MetroMan
Senior Member
^ Best metaphor that I've seen in this case. I have to use this next time somebody brings it up.
Yes, but if the drug dealer thought that they were bags of cocaine then I wouldn't expect him to go around saying that he had been "completely vindicated" when it was later found out to be flour. He still owned what he thought were drugs, much like Ford still voted on a matter that he thought would benefit him financially. They both got off through dumb luck. There's nothing for Ford to be proud of in this situation. There was no vindication here.
Adma,
I think you made your point about the "hawc/peepers/malvern2/automationgallery types" way back. That's enough.
Step one when considering a conflict-of-interest lawsuit against your mayor (or any municipal politician): find a way to avoid being crushed under huge legal fees.
Without securing funding from supporters in the community, Elias Hazineh says he would never have launched his suit against Mississauga mayor Hazel McCallion. “As it stands now, unless you have deep pockets, you can see corruption happening in front of you and be able to do nothing about it,†he said.
Lots of people may think about taking a stand, but “once you hit the road block of financing, you realize you can’t do it on your own.â€
A failed conflict-of-interest lawsuit could mean the citizen ends up on the hook for legal fees on both sides, which can stack up to more than $300,000 depending on the complexity of the case and prestige of the lawyer. Should that happen in the case of Paul Magder versus Mayor Rob Ford, experts say it could cast a chilling effect on others seeking to hold municipal politicians accountable.
The problem with this metaphor is Rob Ford truly believed that he was doing nothing wrong by speaking before council and voting on this matter. Ford did not think that the bag of flour was a bag of cocaine. Had he truly believed that he was violating the conflict of interest rules he would have removed himself from the deliberations (as he had done numerous times before on issues where he had a pecuniary interest).
As it turns out - Rob Fords gut instinct that he was not doing anything wrong served him well. It turns out he was right and most everyone else was wrong. I think on matters of law Rob Ford is actually quite savvy. Remember in the defamation case when Ford said that the Boardwalk deal stank "to high heaven" he was very quick follow-up and say "I can't point a finger - I can't prove anything". With these statement he inoculated himself from any claim of libel.
The fact is Ford is not guilty of breaking the Conflict of Interest laws. The 3-judge panel ruled that Ford did not have a pecuniary interest in the matter which he voted on therefore he cannot be found to have broken the Conflict of Interest laws.
I notice a lot of people unhappy with the decision like to think Ford got off on a "technicality" but this isn't true either. An example of someone getting acquitted on a technicality would be a drug dealer who was found in possession of cocaine in his home but the charges are thrown out because police did not have a search warrant when they discovered the drug. To make an analogy with the Ford case, Ford got acquitted when it was proven that the bags of cocaine were actually bags of flour.
I am sure that when it comes to court costs Fords lawyers will go after the full amount which is rumored to be around $300,000 so far (just as they said they will do in the Foulidis case). They don't have to worry that aggressively going after Magder for court costs will somehow cause the case to be re-opened and re-tried. That can't happen. This case is closed.
If Jack Layton had raised/donated $3,000 to his favourite cancer charity the same way Ford raised/donated $3,000 for his favourite football and the right wingers came after Jack the same way the left wingers have come after Ford the left wingers would be screaming bloody murder.
I dislike her too but you need to watch your wording. I doubt the mods would like your post
I think just the opposite will happen. I suspect that Magder will be ordered to pay a substantial portion if not 100% of Fords very substantial legal bills. The reason why I believe this is Magder did not bring this action against Ford in good faith. Paul Magder was not personally wronged by Rob Ford. Paul Magder was part of a left-wing cabal that have tried to use our court system to destroy Rob Ford and force him out of office. They have abused our legal system and when they lose in court they must be required to pay full court costs.
I dislike her too but you need to watch your wording. I doubt the mods would like your post
Yeah, I thought about it. But sometimes the shoe just fits...
(was probably one of the least offensive words I could have used, actually...)
Let's draw up some quick definitions:
conflict of interest (a situation in which a public official's decisions are influenced by the official's personal interests)
technicality (a specific detail in a set of rules or terms belonging to a particular field) "the resolution died on a technicality"; "the defendant was acquitted on a legal technicality"
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
.