Rob Ford's Toronto

[TheTigerMaster]

The specificity of Live Leak corroborates what I've heard. Chatter is starting to go around and it's getting louder. Copying the video seems to be getting easier so the number of copies is growing. That's why my source and people they know think its release is imminent. Live Leak may be where its headed because from what I understand, they don't appear to monitor or censor content.

Did they say what exactly the meant by "imminent". Are we talking mere days here or several months?

 

[MetroMan]

Did they say what exactly the meant by "imminent". Are we talking mere days here or several months?

Imminent is "any minute now" as there seems to be a momentum growing for the video copying to be getting out of anybody's control. All you'll need is one of those new copy holders to decide to be the one to publish Toronto's most wanted video. From what I understood, Live Leak was mentioned specifically because one of those people have talked about uploading it there.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

Imminent is "any minute now" as there seems to be a momentum growing for the video copying to be getting out of anybody's control. All you'll need is one of those new copy holders to decide to be the one to publish Toronto's most wanted video. From what I understood, Live Leak was mentioned specifically because one of those people have talked about uploading it there.

Interesting. Well this thing certainly is going to come out eventually. Probably sooner than later. Just need to sit and wait.

 

[ThinkRicky]

I hope you're right, MetroMan. I can't think of anything you've been wrong about.

 

[Gavin]

Not to doubt anything MM has said, but the commenter at the Sun likely read about liveleak.com on here. Things said here first get repeated elsewhere pretty often (Reddit, for example).

 

[TheTigerMaster]

Not to doubt anything MM has said, but the commenter at the Sun likely read about liveleak.com on here. Things said here first get repeated elsewhere pretty often (Reddit, for example).

You're probably right. The comment on TO Sun was posted a full three hours after MMs post.

 

[W. K. Lis]

Councillor Doug Holyday puts his plan into action, to get his revenge on Mayor George Smitherman.

Jumping into the DeLorean, he goes back to the early days of 2010. There he is able to plant suggestions and alter strategies of the Rob Ford for Mayor campaign.

Returning to his regular timeline, he finds his plans have worked, almost. Rob Ford is now mayor. However, he also learns that he is no longer a Councillor, but a member of the provincial parliament at Queen's Park, unfortunately in opposition.

Unbeknownst to him, his return was witnessed and recorded on an iPhone, and then...

 

[typezed]

Like most people who fancy themselves pundits, Metroman is often wrong in his predictions. I think there was a point in this thread where it was predicted that Ford would be leaving in handcuffs that afternoon. Many of the predictions are open-ended. If the video doesn't appear in the next week, we won't be saying he's wrong in the present information, we'll just say it hasn't happened yet. There will be new tidbits from sources to move it along. Not that I mind his contributions, it's an interesting voice in the mix here and keeps the story moving along. I've just come to not put too much stock in these sudden hints of developments in the story. Like when a big event or disaster happens and you're watching it unfold on TV. You learn to regard half of what is said on-air as just part of the excitement and a long way from news.

I don't think anyone predicted what actually happened - they never do, about wars, or economics or anything else. No one here who believed a video existed would have predicted that two months on it still wouldn't be seen, especially with the money being raised, and that Ford would still be free to openly deny everything about it.

It's amazing really. An easily copied cellphone recording, $200,000 dollars on the table, and not one drug-dealer willing to come to the surface to collect. When sex scandals happen you can hardly keep the players out of the media. Giambrone's girl had no problem stepping forward with all the dirty details, and what was in it for her but a brief bit of notoriety? And now we hear that the police, crown attorneys and defense lawyers have all seen it, but somehow all these people have professional obligations that bar them from letting anyone know that the mayor of the city is openly lying to citizens about his involvement with criminals (if so, there's something wrong with that dynamic). Seasoned liar he may be, but how could Ford have had any belief that he could rely on all these people to let him skate through so far?

If the video comes forward I don't know if it will be the evidence of lying or the coverup that does the most damage to Ford. Was anyone paid off? Was anyone threatened? What exactly did Dave Price do?

 

[CowboyLogic]

I've been busy for a bit, but I'm back.

He made it clear that he supported Ford despite knowing about all his character flaws, which he accepted and actually argued in favour of. At that point, I knew that it would be a pointless endeavor to change his mind as he's already made up his mind. You don't try to change people like that, you simply try to rebutt the things he says in order to prevent his beliefs from spreading.

All of that could equally apply to anyone on this board. Everybody here has made up their mind against Ford, so I'm not sure why its a strike against me that I've made up my mind in favor of him. I don't agree with him on every issue, but so far, I like the job he's doing.

... and yet Cowboylogic has given many that do, whether anybody here cares to acknowledge them or not. In other words, rather than bashing him and censuring him we would do well to listen to him and understand him because he is expressing very openly here (in a forum unfriendly to his perspective) what the masses are feeling and thinking. I understand the frustration we are feeling but I for one appreciate a different perspective in this thread. It is an opportunity for informed debate. Let's not lose sight of that!

Thank you. I've been actively trying to have some honest discussions surrounding Ford and other related issues, and have been going out of my way to avoid anything that could even be construed as trolling. There are a few people here who think I'm a troll simply by virtue of the fact that I support Ford, but I don't think my post history supports that line of thinking. I believe I've been pretty respectful and I've been trying to provide a different POV, as well as challenge my own.

Such as?

Most of them are ignored.

 

[Peepers]

It's amazing really. An easily copied cellphone recording, $200,000 dollars on the table, and not one drug-dealer willing to come to the surface to collect. When sex scandals happen you can hardly keep the players out of the media. Giambrone's girl had no problem stepping forward with all the dirty details, and what was in it for her but a brief bit of notoriety? And now we hear that the police, crown attorneys and defense lawyers have all seen it, but somehow all these people have professional obligations that bar them from letting anyone know that the mayor of the city is openly lying to citizens about his involvement with criminals (if so, there's something wrong with that dynamic). Seasoned liar he may be, but how could Ford have had any belief that he could rely on all these people to let him skate through so far?

If the video comes forward I don't know if it will be the evidence of lying or the coverup that does the most damage to Ford. Was anyone paid off? Was anyone threatened? What exactly did Dave Price do?

It is hard for me to make sense of this new information being reported from various sources.

We now know the owner of the video was arrested in the big raid on Dixon a few months back.

We now know the owner retained a very prominent Lawyer - Daniel Brown - to represent him.

According to Toronto SUN sources he tried to use the video as a "get out of jail" card. The crown did not go along because the video is not proof of a crime - it only suggests a crime took place.

Assuming the SUN's sources are correct - under this scenario it would seem to me that the crown was not in possession of the video - i.e. the video was not seized in the raid - otherwise the owner would not have been in a position to try and bargain with the crown over something they already have.

It seems very likely to me that the owner new he was a target of police and did not keep the video on his person - he may have given it to a lawyer for safe keeping (if he was smart!).

This brings up another mystery for me. Why didn't the owner try to claim the $200K prize before the offer expired? We know he had a very bright Lawyer working for him who could have negotiated the sale of the video. There would have been nothing illegal in the sale so it is hard to imagine why they passed up this opportunity.

I also find it strange that the owner of the video was almost stabbed to death in jail and there are no suspects in his attempted murder? It's almost like police set him up to be killed!

Finally we know that his Lawyer - Daniel Brown - has asked to be removed from the case. What does this portend?

Lots of food for thought!

 

[Adaax]

This brings up another mystery for me. Why didn't the owner try to claim the $200K prize before the offer expired? We know he had a very bright Lawyer working for him who could have negotiated the sale of the video. There would have been nothing illegal in the sale so it is hard to imagine why they passed up this opportunity.

This is where your argument (and the previous argument, to a certain extent) break down. I imagine it would very much be a crime for Gawker to a) transfer $200,000 across an international border, and b) dump it into the bank account (or whatever) of anyone known to be connected to the drug trade.

Imagine this headline, removed from context: "$200,000 bag of cash shows up on front door of known drug dealer's house." We wouldn't be here discussing whether or not the guy should keep the money, unless we're arch-libertarians (in which case we would be arguing from a weak position with respect to the actual criminal code). Even if we say that there was only a 10% chance that this deal would end with Gawker people in front of a judge, there's no way that their own legal team would let that go down.

Gawker very quietly dumped the money into the hands of some good charities, with little explanation as to the events that led up to their decision(s). I'm guessing they found out the easy way that the transaction couldn't happen, thereby avoiding finding out the hard way.

 

[Peepers]

This is where your argument (and the previous argument, to a certain extent) break down. I imagine it would very much be a crime for Gawker to a) transfer $200,000 across an international border, and b) dump it into the bank account (or whatever) of anyone known to be connected to the drug trade.

Imagine this headline, removed from context: "$200,000 bag of cash shows up on front door of known drug dealer's house." We wouldn't be here discussing whether or not the guy should keep the money, unless we're arch-libertarians (in which case we would be arguing from a weak position with respect to the actual criminal code). Even if we say that there was only a 10% chance that this deal would end with Gawker people in front of a judge, there's no way that their own legal team would let that go down.

Gawker very quietly dumped the money into the hands of some good charities, with little explanation as to the events that led up to their decision(s). I'm guessing they found out the easy way that the transaction couldn't happen, thereby avoiding finding out the hard way.

There is nothing illegal about giving money to someone known to be connected to the drug trade as long as you are not exchanging it for drugs or anything else illicit. There is nothing illicit about the video itself in fact according to Gawker's version of events a local media outlet - almost certainly the Toronto Star - did entertain buying the video but balked at paying the then requested $40,000. The only reason that I can think of for not cashing in on the $200K Gawker offer is the owner with advice from a Lawyer feels that he can make more money by retaining the copyrights to the video. If posted on Youtube 200 Million hits could probably generate close to $200 K in ad share revenue.

 

[JWBF]

This is where your argument (and the previous argument, to a certain extent) break down. I imagine it would very much be a crime for Gawker to a) transfer $200,000 across an international border, and b) dump it into the bank account (or whatever) of anyone known to be connected to the drug trade.

Imagine this headline, removed from context: "$200,000 bag of cash shows up on front door of known drug dealer's house." We wouldn't be here discussing whether or not the guy should keep the money, unless we're arch-libertarians (in which case we would be arguing from a weak position with respect to the actual criminal code). Even if we say that there was only a 10% chance that this deal would end with Gawker people in front of a judge, there's no way that their own legal team would let that go down.

Gawker very quietly dumped the money into the hands of some good charities, with little explanation as to the events that led up to their decision(s). I'm guessing they found out the easy way that the transaction couldn't happen, thereby avoiding finding out the hard way.

Possibility versus probability, nothing more or less in your argument. It's true that perception rules a communities decisions, however, to tag percentages... well.

 

[Adaax]

There is nothing illegal about giving money to someone known to be connected to the drug trade as long as you are not exchanging it for drugs or anything else illicit. There is nothing illicit about the video itself in fact according to Gawker's version of events a local media outlet - almost certainly the Toronto Star - did entertain buying the video but balked at paying the then requested $40,000. The only reason that I can think of for not cashing in on the $200K Gawker offer is the owner with advice from a Lawyer feels that he can make more money by retaining the copyrights to the video. If posted on Youtube 200 Million hits could probably generate close to $200 K in ad share revenue.

Sure, there is no law that states, "you shall not give money to drug dealers." But there are things like laundering and racketeering, and there is RICO in the States. Nothing the FBI loves more than getting a RICO case going. Again, chances of a conviction are slim, and there are jurisdiction issues if we're talking the FBI, but if the Gawker lawyers sniff even a bit of RICO in the air, their advice would be pretty clear.

 

[Peepers]

Sure, there is no law that states, "you shall not give money to drug dealers." But there are things like laundering and racketeering, and there is RICO in the States. Nothing the FBI loves more than getting a RICO case going. Again, chances of a conviction are slim, and there are jurisdiction issues if we're talking the FBI, but if the Gawker lawyers sniff even a bit of RICO in the air, their advice would be pretty clear.

I suppose if the owner of the video purchased it from someone else using the proceeds of crime then money laundering could come into play if he turns around and sells it. I think applying RICO laws is a stretch but I get your point that things are not black and white.