Dismissal of Senoia marijuana suit upheld by Supreme Court

Senoia resident Don Rehman had his day in the Ga. Supreme Court to contest a ruling earlier this year by Coweta County Superior Court Judge Dennis Blackmon that dismissed Rehman’s contention that a Senoia city ordinance dealing with misdemeanor possession of marijuana. But the unanimous decision by the Supreme Court issued Nov. 4 upheld Judge Blackmon’s decision.

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 obeying the ordinance as written would make criminals out of law abiding citizens, the suit said.

The Supreme Court in the Nov. 4 opinion determined that Rehman incorrectly served the lawsuit paperwork to the mayor and council by leaving copies for them at city hall.

Beyond that, and perhaps more telling in the decision, the Supreme Court said, “Even if the service had been perfected, it cannot be said the (Coweta County) trial court erred in dismissing the petition because plaintiff, who has never been charged or even threatened with violating the ordinance, does not have standing to challenge the constitutionality of the ordinance.”

The Supreme Court also maintained that Blackmon did not err in requiring that Rehman pay the defendants attorney fees and litigation expenses.

As for the defendants’ motion to impose a penalty on Rehman for filing a frivolous appeal, the Supreme Court denied that motion.

Rehman requested placement on the Supreme Court docket after Judge Blackmon dismissed his lawsuit last summer.

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.

goldminer7759
goldminer7759's picture
Offline
Joined: 08/27/2009
Joke?

Citizen-Steve. You Fail to get all information before making assumptions. The lower court, Judge Blackmon, made it crystal clear that there were no problems with the ordinance because local ordinances are merely a subset of State Law and must be interpreted in that light. Judge Blackmon also clearly stated in court that Rehman's lawsuit was ridiculous, frivolous, and a total waste of everybody's time. He even went so far as to use an analogy of another absurdity to demonstrate this to Rehman.
Rehman then challenged this ruling by appeal to the Supreme Court. State Law required that the appeal be heard as there is no other appeal available for this type of suit. The demeanor of the judges during this hearing clearly showed they thought it a total waste of time. Their total "tune-out" and the fact they asked no questions clearly demonstrated this.
The Supreme Court Ruling upheld the lower court thus validating Judge Blackmon's opinions of how the suit was frivolous and a total waste of time.
The issue has clearly been decided and Rehman's assertions were completely and totally rebuked.
You opinion is the "JOKE" here!!!!!!

Citizen_Steve
Citizen_Steve's picture
Offline
Joined: 11/20/2005
Gold

Gold, I find this entire story to be downright hilarious. I'm sure I'm lacking facts, I only know what I've read in the Citizen.

While nobody would honestly interpret the code to mean that folks are required to carry pot while in Senoia, it is, in fact what the language technically says. Did the court not recognize the shoddy work? The joke to me is that so much time and trouble has been spent and a sentence that could easily be modified will remain inaccurate thanks to government incompetence.

"It shall be unlawful for any person to have in his possession less than an ounce of marijuana.”

Steve

goldminer7759
goldminer7759's picture
Offline
Joined: 08/27/2009
Clear as a bell!

"It shall be unlawful for any person to have in his possession less than an ounce of marijuana.”

As Judge Blackmon explained to Rehman The ordinance means only what it says. You have to project past what is written to get any other interpretation and at that point you cross into "felony" territory which can only be dealt with by State Law. Legally the city can not put in place an ordinance that deals with felony issues. Blackmon asked Rehman directly if he did not understand this. Rehman admitted he did and that is when the judge "tore him a new one".
Rehman's absurd logic and unique ability to reach ludicrous conclusions was clearly seen by the people of Senoia for what they are. Hence he only got 37 votes out of over 530 cast. The man is not of sound mind!

Citizen_Steve
Citizen_Steve's picture
Offline
Joined: 11/20/2005
GA supreme chickens

So the GA supreme court chickened out on ruling on the main point of Rehman's lawsuit? Not whether or not us males are required to carry > 0 and < 1 oz. of pot while in Senoia - in truth - the fact that the government is so incompetent that they can't even properly codify the casting away of our personal liberties. Logically ambiguous ordinances grant license for prejudicial enforcement.

Instead they focused on the trivial circumstances of his issuance - his nonconformist filing of paperwork and whether or not he himself was in violation of the ordinance in question. Blackmon is a joke.

Steve

12bTrue
12bTrue's picture
Offline
Joined: 08/26/2009
Explanation

I've never been a big fan of government. By its very nature I find it very inefficient. On the same note, I do not believe your comments to be worth the space it was printed in. Are you able to explain this logic as it pertains solely to the marijuana issue at hand? If you can show me where Rehman's claims have actually been executed in a court of law this would change everything.

Social Realist
Social Realist's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/24/2012
No credibility in my book

I don't think he's the type of person that will admit fault or wrong doing to anything. Its always someone else's fault or someone else started this or that and he is self-portrayed as the old retired military victim in an effort to gain some sort of favor. No, I think this is the type of person that will attempt to spin the upper courts ruling in a manner that will suggest he is somehow in the "right". He has no shame in my opinion.

Judge Blackmon basically stated this was the most ridiculous thing he's ever seen in his courtroom. He found this to be a frivolous claim against the city and Rehman was directed to pay all court costs. The Supreme Court unanimously agreed (upheld) that Judge Blackmon did not err in his judgement to award relief to the city for all legal costs. This clearly shows that both courts agreed this case was frivolous.

Rehman, give it a break. You just don't get it.

goldminer7759
goldminer7759's picture
Offline
Joined: 08/27/2009
re0046

Calling re0046. Can you please explain to all of us how this was not a slam dunk for Senoia? Please explain to us how this was really a victory for Rehman using your unique interpretation of these results.

12bTrue
12bTrue's picture
Offline
Joined: 08/26/2009
Unfulfilled Promises

I really hope he didn't make anymore unfulfilled campaign promises like he did back in 2011. Otherwise, these absurd actions may continue and nothing will be accomplished. At least I won't have to read his nonsense on the community web site now. Whew!!!

Perhaps in his new found spare time he can figure out the difference between something that is constitutional vs unconstitutional and something that is ethical vs unethical. Its really a shame to go around town not knowing the differences.

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

Maybe he got blocked for identifying himself and using this site for his campaign...

Maybe he got blocked for emphatically calling out others to identify themselves...

More probably, he is just too cowardly to rejoin the conversation, knowing the beatdown that would be forthcoming

LOL