News   May 10, 2024
West End to the Horizon
 134     0 
News   May 09, 2024
Industry Updates: Construction Education, Housing Prices, Celebrating Excellence
 588     0 
News   May 09, 2024
30-Storey Infill Proposed on Jane Street Between Sheppard and Finch
 864     1 

Rob Ford's Toronto

Status
Not open for further replies.
spider said:
If Rob Ford is forced to resign as a result of the upcoming events, offers himself as a candidate in the ensuing bye election and wins what would the response of the assassins on this thread look like?
Click to expand...

Dramatic much? Really helping to clarify your position there, pal.
 
k10ery said:
Under the Act, if Rob's conflict was due to an "error in judgment" then he gets to keep his job. So ironically Clay Ruby has to prove that Rob was too smart to do this by mistake, and Rob has to prove he was too stupid to know he was violating the law.

(It's sort of like Reagan in Iran-Contra, but without the right-wing murder squads.)
Click to expand...


From the Globe:

Ruby: So your speaking and voting were deliberate acts, correct?

Ford: I’m voting because I know my foundation ... it’s a fantastic foundation.

Ruby: You deliberately chose to make the speech you did and vote the way you did?

Ford: Absolutely.

Ruby: And you don’t regret for a moment having done that?

Ford: Absolutely not.
Click to expand...

It's not him saying 'I knew it was technically wrong, and I'd gladly do it again'....but it's pretty damn close.

(Although in the same cross-examination he also demonstrated a near-complete lack of understanding of the rules surrounding this, and even when shown the rules, showed a very poor level of comprehension of what he has just read. Even now I get the impression that he thinks it's someone else's responsibility to make him aware of any potential conflict. If this actually is one of those bizarre situations where ignorance is a genuine defense...he's got this one locked up.)

I'd much prefer booting him by a more democratic method (ie. torches and pitchforks ;) ), and do think the punishment is overly severe. But then again, he had so many opportunities to avoid it coming to this, and is only here because of his own stubbornness and inability apply reason or rationality to any decision he makes. Just so happens these are a few of the things that make him unacceptable as a leader, so I guess it all works out for me :D
 
Ah, Ford family wisdom.

An hour after police held a news conference to warn women about a series of sex assaults in two Toronto neighbourhoods, Krista Ford, daughter of Councillor Doug Ford, offered her own advice.

“Stay alert, walk tall, carry mace, take self-defence classes & don’t dress like a whore,” Krista Ford, niece of Mayor Rob Ford, wrote on Twitter just after 6 p.m., adding “#DontBeAVictim” and “#StreetSmart.”

Mace is considered a prohibited and restricted weapon, according to the Toronto police sex crimes unit.
Click to expand...
 
ShonTron said:
What Hazel pulled was much worse, and she was caught at it before. But she was much smarter about it and devious - managing to push back the final report after the election and pulling out all the stops to exact payback on those who dared to push that issue. She also had a much stronger grip on council than Ford ever did.
Click to expand...

That's why I put "better" in quotation marks, and said "speaking as a Machiavellian".
 
Thanks, that story was expanded a lot since I saw it. The transcript is an interesting read.

he had so many opportunities to avoid it coming to this, and is only here because of his own stubbornness and inability apply reason or rationality to any decision he makes.
Click to expand...

In other words, he made an "error of judgment"? :)

However dumb Rob is, I think the people who drafted this legislation are even worse.
 
k10ery said:
Under the Act, if Rob's conflict was due to an "error in judgment" then he gets to keep his job. So ironically Clay Ruby has to prove that Rob was too smart to do this by mistake, and Rob has to prove he was too stupid to know he was violating the law.

(It's sort of like Reagan in Iran-Contra, but without the right-wing murder squads.)
Click to expand...

Also, if the judge in the case deems the amount of money involved - just over $3,000 - to be insignificant - Ford would get to keep his job even if it is ruled that he was in a conflict of interest. Considering that Rob Ford donates his salary to charity it will be hard for Clayton Ruby to successfully argue that $3,000 represents a significant amount of money to Rob Ford. This is pocket change for the Ford brothers.
 
canmark said:
Ah, Ford family wisdom.
Click to expand...

Hilarious because the whole Lingere Football League thing contradicts her wisdom.


Rob Ford vows to run again for mayor if court dismisses him
Kelly Grant - City Hall Bureau Chief
The Globe and Mail
Published Wednesday, Aug. 29 2012, 1:19 PM EDT
Last updated Wednesday, Aug. 29 2012, 9:29 PM EDT


If Toronto mayor Rob Ford is booted from office for flouting conflict-of-interest rules, he will try to get his old job back as soon as the law allows.

“If they dismiss me from office ... I will be running again,” Mr. Ford told CP24 host Stephen LeDrew on Wednesday. “If the judge says I can run again and I lose my job, I guarantee I’ll just say, ‘When’s the next election?’ because I’ll be running for mayor. The next day, I’ll start campaigning again, for sure.”

Prime Minister Harper says he and Toronto Mayor Rob Ford discussed tough penalties for gun crime at a meeting Monday, but he wouldn't go into much detail. Ford requested the meeting after a recent spate of shootings in the city.

The Mayor dismissed as “all politics” a lawsuit that alleges he broke the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act by addressing and voting on an issue related to his personal football foundation.

On Feb. 7, city council voted to reverse an earlier decision ordering Mr. Ford to repay out of his own pocket $3,150 in donations that the Rob Ford Football Foundation had received from lobbyists, their clients and a corporation that does business with the city.

Council voted 22-12 to drop the penalty.

Instead of recusing himself from the debate and vote, Mr. Ford delivered a passionate defence of his football charity and voted with the majority to let himself off the hook.

Mr. Ford is scheduled to testify at a legal hearing beginning next Wednesday. He will be grilled by renowned criminal lawyer Clayton Ruby, who took on the case pro bono on behalf of a politically active resident with ties to opponents of the mayor.

“I can’t really get into it, but it is all politics,” Mr. Ford said on CP24.

“I truly believe that. I’ve fund-raised probably close to $50,000, $60,000, $70,000. I don’t know what the number is. But I know I’ve started off about 13 football programs in high-needs areas and underprivileged areas where the kids need the most help and it’s been very, very successful.”

If the Ottawa judge overseeing the case concludes Mr. Ford broke the law, the mayor would automatically lose his job.

The judge has the latitude to bar Mr. Ford from running again for up to seven years.

If the court finds the mayor guilty but does not impose a ban, Mr. Ford could toss his hat into the ring for a possible by-election.

Council would decide whether to appoint a replacement to serve out Mr. Ford’s term, or call a mayoral by-election.
Click to expand...

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...-mayor-if-court-dismisses-him/article4507643/

Please act a little more humbily for just this very short amount of time, Mr. Ford. If not, you are almost tempting the courts to toss that additional penalty on top of the potential loss of your seat.
 
Last edited:
k10ery said:
Under the Act, if Rob's conflict was due to an "error in judgment" then he gets to keep his job. So ironically Clay Ruby has to prove that Rob was too smart to do this by mistake, and Rob has to prove he was too stupid to know he was violating the law.

(It's sort of like Reagan in Iran-Contra, but without the right-wing murder squads.)
Click to expand...

Peepers said:
Also, if the judge in the case deems the amount of money involved - just over $3,000 - to be insignificant - Ford would get to keep his job even if it is ruled that he was in a conflict of interest. Considering that Rob Ford donates his salary to charity it will be hard for Clayton Ruby to successfully argue that $3,000 represents a significant amount of money to Rob Ford. This is pocket change for the Ford brothers.
Click to expand...

Rob is that stupid and $3000 is an insignificant amount, though I don't think these facts point to an error in judgement. Rather these show his contempt for process and defiance of those that call him to account. Ford believes he is above the law and has absolute power because he has the mythical 'ford nation' behind him. It's not just Ford's sheer stupidity, bad judgement, small-mindedness, and balefulness that make him unfit for public office in this case, but his corrupt nature.
 
Last edited:
Please act a little more humbily for just this very short amount of time, Mr. Ford. If not, you are almost tempting the courts to toss that additional penalty on top of the potential loss of your seat.
Click to expand...

Could Ford's behaviour play a part in the judge's ruling? Given the charitable nature of this issue (or at least the perceived charitable nature), I could see the judge being lenient and trying to find a way to allow him to keep his job. However, given that every other week something comes out about him acting socially irresponsible, recent examples include dangerous driving photos with Nazis, could these actions be taken into consideration when the judge issues his ruling?
 
neubilder said:
Rob is that stupid and $3000 is an insignificant amount, though I don't think these facts point to an error in judgement. Rather these show his contempt for process and defiance of those that call him to account. Ford believes he is above the law and has absolute power because he has the mythical 'ford nation' behind him. It's not just Ford's sheer stupidity, bad judgement, small-mindedness, and balefulness that make him unfit for public office in this case, but his corrupt nature.
Click to expand...

I can't help thinking of someone like former Washington mayor Marion Barry--getting busted and then returned to council by playing the "homie vs whitey" angle to the hilt...
 
Peepers said:
Also, if the judge in the case deems the amount of money involved - just over $3,000 - to be insignificant - Ford would get to keep his job even if it is ruled that he was in a conflict of interest. Considering that Rob Ford donates his salary to charity it will be hard for Clayton Ruby to successfully argue that $3,000 represents a significant amount of money to Rob Ford. This is pocket change for the Ford brothers.
Click to expand...

I don;t think he gives away his salary - that's supposedly Doug.

3K is not an insignificant amount, and the courts do not apply a sliding scale of justice depending on defendant's income - not officially anyway. That argument ain't gonna fly.
 
k10ery said:
3K is not an insignificant amount, and the courts do not apply a sliding scale of justice depending on defendant's income - not officially anyway. That argument ain't gonna fly.
Click to expand...

Exactly. 5 cents was deemed a significant amount just a few months ago when Ford wanted the bag fee eliminated.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top