Rob Ford's Toronto

[Peepers]

After all the word twisting. The fact still stands that what Ford did was a "conflict of interest". He solicited donations with city logo for his personal donation campaign for his football team. He was given a warning twice about it. And he was urged to return money to the donators, but he refused. Also, some of the people awarded contracts also happen to have donated money. It leads to a conflict of interest. He shouldn't have involved himself in such a situation. He might not have received any monetary gain personally, but he used his position (city logo) to solicit donations. As someone wrote to complain that it didn't feel right. The person said he/she felt like if they donated, they would gain something from it.

And this, with all due respect, is where you are wrong. Soliciting donations using city letterhead is not a conflict of interest under the MCIA (Municipal Conflict of Interest Act). It was deemed to be "misconduct" by the so-called "Integrity" commissioner (the same David Miller appointed "integrity" commissioner who found nothing wrong with Kyle Rae spending $12,000 in taxpayer funds on a farewell party for himself) but "misconduct" and "conflict of interest" are two entirely separate things. The judge erred when he conflated alleged conflict of interest with alleged misconduct.

 

[MetroMan]

^ A lot of people seem to not understand this case. The conflict of interest occurred when Ford spoke to and voted on letting himself off the hook from paying $3150. He personally benefitted financially from this vote. This trial was not about raising the money. That was dealt with by the Integrity Commissioner and City Council.

Peepers: Extra Extra! Ford lawyer said judge who convicted him made mistakes! Duh.

Ford's defence literally has no new arguments. They're just going through the motions hoping that the Divisional Court panel will disagree with Hackland's original ruling. Ford's chances are almost nil here. This case is not that complicated. Ford admitted in open court to knowingly voting so there was no error in judgement. The argument that the City didn't have authority to impose the penalty on Ford to begin with was summarily debunked in the ruling. Peepers, you should read the ruling sometime.

As for Hackland "having it in for Ford", Conservatives tend to turn everybody into a left wing pinko when they go against Ford. Stintz, Hackland, Parker -- all Conservatives -- are pinkos when they vote against Rob. FYI: Justice Charles Hackland was appointed by Rob's own fishing buddy Stephen Harper.

 

[Peepers]

A lot of people seem to not understand this case. The conflict of interest occurred when Ford spoke to and voted on letting himself off the hook from paying $3150. He personally benefitted financially from this vote. This trial was not about raising the money. That was dealt with by the Integrity Commissioner and City Council.

Yes a lot of people seem to not understand this case. Including you. City Council did not have the legal authority to impose a penalty requiring Ford to "re-pay" money that he did not receive (see my comments above) therefore it is legally impossible for Ford to have been in "conflict of interest" by voting on this motion.

Ford's defence literally has no new arguments. They're just going through the motions hoping that the Divisional Court panel will disagree with Hackland's original ruling. Ford's chances are almost nil here. This case is not that complicated. Ford admitted in open court to knowingly voting so there was no error in judgement. The argument that the City didn't have authority to impose the penalty on Ford to begin with was summarily debunked in the ruling. Peepers, you should read the ruling sometime.

The defense may not have any new arguments ( I would be surprised if they did) but the arguments will be heard by new sets of ears (hopefully not biased ears as Hackland obviously was).

I have read Hacklands ruling word-for-word. Have you read the factum from Fords Lawyers? You say that "Ford admitted in open court to knowingly voting so there was no error in judgement". Do you understand the concept of "error in judgement"? Assuming for a second it was wrong for Ford to vote on this matter (even though it wasn't because the councils decision was "ultra vires" , i.e. beyond their powers) he could still be excused for making an error in judgement if he can prove that he was not willfully and totally ignorant of the law, which he can because he excused himself from many votes in the past where there was a real conflict of interest.

As for Hackland "having it in for Ford", Conservatives tend to turn everybody into a left wing pinko when they go against Ford. Stintz, Hackland, Parker -- all Conservatives -- are pinkos when they vote against Rob. FYI: Justice Charles Hackland was appointed by Rob's own fishing buddy Stephen Harper.

I did not suggest that Hackland was a "leftie". It does not surprise me that he was appointed by Harper. Hackland could very well be ultra right-wing (remember Rob Fords father was an outcast in the Mike Harris government). Whatever his political leanings it is obvious that Hackland has some serious defects, either intellectual or character-wise.

 

[doug]

Whatever his political leanings it is obvious that Hackland has some serious defects, either intellectual or character-wise.

After reading your posts in this thread, one could say the same about you.
Your guy got caught, deal with it.

 

[adma]

Never mind my legal opinion. This is the legal opinion of Rob Ford's Lawyer, one of the most esteemed Lawyers in private practice on Bay Street! If Hackland is such a brilliant infallible legal scholar why isn't he in private practice on Bay street where he can make $Millions instead of sitting on the bench?

Now, this statement's the epitome of idiocy. Judges = losers who couldn't make it in the legal world? Or, I dunno, some kind of pinheaded "private is better than public" statement...

Listen: the job of a lawyer is to serve his client--to put the best case forward on behalf of the client. That means, offering a case that's as winnable as it can be--which doesn't make it automatically winnable at all. However "brilliant" the legal mind, you can't polish a turd...

 

[adma]

I have read Hacklands ruling word-for-word. Have you read the factum from Fords Lawyers?

Why are conservative trolls allergic to apostrophes?

 

[js97]

There's a simple answer.

Rob Ford is so utterly incompetent, that he cancelled the EA to take down the Gardiner, removed the $750 million to take it down from the budget, but forgot to reinstate the construction and budget to maintain it, that the Mayor's office stopped in 2008 (a wise decision given there's no point spending a lot of $ to maintain something that may be demolished.

I don't really see how this plays in his favour, other than attracting the vote of those too stupid to think.

That's where the classic myopic NDP logic completely breaks apart. Just becausee there are maintenance costs, it doesn't mean you 'tear' it down. You can apply the same logic to the TTC, LRT tracks.

The Gardiner is an artery, not only for businesses around the city, but also for residents. There is no alternative to the gardiner, you'll simply be shutting down the transfer of people between west to the east. Toronto already lacks RAPID transportation. Have you seen the gardiner during rush hour, or the weekends?

With the exception of a few ideological extremists, everyone uses the gardiner some way.

 

[voxpopulicosmicum]

Why are conservative trolls allergic to apostrophes?

^Finally, someone is asking sensible questions. In my personal legal-punctuational opinion, it's because their mothers didn't love them enough, which caused them to be fearful of the world, which caused them to be conservative trolls, which caused them to dislike apostrophes. Pretty cogent stuff, huh? Want me to put it in a factum so it becomes 100% true and beyond all argument?

 

[freshcutgrass]

City Council did not have the legal authority to impose a penalty requiring Ford to "re-pay" money that he did not receive (see my comments above) therefore it is legally impossible for Ford to have been in "conflict of interest" by voting on this motion.

This is not a fact...just an opinion. And judging from the ruling, not a very relevant one at that.

Is it me, or do you get the feeling that Fordites are under the false impression that it is everyone else that is on trial here....not Rob Ford?

 

[typezed]

Whatever his political leanings it is obvious that Hackland has some serious defects, either intellectual or character-wise.

You're maligning the judge as having intellectual or character deficits, and it's in defense of Rob Ford? You may wish to make closer examination of your boy's intellect and character. It is shortcomings there that may have been exposed during this trial.

Ford wasn't fined. There were no punitive charges. No money was to go back to the body that set the requirements. He was asked to repay money that was collected inappropriately. If some benefit was obtained through means that are outside the rules, why should the rule-breaker be permitted to retain the benefit?

 

[cdr108]

You're maligning the judge as having intellectual or character deficits, and it's in defense of Rob Ford? You may wish to make closer examination of your boy's intellect and character. It is shortcomings there that may have been exposed during this trial.

Ford wasn't fined. There were no punitive charges. No money was to go back to the body that set the requirements. He was asked to repay money that was collected inappropriately. If some benefit was obtained through means that are outside the rules, why should the rule-breaker be permitted to retain the benefit?

don't you know, .... it's b/c Rob Frod said so and it's for the children, "will somebody please think of the children"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qh2sWSVRrmo

 

[Riverdale Rink Rat]

Before accusing me of "trolling" did you take time to read word-for-word the factum submitted by Ford's Lawyer? This isn't looking very good for those who would like to see Ford kicked out of office. This might turn out to be the best thing that could happen to Ford since the left-wing of council have no doubt spent the last few weeks fighting among each other over who best, among the left, to be anointed as Rob Fords replacement. I am sure that alliances on the left have been weakened if not destroyed as a result.

Give it a rest, man. A factum where the judge makes a mistake in law points out that one mistake. This factum throws a whole whack of stuff up in the air, hoping something will attract the attention of the appellate court. As MetroMan has cogently pointed out ad nauseum, this is a very simple case. Rob Ford VOTED ON A MOTION WHERE HE HAD A CONFLICT OF INTEREST. The punishment for that is removal from office. It's not about whether what he did was a conflict, or whether he should have known, or whether it was too little cash to bother. Those are all side issues. It's the VOTE, recorded in the records, that makes him guilty.

But you keep fightin' the good fight, my man.

 

[sarnya]

Audit reports coming in January

January is going to be an interesting month for Ford, especially if there's a ruling on the libel case.

Even if Mayor Rob Ford wins his conflict of interest appeal this winter, he may still face serious legal trouble: the long-awaited audit of his campaign financial practices will be released in January, the lead auditor said Friday.

The auditor, Bruce Armstrong of Froese Forensic Partners, would not reveal anything about his conclusions.

If Armstrong finds that Ford violated the Municipal Elections Act, the city’s compliance audit committee, composed of three experts in elections law, could either do nothing or pursue the possibility of non-criminal charges. Ford would face potential penalties including a fine of up to $25,000, removal from office, and — highly unlikely — prison time.

If the committee voted to proceed with the case, a special prosecutor would make the ultimate decision about whether there was sufficient evidence to go to trial. Other municipalities have hired lawyers in private practice to serve as their special prosecutors.

The case was sparked by a 2011 complaint filed by Max Reed, a lawyer, and Adam Chaleff-Freudenthaler, a labour relations professional, left-leaning activist and former library board vice-chair. Both men were also involved in the conflict of interest lawsuit against Ford, though they have not spoken publicly about their roles.

Among other allegations, they argue that the Ford campaign breached the Municipal Elections Act by exceeding the legal spending limit by $156,384 and by allowing a Ford family company to pay for $77,722 in campaign expenses. The campaign repaid the company a year later without interest; corporate donations, and loans from companies that are not recognized lending institutions, are illegal.

The committee decided in June not to pursue charges against unsuccessful council candidate Gus Cusimano, even though Armstrong’s audit found several apparent breaches of the law.

Chaleff-Freudenthaler said he has a “very high expectation” that the committee will vote to pursue Ford if the audit substantiates the allegations about the spending limit and the payments from the family company.

“I think the committee set a reasonable precedent for only pursuing cases that have seriously compromised our elections. And we would hope that they maintain that direction — we’re not looking to move forward on anything that is petty or didn’t really impact the way that the election played out,” he said.

Ford initially appealed the committee’s decision to order an audit, then dropped the appeal in April. Prior to April, his lawyer said simply that he complied with the law; Ford was less definitive in his April statement, saying, “Everything during the campaign was done in good faith with the intention of complying fully with election law.”

 

[adma]

You know, there's another "future of Ford" issue that's rumbling beneath the surface, and it's nothing to do with politics: it's about his health. Am I the only one who's finding that he's been "looking like death" lately? Definitely worse than a couple of years ago--to the point where I wouldn't be surprised if he doesn't come back from Florida alive--massive coronary, that sort of thing.

And of course, if his passing *does* happen, it'll be because of his being as obtusely cavalier about his health as he is about politics; and as w/the Hackland ruling, he "didn't see it coming". And who knows what the autopsy results would reveal--including, perhaps, "football player's" brain damage of some sort...

 

[Lenser]

Kind of ghoulish on your part to speculate about whether or not the mayor dies in Florida, ain't it? Sheesh.