News   Jul 29, 2024
Na-Me-Res Opens Non-Profit Housing Project in Cabbagetown
 89     0 
News   Jul 29, 2024
News Roundup for July 29, 2024
 307     0 
News   Jul 29, 2024
Dash of Lemon
 418     0 

Rob Ford's Toronto

Status
Not open for further replies.
Ramako said:
My criminal lawyer fiancée says that for a prosecution based on the video alone (assuming it were successful), he'd probably be looking at a fine and a criminal record. No jail time.
Click to expand...

What if he continues to lie about it and there's no way to prove it? :(
 
TheTigerMaster said:
I'm with you. Like I've said before, I feel extremely sad about the situation Rob is in. I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy. And my heart broke when I heard about Don Bosco. Rob really does have a passion for football and it's sad to see him lose that. But he has demonstrated that he is unfit to lead Toronto. The city is prosperous and we need strong leadership at City Hall.
Click to expand...

As one human observing another, he seems to be deeply troubled and needs help. That said, he is very far from perfect and his intentions for coaching football often seemed less than altruistic. On many occassions he was clearly more interested in using his position as coach to further his own 'I'm here for the little guy' image. It's not surprising he was removed; he'd make very negative remarks about the school, students and community to further his own image, which was incredibily selfish.

I hope he can get the help he needs, but it's hard to feel sorry for a person that is completely responsible for the position he's in, largely due to a ridiculous sense of entitlement.
 
BurlOak said:
I have no legal background, but I would think that either you are guilty or not guilty and not sort of guilty. If the video is deemed flimsy evidence, he will be found not guilty. If the video is deemed adequate evidence, he will be treated similar to what would happen if he were caught by police.
Click to expand...

To be clear, it is very unlikely that he would be convicted based on the video alone, but if he were, then the sentence would likely be a fine and a criminal record.
 
I had posted these as edits to my original post, but perhaps I should add it ahead so it's part of the discussion:
EDIT: I texted him anyway. He says: Possession of cocaine or heroin: 6 months and/or $1,000 for the 1st offence. Subsequent offences: 1 year and/or $2,000. The maximum penalty available to a judge is 7 years. He said his worst day in court was when a first offender got just that: 7 years. Why? Because the prosecution demonstrated a history of use and the defendant showed no remorse, was uncooperative during the trial and had a smug air of invincibility. Sound familiar?

EDIT 2: Ford would be subject to aggravating circumstances. He's a public official in a position of trust. He has a history of substance abuse. His court history: while the verdict was overturned, his statements in his conflict of interest trial are part of the public record and can still be used against him. His "I don't know the law and don't care to learn it" would certainly be brought up.
Click to expand...
 
Ramako said:
To be clear, it is very unlikely that he would be convicted based on the video alone, but if he were, then the sentence would likely be a fine and a criminal record.
Click to expand...

Agreed - the 6 months in prison is most likely for people with either a history of convictions, or a massive amount on their person. Not someone smoking a rock to get high.
 
guitarchitect said:
Agreed - the 6 months in prison is most likely for people with either a history of convictions, or a massive amount on their person. Not someone smoking a rock to get high.
Click to expand...

I would think that a "massive amount on their person" probably leads to a trafficking charge...but I think the 6 months in jail is likely reserved for people who are actually, you know, in possession. Not sure how this video (as described by the Star reporters) could show that he is in possession of anything other than a pipe and a lighter?

EDIT....not dismissing, at all, the fact that we can all as individuals draw the line between man-pipe-lighter and reach a logical conclussion about what he is smoking....just not sure the crimiinal justice system allows that conclusion when we would not know what is in the pipe.

If the video exists (likely) and if it shows the Mayor as described...the worst that can happen to him (I think) is a loss in the court of public opinion/politics....not a court.
 
Last edited:
MetroMan said:
I had posted these as edits to my original post, but perhaps I should add it ahead so it's part of the discussion:
Click to expand...

Good to know. I guess we'll see what happens as this continues to play out.

Ford should be happy that there aren't mandatory minimums for this. I'm sure he was a strong advocate for them, given his track record.
 
MetroMan said:
I'll take your financée's opinion over my cloudy recollection of drug possession cases. I was just about to text my criminal lawyer friend but seems like you've taken care of that. Thanks.

EDIT: I texted him anyway. He says: Possession of cocaine or heroin: 6 months and/or $1,000 for the 1st offence. Subsequent offences: 1 year and/or $2,000. The maximum penalty available to a judge is 7 years. He said his worst day in court was when a first offender got just that: 7 years. Why? Because the prosecution demonstrated a history of use and the defendant showed no remorse, was uncooperative during the trial and had a smug air of invincibility. Sound familiar?

EDIT 2: Ford would be subject to aggravating circumstances. He's a public official in a position of trust. He has a history of substance abuse. His court history: while the verdict was overturned, his statements in his conflict of interest trial are part of the public record and can still be used against him. His "I don't know the law and don't care to learn it" would certainly be brought up.
Click to expand...

Under section 4(3)(b)(i) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the maximum penalty for a first-offence possession of a Schedule 1 substance is a fine of $1,000 and/or imprisonment for six months. However, the maximum penalty is typically reserved for the worst offender, in the worst circumstances.

Being in a position of power, in and of itself, isn't an aggravating circumstance unless that position of power was being used and abused in order to commit the offense. In fact, the fact that he's employed at all and involved in his community would be a mitigating circumstance. Though he has an existing record for one DUI and possession of pot, neither of those convictions, on their own, are legally indicative of an unaddressed and out-of-control addiction to crack cocaine. A DUI is legally not indicative of an alcohol addiction, and neither is merely possessing pot in indication of addiction to substances. A promise from him to the judge to seek rehab would definitely reduce his sentence. It would be a different story is he had a record of crack possession.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, for simple possession for an employed individual whose only criminal record is an out of province, over-decade old DUI (Ford was never convicted of the pot possession charge), I wouldn't expect more than probation, a fine and community service. And that's fine with me - I'm thankful our drug laws aren't (yet) Rockefellian.
 
Last edited:
From all the discussions I see above concerning possible prison sentences for drug possession I wonder if people are misreading the comments made by Bill Blair in the Toronto Star?

We “will closely monitor that and if any evidence of a criminal act arises from that, we’ll deal with that,†said Police Chief Bill Blair on Wednesday, when asked what would happen if the Gawker campaign was successful.
Click to expand...

Bill Blair is not suggesting that Rob Ford could face criminal charges - not at all! - Bill Blair is suggesting that the selling of a video could be illegal. This is a ridiculous assertion since it is not illegal to make a video (provided it doesn't involve certain types of pornography). The making of this video (and attempt to sell it) is protected free speech! Of course Bill Blair doesn't care about free speech rights. Remember during the G20 his goons arrested a Forest Hill IT Expert for the "criminal act" of making a video of the convention centre and uploading it to Youtube. The IT Expert would spend almost a year behind bars - as a political prisoner - before being granted bail.

Bill Blair is a fascist pig! His above comments are clearly meant to intimidate those who are looking to sell or buy this video. I have no doubt that an effort is underway by Toronto Police to secure not only the original video but any copies. I suspect this is why Rob and Doug are hunkering down. They are waiting to see if Bill Blair can come through for them! If he does look to see Blair's contract quietly extended for another five years!
 
Well it's them vs. the crackstarter. We'll be hitting $125,000 in the next few minutes. The people of Toronto really want this video and they're willing to open their wallets to do it.
 
Last edited:
Toronto Sun (almost) starts making sense:

Ford’s silence is deafening 18

Mayor Rob Ford needs to say: “I did not smoke crack and if there’s a video that I did, it’s a fabrication.â€

He needs to say it if he’s going to continue to be mayor in anything more than name.

Such an unequivocal denial of allegations by Gawker.com and the Toronto Star that such a video exists, will prove to the public Ford doesn’t fear that video becoming public.

And that the reason he doesn’t fear it is, it’s a fraud.

But if Ford can’t say that, then he should step aside and ask Deputy Mayor Doug Holyday to serve in his place, while he seeks medical help and counseling, after which he can make a decision about his political future as mayor.

It is not enough for Ford to simply dismiss this allegation as “ridiculous,†or to send out third parties to deny it based on what he has told them.

Of course it’s “ridiculous†that the mayor is being accused of smoking crack cocaine and consorting with drug dealers.

The issue isn’t whether it’s ridiculous. The issue is whether it’s true.

Arguments that Ford is entitled to the presumption of innocence miss the point. That refers to the high level of evidence required to convict someone of a crime. But Ford isn’t charged with a crime.

It matters how he addresses this attack on his credibility.

Logically, the first thing a mayor falsely accused of smoking crack and consorting with drug dealers would do, would be to proclaim his innocence in no uncertain terms and sue the media who said it.

Why hasn’t he?

We say this as firm supporters of Ford’s agenda of fiscal restraint.

The mayor deserves praise for saving the public hundreds of millions of dollars through successful negotiations with the city’s trade unions, by contracting out, and by delivering small and reasonable tax hikes while getting city spending under control.

The problem is the drug allegations have now paralyzed this agenda.

It’s a distraction that utterly undermines Ford’s ability to manage a dysfunctional council that opposes any notion of restraint.

Ford needs to directly address these allegations, or get help and step aside.

He must be prepared, for the city’s sake and his own, to do one or the other.
Click to expand...

Source: Toronto Sun
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top