The wrath of Khan
Ayoub Khan, the Liberal Democrat city councillor and holder of the local services cabinet portfolio, who was named and shamed in the Aston election court judgement, is facing a tough fight to save his political career.
Khan continues to protest his innocence, despite being found by Elections Commissioner Timothy Straker QC to have taken part in a "scurrilous" plot to implicate Aston Labour councillor Muhammed Afzal in a witness-nobbling attempt.
And as a barrister, Khan must realise the damage that Mr Straker's blistering denunciation could inflict.
Mr Straker noted that he could not state that Khan behaved "either creditably or honourably".
As for Saeed Aehmed, the former Lib Dem candiate for Aston, whose disability grant payments were described by Mr Straker as "dishonest", his political career must surely be at an end.
For Khan - an intelligent man and an energetic campaigner who has the ability to become one of the Lib Dem's most effective councillors - the election court result is little short of disastrous.
It is all very well for Khan to rail against the Elections Commissioner, describing his findings as unbelievable, and to huff and puff about a judicial review, but the damage to his reputation this close to the May 1 council elections is probably terminal.
Labour have won the past two Aston seats to be contested, by large majorities, and Khan is now looking highly vulnerable both to Labour and Respect.
But he has only himself to blame for backing Mr Aehmed, a man whose evidence in court was dismissed out of hand by Mr Straker. It would appear, and this is certainly Straker's version of events, that Khan's single-minded determination to inflict political damage on Coun Afzal clouded his judgement.
The witness-nobbling claim, which could have landed Afzal in prison if proved, was launched by Khan when in giving evidence to the court he stated that Afzal had approached relatives of his with a view to dissuading him, Ayoub Khan, from giving evidence.
What Khan couldn't have known, however, was that the pudding would be well and truly over-egged by Aehmed, who described a scene in which Afzal supposedly threatened "to do" Khan if he turned up in court.
The extremely serious implications of this led to Khan being recalled to the witness box, where he was obliged to state that he had no knowledge of any such threat being issued.
From that point onwards the Election Commissioner's findings were heading in one direction only,
To quote Mr Straker: "Plainly, such evidence if believed could have a profound effect on the view taken of Mr Afzal or, if disbelieved, on the evidence of Mr Khan. On the face of it, it is surprising that such allegations emerged in the way they did.
"Absent an explanation one would have supposed that such serious matters which include an attempt to pervert the course of justice would be drawn to the attention of the court at the earliest possible stage and reported to the police by a member of the bar, however junior."
Ouch, baby. Very ouch.