Third win for Mayor Ford!

[Phil C. McNasty]

Bob Rae already said he won't run (the Sun has an opinion column that Harper should appoint him as an Ambassador)

Yeah, ambassador to Cuba. He'd fit right in there

 

[SchlongConery]

The court would find in favour of the Star,[/qoute]


Well there we have it. Mr. Justice Fuji Iknowitall has negated the entire justice system!

which would trot out three eye witnesses and corroborating testimony from the police.

You make some big assumptions. Like these "eye witnesses" will be credible and remain so after cross examination from a skilled cross examiner. And that "the police" would or could be compelled to testify. And that their testimony would make good evidence.

The existence of the video would then become a judicial fact,

Have you ever set foot in a courtroom? Been party to any litigation?

Owning the HS Collection of "Law and Order" doesn't count.

Ford would be found to be lying in open court -- perhaps opening himself to perjury charges --

You have no idea how rabidly ridiculous you sound to anyone who has any real knowledge of legal proceedings.

and he would very likely wind up paying the Star's legal cost for bringing such a frivolous and vexatious lawsuit.

Do you have any idea what "frivolous and vexatious" means in real terms.

Crack Nation may yammer on about how they don't believe eye witnesses and the various other reports, but that's just kooky nonsense and a judge will have none of it.

How does that help him?

Yes, the Judge will have no kooky nonsense!

But thankfully Fred permits it!

 

[Nate1]

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.

Crack Nation may yammer on about how they don't believe eye witnesses and the various other reports, but that's just kooky nonsense and a judge will have none of it.

How does that help him?

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?

 

[fuji]

Yeah we should all believe the guy with a typo in his terb name!

Yes the eye witnesses are clearly credible, and yes if Ford denies the existence of the video under oath that would be perjury.

 

[blackrock13]

You gotta be kidding posting that link Blackie.

Do you even read the threads or posts or just post without doing so?

What exactly is wrong with what I posted or the connection to the link? Feel free to actually post something worthwhile.

 

[SchlongConery]

What exactly is wrong with what I posted or the connection to the link? Feel free to actually post something worthwhile.

It's old news. The thread is about the SCC declining the case. Yo

 

[red]

yes if Ford denies the existence of the video under oath that would be perjury.

if he denies it exists and it exists but he has no knowledge of it- it can't be perjury.

 

[james t kirk]

The embattled Mayor is battling back.

Fresh off the glowing reports about savings in the Privatization of garbage....

And the overwhelmingly well received nail in the coffin to the plastic bag issue......

Mayor Ford piled on a third win today when the Supreme Court ruled against Magder and Clayton Ruby.

In their wisdom, they saw fit to let proper decisions stand, and not waste time on a matter that had already been properly decided in a previous court.

Its back to the drawing board for the Toronto Star reporters. Time to re-tool....re strategize, and find a way to take another swing at the Mayor.

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.

 

[SchlongConery]

Yeah we should all believe the guy with a typo in his terb name!

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.

Yes the eye witnesses are clearly credible,

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.

and yes if Ford denies the existence of the video under oath that would be perjury.

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:

 

[Nate1]

if he denies it exists and it exists but he has no knowledge of it- it can't be perjury.

If it exists as reported, he is quoted as saying that thing better not be on. So he can't really claim no knowledge of it.

 

[red]

If it exists as reported, he is quoted as saying that thing better not be on. So he can't really claim no knowledge of it.

well he can if they told him it wasn't on

 

[SchlongConery]

If it exists as reported, he is quoted as saying that thing better not be on. So he can't really claim no knowledge of it.

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"

 

[slowandeasy]

yes but he has to pay fords costs

Wasn't the first ruling that he did not have to pay Ford's cost?

 

[red]

Wasn't the first ruling that he did not have to pay Ford's cost?

at the ontario court of appeal but not for the appeal to supreme court of canada

 

[Nate1]

well he can if they told him it wasn't on

Really? His defence is they drug dealer told me the camera pointed at me wasn't on!

 

[SchlongConery]

Really? His defence is they drug dealer told me the camera pointed at me wasn't on!

Hey, you guys are the ones claiming they are best friends!

 

[red]

Really? His defence is they drug dealer told me the camera pointed at me wasn't on!

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

 

[SchlongConery]

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

if fuji asserts perjury, then it is perjury

 

[red]

if fuji asserts perjury, then it is perjury

reading fuji causes me an injury

 

[oldjones]

So now that Ford has his costs covered he I am sure he will now launch his suit against the Star. I would just be weird if he doesn't.

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.