Rob Ford Turfed ?

[Guest Peeves]

The finding judge has now ruled that Ford can run in a bi-election.

[jacee]

I find it ammusing that Adam iambrone can bone a girl in the taxpayer funded office, during work hours, on a taxpayer funded couch, and still be allowed to remain IN city hall. I think Rob has more respect for Toronto than the left leaning councilors

Wrong:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Giambrone

] Giambrone exited the mayoral race on February 10, 2010 amidst a sex scandal and he did not run for re-election for his council seat.

Corruption and abuse of public office is a nonpartisan issue to me. I don't care who does it, I want them out.

It's not 'ok' just because others do it too.

We want them all OUT!

[jacee]

The mayor of Ottawa does the same thing for various charities. Mind you, I wouldn't mind if he got the boot since he is, in my opinion, a crook, but you don't see the lefty lawyers volunteering to charge him for it.

Using city staff/resources to solicit money for charities?

Then some citizen should report him ... to the media. Bad publicity is the fastest way to get action.

Edited November 30, 2012 by jacee

[Guest Peeves]

Wrong:

http://en.m.wikipedi.../Adam_Giambrone

] Giambrone exited the mayoral race on February 10, 2010 amidst a sex scandal and he did not run for re-election for his council seat.

Corruption and abuse of public office is a nonpartisan issue to me. I don't care who does it, I want them out.

It's not 'ok' just because others do it too.

We want them all OUT!

Certainly if corrupt.Certainly if abuse. Ford did neither. Cowards took a picayune issue, the fact that Ford wanted to defend his honorable desire to help children and pilloried him. That was way worse than what Ford did for right minded reasons.

On the other hand had it been a left leaning official (Say Jack caught in a 'massage parlor nude), it would be hushed up, overlooked, ignored by the group of cowards with their selective targets.

[Fletch 27]

Dont bring up Jack and the shifty-hands! It never happened!!! NEVER! He had a back back! At 2:30am!

[Guest Peeves]

Dont bring up Jack and the shifty-hands! It never happened!!! NEVER! He had a back back! At 2:30am!

Rightie oh......wink wink nudge nudge..

[Guest Peeves]

The finding judge has now ruled that Ford can run in a bi-election.

YA JUST GOTTA LUV IT! Todays National Post L To Ed.

In 399 BC, Socrates was sentenced to death because, rather than upholding a status quo and accepting the development of what he perceived as immorality within his region, he chose to stand up to his enemies and defend himself and his principles.

Toronto’s Mayor is certainly not a 21st-century Socrates, but in his fight to change a profoundly corrupt and inefficient city government he has chosen to face his political enemies and defend himself and his principles.

Rob Ford is not a great thinker or a world leader, but in his own small way, he joins the likes of Socrates and Aung San Suu Kyi, Nelson Mandela and Rosa Parks, who all chose to fight instead of laying down. I know that Mr. Kay would never dare suggest that these remarkable people were afflicted with ‘self-defeating personality disorder’ so I wonder why he feels he must attack Mayor Ford in this way.

Could it be that Mr. Kay suffers from “narrow-minded bigoted columnist disorder” (not included in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) which has programmed his brain to commit unjustified attacks on unattractive, fat, white, male politicians who love football?

Peter Strachan, Oshawa, Ont.

Edited November 30, 2012 by Peeves

[The_Squid]

Holy crap..... talk about hyperbole!!!

Rob Ford is not Nelson Mandela or Rosa Parks....

[Argus]

In your (incorrect) opinion.

I read the conflict of interest guide. Did you?

The City of Toronto has a responsibility to make sure that money is returned if solicited from lobbyists looking for city contracts, using city resources.

Only money received. But he never received any.

[Argus]

A citizen brought the charges.

Any citizen can.

YOU can.

Suuuuure I can. All I need is an activist lawyer with an axe to grind who'll do it all free.

[msj]

Suuuuure I can. All I need is an activist lawyer with an axe to grind who'll do it all free.

Ah yes, the common refrain of the common person: it's too hard! I can't do it!

[Fletch 27]

Ah yes, the common refrain of the common person: it's too hard! I can't do it!

Or hows about "I cant afford it"! The left get free legal via the Union legal circles... They are the underlying power within City hall...

Sickening and shameful

[The_Squid]

The left get free legal via the Union legal circles

Really? Wow... that's quite a perk just for being "left"... LOL What a ridiculous claim.

[guyser]

Or hows about "I cant afford it"! The left get free legal via the Union legal circles... They are the underlying power within City hall...

Another one of your facts that just arent true?

Sickening and shameful

Only your posts where you post falsehoods....yes, we all agree on that,

You do realize you are your own caricature dont you?

[wyly]

deleted...

Edited November 30, 2012 by wyly

[login]

I read the conflict of interest guide. Did you?

Only money received. But he never received any.

He solicited for his private organization on city letterhead, that is called fraud (misrepresentation). The problem was that he voted and deliberated on an issue involving his personal monetary interest that were raised from city resources without city permission. He refused to return the funds (which nothing prevented from the persons making the donation to redonate the funds. Instead he refused to repay the funds and continued to use his work time to solicit funds for his private organization. You say but he's not gaining a financial interest.

Well he is. he is getting free very expensive publicity.

I would hope you can see any MP or even the PM soliciting funds for the conservative party on Government of Canada letterhead is a big no no. It makes it look like the government is supporting / backing /authorizing the solicitation.

You just cannot do that, it is illegal. It is a form of fraud.

Edited November 30, 2012 by login

[Guest American Woman]

The finding judge has now ruled that Ford can run in a bi-election.

I was just reading that. Seems kind of crazy that he would be ordered to be removed from office only to be allowed to run again. I read that he may be allowed to stay in the position until his appeal runs its course, too.

So people from Toronto - in your opinion, would Ford stand a chance of being elected again even after this? And do the people of Toronto vote directly for the mayor?

[cybercoma]

The mayor of Ottawa does the same thing for various charities. Mind you, I wouldn't mind if he got the boot since he is, in my opinion, a crook, but you don't see the lefty lawyers volunteering to charge him for it.

If other mayors are in conflict of interest, then press charges against them. What can I say? Just because people run red lights and don't get caught that doesn't mean they're not breaking the law.

edit: typo.

Edited November 30, 2012 by cybercoma

[jacee]

Certainly if corrupt.Certainly if abuse. Ford did neither. Cowards took a picayune issue, the fact that Ford wanted to defend his honorable desire to help children and pilloried him. That was way worse than what Ford did for right minded reasons.

On the other hand had it been a left leaning official (Say Jack caught in a 'massage parlor nude), it would be hushed up, overlooked, ignored by the group of cowards with their selective targets.

So just to clarify ...

If you're ok with Ford using taxpayer funded staff to raise funds for and organize a private charity (football in this case), then you're ok with EVERY elected politician doing that ... every municipal councillor, MP and MPP.

Ford's 3 office staff spent a few days - say 3 - raising the $3000, while they were being paid by us.

One of Ford's political staff spent the entire football season - 3 mo. - working full time organizing and administering the football team, paid for by us.

Approx. cost to us taxpayers, 70 staff days = $14000.

(We paid about $2000 for the $3000 solicited.)

So, if you're ok with that, well let's just say you'd let every politician spend $15,000 of our money on their personal charity

... 45 councillors x$15000 = $675,000

... 107 MPP's x $15000. = $1,605,000

... 308 MP's. x $15000. = $4,600,000

So you're ok with taxpayers paying $7m for politicians' pet charities?

But wait! Now all the other charities want a chance at that funding because, you know, favouritism with public money ... now what!?

This is a real can of worms ...

And an expensive one for taxpayers, with no rules, no limits.

Business owners might donate some staff time to charities.

But that's their money and they can do what they want for whomever they want.

Public employees cannot use staff time however they want ... because that's OUR money.

That's why we have rules ... to prevent misuse of taxpayer money ... our money.

It's not a "picayune" issue at all.

[Argus]

Ford's 3 office staff spent a few days - say 3 - raising the $3000, while they were being paid by us.

One of Ford's political staff spent the entire football season - 3 mo. - working full time organizing and administering the football team, paid for by us.

Approx. cost to us taxpayers, 70 staff days = $14000.

(We paid about $2000 for the $3000 solicited.)

So, if you're ok with that, well let's just say you'd let every politician spend $15,000 of our money on their personal charity

... 45 councillors x$15000 = $675,000

... 107 MPP's x $15000. = $1,605,000

... 308 MP's. x $15000. = $4,600,000

Do you have any actual documentary support for the numbers above or are you just pulling them out of your ass fulled by the raging hate you feel for anyone conservative?

Btw, the city of Toronto, the province, and the federal government all give millions to charities every year. In fact, in the case of the feds, its billions, if you include foreign aid.

Edited December 1, 2012 by Argus

[Argus]

Using city staff/resources to solicit money for charities?

Then some citizen should report him ... to the media. Bad publicity is the fastest way to get action.

Ford's predecessor just simply GAVE thousands of dollars to charities out of his own office budget.

Shockingly, there was no huge outcry from the Left!

Edited December 1, 2012 by Argus

[Guest Peeves]

I was just reading that. Seems kind of crazy that he would be ordered to be removed from office only to be allowed to run again. I read that he may be allowed to stay in the position until his appeal runs its course, too.

So people from Toronto - in your opinion, would Ford stand a chance of being elected again even after this? And do the people of Toronto vote directly for the mayor?

I think he will be re elected. Most reasonable people that elected him initially understand what he did was with good intentions for kids and that he personally gained nothing from the noble deed. His taking a stand, speaking to the motion, voting on the motion was wrong, but a picayune matter pursued by cowards over an insignificant amount and issue.

They should have dropped the issue and got on with the business of running the city. However a few cowardly left biased people took a minor infraction to it's nth degree for political purpose since it served no other.

[Argus]

Having posted an earlier legal opinion in Christie Blatchford's column I'm posting a second, from a different lawyer, also stating the judge's findings were highly questionable and likely to be overturned.

(In fact, the way he explained his motivation in an email message to me pretty much sums it all up: “As a lawyer I find this decision embarrassingly bad. Lawyers take enough flack as it is, and courts are often unjustly criticized for interfering in matters they should not be involved in by judicial activism. But this case, as high profile as it is, is abominable. In the end the result will be reversed, Ford will probably be a bigger winner than he should be, his critics will be setback despite the fact they make some good points, and the courts will look terrible.”)

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/11/30/marni-soupcoff-maybe-were-the-ones-who-owe-rob-ford-an-apology/

[Guest Peeves]

Some may have forgotten the extent these cowards will go to. Remember they had him investigated for NOT using his alloted office expense budget when he paid his own office expenses for several terms in ELECTED office!

he made a few enemies by his attempts to cut city spending.,,,, But he gets investigated for being cost conscious and frugal. This (below) shows just how low the cowards will go.

Toronto city councillor investigated for not spending enough

by Grig » 05/ 01/ 07 7:46 am

Frugal councillor to have expenses investigated

toronto.ctv.ca

A Toronto city councillor is coming under scrutiny for his annual expenses. The concern is not how much Rob Ford spent, but how much he didn't.

Ford takes pride at the end of each year that he is the lowest spender on city council. Last year his total office expenses came in at zero, despite the fact that his allowance was $53,000.

The frugal expense sheet caught the suspicious eye of Mayor David Miller's powerful new executive committee. That group wants the integrity commissioner to investigate the lack of expenses claimed by Ford and fellow councillor Doug Holyday.

"They must sit up at night and think how they're going to attack me," was Ford's reaction to the proposed investigation.

Ford says he uses his own money to pay for flyers and mail-outs, using his family's printing business. And that is the crux of the issue for the executive committee.

"You're not supposed to accept gifts, even from yourself," Giorgio Mammoliti said.

Ford says he is being targeted because he tries to point out the waste of taxpayer's money occurring at city hall.

All of city council will have to approve the request for an investigation before the integrity commission can begin a probe. That vote is slated to take place next month.

Expenses claimed last year by the four main councillors involved in this issue were:

* Rob Ford -- $0;

* Doug Holyday -- $1,471;

* Howard Moscoe -- $10,636; and

* Giorgio Mammoliti -- $49,795

There is more salvation and security in wheat, than in all the political schemes of the world -- Ezra Taft Benson http://www.freedomin...p?avatar=38.jpg

Grig Posts: 14910 Joined: 01/ 15/ 01 2:01 am Location: Ottawa,ON,Canada

• 
  

Also: "In June 2010, Ford and fellow councillors criticized retiring Kyle Rae for holding a retirement party at the Rosewater Club and billing the $12,000 cost to his office budget. Rae said that unspent campaign funds he was forced to turn over the city more than covered the cost, but critics pointed out that the campaign money was not his to spend. This example was used by Ford as an example of the "gravy train" at City Hall.^[28][29][30]"

[Guest Peeves]

A verrrrrrry interesting prognostication.

Terence Corcoran:

I hate to dump on the Toronto Spring, but I predict that the overthrow of Mayor Rob Ford will not happen, regardless of the judge’s post-decision decision to allow a byelection. There will not even be a byelection. The swarming mob we’ve seen daily for weeks now, running an imaginary Tahrir Square revolt against Mr. Ford, will soon be forced to disperse.

Continuing;

It won’t work, in my view.

No reasonable person could read through the facts of the case against Mr. Ford and believe that the decision of Justice Charles Hackland to order the mayor to vacate office will survive appeal.

As others have noted, even the judge can’t find any real wrongdoing in the case. Instead, he found Mr. Ford guilty of a technical breach of the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act.

The Act prohibits a council member from voting on a matter if the member may have a “pecuniary interest” in the outcome of the vote. In this case, Mr. Ford voted against a motion that he should return $3,150 to contributors who gave money to an arms-length football charity that bears his name.

The case is not a matter of conflict of interest over city business. It was not a vote on whether council should spend money or award a contract or rezone property that might benefit Rob Ford. It is not corruption, self-serving or even a conflict of any kind in the true meaning of the word.

"This is a city government where councillors have used their city budgets on parties, video cameras, dinners, lunches and — of all things — to make charitable donations

The office of former Mayor David Miller, a card-carrying downtown-lefty, once filed $15,000 in expenses for donations to various charities, including the Senior Pride Network."

http://news.national...pring-uprising/

Terence Corcoran: