Okay, we admit: We are not big fans of Michael Rehill, the attorney, former church chancellor and retired judge who positions himself as an expert on Title IV. Far too often, he is unnecessarily rude and abrasive. He doesn’t proof his pleadings, he engages in frivolous and dilatory behavior, and he attempts to intimidate female victims of abuse. And he’s faced attorney discipline for accepting improper loans from clients and not repaying them.
So it’s not unfair to say that we got some mild glee from seeing the church attorney dispense a good smack-down in his or her responsive pleadings on the issue of redaction of names in the Amjad Samuel Title IV clergy disciplinary case in CT. Not only were we offended by Rehill’s suggestion that the Rev. Canon Robin Hammeal-Urban may be mentally ill, but his effort to introduce 475 pages of emails into the public record was purely in bad faith. Indeed, it’s nothing more than another attempt to intimidate participants. We would have thought that the extensive adverse coverage of Rehill’s efforts to intimidate a female victim of abuse would have warned him away from further such strategies, but apparently not.
Even better, church counsel didn’t lower himself to Rehill’s level. Instead, his pleadings are focused, professional, and call a spade a spade. Indeed. Rehill’s feigned indignation that the matter was not referred to a conference panel are facially ludicrous. Since Samuel denies everything, exactly what discussion does Rehill envision occurring at the conference panel level? Sounds suspiciously like a case of dilatory behavior, combined with a bad case of padding the billable hours.
For those who have the stomach to read Rehill’s obnoxious pleadings, they are below:
And for those who wish to read the polite but effective smack-down of Rehill, here are the diocesan attorney’s pleadings.
Leave a Reply