You personally suggested Ford would be starting litigation in the Crack thread (about two/three weeks ago).By what logic do you come to that conclusion?
AFAIK, Ford has never been a plaintiff or initiated litigation. Rather he has been a successful defendant in these cases which are clearly politically motivated.
Maybe he is not a litigious type? Not everyone cries out "I'LL SUE"
Enjoy the meal . . . Post 1809 of the crack thread. I can't link from my tablet.
Hardy worth a crow's feather. I said if *I* were the subject. Not what Ford would do. I've allowed certain things to go on to enhance litigation. But I'm a litigious sort.
schlongconery said:
Well given his clear statement that a video doesn't exist this can only mean from his perspective that the Star's story is made from whole cloth--a complete fabrication. Ford hasn't allowed in any of his comments for it to be faked.
You gotta be kidding posting that link Blackie.
Lets say John Tory from the right decides not to run and split the votes and Olivia Chow and Bob Rae both decide to run, Rob Ford will have a very good chance winning the second term.
The court would find in favour of the Star, which would trot out three eye witnesses and corroborating testimony from the police. The existence of the video would then become a judicial fact, Ford would be found to be lying in open court -- perhaps opening himself to perjury charges -- and he would very likely wind up paying the Star's legal cost for bringing such a frivolous and vexatious lawsuit.
That pretty much says it all, a big waste of time and money. If this was a case of Ford taking bribes from developers or some other serious act, I'd say by all means go after him. But this was driven by a bunch of babies who can't stand the fact their guy didn't win. Plain and simple!
