* Pfeifer: ‘What I did, didn’t say about Maxwell’

Search the Archives

Contact Information

The Citizen Newspapers
310B. North Glynn Street,
Drawer 1719,
Fayetteville, GA 30214

For Advertising Information
Call 770-719-1880
or Fax 770-719-1976

Email us your news!
Letters to the Editor
Opinion
Sports
Names & Faces
Weekend
Churches
Weddings & Engagements

For technical difficulties
Click here to email the webmaster

Letters to the Editor

Pfeifer: ‘What I did, didn’t say about Maxwell’

Tue, 07/25/2006 - 4:38pm

By: Letters to the ...

There have been a couple of accusations made against me regarding what I said, or rather what I did not say, about lawyers in a recent letter.

As I answer, I’ll also try to explain why I write letters in the first place.

I write for those who have a genuine interest in events and want to have explanations and information. I write for those who believe, like I do, that elected officials owe the citizens honest information about what they do and why they do it.

I do not write for cynical people of ill will. And, I know that these are the people who hear what they want to hear, instead of what I say, and then respond to what they have imagined or distorted and not to what I said.

I can’t help or control that. And, for those people who say they don’t like reading my letters, I say don’t. Don’t read them, save yourself aggravation. I’m not writing to you.

Now, for the rest of us, what did I truly say about lawyers?

I did say that Eric Maxwell is a lawyer. I did say that I did not know what kind. I did say that I did not think that his personalized license plate, ILLSUE, was amusing. And, I did say that I thought that he took the incorrect approach when he sued the county over signs.

I did say that certain types of thinking lead directly to certain types of consequences.

I didn’t say Eric was either a member of the ACLU or a child molester. If you sincerely think I did, re-read, please. I simply used these things, as examples, of where the kind of thinking I was concerned about inevitably leads.

I specifically said that not all lawyers are like that.

Mostly, I said that Eric was running a campaign to be elected to office. It is my opinion that if he thought that the sign ordinance was bad, he should have made that an issue in his campaign and asked you, the voter, to respond. He did not. He sued instead.

I asked if someone could respond to explain why this was the way to address something in a democracy. I still haven’t heard anything about that issue, only anger over the red herring about saying bad things about lawyers.

I do believe that we have a huge problem in this country, state, county, etc. Lawyers (judges) who believe that they should make decisions for you, the people.

Based on this, I said that I did not know which kind of lawyer Eric was and that I did not want to find out by electing him and seeing what happened.

Well, that’s moot now. He is elected. So let’s move on, and we will find out some answers together. Those answers are completely up to Eric.

If, after being exposed more to him, I can see which type of lawyer he is, I’ll let you know. If he is not “one of those,” I will apologize for my suspicion.

I apologize to anyone who misunderstood me or who allowed someone else to misinterpret my remarks to you.

Even though nobody has tried to answer my question about the signs, I’ll try another question. Should I hold it against Eric that he criticized the commission? Since I am a commissioner, should I say that I might not be able to work with him unless he apologizes for what he said about the commission?

Of course not. I know that serving on the commission, or any other elected body, is not about me. I can meet Eric, or anybody else, more than halfway and work with them. Because it is supposed to be about you.

Peter Pfeifer
County Commission, Post 3
Peachtree City, Ga.

Pfeifer Made His Bed Now Time to Sleep

Submitted by Spear Road Guy on Mon, 07/31/2006 - 9:16pm.

I have to agree with some of my friends who say that Commissioner Pfeifer did more to hurt Greg Dunn’s chances than Eric Maxwell did. This letter is a typical Pfeifer-ism. Earlier on he horribly trashes upon Maxwell and throws in child molestation and the ACLU for emphasis.

Then, oops, Maxwell wins. Pfeifer’s reply is now, “I do not write for cynical people of ill will.” Wait a minute Peter, that’s what you are, go read your previous letter.

Yes, Pfeifer suffered a severe medical something-or-other and many people use that as an excuse for his loopy letters that drift aimlessly all over the place. His wife, Carolyn, should have laid down the law and made him stop writing. We all talk about the sheriff’s “Dunn is Done” T-shirt, but I think that Pfeifer’s letters ruined Dunn’s image even more.

After bad mouthing Maxwell pre-election, Pfeifer now has to go into the apology mode because he knows he’s the going to be sitting in the corner with the dunce cap on during the 2007 commission meetings.

Here is the best apology Pfeifer can render in his letter: “If, after being exposed more to him [Maxwell], I can see which type of lawyer he is, I’ll let you know. If he is not “one of those,” I will apologize for my suspicion. I apologize to anyone who misunderstood me or who allowed someone else to misinterpret my remarks to you.”

Good job Peter. Expect 2007 to be a very long year.

Vote Republican

Maxwell; Will the Lawsuits End

Submitted by cogitoergofay on Mon, 07/31/2006 - 10:02pm.

I agree that it was overboard with Peter Pfeiffer's Letter to the Editor insinuating that Eric Maxwell "might" be one of those lawyers that helps child molesters was way out of bounds. That might have cost Dunn the 260 votes he lost by. Use Peter's logic as follows: "Peter is a husband; Some husbands beat their wives; We don't know if Peter beats his wife; We hope that isn't the case; We'll just have to wait and see." No Peter doesn't beat his wife but now that the shoe is on the other foot, he probably doesn't like it.

I would also agree with Spear Road Guy about the law suits and the sign law suit in particular. The question then is this----- what will Eric Maxwell do about the lawsuits and the lawyers ?

He will sue

Submitted by oldsimon on Mon, 07/31/2006 - 10:32pm.

if he thinks he is right. Everyone who sues thinks they are right, don't they? Maybe he only obeys laws that he likes.

A Court of Law Agreed with him

Submitted by bad_ptc on Mon, 07/31/2006 - 10:45pm.

Get over it.

According to the Declaration of Independence you as an American citizen are supposed to do the “right thing”, fight injustice when you see it.

Do you have a problem with that?

Oldsimon

Submitted by bad_ptc on Mon, 07/31/2006 - 10:58pm.

Your still logged on.

Is it past you bed time?

Where’s your reply?

I can’t here you.

You Never Know Until They Sit in the Chair

Submitted by Spear Road Guy on Mon, 07/31/2006 - 10:18pm.

Cogitoergofay raises a good point. What's to keep Maxwell from doing the same thing? After all, is Maxwell going to let the sheriff run off the chain with his expenses?

Maxwell said he opposes annexation. What is he going to do if Tyrone, Fayetteville or Peachtree City tries to make such an attempt?

Look at Harold Logsdon. My friends at Flat Creek all assured me that the man was an ultra-conservative with Peachtree City values. I'd played golf with his wife and she rubbed me the wrong way, it was a sign that I missed. He has a lot of people worried.

I know Dar Thompson, but he got caught in that flap about not paying his business lease. Dar is a nice guy, but a mayor, I don't know.

Vote Republican

what are you talking about?

Submitted by snark on Mon, 07/31/2006 - 10:35pm.

After all, is Maxwell going to let the sheriff run off the chain with his expenses?

That's the worst example of a straw man argument I've ever seen.

You don't seem to be interested in the facts, just in tossing around nonsense in the hopes of muddying the waters. For the folks who are interested, PTC Guy linked the judge's order here.

Knowing

Submitted by PTC Guy on Mon, 07/31/2006 - 10:33pm.

No spinning this back into an unfounded attack on the Sheriff.

These issues have been covered to painful repetition.

He is not going to do squat to stop annexation by cities and towns because he knows he does not have either the authority to grant or deny such. The State does.

Where did he ever say he opposes annexation?

You were not very discerning on Lodgson. PCDC and the Good Ole Boys backed him!

-----------------------------
Keeping it real and to the core of the issue, not the peripherals.

When we vote for an “unknown”

Submitted by bad_ptc on Mon, 07/31/2006 - 10:28pm.

That’s exactly what we did with Eric.

I did have the opportunity to speak directly with Eric, he answered his cell phone, on a number if issues and he impressed me with his willingness to at least speak with me.

I called him out of the blue and when I asked him when he might have time to speak with me he said, “now works for me”. That alone was worth my vote.

As with Logson, we’ll just have to wait and see.

I hope we were right.

I was Right

Submitted by PTC Guy on Mon, 07/31/2006 - 10:35pm.

Logsdon was going back to everything we needed to get away from.

He has lived up to every thing I said he would do in the election.

Now, we are stuck with him.

But we did get rid of Dunn. Wells next.

-----------------------------
Keeping it real and to the core of the issue, not the peripherals.

Simple Answer

Submitted by PTC Guy on Mon, 07/31/2006 - 10:16pm.

Stop filing suits meant to grab power that violate standing law and procedures.

The Sheriff is not a fool that needs to be threatened and sued. If something wrong just show him.

And if not wrong, don't open ones mouth.

-----------------------------
Keeping it real and to the core of the issue, not the peripherals.

Yo Pfeifer!

Submitted by snark on Mon, 07/31/2006 - 9:20pm.

They are throwing you to the wolves.

Not throwing anyting

Submitted by bad_ptc on Mon, 07/31/2006 - 10:19pm.

He jumped!

So, Peter, you have spent all your

Submitted by tonto707 on Thu, 07/27/2006 - 8:47pm.

life parsing words and accomplishing nothing independently. No problem, some people were created for just that. I can see in advance that you will fall in line behind new leadership and help accomplish good things, if only by a + vote, but that's o k. Eric is a leader, you are a follower, and that happens from time to time.

This presents a great opportunity for you to be a part of a good thing, hang in there and do it!

And Peter, the signs, forget it, Eric won, BOC lost, it's over, turn the page.

I'll respond to you!

Submitted by lifeinptc on Thu, 07/27/2006 - 8:08pm.

"if he thought the sign ordinance was bad he should have made it an issue in his campaign and asked you, the voter, to respond. He did not. Instead he sued us."

Pfiefer. If you thought the Sheriff was wrong about the Marshals, the drug money, who they use to fix their cars, how they do their purchasing or what building they put their helicopter in the three amigos should have made this a campaign issue and asked us, the voter to respond. You would have gotten the response Dunn just got. But you did not. Instead you sued. Five times.

Do you let anyone proof read your content for clarity?

Campaigning

Submitted by bad_ptc on Thu, 07/27/2006 - 8:17pm.

Peter keep on campaigning. At this rate your opponent wont have to spend a dime to beat you.

So Maxwell

Submitted by PTC Guy on Thu, 07/27/2006 - 7:48pm.

also misunderstood you?

Is that why, in the other paper, he voiced concern about being able to work with you? That you owed him an apology?

-----------------------------
Keeping it real and to the core of the issue, not the peripherals.

Misunderstood

Submitted by bad_ptc on Thu, 07/27/2006 - 7:56pm.

Are you saying that Peter is like those “misunderstood” teenagers we keep hearing so much about? Like the teenagers, maybe it’s the crowd he’s been hanging out with.

Well

Submitted by PTC Guy on Thu, 07/27/2006 - 8:06pm.

There are definite compatibilities.

-----------------------------
Keeping it real and to the core of the issue, not the peripherals.

Peter,

Submitted by tonto707 on Thu, 07/27/2006 - 7:45pm.

I expect you will be working with Eric or sitting on the sidelines, like some other commissioners did for several years. It's a new game and sooner you recognize it, the better.

Re the sign ordinance Eric was charged under, only a damn fool would choose to obey an illegal ordinance, but we all understand that's what you and the other two amigos expected. Problem is, it didn't happen. Hopefully Jan 1, 2007 we will see better leadership on the commission and we can get on with better county government.

Why don't you try to help?

Peter out of line

Submitted by Flydecajon on Thu, 07/27/2006 - 7:11pm.

Peter you commented, if you do not want us to read your letters than do not write them, as a county commissioner in post 3 people are going to read. Apparently you did not think so you are wrong and out in two years.

So you maded the comment that Eric is not in the ACLU, so what do you have against the AClU? Still sounds like you are a racist. Buddy you stepped in it and now will have to pay the consequences like it or not!!

Maybe even Sam has a chance against you in 2!!

ACLU

Submitted by yada yada yada on Mon, 07/31/2006 - 9:27pm.

If you have to ask what is wrong with the ACLU, you are hopeless.

Common Ground

Submitted by Git Real on Mon, 07/31/2006 - 9:29pm.

Finally.

Now go to sleep Janet.

Search the Archives

Navigation

Contact Information

Pfeifer: ‘What I did, didn’t say about Maxwell’

Comment viewing options

Comment viewing options