Third win for Mayor Ford!
- Thread starter fmahovalich
- Start date
If every word spoken by Ford on this issue is true he would have a good case against The Star. After all Ford says a video does not exist, not that it must be fake, it does not exist. For that to be the case The Star must be fabricating the whole thing and I would expect that is something one could and should litigate agsinst.
So, when Ford doesn't that seems wierd. Is it possible the reverse is true and The Star is telling the truth and Ford is lying?
Now the expense of the SCC case is in his favour why doesn't he use those resources to litigate against The Star-- at a minimum have a lawyer draft a letter to them?
What exactly is wrong with what I posted or the connection to the link? Feel free to actually post something worthwhile.
if he denies it exists and it exists but he has no knowledge of it- it can't be perjury.
Are you really that naïve to think that between now and the next municipal election that it will be a smooth ride?
Mark my words, it won't be long before the hammer drops again on McCheese.
Maybe it's crack.
Maybe it's his wife calling 911 again
Maybe the whole dead crack dealers blows up in his face with TPS.
Who knows.
But the Ford side-show is not packing up any time soon.
Of that, I'm certain.
Lame. Desperate.
I know that Sean Connery is not spellt as Schlong. He is Scottish. I am an old german jew. Oy, and vhat about you Mister No Kapitalized a proper name?
As you have not challenged the substance of my post, I draw the factual inference that you do not have the legal knowledge, experience nor the ability to do so. All you have spewed seems to be gleaned from Perry Mason and Law and Order reruns.
You find their carefully crafted, proof-read, edited and re-edited written prose "credible" That is your judgement and I cannot fault you on coming to your own conclusions based on the material before you.
But surely from those thousands of hours watching Law and Order you have seen a Star Witness crumble under withering cross examination?
But since you've also seen those reporters in the witness stand and are certain there won't be inconsistencies in heir tstimony etc... yes it is a slam dunk.
I suppose one would have to prove his belief was not true and perhaps produce the video... and establish that he knew of it.
Prove. Unlike in a civil case in which only has to prove "on the balance of probabilities", a criminal charge of perjury must be proven "beyond a reasonable doubt". That's why you see so many charges of perjury and such a high conviction rate! :eyebrows:
So you are saying he sought confirmation of his belief that "that thing better not be on"? I wonder if the reply was "Yes it is on" or "No dawg, it's not on! Chill"
at the ontario court of appeal but not for the appeal to supreme court of canada
if the tape exists and he believed the drug dealer then no perjury
if the tape exists, buts its a fake, then no perjury
if the tape doesn't exist, then no perjury
I suspect Ford spent more in the first two trials where he had to mount an actual defence (twice) and prepare to give testimony than he did telling the Supremes why they had better things to do. He's still stuck with those costs.
