intimidated people like these residents claimed, then it was Rehman that discredited and disgraced himself by acting in this manner. I believe Rehman should take accountability for what he has done and stop throwing stones at the person that called him out on it.

I find it interesting that this article is about a law suit and most of the blog pertains to a 2009 ethics complaint. I believe we might have discovered the very essence of what the law suit is truly all about.

Social Realist: I'm referring to Ethics and you are referring to a lawsuit for a "Tort". Absolute truth is always a defense to being sued for slander or defamation. Absolute truth is not a defense for an Ethics violation when an elected official uses his elected office and uses the communication facilities belonging to the city [i.e. The City's official E-mail system] to slander, defame, or otherwise attempt to destroy the reputation of one of his Constituents. Neither the Senoia Mayor nor any Senoia Councilmen are elected to Office from within any District. Thus every Senoia Resident is a simultanous Constituent of the Senoia Mayor and each and every Senoia Councilman. So I say again, hopefully for the final time, Ethical conduct requirements upon elected officials acts as a "damper" on what could otherwise be a power from elected office to "destroy" constitutents - and the elected official cannot claim as a defense that he or she was supposedly just spreading the truth! Anyway, an elected Official that goes around trashing fellow citizens by means of flaunting his or her elected-to-office power, does not belong in his or her elected office in the first place. Being in elected office does not give that person the right, using that elected office, for evil, destructive, and harmful to other persons, purposes.

NUK_1's picture

So, what did this councilmember say in an email to a constituent that was any of the above? Also, why didn't Rehman sue if in fact this email contained all of these charges you allege like slander(actually that would be libel) and defamation?

Regardless of whether it's smart or not, a councilmember has every right to express his opinions in an email/blog/speak to any constituent that doesn't wander into the territory of libel or is slanderous.

I guess by your reasoning, Don Haddix should have been convicted about 30 ethics charges.

He wrote something to the effect that Rehman harassed and intimidated residents in other subdivisions. Rehman could not file a suit for defamation and/or libel because a few of these residents came forward and validated Fisher's statements. The difference between Haddix and Fisher is that Fisher backed up his statements by the use of factual evidence.

It appears that Rehman finally attacked the wrong person and won't let it go.

Don Haddix's picture

I cannot get into my old case on the evidence basis, but I can suggest you read some of the old newspaper articles about "facts." The case was dismissed with prejudice. I was covered by GIRMA, which would not have happened if they held me guilty, and our City Attorney never believed I violated any law.

I also can say the Councilmembers had to retract their accusations against me regarding those matters in the Settlement Agreement.

Please know what you are talking about before throwing out accusations. I was innocent.

Just because someone accuses anyone of breaking any law does not make it fact.

So, as far as Senoia goes, leave me out of it.

<cite><strong>Don Haddix
Peachtree City Mayor</strong></cite>

Arguing with the citizens...

Keep saying might come true.

Hey, if a girl is wrong, a girl can be wrong. Didn't mean to accuse anyone of anything here. I was referring to how the entire situation started, not the council issue. My apologies for any confusion.

Don Haddix's picture

OK, it was just you said, "The difference between Haddix and Fisher is that Fisher backed up his statements by the use of factual evidence."

Making a statement I have not backed up statements is something that should not be said unless you know that is true.

As I said, pull back on the old archives and read for yourself. Nor was I talking about the Council issues. I was talking about how it started as well.

Enough said, I am ready to let it go and we can both move one.

Confusion can happen.

<cite><strong>Don Haddix
Peachtree City Mayor</strong></cite>

It's pathetic that you are now resorting to lies on the blogs.

Shame on you for saying you were "not guilty because GIRMA paid". That's a complete and total fabrication of the truth!

GIRMA only paid after your third attempt to get a ruling by them and only when you involved the city attorney without advising council. GIRMA ruled in favor based upon a technicality that you wrote the stupid email to Joey Grisham regarding the former mayor on city email. A technicality, not innocence. You need to face the truth of what you did and the tax payer money you took!

As for the city council issue on witholding your pay to pay the tax payers back for what you took, they elected not to pursue the matter because it would cost the city more money defending their decision to withold.

It is bad enough that you took the money but now you are lying about the entire matter trying to look innocent. That is just absurd.

Continued proof you are totally unfit for office and why no political party will endorse or support you. No public trust.

Peachtree City voters are not stupid, and you can not re-write history.

Return our money.

Are you saying that it DID NOT cost Peachtree City monies due to a lawsuit filed against you?

Keep in mind the reason I am asking is that YOU brought it up above...

GIRMA turned you down 2x before you approached Mr. Meeker to write your letter.

The only reason GIRMA covered you was you stupidly wrote your email about the previous mayor on city email and unfortunately elected officials are not covered under the city's email policy for which the city could have fired you for. PTC city council needs to change the rules so people like you are required to adhere to city policies such as email abuse. Also, in the end, GIRMA paid knowing they did not have to write a check because of the $25,000 deductible and the city would have to pay you.

So, the issue here is not whether council was right or wrong in with holding your pay, it's about the fact that you knowing took tax payer money over a private lawsuit regarding the email you wrongfully wrote!

Just another reason you are unfit for public office.
You have lost public trust which is why no political party will support your re-election.

Since we seem to agree that Rehman's derogatory actions of harassing and intimidating residents appears to have started this entire incident I wonder how his "reputation" was truly perceived by neighbors and other residents? It would seem to me that a person who continuously conducts himself in this manner has already damaged his own reputation.

I believe an individual's reputation is very much dependent on his/her relationships with others and how one carries themself in a public/private atmosphere. I would be very interested in knowing if Rehman has any record of arrests, restraining orders, conflicts with other home owners, conflicts with other groups or other entities, number of filed lawsuits, etc. I will assume from all of the dialogue on this thread that his reputation with the local government isn't of quality. But then again you never really know.

You attempt to persuade me that this has happened before by stating "constituents". Yet, I can find no article on it. Do you have proof of this? I would be very interested in knowing if this type of incident has happened with anyone else besides Rehman. Because it appears on the surface that this is an isolated incident.

I still believe the truth plays a very crucial role in legal proceedings, as well as ethics. Again, political correctness may get someone in hot water but it isn't an ethics violation.

Ad space area 4 internal

Sponsored Content