Rob Ford's Toronto

[Dubster]

So if I make a video where I threaten to kill someone but I do it in the voice of Elvis Presley while shaking my hips, I'm fine and I can use it as my defense in court? Good to know.

Just don't use their name and you're in the clear. Doesn't seem that crazy to me.

As an aside: DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY SCOOPS OR INSIDE KNOWLEDGE OF ANYTHING? I am suffering from RoFo Arrest Watch withdrawal.

 

[jml]

So if I make a video where I threaten to kill someone but I do it in the voice of Elvis Presley while shaking my hips, I'm fine and I can use it as my defense in court? Good to know.

The defense is that the video was filmed long after Scott MacIntyre beating. The 'imitating a pro wrestler' thing is only relevant insofar as it situates the video in time around 2013.

From this angle, it's not nearly as bad a legal defense. I think he has a good chance of beating this so long as it's his word against MacIntyre's. The real damage to Ford might come from whatever dirty laundry gets dragged out in the process.

 

[Greg Banks]

No, it definitely would not.

The Star's copy was second-hand:

Wouldn't the second hand tape be date recorded? Not that it wouldn't help the Ford defense but could vindicate the McIntyre suit if say the date is several (6 to 8) months prior to the "August charity event"

 

[voxpopulicosmicum]

But wouldn't he be embarrassed having his name associated with the Hulk Hogan defense? Wouldn't he push Ford to come up with something better, or perhaps just forgo using an explanation of the circumstances under which the video was recorded? (It's likely obvious by now I have little experience with the law.)

Who knows whether the lawyer pushed for for a more plausible defence but this was the best Ford could provide. As to whether the lawyer would be "embarrassed": no, but not in the same way that the Nayshun feels no shame about continuing to support Ford. Lawyers perceive themselves as standing apart from their clients' disputes (unless their client wins the dispute, in which case the lawyer sees the win as a reflection of the lawyer's skill).

 

[mdash]

The 'imitating a pro wrestler' thing is only relevant insofar as it situates the video in time around 2013.

But doesn't the claim still need to be credible? Won't it still be subjected to some kind of scrutiny to determine whether it is?

I'm imagining snorts, chuckles, and giggles when that gets trotted out.

 

[James_D]

And won't Ford's prior comments about the video be admissible? "I was wasted, I don't remember, I don't know who I was talking about?"

 

[Greg Banks]

And the crazy batsh1t continues - Ford voted to kill tree planting in the budget but goes on to tour the Guild and review the ice storm damage...

You think maybe R&D Ford were bright enough to prepare themselves by persuing the documentation in GM28.10 Guild Inn-Revitalization and Development of Resaurant and Banquet Centre Facilities particularly the Confiential Attachment before rushing headlong and paraphasing "We'll play it by ear" until the summer"?

It might be interesting to hear what the Developer has to say, same with the local Councillor Paul Ainslie

 

[retailestate]

It would appear there is an illegal sign - this one along the 400.

https://twitter.com/dtopping/status/447029810062057472/photo/1

 

[GavinTheAlmighty]

I hate that fucking sign.

 

[retailestate]

I hate that fucking sign.

I sent a note to the Ministry as I'm pretty sure it is sitting too close to the 400's "right of way".

Shouldn't be too surpised - we all know from the last "sign" debacle that "Ferd Nayshun" can't "spell or read good at all..."

 

[GavinTheAlmighty]

I sent a note to the Ministry as I'm pretty sure it is sitting too close to the 400's "right of way".

Shouldn't be too surpised - we all know from the last "sign" debacle that "Ferd Nayshun" can't "spell or read good at all..."

Does that still apply if the sign is on private property? I'm fairly certain that this one is, but I couldn't say for certain.

 

[DSC]

Does that still apply if the sign is on private property? I'm fairly certain that this one is, but I couldn't say for certain.

It needs permit whether on private or public land. The question is, Does it have one?

 

[pud99]

There were other people present. Can they be called to testify or be required to make a statement?

A subpoena (called a Summons to Witness) can be issued in an Ontario civil action to compel a person who is not a party to the action to attend at trial and testify (i.e., the plaintiff cannot subpoena the defendant or vice versa). It is possible to ask the court to order that a non-party be compelled to attend and answer questions under oath at the pre-trial discovery stage, but that is very rarely ordered (e.g., if the party who would be discovered is mentally incompetent, or if the non-party uniquely possesses some information that could be highly important to the case).

 

[retailestate]

Does that still apply if the sign is on private property? I'm fairly certain that this one is, but I couldn't say for certain.

They measure the exclusion zone for all signs - permitted (approved) or not - from the edge of the roadway. Private property or not - doesn't matter. Only exception of any consequence are Realtor signs and they have strict size restrictions.

 

[GavinTheAlmighty]

They measure the exclusion zone for all signs - permitted (approved) or not - from the edge of the roadway. Private property or not - doesn't matter. Only exception of any consequence are Realtor signs and they have strict size restrictions.

It needs permit whether on private or public land. The question is, Does it have one?

Thanks kindly for the explanation!