I feel very comfortable with any involvement our committee members had in the consultant selection process. But regardless of one's POV on that subject, my point was that Shadid has no compunction about asking for information on people he opposes politically. I'd be interested to know just how many open records requests he has filed, as I've heard of many. I can only imagine his public outrage were he denied. Where's the fairness, consistency and transparency in his behavior? While I understand wanting one's children not apprised of one's misbehavior, he should have thought about how much public scrutiny is given to elected officials prior to running for mayor.

The Oklahoman's front page yellow jouranlism hit piece a bit differnt than trying to shine a light on the myriad conflict of interest that is OKC governance.

Why is it a hit piece? A candidate pleads the fifth in a divorce proceeding that involves illegal drug use and he won't open the records for the public. He was properly called out.

Everybody has skeletons in the closet. I think it's fair to see the whole picture.

He didn't pronounce it the same way Ed does.

Knowing them both....I'm pretty sure I am right.

Channel 5 is taking him to task-

Shadid fights for sealed divorce files | Oklahoma City - OKC - KOCO.com (http://www.koco.com/news/oklahomanews/okc/shadid-fights-for-sealed-divorce-files/-/11777584/23388626/-/oqvd65z/-/index.html)

I'm sure they will be reporting on the "pot smoking mayor" allegations too. Just like the Oklahoman.

Why is it a hit piece? A candidate pleads the fifth in a divorce proceeding that involves illegal drug use and he won't open the records for the public. He was properly called out.

Everybody has skeletons in the closet. I think it's fair to see the whole picture.

DOK only does "investigative jouranalism" on state employees and political enemies.

If it's just smoking pot, I don't care. The last 3 Presidents have done it, it's not that big a deal.

Knowing them both....I'm pretty sure I am right.

We know Ed pronounces it shuh-deed.
The clip from PBS (and a million other places) says "Anthony Shu-deed" reporting.
The same. There are numerous examples of Anthony's reporting all over the net.
I don't know how Ed pronounced it before he legally changed his name.

agreed, Ok meeds to come out of the dark ages on this issue. It's friggin legal in a border state. Why do we always have to be that ratifier of change?!

Edgar, what part do you not understand?

1) Shadid - I plead 5th
2) Shadid - it was only about smoking pot 10 years ago
3) Shadid - Don't unseal the record because I don't want the kids to know

He doesn't want the kids to know what, that he smoked pot 10 years ago? The kids already know that. He said it on the news yesterday. If 2 is true why is 3 necessary? Is it possible #2 is a lie and it wasn't just about smoking pot 10 years ago?

As a Shadid supporter - aren't you the least bit curious what he is hiding? I mean, if he will lie to everyone he will lie to anyone - including you.

He should just man-up and say what happened, unseal the records, admit mistakes in his past and that he learned from them, state his case for why he should be Mayor now and go on from there. The people who support him will probably still support him, the people who don't - won't, but at least he will have his self-respect intact.

Oh the web we weave, when at first we try to deceive.

Edgar, what part do you not understand?

1) Shadid - I plead 5th
2) Shadid - it was only about smoking pot 10 years ago
3) Shadid - Don't unseal the record because I don't want the kids to know

He doesn't want the kids to know what, that he smoked pot 10 years ago? The kids already know that. He said it on the news yesterday. If 2 is true why is 3 necessary? Is it possible #2 is a lie and it wasn't just about smoking pot 10 years ago?

As a Shadid supporter - aren't you the least bit curious what he is hiding? I mean, if he will lie to everyone he will lie to anyone - including you.

He should just man-up and say what happened, unseal the records, admit mistakes in his past and that he learned from them, state his case for why he should be Mayor now and go on from there. The people who support him will probably still support him, the people who don't - won't, but at least he will have his self-respect intact.

Oh the web we weave, when at first we try to deceive.

Let me take a stab at one of the possibilities...there's some end of the marriage he-said-she-said that everyone relevant, including the judge, agreed is no one's business to know? The tabloid wants it all.

If it's just smoking pot, I don't care. The last 3 Presidents have done it, it's not that big a deal.

Would you care if your mayor, present or future, smokes pot on a regular basis while in office and while it's still against the law?


Evidently some people and some media orgs around here are very concerned about criminal activity by public officials even if you aren't. Not all of the public officials, just the ones they don't agree with.

Would you care if your mayor, present or future, smokes pot on a regular basis while in office and while it's still against the law?


Evidently some people and some media orgs around here are very concerned about criminal activity by public officials even if you aren't. Not all of the public officials, just the ones they don't agree with.

no more than if he consumed vino with dinner.

Nice dodge of JTF's question.

no more than if he consumed vino with dinner.

I couldn't care less who smokes pot. It should be legal but it isn't. A public official doing it while in office has a serious lack of good judgement problem and shouldn't be in the public position.

Nice dodge of JTF's question.

Yeah. The obvious answer is he pled the fifth on knowing where Hoffa's body is buried and the judge is also determined to keep that a secret.

I could care less who smokes marijuana when. I consider it comparable to having an after dinner drink or two. This is despite the fact that I don't smoke it. What I'm looking at in my choice for mayor is what they've done and can do in the future for this city.

Please tell me the OKC FOP is no longer endorsing him for mayor. Even if this isn't true, this not good for the FOP to support a man for mayor who can't even pass the OKC PD background check.

Edgar,

Please answer this question. Are you going to vote for Ed ?

Yes or No....

The Okie, "Ed Shadid: Worst Week Ever?"

The Okie » Ed Shadid: Worst Week Ever? (http://www.theokie.com/ed-shadid-worst-week-ever/)

The Lost Ogle has done a "story" on this.

The Oklahoman does not like the divorced, evil marijuana smoker Ed Shadid | The Lost Ogle (http://www.thelostogle.com/2013/12/09/the-oklahoman-does-not-like-the-divorced-evil-marijuana-smoker-ed-shadid/#more-40388)

Edgar,

Please answer this question. Are you going to vote for Ed ?

Yes or No....

He pleads the fifth.

The Fifth has been PlED.

(sp)

I haven't read the pleadings, but I don't buy the whole 5th Amendment right to seal court records thing. The 5th is your right not to incriminate yourself. If you've already testified or offered evidence that incriminates you, I tend to think you've waived that right.

If a guy wanted to sell you a car but he wouldn't show you part of the maintenance history - wouldn't that bother you? There's nothing that REQUIRES him to tell you everything, but there is something that he doesn't want you to know, and he's asking you to trust him. There's no going back - once you've written the check the car is yours.

Do you buy that car, or the other one that is more fully-disclosed? Neither is perfect, but one of them clearly has a hidden defect.

Edgar,

Please answer this question. Are you going to vote for Ed ?

Yes or No....

He pleads the ED...

Can I throw something out there as a casual observer? Who the hell gets addicted to weed? I put that in the same category to being addicted to chocolate, sex, video games, or some other 1st world BS someone has made up to not take responsibility for their actions. Just man up and say,"yeah I liked to toke up a lot back in the day." Nobody would really care nowadays.

For the record, I really do not like digging up dirt on people. But considering Shadid has shown little restraint in dishing withering personal attacks against Cornett while being rather thin skinned when it is served right back, it really shows a lot of hypocrisy.

How does Dr. Shadid get a pass on a drug addiction and Dr. Lori Hansen (Wes Lane's wife) does not? I'm sure that there are different degrees of abuse, but as MDs they both fall under the same veil.

If either was a pilot (even a private pilot), then the FAA aeromedical division would be all over both of them, grounding them until they sent in a lot of paperwork, received full medical background checks, and probably underwent substance abuse treatment and counselling.

Yes, since Shadid is a physician, there are other issues involved when it comes to drug use.

And as far as addiction, weed can be very addictive from a mental standpoint. I've known lots of people that smoke it almost every day as a coping mechanism.

How does Dr. Shadid get a pass on a drug addiction and Dr. Lori Hansen (Wes Lane's wife) does not? I'm sure that there are different degrees of abuse, but as MDs they both fall under the same veil.

If either was a pilot (even a private pilot), then the FAA aeromedical division would be all over both of them, grounding them until they sent in a lot of paperwork, received full medical background checks, and probably underwent substance abuse treatment and counselling.

The issue with Lori Hansen, from my perspective, isn't so much anything she did, it's what her husband did. Wes Lane put a whole lot of people in prison for the exact same thing his wife did, then she walked away with (as I recall) a deferred sentence on a misdemeanor.

How does Dr. Shadid get a pass on a drug addiction and Dr. Lori Hansen (Wes Lane's wife) does not? I'm sure that there are different degrees of abuse, but as MDs they both fall under the same veil.

If either was a pilot (even a private pilot), then the FAA aeromedical division would be all over both of them, grounding them until they sent in a lot of paperwork, received full medical background checks, and probably underwent substance abuse treatment and counselling.

Wes Lane's wife was actually stealing Lortab from the non-profit she was working for and was caught writing numerous prescriptions for herself. That's far more serious than just being a user of marijuana. And yes, she got off easy - 5 years probation and gave up her medical license for a few years.

Oklahoma Supreme Court takes jurisdiction in OPUBCO case seeking sealed Shadid divorce records (12/9/13 6:28 pm) (http://m.therepublic.com/view/story/a7187e21a3dc40da99d188359ca5ea7f/OK--OPUBCO-Open-Records)

He pleads the ED...

I actually think Edgar is about 16 or 17 years old. I could be wrong, but I don't think so.

The Lost Ogle has done a "story" on this.

The Oklahoman does not like the divorced, evil marijuana smoker Ed Shadid | The Lost Ogle (http://www.thelostogle.com/2013/12/09/the-oklahoman-does-not-like-the-divorced-evil-marijuana-smoker-ed-shadid/#more-40388)

Better writing and far more honest than most of what the joke publishes. (Steve's writing notwithstanding.)

I does seem to be an usually aggressive stance taken by the Oklahoman, especially the above-the-fold, all caps Sunday headline.

Regardless of who you favor in this election, imagine that was YOUR candidate being treated in this manner.


Sometimes I wonder if things have changed in OKC as much as we would all like to believe.

Oklahoma Supreme Court takes jurisdiction in OPUBCO case seeking sealed Shadid divorce records (12/9/13 6:28 pm) (http://m.therepublic.com/view/story/a7187e21a3dc40da99d188359ca5ea7f/OK--OPUBCO-Open-Records)

Can a lawyer please explain this?

Thanks in advance.

I am a criminal attorney and not appellate attorney (even though I had a HUGE win at the Supreme Ct today) but I will take a stab at it. In Oklahoma, our appellate courts are a little different. On a criminal case, you appeal to the Oklahoma Ct of Criminal appeals. Regardless of what happens there, that is the last court in OK you can appeal to. You can not appeal to the OK Supreme Court from the OK Ct of Criminal Appeals. However, on the civil side (which this would be), you appeal directly to the OK Supreme Court and then they will assign it down to the OK Ct of Civil Appeals. If you don't like the opinion of the Ct of Civil Appeals, you can ask the OK Supreme Ct to review it by filing a Petition for Certiorari and they may or may not pick it back up. This takes time so you another option is when file the initial direct appeal to the OK Sup Ct, you also file a motion asking them to retain original jurisdiction and not send it down to the Ct of Civil Appeals. This sounds like what has happened in this case.

Here is the link to the case docket

OCIS Case Summary for PR - 112327- Shadid vs Hammond () (http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/GetCaseInformation.asp?submitted=true&viewtype=caseGeneral&casemasterID=113245&db=Appellate)

I am a criminal attorney and not appellate attorney (even though I had a HUGE win at the Supreme Ct today) but I will take a stab at it. In Oklahoma, our appellate courts are a little different. On a criminal case, you appeal to the Oklahoma Ct of Criminal appeals. Regardless of what happens there, that is the last court in OK you can appeal to. You can not appeal to the OK Supreme Court from the OK Ct of Criminal Appeals. However, on the civil side (which this would be), you appeal directly to the OK Supreme Court and then they will assign it down to the OK Ct of Civil Appeals. If you don't like the opinion of the Ct of Civil Appeals, you can ask the OK Supreme Ct to review it by filing a Petition for Certiorari and they may or may not pick it back up. This takes time so you another option is when file the initial direct appeal to the OK Sup Ct, you also file a motion asking them to retain original jurisdiction and not send it down to the Ct of Civil Appeals. This sounds like what has happened in this case.

Here is the link to the case docket

OCIS Case Summary for PR - 112327- Shadid vs Hammond () (http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/GetCaseInformation.asp?submitted=true&viewtype=caseGeneral&casemasterID=113245&db=Appellate)

So does that mean the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case and will issue a ruling, or does that mean they are kicking it back to the lower court?

And congrats on your win!

Sounds like they are keeping the case and will make the decision

Sounds like they are keeping the case and will make the decision

That was my interpretation as well. It seems they tipped their hand a bit regarding Oklahoma's Open Records Act.

Shadid's counsel filed an application to assume original jurisidiction and a writ of prohibition.

As already noted, the goal of the former is to have the state S.CT. cut to the case on the writ of prohibition.

The writ seeks to have S.Ct issue an order to the lower court (state district court) prohibiting the unsealing of that which has been sealed.

There is also an application for expedited proceedings filed by Shadid's counsel.

Any action in lower court is stayed pending action by the state S.Ct.

Looks like the Supreme Court has ordered an evidentiary hearing in the trial court to determine which records should be sealed and which not. Sounds like a big loss for Shadid.

Looks like the Supreme Court has ordered an evidentiary hearing in the trial court to determine which records should be sealed and which not. Sounds like a big loss for Shadid.

You guys are still using legalese. Please interpret for the peasants.

Bottom line...the Supreme Court ruled that the Oklahoman had a right to the divorce file. The Supremes just stated that the Oklahoman needed to file a formal motion with the trial judge seeking the opening of the file. It appears that the file will be opened and we shall see what all the hubbub is about.

Bottom line...the Supreme Court ruled that the Oklahoman had a right to the divorce file. The Supremes just stated that the Oklahoman needed to file a formal motion with the trial judge seeking the opening of the file. It appears that the file will be opened and we shall see what all the hubbub is about.

Well that escalated quickly.

A little more...the Court ruled that just because parties to a lawsuit agree to seal a file (which is what happened here) that is not grounds to seal the file. From what I can tell, Judge Hammond was prepared to open the file, and Shadid did not like the direction it was going so he filed for a "Writ of Prohibition" with the Supreme Court seeking an order from the Supreme Court to prohibit the opening of the file. He also filed for an emergency order staying the opening of the file. That was granted back in November, but today the Court ruled it was a "public record" and not subject to sealing. I guess, I am now curious myself what all the fuss is about coming from Shadid. He has spent a bundle of money trying to keep this thing sealed. And his "to protect the kids" argument is crap. No normal person divorce case gets this protection.

Justice Taylor, in his concurring opinion apparently stated thusly...."There are no provisions in the Oklahoma Open Records Act that allow parties to simply agree to seal a public record and submit a summary agreed order to the court. Sealing a public record should be a very rare event that occurs in only the most compelling of circumstances,”

Bottom line in all this...Shadid lost this round.

Justice Taylor, in his concurring opinion apparently stated thusly...."There are no provisions in the Oklahoma Open Records Act that allow parties to simply agree to seal a public record and submit a summary agreed order to the court. Sealing a public record should be a very rare event that occurs in only the most compelling of circumstances,”

Bottom line in all this...Shadid lost this round.

Thank you! So how many "rounds" are left?

Not a lawyer, but wondering if Shadid's counsel could argue 51 OS 24A5 d. which talks about exempting from open records legal-medical records related to investigations, hearsay, medical examinations, etc. ?

I also noticed an exemption in the act regarding certain financial transactions related to livestock. If the answer to the above is no then I just find it kind of hilarious, and extremely Oklahoma, that cows in this state would seem to have a greater right to privacy than someone filing divorce paperwork.

If I lived in OKC I would not be voting for Shadid, I just don't care for his viewpoints. But even so that doesn't change my mind on the privacy aspect of this.

Thank you! So how many "rounds" are left?

Well, that is not a simple question to answer. The Supremes ordered that the Oklahoman had to file a formal request to open the files with Judge Hammonds, who was the trial judge. She will then issue an order of some sort, and my guess will be to open the whole file. But Shadid will probably make some further sort of objection to some or all of the records. Following her order, he may very well file an appeal of the order back to the Supremes appealing what she had ordered to be released. It most likely will be a futile appeal as the dicta in the opinion appears to indicate the Supremes think the file should be open. But we shall see. I don't know what the info is, but Shadid sure is afraid of what it will mean to his campaign.

And i will say this...from the news reports about the subject of this case...I do not believe the pleading of the 5th had anything to do with his marihuana addiction. He has now openly admitted that point. So, his refusing to answer certain questions as the answers may tend to incriminate him in a criminal matter must be related to something else. I don't know what it is...but in a divorce case there are several things that come to mind that may be the issue. I am a former divorce attorney now handling only criminal cases. In divorce cases, most of the time, the main issue is money, and how much someone makes. Now, please understand, I am not alleging Shadid committed any crime, but in a divorce, the wife may have alleged he had hidden income from his medical practice and if true, that would be a violation of tax laws. If that were admitted by someone, the Court would be requited to report that information to the state and the IRS and a prosecution could occur. There could have been allegations from the wife that he had committed some sort of medicare fraud. It could be an allegation that he had been writing scripts to himself for narcotics (ala, Wes Lane's wife). My guess though is that it was an allegation of under reporting of income. Thus a possible tax fraud matter.

Well, that is not a simple question to answer. The Supremes ordered that the Oklahoman had to file a formal request to open the files with Judge Hammonds, who was the trial judge. She will then issue an order of some sort, and my guess will be to open the whole file. But Shadid will probably make some further sort of objection to some or all of the records. Following her order, he may very well file an appeal of the order back to the Supremes appealing what she had ordered to be released. It most likely will be a futile appeal as the dicta in the opinion appears to indicate the Supremes think the file should be open. But we shall see. I don't know what the info is, but Shadid sure is afraid of what it will mean to his campaign.

And i will say this...from the news reports about the subject of this case...I do not believe the pleading of the 5th had anything to do with his marihuana addiction. He has now openly admitted that point. So, his refusing to answer certain questions as the answers may tend to incriminate him in a criminal matter must be related to something else. I don't know what it is...but in a divorce case there are several things that come to mind that may be the issue. I am a former divorce attorney now handling only criminal cases. In divorce cases, most of the time, the main issue is money, and how much someone makes. Now, please understand, I am not alleging Shadid committed any crime, but in a divorce, the wife may have alleged he had hidden income from his medical practice and if true, that would be a violation of tax laws. If that were admitted by someone, the Court would be requited to report that information to the state and the IRS and a prosecution could occur. There could have been allegations from the wife that he had committed some sort of medicare fraud. It could be an allegation that he had been writing scripts to himself for narcotics (ala, Wes Lane's wife). My guess though is that it was an allegation of under reporting of income. Thus a possible tax fraud matter.

Thank you for making this understandable to average people. I thought it was odd that folks were jumping on the "it's only about marijuana -- no big deal" bandwagon, too, because he had already publicly admitted to using marijuana. Therefore, it would seem preposterous for him to spend tens of thousands of dollars on an appeal to the Oklahoma Supreme Court to keep secret what he had already publicly acknowledged. On the news stations, he said his Fifth Amendment plea was "only about marijuana." If this is unsealed and we find out his Fifth Amendment plea is related to more than marijuana use, we will know immediately about his honesty on this issue. And I project: if he he has lied on camera about his Fifth Amendment plea, this race will be over.

A little more...the Court ruled that just because parties to a lawsuit agree to seal a file (which is what happened here) that is not grounds to seal the file. From what I can tell, Judge Hammond was prepared to open the file, and Shadid did not like the direction it was going so he filed for a "Writ of Prohibition" with the Supreme Court seeking an order from the Supreme Court to prohibit the opening of the file. He also filed for an emergency order staying the opening of the file. That was granted back in November, but today the Court ruled it was a "public record" and not subject to sealing. I guess, I am now curious myself what all the fuss is about coming from Shadid. He has spent a bundle of money trying to keep this thing sealed. And his "to protect the kids" argument is crap. No normal person divorce case gets this protection.

This is what galls me the most.

1. He seems to be using his kids as a shield to protect himself from disclosure.

2. He is obviously spending tons of dough to keep secret what he has already publicly acknowledged (if you believe him that it's "only about marijuana").

3. You are correct. He masquerades like he's a savior for the everyman, when the everyman would never have their divorce records sealed. It doesn't happen. He is a powerful, wealthy, and connected person and he used those advantages to have his records sealed, when those of us who are working stiffs would never be granted such a luxury. I'm a populist in many ways, but this guy doesn't represent the average Joe -- despite his paternalistic rhetoric.

This is what galls me the most.]

3. You are correct. He masquerades like he's a savior for the everyman, when the everyman would never have their divorce records sealed. It doesn't happen. He is a powerful, wealthy, and connected person and he used those advantages to have his records sealed, when those of us who are working stiffs would never be granted such a luxury. I'm a populist in many ways, but this guy doesn't represent the average Joe -- despite his paternalistic rhetoric.

Agreed. However, let's be honest. I've been in politics. I've held elective position in a state post. Don't let anyone kid you that politicians only care about the peeps. It just isn't true. Maybe at first. But after a while, nearly every one of our elected officials have an angle. Come on...who would spend tens of thousands of dollars for a position that pays next to nothing? (City Council) They do it because it pays off for them in spades in other ways, if not directly. There may be some altruistic reasons, but the main reasons are for the betterment of self. Mayor Mick and Councilman Shadid too. Neither are saviors. They are politicians who at the end of the day are out for themselves. They do good things for the city, yes. They have some good ideas, yes. They want to improve the city in their own ways. But in the end...their main motivation is to better themselves in money or power, or both. That's just a fact. And I believe we all in some way know that. We just choose to side with the one who wants for the city what we want in the way we want it. And it so doing, we turn a blind eye to the self centered aspects of our elected representatives.

Agreed. However, let's be honest. I've been in politics. I've held elective position in a state post. Don't let anyone kid you that politicians only care about the peeps. It just isn't true. Maybe at first. But after a while, nearly every one of our elected officials have an angle. Come on...who would spend tens of thousands of dollars for a position that pays next to nothing? (City Council) They do it because it pays off for them in spades in other ways, if not directly. There may be some altruistic reasons, but the main reasons are for the betterment of self. Mayor Mick and Councilman Shadid too. Neither are saviors. They are politicians who at the end of the day are out for themselves. They do good things for the city, yes. They have some good ideas, yes. They want to improve the city in their own ways. But in the end...their main motivation is to better themselves in money or power, or both. That's just a fact. And I believe we all in some way know that. We just choose to side with the one who wants for the city what we want in the way we want it. And it so doing, we turn a blind eye to the self centered aspects of our elected representatives.

I'm not naive. I get this. I will say, however, that Shadid has said publicly that he is a "servant." Knowing him well, and knowing his innate hypocrisy, he is in an elite class of fraudulent politicians. He is clearly hungry for power, in that he can appoint people to key boards. But he is anything but a servant. He preaches openness in government. He preaches democracy. But his short stint as a Councilman has showed how little regard he has for the peeps and their votes. He is uniquely self-aggrandizing as far as politicians I've seen.

Let me take a stab at one of the possibilities...there's some end of the marriage he-said-she-said that everyone relevant, including the judge, agreed is no one's business to know? The tabloid wants it all.

Yes, but now that same judge is saying it is relevant after all.

No real surprise. No real surprise if we find out either or both of the candidates should be on the Group W bench. If so, that still won't change my opinion of how either the tabloid or the haters are handling it.

You know, the man is an elected leader. Some so-called pro OKC people are salivating that this might be really bad scandalous news.

If it really is scandalous, I just want it out now. It's far better for OKC for a mayoral candidate to have his campaign ruined than for it to come out after he manages to get elected.

If it really is scandalous, I just want it out now. It's far better for OKC for a mayoral candidate to have his campaign ruined than for it to come out after he manages to get elected.

I agree. And the pot smoking allegations about the current mayor we are about to re-elect?

If it really is scandalous, I just want it out now. It's far better for OKC for a mayoral candidate to have his campaign ruined than for it to come out after he manages to get elected.

I agree. The last thing Oklahoma City, with its fragile emergence in the national eye as a city to watch, is something that could make us a national joke. I don't like the idea of poking in people's personal business, but an elected official in a major office is not an average citizen. I have enough reasons to vote against him based on his behavior as an elected official that whatever he has in that document won't change my vote. But the voting public, now that this has all been dragged out, needs to know whether he's done something that in their eyes would make him unworthy of the office. Perhaps it will all be much ado about nothing. If that's the case, the DOK will look silly and he will have the sympathy of the citizens. Dunno.



I agree. And the pot smoking allegations about the current mayor we are about to re-elect?

Personally, I don't think pot smoking by any candidate is a reason not to vote for them. It has nothing to do with why I'm not voting for Shadid. But if someone has real data, not just one statement made by a guy who entertains himself by making outrageous statements, then the public who is interested deserves to know.

I agree. And the pot smoking allegations about the current mayor we are about to re-elect?

Does Mayor Mick smoke pot ?

I agree. And the pot smoking allegations about the current mayor we are about to re-elect?

Do you know who Wayne Coyne is? Are you familiar at all with his schtick?

The most pathetic thing Shadid did in this latest saga was to use Coyne's comments. It makes him and his kool-aid drinkers look pathetic and foolish. It actually makes Shadid look like a kook.