Knee-jerk reaction to somebody who isn’t standing with “his own”.

Racism isn’t confined to Caucasians alone. All humans seem to to have the propensity for it.

Just consider the source and move on. He has a problem, not you.

The Star needs to hire Jason Whitlock away from KC and let him cover all things he wants to. I know he is a sports writer (maybe the best), but his socioeconomical and race views need to be aired in a wider format, ESPECIALLY in this half-ass city.

The purported “Willie Lynch” letter was an internet hoax from the early 1990’s.

Nothing like perpetuating a fraud ad nauseum because the fraud “fits” your own personal Weltanschauung. Class act, Mr. Haith.

Or, maybe Mr. Haith was calling you an internet hoax?

Where is Wilson46201 to defend Abdul from this blatant racism?

I had a similer experience with Haith concerning the Black voters in CCC district 4 in the area of about 46th and Emerson. “Damm middle class Black people” as I recall Him saying. “They are no count”. I, as a Democrat voluntary worker, was shocked. He will stop at nothing to protect his turf. A true gang leader

Aaron Haith has integrity comparable to those he represents – ie, very little if any.

It’s sad that African-American culture often seems to abide by the “If you are not with us, then you are against us” school of thought. Good for you, Abdul, for standing up for what is right, regardless of people like Haith who want you to turn a blind eye.

I really appreciate your candor and the way that you respectfully but strongly express your opinion. I don’t always agree, but I respect that you’ve obviously put a lot of thought into what you have to say.

And Abdul, I would really watch your back with this guy.

The first time I saw Haith I had an unnerving feeling that he was completely evil.

I’ve never witnessed a drop of compassion or humanity from him. In fact, as a white woman attending those heated meetings, I felt he was the racist.

DISCIPLINARY ACTION

February 28, 2001

Per Curiam

Lawyer Aaron E. Haith was convicted twice of operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated and convicted once of operating a vehicle with a blood alcohol content of at least .10 percent. Today we find that, by virtue of the acts underlying those convictions, he engaged in criminal acts reflecting adversely on his fitness as a lawyer in violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct for Attorneys at Law.
This attorney disciplinary case is now before us for final resolution upon the duly-appointed hearing officer’s findings of fact and conclusions of law. The respondent, pursuant to Ind.Admission and Discipline Rule 23(15), has petitioned this Court for review of the hearing officer’s findings and conclusions. Because of the respondent’s petition, our review of this matter is de novo in nature, and will involve a review of the entire record presented. Matter of Warrum, 724 N.E.2d 1097 (Ind. 2000).
We now find that on June 25, 1985, the respondent was convicted of operating a vehicle while intoxicated (OWI) in Marion Municipal Court. The incident leading to that conviction involved a motor vehicle accident that resulted in personal injury. On September 17, 1991, the respondent was convicted of operating a vehicle with .10% or more by weight of alcohol in his blood, a class C misdemeanor, in Marion Municipal Court. On September 29, 1995, the respondent was convicted of OWI, a class A misdemeanor, in Marion Municipal Court. Again, the basis for that conviction was a motor vehicle accident resulting in personal injury. After each conviction, the respondent successfully completed his sentencing requirements, including terms of probation, to the extent ordered. The sentence for the 1991 offense included mandatory alcohol counseling. The 1995 sentence included, as terms of probation, alcohol evaluation and treatment, if necessary. To satisfy those terms, the respondent obtained short-term private substance abuse counseling. The counselor observed the respondent on six occasions between January and July 1996, and concluded that the respondent had an alcohol abuse problem and that he met the diagnostic criteria for alcohol dependency.
The respondent re-initiated contact with the counselor in January of 1999. The counselor’s most recent professional opinion is that the respondent and the community will be best served by the respondent’s abstinence from alcohol, continued professional endeavors, and aggressive outpatient therapy coupled with community-based mutual self-help participation. At hearing, the Commission’s expert witness, a medical doctor specializing in addictions, testified that he concurred with the assessment that the respondent is alcohol dependent. The hearing officer found that the respondent is alcohol dependent. The respondent disputes that finding.
The hearing officer concluded that the respondent violated Ind.Professional Conduct Rule 8.4(b) by committing the criminal acts of operating a vehicle while intoxicated and operating a vehicle with .10 percent or more by weight of alcohol in his blood. According to the hearing officer, these acts reflected adversely on the respondent’s fitness as a lawyer. The hearing officer also concluded that the Commission failed to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the respondent violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(d), which provides that it is professional misconduct to engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice.
In his petition for review of the hearing officer’s findings, the respondent argues that his convictions of driving while intoxicated or with illegal levels of alcohol in his blood do not reflect adversely on his fitness as a lawyer. His misconduct, he contends, must be distinguished from this Court’s prior decisions finding Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(b) violations for convictions of alcohol-related motor vehicle offenses because the acts at issue in prior cases included attendant misconduct such as failures to abide by courts’ orders of probation, the commission of other acts violative of the Rules of Professional Conduct, or offenses committed by lawyers responsible for enforcement of this state’s laws. To support his argument, the respondent relies on Matter of Oliver, 493 N.E.2d 1237 (Ind. 1986) (lawyer who was serving as special prosecutor found to have committed crime involving “moral turpitude” in violation of Code of Professional Responsibility for conviction of OWI), Matter of Martenet, 674 N.E.2d 549 (Ind. 1996) (violation of Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(b) for three convictions of OWI, the last occurring while the lawyer’s license was suspended), Matter of Welling, 715 N.E.2d 377 (Ind. 1999) (two OWI convictions and conviction of intimidation in violation of Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(b)), and Matter of Coleman, 569 N.E.2d 631 (Ind. 1991) (Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(b) violation for three OWI convictions, failure to appear at hearing after release on bond, use of client’s funds without authorization). The respondent contends that his three convictions, standing alone and without some subsequent violation of terms of probation, do not reflect adversely on his fitness as a lawyer.
We disagree. Lawyers are professionally bound to comply with and uphold the law. Ind.Admission and Discipline Rule 22. A pattern of repeated offenses, even ones of minor significance when considered separately, can indicate an indifference to legal obligation. Comment to Prof.Cond.R. 8.4. A lawyer’s multiple convictions for OWI or similar offenses may indicate a willingness to ignore the law and may damage the public’s perception of the legal profession. Welling, 715 N.E.2d at 378. Such conduct also implicates a lawyer’s fitness as one who can be trusted to keep his client’s secrets, give effective legal advice, and fulfill his obligations to the courts. Martenet, 674 N.E.2d at 550. Thus, a lawyer’s commission of OWI and similar offenses, even standing alone with no attendant misconduct, have been found to violate Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(b). Matter of Jones, 727 N.E.2d 711 (Ind. 2000) (three OWI convictions and a fourth conviction withheld on terms of probation). Further, even considered separately, the respondent’s offenses are not minor, given that two of the three involved personal injury. Accordingly, we find that the respondent violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(b). We adopt the hearing officer’s finding with respect to the Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(d) charge.
Having found misconduct, we now turn to the issue of proper sanction. Relevant to this determination is the hearing officer’s identification of several aggravating factors. Among these are the respondent’s failure to abstain from the use of alcohol or to acknowledge his alcohol dependency and his failure voluntarily to seek long-term treatment. In mitigation, the hearing officer noted that the respondent, prior to the present action, has practiced law for 20 years with no prior disciplinary history, that he completed his criminal probation successfully, and that he generally enjoys a good reputation in the legal community. The hearing officer recommended that the respondent be suspended from the practice of law for six (6) months; that after serving one (1) month of that suspension, the respondent be conditionally reinstated and placed on probation for two (2) years; and that the respondent be fully reinstated to the practice of law upon compliance with the terms and conditions of probation. According to the hearing officer, those terms and conditions should include abstinence from alcohol use, supervision by a monitor, reporting requirements, random substance screenings, intensive out-patient treatment, and psychological evaluation and treatment.
In recent cases involving similar misconduct, pursuant to agreed resolutions this Court has imposed six month suspensions from the practice of law, with some or all of that period stayed to terms of agreed probation aimed at treating the respondents’ alcohol dependencies. See, e.g., Martenet, supra (six month suspension all stayed to aftercare), Welling, supra (six month suspension with four months conditionally stayed), Jones, supra (six month suspension conditionally stayed to period of suspension to run concurently with criminal probation). We conclude that a similar sanction is appropriate in this case as well; however, we find further that the respondent’s failure to abstain from alcohol use and his reluctance to admit his alcohol dependency warrant in this case a lengthier period of suspension stayed to stringent aftercare provisions.
It is, therefore, ordered that the respondent, Aaron E. Haith, be suspended from the practice of law in this state for a period of twelve (12) months, effective immediately. That period of suspension is conditionally stayed to a two (2) year period of probation. During that period of probation, the respondent must:
Remain free from alcohol use
Be subject to the supervision of a monitor approved by the Disciplinary Commission, with periodic meetings with the monitor who will provide regular reports to the Disciplinary Commission
Participate in an intensive out-patient treatment program approved by the Disciplinary Commission
Participate in psychological evaluation and treatment, as recommended by the out-patient treatment program
Participate in Alcoholics Anonymous or similar 12-step program
Agree to be subject to and receive random alcohol and drug screenings
Agree to a waiver of all assertions of confidentiality or privilege associated with his monitor or treating health care providers
Immediately report any noncompliance with the terms of this probation to the Disciplinary Commission
Pay all costs of compliance associated with the terms of probation.

Should the respondent violate any terms of his probation, he shall be required to serve the twelve month period of suspension which was originally stayed, at the conclusion of which he shall be required to petition this Court should he desire reinstatement. Should he successfully complete the two year period of probation, at the end of that period he shall be fully reinstated to the practice of law in this state.
The Clerk of this Court is further directed to provide notice of this order in accordance with Admis.Disc.R. 23(3)(d) and to provide the clerk of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, the clerk of each of the United States District Courts in this state, and the clerks of the United States Bankruptcy Courts in this state with the last known address of respondent as reflected in the records of the Clerk.
Costs of this proceeding are assessed against the respondent.

SULLIVAN, BOEHM, and RUCKER, JJ., concur.
SHEPARD, C.J., and DICKSON, J., dissent from the sanction imposed, and would impose a sanction calling for a period of executed suspension in addition to a period of suspension stayed to aftercare provisions.

SHEPARD, Chief Justice, dissenting.

Several decades of research about healing chemically impaired people suggests that therapy is typically unsuccessful when a dependent person believes he is not. Formal analysis thus coincides with intuition: people who think treatment is unnecessary are unlikely to work very hard at it.
The present case involves a lawyer who is generally well liked and successful. But, he has had three criminal convictions for drunk driving in twelve years. His own therapist, the Commission’s medical expert, and our hearing officer have all concluded that he is alcohol dependent. He insists he is not. He also maintains that the evidence does not reflect adversely on his fitness to serve clients.
The Court says it disagrees on both points, but it sends this message so softly it seems unlikely the respondent will hear it. A short period of actual suspension seems more likely to lead to a successful result.

Well Abdul, you could have fared worse if you were white like me. Had a .38 pressed against my chest and was referred to as a “Peckerwood”. Now the .38 I understood, it was being called a “Peckerwood” that I had trouble understanding.
Aren’t our elected officials great people?

Abdul, it’s the race card that has been used against non-blacks for years. It’s meant to silence people when the facts alone can’t do it. Since you are not ignoring the widespread corruption of Monroe Gray, you need to be silenced. The easiest way to do so it to try to alienate you from your own community.

If Haith were a white man, he would have been fired last night. With the double standard that exists, he will get away with his racists statement and keep his job.

I have been in court & seen Aaron Haith in action. First, he is not an intelligent man. Second, I have seen that he is a racist and that he uses race as an issue ad hominem any chance he gets.

As cited above, he is a blatent disgrace to the legal profession, and, of course, The Democrat Machine.

Abdul’s own community?? Haith is trying to alienate Abdul from martini drinking, cigar chomping, men-about-town? Weird.

Kind of like Juan Williams being called a ‘happy negro’ by I think it was Boyce Jenkins and then there being an absolute lack of criticism. I guess Bill O’Reilly was right. What a knucklehead.

Abdul,
You may think that Haith is “not a bad person” but I have a problem understanding why you think think that way. Personally, I would have considered what he said not so much as an insult but as a not so veiled threat.
It’s your call my friend but things may get worse for you in this town from these people than you realize. There is far more at stake here than most people realize.

Uh, Jason…Bill O’Reilly is never right. Well, almost never.

Cheap sensationalist, yes. Rigiht? Nope.

I know of no code of ethical conduct for the CCC or any elected official.

Notice how the coward Wilson isn’t hear to carry Haith’s water. Where are you, coward?

Right here — not hiding behind a fake name like that craven “Neo Impressionist Agitator” so busy hurling personal insults. It’s a typical Republican: name-calling with no personal responsibility! Nothing positive to say but always so negative! Anonymous nobodies too ashamed to use their names – and well they should be!

Abdul,

One might think that this publicly documented statement by Mr. Aaron Haith, Esq. (subsequently referred to as “Haith”) constitutes a defamatory action on the part of the aforementioned party. As such, as defined by Indiana Code 34-15-1-1, there is a likelihood that your counsel could initiate an action for libel against Haith at your earliest convenience.

If I were an attorney, I would represent you pro bono on this as it would be so entertaining.

Trespassing thru the tulips again, Wilson! Go away.

Wilson,

The only reason we know who you are is by you telling us, not by you screen name. Your screen name says nothing about you save your frist name. Unless you give your full name and possible age how do we know who anyone is? Also, where is your outrage for the obvious racial slur or do you dislike Abdul enough to think he deserves it? Just what kind of Hypocracy do you represent?

Just wondering…

and before you call me a coward for not nameing my self, I am Randy or do you need my last name as well for me to be a valid poster?

So, Wilson the Heroic Principled Non Partisan Saintly Saint of All that is Holy and True, do you feel that it was appropriate for Aaron Haith to hurl a racial slur at Abdul or not? Answer the question. Yes or no.

You sure are good at saying “anonymous nobodies”, but you are even better at avoiding answering direct questions.

Was Aaron Haith in the right or the wrong, Wilson. Let’s hear it. Yes..No.

Oh, by the way Wilson, unless you post your FULL NAME, you have no right to demand anyone else post theirs. Perhaps, just perhaps there are some people understandably wary of one of the Carson campaign workers going down to City Hall to dig up information on private citizens.

Oh, and Wilson, I went to college with Steve Campbell. He was a nice guy, and it pains me to see him wrapped up with such an unbelievably corrupt group of hacks like you and Bart Peterson.

By the way, the Constitution gives us the right to speak out against the government either publicly or anonymously. Unless you’ve got some sort of interpretation of the First Amendment I’m not aware of.

Coward.

I’m not the issue here. The Republicans here don’t and can’t say anything positive about their own GOP candidates – they hope to win by negative campaigning. It’s just a desperate, last-minute tactic…

If you don’t know Wilson’s last name, or haven’t seen his picture (recently), then you simply haven’t been looking very hard. He’s a well known local “blog prowler”.

Too bad blogs don’t have a PM function.

Neo, I’d actually be more worried about some white-shirted person(s) driving unmarked emergency services vehicle(s) trolling about my neighborhood.

Oh, I know who Wilson is. But he does not identify himself by his full name. Given his well known dumpster-diving, it’s not surprising that no one who interacts with him gives their full name (which is foolish to do on the internet anyway)

This isn’t negative campaigning Wilson. Aaron Haith isn’t an elected official. Aaron Haith directed a racial slur at Abdul. Do you feel that was appropriate or not, Wilson? Yes or no.

Do you feel that if the City Council President is unable to provide any documentation that explains what he actually does in exchange for an $83,000 salary, that it should make people concerned? Yes or No, Wilson.

Do you feel that the City Council President should have recused himself from voting on an ethics investigation of his own businesses? Yes or no.

Do you feel that the City Council President should explain with documentation why he has a take home car from the Fire Department, when no one has any documentation as to what he’s actually doing there? Yes or no.

Do you feel that it is problematic that Ron Gibson was “exonerated” when a relative came forward 14 months after the incident to file an affadavit? Yes or no.

This is easy, Wilson. Yes or no.

Hell, I lived in one of Peterson’s depoliced township neighborhoods. Multiple murders up and down the street. Never saw Mayor Gray, I mean Mayor Peterson come speak to the neighborhood once.

Wilson, you never gave your statement about Haith’s comment. I think that’s want they were wanting. Instead you completely verified all their accusations about you and danced around the topic. Well-played, “Yes Man”.

It’s ashamed you can’t even see the wrong-doing this time for your sake. Not for ours…

And I think you were saying something over on AI about “innocent until proven guilty?” That might have been the case had it gone far enough in court, and there not been mysterious circumstances (ie: memory loss). Now it just stands as yet another very fishy situation in this administration. And as a local citizen all my life, I’m getting very tired of their bending of the rules.

I’m not Wilson. I’m making a point. Just because you see Wilson46201 under a post does not mean it’s him. Of course we can go thru the ISP deal and that ultimately tells us nothing that can’t be hidden.

per·vert /v. p?r?v?rt; n. ?p?rv?rt/
1. to affect with perversion. (Check mark for Wilson)
2. to lead astray morally. (Check mark for Wilson)
3. to turn away from the right course. (Double Check mark for Wilson)
4. to lead into mental error or false judgment. (Check mark for Wilson)
5. to turn to an improper use; misapply. (Check mark for Wilson)
6. to misconstrue or misinterpret, esp. deliberately; distort: to pervert someone’s statement. (Triple Jackpot Check mark for Wilson)
7. to bring to a less excellent state; vitiate; debase. (Check mark for Wilson)
8. Pathology. to change to what is unnatural or abnormal. (Check mark for Wilson)

Wilson is a pervert. His sole responsibility as Democrat patsy is to divert meaningful discussion of the corruption that is The Democrat Machine.

I sent this email to ever CCC member this evening.

I am sure you are aware by now of Mr. Haiths recent racist comments to Mr Abdul Hakim-Shabazz , local radio personality from WXNT 1430 AM. While Mr. Shabazz was on tape asking questions of Monroe Gray, Mr Haith can be heard instructing Mr Gray to not answer any questions from the “Grandson of Willie Lynch.”
To compare Mr. Shabazz to a 1712 slave owner is beyond reprehensible. For Mr. Haith, with his already questionable record with the Indiana Bar, and his apparent conflict of interest in representing council members in personal matters, to continue in his current position as City-County Council Attorney, would be a travesty.
With all the recent ethics concerns that seem to be flooding from that City-Council chambers, his presence serves only as a reminder of the corruption that no one wants to address. As a citizen of Marion County, and as a voter, I am asking that you call for the resignation of Aaron Haith.
Someone must step forward and let it be known that the citizens of this county have had enough! If those that are elected to serve us become so insulated from the people to believe that they are untouchable in any fashion, it is time that these same people are shown the door through the voting process. I will personally offer my support to the opponent of any council member who fails to call for the ouster of Mr Haith.

Aaron Haith, doing what he can to help improve race relations. Not.

Mr. Shame, the proof’s in the pudding here. Where’s the outrage? Oh wait, he’s black, racial slurs from him don’t count. My fault.

I believe that such comments by Mr. Haith was an attempt to demoralize you. Such statements causes me to cry foul and it appears that we will need to have a protest on Mr. Haith’s property. I happen to be a white person who goes to a nearly all-black church and find such comments as deplorable and I will talk to the congregation on Sunday to express my concerns with our city’s leadership.

Abdul cries foul when he’s called a name but Abdul sees nothing wrong with letting commenters post repeatedly slanderous personal attacks – I modified slightly one that has been posted twice here.

per·vert /v. p?r?v?rt; n. ?p?rv?rt/
1. to affect with perversion. (Check mark for Abdul)
2. to lead astray morally. Check mark for Abdul)
3. to turn away from the right course. (Double Check mark for Abdul)
4. to lead into mental error or false judgment. (Check mark for Abdul)
5. to turn to an improper use; misapply. (Check mark for Abdul)
6. to misconstrue or misinterpret, esp. deliberately; distort: to pervert someone’s statement. (Triple Jackpot Check mark for Abdul)
7. to bring to a less excellent state; vitiate; debase. (Check mark for Abdul)
8. Pathology. to change to what is unnatural or abnormal. (Check mark for Abdul)

Abdul Hakim Shabazz is a pervert. His sole responsibility as Republican patsy is to divert meaningful discussion of the corruption that is The Republican Machine.

Classy blog you’re running here. Now you are complaining about namecalling?

Wilson46201 -

Nice try on the diversion tactic…again. Stop stooping to that level and answer the questions concerning the real issues here if you want to be taking seriously.

wILSON IS CALLING SOMEONE A PERV??!??!!!! HAHAHAHHAHA

I would love to see what Wilson46201 has on his hard drive wouldn’t you?
When I saw photos of him with his camera taking pictures at that last Dem fundraiser he struck me as looking like that old cartoon character called Chester The Molester.
Whatever. Fact is that this Wilson guy has some serious emotional problems. Hell, he can’t even get a T-shirt right. A T-shirt with just the word Abercrombie written on it? I didn’t know A&F split up. Nice to see an old man who likes their pedo advertising working for the Dems.

Isn’t there a bridge you should be living under, Wilson?

Wilson as Chester The Molester! I love it!!!

Wilson,

I have not referred to you in any derogatory terms. I feel you represent the mind set of the democrats/left. Would you please answer my previous question, that being do you and or democrats in general feel that Mr. Haith’s comments were appropriate?

Crow/Randy

Longtime Democratic precinct worker here, Crow. Long time, as in over 35 years. I did it when being a Demo wasn’t cool. I’ve always had respect for the process and elected officials of both parties.

Completely and utterly fed up and disgusted with Wilson, Monroe, Ron Gibson, King Ro, and now Aaron Haith, an appointed official who was obviously rasied by wolves. He lacks class and manners. And city employees who serve on the council. Good God can’t we come up with some others?

Still gonna vote enthusiastically for Bart. I know first-hand he’s disgusted with the council nonsense, too, but he is not a member of that separate body. And those who call him “liar’ are wearing out their welcome, too.

But my council member is a Republican, my district so solidly Republican it will never vote for a Democrat, and my council member is just as goofy. But it’s funny, ya know…when I have an issue to discuss with that council member, we do so in a civil tone, and we respect the opinions of others. My calls get returned, my emails answered, promptly. Respectfully.

No appointed or elected official should get away with the kind of racist insult Aaron hurled at Abdul. If I were in charge, he’d be fired on the spot.

And the blind following of our party, Wilson, makes you look sillier than you are. Everyone’s got your number.

Wilson,

Again I ask you, what did I do to deserve the racial slur of “cracker”?

Crow

Crow – give it up on the cracker comment. I checked the ip address / email address and it appears it was not from Wilson. I have deleted both strange posts claiming to be from Wilson. Please don’t try to get MORE comments from Wilson, it’s obvious he’s not going to answer any questions regarding bad news about the Dems.

The following is a copy of an e-mail I sent to my CCC representative, followed by her response. This was sent on 10-12-07 @ approx. 8:54am. Her reply follows my e-mail. She replied to me @ 12:04pm, George sent his e-mail to the entire CCC at least 8 hours before I sent mine to Adams, note what she states in her reply.

My e-mail:

Ms.Moriarty Adams

I am sure you have heard the comments of CCC attorney Aaron Haith that he directed at Abdul Hakim-Shabazz of WXNT, 1430AM. Mr. Haith’s comment of calling Hakim-Shabazz “the grandson of Willie Lynch” was a classic example of intolerable racism. As has been evident by the Jena 6 situation, the thought of anyone invoking the racist ideas of Lynch in this century is unconscionable. As a member of the City-County Council I call on the Council to censure or fire Mr. Haith immediately.

There is NO room in this city for this kind of blatant racism and attitude. The mentality of “if you’re not with us, you’re against us” should not and cannot be tolerated any longer in city politics.

Her reply at 12:04pm:

Joseph,

Thank you for your comments. I haven’t spoken to anyone about this yet as
this is the first I am hearing about the situation. I will discuss with the
caucus and Mr. Haith.

Mary Moriarty Adams

Perhaps she needs to read her e-mails more often.

I am still awaiting replies form the at-large CCC memebers.

So grossly homophobic comments like “pervert”, “deviate”, “molester” about gay folk are perfectly acceptable on Abdul’s Blog? He complains about namecalling but permits such trash-talk against LGBT activists?

Kind of reminds me of the treatment I got on TDW for the 5 minutes I posted there…

Wilson is trespassing again. Wilson is banned. He continues to obfuscate and divert the thread….just what does homophobic have to do with the thread that is the insult of racist and convicted criminal Aaron Haith, city-council attorney? Nothing.

Wilson keeps diverting the thread away from the evil that is The Democrat Machine.

Aaron Haith is not a bad guy??? Have you really ever heard him talk? He pulls the race, you people turned hoses on my people, lynching, racist rhetoric on anyone who supports the rule of law and criticises their little mafia-style government operation.

Haith once went on a tirade against hispanics in a concerned clergy meeting one Saturday morning that made me wonder if he was the one who needed a white hood.

The Willie Lynch letter is a hoax, which anyone who spent 2 minutes of research (or just by reading it) could ascertain. It has never existed anywhere except on the internet. So Haith is either a fool, or just doesn’t mind stooping to perpetuating ignorant urban legends to try to smack down a member of the press. Either way, he doesn’t need to be on this taxpayer’s payroll. It speaks to the sort of attorney he is.

Not a bad person? Possibly some new use of the phase of “not bad” I was hitherto unaware. “Not bad” is a distant land from “good.”

If you or a member of your family has had an accident within the last 1 years, you may be entitled to compensation. Our panel of advisors can
give you advice about making a claim and support you through the
process.