Rehman appealing marijuana lawsuit

The lawsuit brought by Senoia resident Don Rehman against the Senoia City Council over his interpretation of a city ordinance dealing with misdemeanor possession of marijuana was dismissed in May by Coweta County Superior Court Judge Dennis Blackmon. But Rehman will have another day in court when his case is appealed to the Ga. Supreme Court in the fall.

Rehman said his appeal has been accepted by the Ga. Supreme Court and is on the court’s calendar for October, adding that he has been permitted to include nearly a dozen additional pages in his appeal documents.

Rehman in the March 15 court filing in Coweta County Superior Court said the city ordinance dealing with misdemeanor amounts of marijuana, in quantities less than one ounce, essentially mandates that males are required to be in possession of more than an ounce of marijuana to be considered law abiding citizens. Possession of less than an ounce is handled through the local court as a misdemeanor while possession of more than an ounce is a felony under state law.

Rehman contended 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.

Judge Blackmon in his full dismissal of the lawsuit was adamant in his disagreement with Rehman’s position.

“Are you telling me that I am here and you’ve got me here, and you’ve got all these people here to explain to you what the Senoia ordinance means when it says you can’t possess less than an ounce of marijuana? Are you seriously telling me that that’s why I am here listening to this case?” Blackmon asked.

“Let me tell you something, you have wasted this court’s time,” Blackmon continued. “You have wasted all these people’s time. I do not know what possessed you to come into this court with something this ridiculous. This is the most ridiculous thing I have ever had in court, ever.”

Rehman maintained that his case before Judge Blackmon should have been decided differently, adding that he would appeal the decision to the Ga. Supreme Court.

“I respectfully believe that (Judge Blackmon) made an error by dismissing my civil action; and (Blackmon’s) determination of the grounds for dismissal were not in consonance with a June 8, 2009 Supreme Court of Georgia decision on petition for mandamus matters, which the court had in hand when it made its ruling on May 29, 2013,” Rehman said after the dismissal.

Husband and Fat...
Husband and Father of 2's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/23/2012
The Coweta Barlow

Similar story, except no bankruptcy

thcomments
thcomments's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/01/2011
Jose4 has no understanding

Not a single one of your posts has anything to do with the real issue addressed in the article. If you cannot contribute a valid response to the real issue, please go away. Leave this blog to people who address the article, not someone like yourself who apparently has a one-track mind about their own personal "weed" issue!

Jose4
Jose4's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/02/2012
Enforce the letter of the law

It's the duty of the legal system to enforce the letter of the law, not what their sensibilities tell them it should be.

When I say "sensibilities" I am referring to brain numbing logic from the Georgia Christian Taliban who believe marijuana smokers would smoke 24 hours every day if it was legal.

thcomments
thcomments's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/01/2011
re0046 demonstrates his foolishness

A foolish man keeps doing/saying the same thing again and again, expecting a different result. Mr. Rehman has already demonstrated his foolishness in continuing to pursue this nonsensical litigation. Now, re0046 has stepped up to once again, foolishly, to try to sell this nonsense with support for Mr. Rehman's claims. Will you never learn? How many times must the lesson be taught?

Jose4
Jose4's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/02/2012
When Georgians learn to read

Maybe his foolishness will stop when Georgians learn how to read.

Social Realist
Social Realist's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/24/2012
Ludicrous Approach

Anyone can make a claim, file motions to the courts pro se and fill the newspaper with "agenda-like" allegations. The problem is that this person has no credible facts and is seriously lacking in common sense.

This appears to be the same type of frivolous hype and irresponsible legal action that was demonstrated in Florida during the 1990's. This person posing as a "wannabe" attorney was soundly rejected several times by the Florida courts (dismissed with prejudice) and now is inline to receive delivery of the same judicial fate. Some people never learn from their self-inflicted wounds.

Rehman is fully aware that State laws supersede city ordinances. This is one reason why the municipality is not solely dependent on written Ordinance. However, he also realizes that any possession of marijuana is illegal. Yet, he continues to spend public tax dollars needlessly.

Jose4
Jose4's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/02/2012
Not suing the state

Rehman is not suing the State.

re0046
re0046's picture
Offline
Joined: 08/21/2009
The other side of the Story

SENOIA ORDINANCE 46-7 states: “It shall be unlawful for any person to have in his possession less than one ounce of marijuana.” This Senoia Ordinance exempts females by using only male gender language - the State Statute does not.

This Senoia Ordinance fails to clearly prohibit possession of a one ounce amount of Marijuana - the State Statute does.

This Senoia Ordinance fails to indicate the violation is a “misdemeanor” and by being totally silent on that aspect, an ordinary person exercising common sense might be led to believe that in the City of Senoia this criminal offense might be a felony or not a criminal statute at all because it refers to no criminal punishment; thus is unconstitutionally void for vagueness and silent on this aspect - the State Statute makes it clearly a misdemeanor.

The Senoia Ordinance fails to mention any specific penalty whatsoever for violation - The State Statute specifically prescribes it.

The Senoia Ordinance fails to mention an accused’s right to be tried in Coweta County Court instead of Senoia Magistrate Court - The State Statute clearly communicates that right.

The Senoia Ordinance fails to mention the existence of Georgia State Statute §16-13-2, thus unconstitutionally hides vital information from the public and all persons who might be accused of a crime under this Senoia Ordinance and thus is unconstitutionally void for vagueness.

The Senoia Ordinance is so defectively worded that it has a double meaning such that it can be read to actually require the possession within the City Limits of Senoia, by all males regardless of age, of one ounce or more of marijuana; whereas, the Georgia State Statute §16-13-2 is crystal clear in its intent so as not to be misunderstood.

Therefore, the Senoia Ordinance cannot exist as anything that is Constitutional and this is what this matter is all about now at the Supreme Court of Georgia. Additionally, on May 29, 2013, the City of Senoia, its elected Government, Mayor and 4 Councilmen, through their City Attorney, admitted in the Public Hearing, to the Coweta County Superior Court [Judge Blackmon] that Senoia did not need that Ordinance; yet, they spend Taxpayers' money to fight Rehman in Court as though they need that Ordinance; when in less than 3 minutes at a Mayor/City Council Meeting they could get it off the "books" and the matter would have been settled.

Further, at the Superior Court of Coweta, the elected Government of Senoia, Mayor and 4 Councilman, through the City Attorney, gave to Judge Blackmon a whole bunch of inapplicable case law and inapplicable Georgia Statute whereby they managed to get Judge Blackmon upset over the case being in his Court, and that is why he inappropriately said those things to Rehman that are quoted in this news article.

The elected Government of Senoia, Mayor and 4 Councilmen, through their City Attorney, filed a Motion for Sanctions at the Supreme Court of Georgia trying to get Rehman fined for frivolous appeal and to try and prevent him from being able to file his BRIEF FOR APPELLANT. The reaction of the 7 Supreme Court Justices so far was to decide that Rehman could have 11 more pages in his Appellant's Brief, total of 45 pages [which included numerous case law citations and analysis] because of the magnitude of the case, and the 7 Justices so ordered.

The City of Senoia, its Mayor and 4 Councilmen [through their City Attorney] will not be able to get away with at the Supreme Court of Georgia with citing to the 7 Justices inapplicable Statute and Case Law as they did at the Superior Court of Coweta County.

The "ball" is now in the elected Government of Senoia "Court" because their Brief of Appellees is shortly due for filing at the Supreme Court of Georgia.

Rehman has requested the 7 Justices permit him oral argument in this case even though he has no Attorney thus is pursuing this litigation as "pro se" [for ones' self].

Perhaps the Supreme Court of Georgia will in effect provide a "wake up call" to the elected Senoia Government, its Mayor and 4 Councilmen, that this is still the United States of America and the Local Ordinances of Senoia cannot be unconstitutional in nature, and that the elected Government of Senoia cannot itself be "above the law" but must be held accountable to it and responsible to "we the People".

Citizen_Steve
Citizen_Steve's picture
Offline
Joined: 11/20/2005
Re: Rehman appealing marijuana lawsuit

Hey re0046 - I agree with your ideals, but my take is that we're responsible to interpret the intent of ordinances. Can we really expect government lawyers for podunk southern towns such as Senoia to be able to articulate a regulation in logical, unambiguous terms? I don't think so.

Steve

Jose4
Jose4's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/02/2012
You never know

Maybe some awareness will come out of the irresponsible laws against an ancient medicinal herb and someone will learn how to read and write.

12bTrue
12bTrue's picture
Offline
Joined: 08/26/2009
You hit the nail on the head

You hit the nail on the head about interpreting the intent of ordinances. This is clearly something that is conveniently overlooked in this ongoing saga. It seems that everything that doesn't go this man's way is somehow unconstitutional, deplorable, an abomination, unethical, etc. Same ole song and dance....boring.

Jose4
Jose4's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/02/2012
Don't get too upset, the next bad law may be against you

An overreaching government is good if it helps to force your will over others until karma sends it right back.

Recent Comments