News   Jan 09, 2025
Oxford's Union Park Swaps Office Tower for More High-Rise Residential
 454     1 
News   Jan 09, 2025
UrbanToronto Industry Updates: Record-Low Sales, Award-Winning Innovations, and 2025 Training Opportunities
 299     0 
News   Jan 09, 2025
UTPro Q4 2024: GTHA Crane Count Stabilizing After Several Large Drops
 607     0 

Rob Ford's Toronto

Status
Not open for further replies.
Rob Ford’s Testimony At Lisi Hearing Can’t Be Used As Evidence Against Him Later

Testimony given at a preliminary hearing is protected, meaning it can’t be used in a potential future proceeding against Ford. But police can follow up on leads arising from his testimony.

Toronto Star -- By: Tim Alamenciak News reporter, Published on Fri Aug 01 2014

http://www.thestar.com/news/crime/2...nt_be_used_as_evidence_against_him_later.html
 
kaboi said:
Just watched the City News segment on today's circus at City Hall, and it was master class: a perfect example of how to cover a Rob Ford scrum without ending up as a microphone for his campaign messages.

The segment was heavily edited to focus entirely on the subpoena issue, showing Amanda Ferguson asking several times about the subpoena and him not answering. She noted that he went on to say his campaign points, but the segment didn't broadcast any of his talking points. Instead, it showed clips like the Steak Queen video! It then covered the Doug Ford stuff, showed Bill Blair's statement calling Doug a liar, and finished on Ford getting angry while saying that the subpoena isn't news.

It was awesome. I hope they post it to the site. I'll keep my eye out for it and update with a link if I can. If not, tune in at 11PM. It's so worth it.
Click to expand...

Ah, a return to the old days and the Tom Wardle Jr interviews....Shoppers World and all....Don't remember the interviewer maybe Colin Vaughan....
 
I'm still trying to figure out what this all means for the current state of Brazen 2.

If TPS had the real goods on Ford already, would they not arrest him rather than subpoena him?
 
stoobiedood said:
Not clear at all. The press reported that a meeting had been arranged for Thursday, meaning that RoFo et al. were aware at some point before that. The meeting was called off when the media started asking questions about it. Gee, how convenient for RoFo that he didn't get subpoenaed after all. I wouldn't put it past RoDoFo to have done the leaking themselves, to (a) postpone the service, and (b) give themselves a way to spin it as "political."
Click to expand...

Just getting to this, all of it. (Crushing deadline right to the wire.)

The comment quoted actually makes the most sense, IMO. Foreknowledge of this particular meeting would have been privy to FordCo and The Cops alone (possibly Hotmail too, though didn't his taken-abackness seem genuine?). So, who benefits from a leak? It seems the cops do not. What is theirs to gain? FordCo, OTOH, forestalls the inevitable and uses the pause to make the point, at a parlous time in policing infrastructure, that the subpoena is 'payback'. For...what exactly? Have the Fords done something worthy of retribution (not that such exists)?

Is it possible Doug inadvertently tipped that the Fords gave the 'Mammo thumb' to their appointed minions to use at TPSB? (Plus, who was/were the swing votes? Muhkerjee would only say a 'clear majority').

Seems to me that DoFo's comments, despite the later hedge, are likely actionable. Would not be surprised to see a slander charge leveled against him.
 
Lucinda said:
Rob Ford’s Testimony At Lisi Hearing Can’t Be Used As Evidence Against Him Later

Testimony given at a preliminary hearing is protected, meaning it can’t be used in a potential future proceeding against Ford. But police can follow up on leads arising from his testimony.

Toronto Star -- By: Tim Alamenciak News reporter, Published on Fri Aug 01 2014

http://www.thestar.com/news/crime/2...nt_be_used_as_evidence_against_him_later.html
Click to expand...

“If Sandro Lisi pleads guilty, there would be no reason for Mayor Ford to testify at the preliminary inquiry,” said Daniel Brown, a criminal attorney not involved in the case.

Brown also said that, depending on the tack the Crown and defence take in the case, Ford may not be called at all.

“The process of subpoenaing someone is only to preserve their right to call someone; it doesn’t necessarily mean that the witness will be called,” said Brown.
Click to expand...

wonder how likely that is.
 
evvabeing said:
wonder how likely that is.
Click to expand...

I frequently ask the Crown to subpoena witnesses to a preliminary hearing that I don't end up asking to hear from in court. So, it happens all the time. Having said that, there is not a chance in hell that I would pass up the opportunity to question Rob Ford under oath. Nor would any self respecting defence attorney that I know! I drool at the thought.
 
pattycakes said:
From Keenan now at the Star:

"Has Rob Ford repealed the laws of logic? "

"To put it another way, is Rob Ford lying, or is he bone-crushingly stupid?
The answer is yes."

http://www.thestar.com/news/city_ha...b_ford_repealed_the_laws_of_logic_keenan.html
Click to expand...

So: is the answer to a question-marked headline ever yes?

Yes, it’s just rare. What it does indicate pretty reliably (when it’s not actually asking a question) is that the publication isn’t certain about the headline as a statement.
Click to expand...

http://samathieson.com/sa-mathieson/is-the-answer-to-a-question-marked-headline-always-no/
 
pattycakes said:
Back to Leeanne and her tweet from last night. Why does she still have her phone if she's in rehab? Unlike Rob's spa, a reputable rehab won't let you keep or use your phone, they don't want you in contact with the outside world, at least for the first few weeks.
Click to expand...

based on the phone number she tweeted, she's at waypoint. http://www.waypointcentre.ca/about_us

Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care provides specialized assessment and treatment services to adults (18-64) living with complex and serious mental illnesses who have continuing multiple and complex needs which cannot be met at the primary or secondary levels of service. While these illnesses may be more difficult to treat and require a higher level of support, the end goal is to transition patients back to the community.
Click to expand...

http://www.waypointcentre.ca/programs___services/adults

wonder if the fords are footing the bill to tuck her away / shut her up...
 
TJ O'Pootertoot said:
I forget what the time limit is but I expect Blair will at least serve a notice of libel against Doug soon. As we saw with Daniel Dale, this is very easy to do which is partly why it makes it so funny that for all their bluster (up to and including this week) the Fords have never actually even taken that minimal step. (I believe they did serve libel notice way back when about the Star's football story but never proceeded to actually suing.) It's amusing to note Doug never even did this when the Globe ran its story about him being a dealer, Doug arguing their pockets were just too deep for the Fords to fight with them. BUT then this week he said he would sue them (I guess someone's financial situation has changed?) but he still hasn't filed a notice. What a bunch of tools, really.

As for Rob on the stand....he won't lie because he's too dumb. I expect that, just as in the conflict of interest trial, he will sit on the stand and try to explain away things that make complete sense to him but are incomprehensible, wrong and obviously illegal to everyone else. Let's not forget - he totally and absolutely blew it on the stand there and only got off because the judge found the penalty couldn't have been imposed in the first place, though Ford obviously could not have known that when he voted, or when he was on the stand incriminating himself further.

I suppose there's the off-chance Morris will keep him on a short leash and we'll get a lot of "I don't recall," but if the previous pattern holds he'll just talk about what a stand up guy Sandro is etc. up to and including the point of perjury.
Click to expand...

Forgive the pedantry, but wouldn't Doug's blurt possibly constitute Slander? I.E. a spoken defamation. That asked, it DID seem the intent of Doug's extemporaneous offensive today was to "lower the esteem of the subject in the minds of ordinary members of the public." Especially if the claim made was known to be false. Not sure, but that primary test met, does Blair not have a case?
 
Doug has libeled and slandered numerous people. He's a vile fucking asshole. If anyone wants to arrange a charity boxing, mma, kickboxing or spelling contest I can find time in my calendar.
 
whatthe said:
I frequently ask the Crown to subpoena witnesses to a preliminary hearing that I don't end up asking to hear from in court. So, it happens all the time. Having said that, there is not a chance in hell that I would pass up the opportunity to question Rob Ford under oath. Nor would any self respecting defence attorney that I know! I drool at the thought.
Click to expand...

sorry, i should have been clearer. i was more focused on the, how likely do you think it is that (they'll get?) sandro to plead guilty to avoid a trial?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top