Rob Ford, mayor of Toronto UPDATES

[Rue]

WWWTT stated"

"Stop making this personal???

So if anyone starts to doubt what you are writing to be true,then it's a personal attack???

Sorry my friend,but selling alleged evidence is not a crime.

Same thing happens all the time when police officers are filmed beating people up!Or should I say assaulting.

These tapes are usually sold to news stations to help pay for legal fees.And I would imagine that there are profits.

Furthermore,no one has been charged with anything.You are making a claim that the police were asking the Ford office where the video was and for specific reasons.Can you provide a link backing those reasons???

Also you are ignoring the fact that the highest laws in Canada are constitutional and Charter.

WWWTT"

You questioned whether I was a lawyer. That makes it personal. You switched from making a legal arguement to attacking my professional qualifications. That made it personal. If you don't understand that responding to a legal issue by making a comment I am not a lawyer is a personal attack than have someone else explain it to you because the ! beyond your latest response shows you are indeed continuing to continue your discussion on an emotional level,

Now go back and read what I said. I have never once made an absolute legal statement. I can't and no lawyer would. Read what I stated. Lawyers unlike you write in conditional tense. We don't state any legal opinion absolutely. You need to learn to read before you go off on tangents.

Whether an actual crime has been committed remains to be seen. When someone like me gives a legal opinion, i.e., a lawyer we talk about probabilities and I repeat again everything I stated.

The fact that no one has been charged with anything does not mean they will not be charged with anything. If and when that video shows up, if its not already destroyed there would HAVE to be a police investigation. The appearance of committing a crime is prevalent on the tape and when there is an appearance of the crime the police will look into it, especially if its an elected official smoking an illegal substance. As well since one of the people in the video has been killed that video would most certainly be investigated by the homicide officers in charge of investigating the case dealingw ith

the individual who was murdered. The fact there is no charge no charges yet is immaterial as to what I said.

I am going to say it in more time since you misrepresented what I said. I did not state ssay seeing alleged evidence is a crime. Read what I stated. I said paying someone to benefit and make profit from a crime is so if the tape shows a crime and then the criminal is paid to show a film of himself engaging in a crime anyone paying that criminal for the tape could be charged with being an accomplice or aider and abbettor and a range of other lesser charges.

Also do not keep misrepresenting what I said. I stated as is public knowledge, that the police did ask Mr. Ford if he knew where the tapes were and as it has been reported by his office he said n. Don't be ridiculous and suggest I know the reasons why the police asked or should tell you, Try figure that one out for yourself. Its not very hard to decipher why they would ask him . They are trying to get a hold of the tape to verify if it exists, then is legitimate or a take for probably two reasons-to see if it shows the commission of an offenc. Since it is probably hard to prove if not impossible to prive in a criminal court by the film itself the substance beings moked is illegal, they would then want to ask Ford, and the others in the tape. Its doubtful any would incriminate themselves but if a criminal feels he is going to get arrested they have no aversion to plea bargain to get themselves off and turn the others in.

Now please at least make the effort to read what I wrote before you misquote what I actually said further.

One other thing. I have no reason why you now raise the charter in regards to this matter and I doubt you do either from the contents.

This issue has nothing to do with the Charter.

For a charter challenge to be raised on a criminal matter it would first have to be shown a charter right was violated. Nothing I have stated would trigger a charter challenge. You would know that if you stopped pretending to be a lawyer and trying to raise legal issues not germaine to the matrter.

If and when it could be shown evidence might have been obtained illegally, it would not necessarily trigger a chrater challenge but an evidenciary one and there is plenty of case law and a Canada Evidence Act as well as ample Criminal Code procedures to deal with questionable evidence.

[Rue]

Black Dog asked/stated:

"If someone witnesses a crime being committed, do they need to present physical evidence before a case can proceed? No. By the same token, a reporter is able, indeed obligated, to report what they see and hear, even if there's no immediate way to verify the truth of it (that's why they are called reporters)."

I agree with the above statement.

However the issue is nto whether the Star reporter etc., believed the tape to be indicating a crime, i.e., smoking an illegal substance, (in which case your above arguement I would agree with legally)but whether the persons selling the tape and asking for money for the tape had committed a crime.

You can't have your cake and eat it. You can't run a film stating you believe it shows Rob Ford committing an illegal act, then in the next breath say paying the people who filmed themselves giving him the drug to enable the illegal act were not known to you to be engaging in a crime.

You can't have it both ways. You can't argue you are innocent of knowing its a crime but planting the story as if it is one at the same time. That is what makes it questionable legally and ethically. The journalists are trying to play both sides off at the same time.

Yous tated:

"Something else: the Star actually sat on this story precisely because of the ethical quandry of providing money to a questionable source and in order to pursue other lines of inquiry to verify the story. It was only after Gawker blew the story open that the Star decided to run with it, which completely submarines your conspiracy theory. After all, if teh Star was really hell bent on attacking the mayor, why would they sit back and risk getting scooped (which they did)?"

Conspiracy theory? I have presented no conspiracy theory and no your above comment in no way contradicts what I said and what you stated is illogical. You are now arguing what the Star did was ethical since the Gawker committed their act of unethical behaviour first. That's absurd.

The timing of what Gawker did or did not do is not in any way germaine to what makes what the Star did unethical or possibly illegal.

[Rue]

Dear police, please go get the video, or investigate if it even exists. Then show it to everyone, if it exists. I swear, most of the time it seems the media move a heck of lot quicker investigating things than the police do. But I guess they have protocol and need warrants etc.

Exacty. Their hands are tied with criminal procedures that do not allow them to act quickly in such cases and often only after the evidence is destroyed.

The same thing that slows investigations down and allows some criminals do go free will protect innocent people from being found guilty on false or illegally obtained information in other cases. Its a trade off. None of us though like these public displays of inneuendo.

[Rue]

What we have here are competing claims, none of which can at this point be verified. Again it comes down to credibility. Considering Ford lies each time he opens his mouth about what he's accomplished (for example, saving the city more than a billion dollars), and has in the past lied about his behaviour (about his DUI in Florida, about his drunken tirade at the Leafs game) credibility is something in short supply in that corner of city hall.

Right and so you get to once again act as moral judge and selectively tune out everyone but Ford.

[Black Dog]

However the issue is nto whether the Star reporter etc., believed the tape to be indicating a crime, i.e., smoking an illegal substance, (in which case your above arguement I would agree with legally)but whether the persons selling the tape and asking for money for the tape had committed a crime.

You can't have your cake and eat it. You can't run a film stating you believe it shows Rob Ford committing an illegal act, then in the next breath say paying the people who filmed themselves giving him the drug to enable the illegal act were not known to you to be engaging in a crime.

You can't have it both ways. You can't argue you are innocent of knowing its a crime but planting the story as if it is one at the same time. That is what makes it questionable legally and ethically. The journalists are trying to play both sides off at the same time.

Who has said anything of the sort?

Also if the description of the video is to be believed, the only illegal act taking place is Ford smoking crack. It doesn't show the actual transaction or anything else.

Conspiracy theory? I have presented no conspiracy theory and no your above comment in no way contradicts what I said and what you stated is illogical. You are now arguing what the Star did was ethical since the Gawker committed their act of unethical behaviour first. That's absurd.

I'm saying what the Star did is ethical because it is consistent with journalism ethics and practices. As for the conspiracy theory, you've repeatedly stated this is a media-driven with hunt

The timing of what Gawker did or did not do is not in any way germaine to what makes what the Star did unethical or possibly illegal.

It is relevant to the claim that the Star is out to get Ford.

[Black Dog]

Right and so you get to once again act as moral judge and selectively tune out everyone but Ford.

what does this even mean?

[Guest American Woman]

Also, aren't the only first-hand witnesses crack dealers and users (who were in the room with Ford while he smoked)? Not the most reliable witnesses!

Exactly. Why people are giving criminals, who are trying to get 200k for the video, this kind of credibility is hard to understand. Say the video is a fake - a drug dealer is $200,000.00 richer. Or say it's not fake - the drug dealer still has the money. Why would it be legal/ethical to hand over that kind of money to a drug dealer without the police being involved?

[GostHacked]

It's hard to disagree with the assessment of an informant's motive but I'm left wondering where Christie Blatchford and all this journalistic integrity was when people were using cartoon drawings of mobile chemical weapons labs as a justification to go to war? Didn't she feast on that juicy story too?

Good point!

[WWWTT]

Now go back and read what I said.

You got to be freekin kidding me?!?!?!?!?!?

It took a couple minutes of holding the backspace key to erase the rest of your comment for this!

Sorry but I don't have time to read it all.Anything more than a couple of paragraphs is all I will allow time for.

Usually,in most public debate,each speaker is only given so many minutes (2-3) to speak.Then it's off to the next speaker.

I have the same approach here.

And yes,from you have written,I do not believe you are a lawyer!

WWWTT

[Moonlight Graham]

Exactly. Why people are giving criminals, who are trying to get 200k for the video, this kind of credibility is hard to understand. Say the video is a fake - a drug dealer is $200,000.00 richer. Or say it's not fake - the drug dealer still has the money. Why would it be legal/ethical to hand over that kind of money to a drug dealer without the police being involved?

Ya nobody should pay anybody, especially crack dealers, this kind of money. I want the police to get the video and to release the footage ASAP.

[Guest American Woman]

Ya nobody should pay anybody, especially crack dealers, this kind of money. I want the police to get the video and to release the footage ASAP.

Agreed.

[WWWTT]

Ya nobody should pay anybody, especially crack dealers, this kind of money. I want the police to get the video and to release the footage ASAP.

As far as I know,we live in an free democracy and have the right to freedom of speech and to earn a living!

Selling this video is fair game!

Are you saying that these people selling the video DO NOT have constitutional rights????

Why do these people selling the video do not have the same rights as you and I?

WWWTT

[Spiderfish]

As far as I know,we live in an free democracy and have the right to freedom of speech and to earn a living!

Selling this video is fair game!

If the video even exists, and if it contains evidence of criminal activity, then I would say there are better ways to try and "make a living" than trying to gain financially off of evidence to a crime.

Are you saying that these people selling the video DO NOT have constitutional rights????

Why do these people selling the video do not have the same rights as you and I?

WWWTT

Sure they have rights. They also have responsibilities that go along with those rights. If they are involved in anything unlawful related to this video (or unrelated, such as selling drugs as is their alleged choice of profession), they will have to deal with the consequence. I'm quite sure the authorities would be very interested in investigating their involvement.

Edited June 4, 2013 by Spiderfish

[Spiderfish]

I swear, most of the time it seems the media move a heck of lot quicker investigating things than the police do.

Well, they do have it a little easier. They don't have to worry about all that inconvenient evidence gathering in order to convict an individual.

[Boges]

It seems we've reached a stalemate here.

No video. But to many, 2 respected reporters saying they saw a video is evidence enough.

The thing about that is that as long as no video surfaces, the reporters in question won't need to deviate from that script.

The only way they can be called into question is if the video surfaces and it's obviously a fake.

What I find troublesome is the chorus of people that are calling on the mayor to resign. Until concrete evidence against him surfaces he should feel no pressure to resign.

If people believe these allegations they can vote him out next year. May I remind everyone that in the middle of the 2010 campaign the Toronto Sun forced Ford to concede that he was charged with a DUI and marijuana possession in Florida and he still got elected.

So will unsubstantiated crack allegations make his supporters waiver? I guess we'll see.

[Black Dog]

It seems we've reached a stalemate here.

No video. But to many, 2 respected reporters saying they saw a video is evidence enough.

The thing about that is that as long as no video surfaces, the reporters in question won't need to deviate from that script.

The only way they can be called into question is if the video surfaces and it's obviously a fake.

What I find troublesome is the chorus of people that are calling on the mayor to resign. Until concrete evidence against him surfaces he should feel no pressure to resign.

If people believe these allegations they can vote him out next year. May I remind everyone that in the middle of the 2010 campaign the Toronto Sun forced Ford to concede that he was charged with a DUI and marijuana possession in Florida and he still got elected.

So will unsubstantiated crack allegations make his supporters waiver? I guess we'll see.

Hopefully the video comes out soon if only to provide some closure.

As to the bolded above, there's a big difference between something that happened 20 years ago in another jurisdiction and a something like smoking crack while in office. That said, his support does seem to be holding fast at around 30 per cent. Question is: is that the floor or the ceiling? It's also impossible to talk about Ford's reelection prospects without knowing who he's up against.

[Boges]

Hopefully the video comes out soon if only to provide some closure.

As to the bolded above, there's a big difference between something that happened 20 years ago in another jurisdiction and a something like smoking crack while in office. That said, his support does seem to be holding fast at around 30 per cent. Question is: is that the floor or the ceiling? It's also impossible to talk about Ford's reelection prospects without knowing who he's up against.

You're correct, many posters like to think he'll go up against Olivia Chow. But will she face him alone? Most of the polls I've seen have it a 3 way race with John Tory. I'd put money on guessing he's not going to run. Anything regarding that is speculative at this point.

[Black Dog]

You're correct, many posters like to think he'll go up against Olivia Chow. But will she face him alone? Most of the polls I've seen have it a 3 way race with John Tory. I'd put money on guessing he's not going to run. Anything regarding that is speculative at this point.

I've heard rumblings both ways on Tory. He's been very active of late through Civic Action, but perhaps he's happy staying on the outside. Chow would be interesting. I'd rather see a left candidate that's less polarizing, but she seems popular. Also I wonder if Ford will also face any challenges from the right (Karen Stintz, for example). Ford's big advantage is name and brand recognition. But that's about all he has going for him.

[g_bambino]

Selling this video is fair game!

Of course selling the video is fair game. However, so too is media outlets (other than Gawker, that is) refusing to buy it. If they did pay for it, a precedent would be set wherein anyone in future could claim to have information and not give it unless paid, whether they actually had useful or valid information or not. Most news sources can't afford to pay for information, either.

[scribblet]

You're correct, many posters like to think he'll go up against Olivia Chow. But will she face him alone? Most of the polls I've seen have it a 3 way race with John Tory. I'd put money on guessing he's not going to run. Anything regarding that is speculative at this point.

John Tory keeps saying he won't run, his wife would divorce him if he did and, he wouldn't run against Rob Ford. I wonder if Rob Ford didn't run would he change his mind. IMO he would be a great choice.

[Boges]

John Tory keeps saying he won't run, his wife would divorce him if he did and, he wouldn't run against Rob Ford. I wonder if Rob Ford didn't run would he change his mind. IMO he would be a great choice.

John Tory is putting his reputation on these very unpopular (at least to the type of people that might vote for Ford) revenue tools to pay for transit.

He's become far more liberal than conservative.

[Guest American Woman]

Of course selling the video is fair game.on or not. Most news sources can't afford to pay for information, either.

Really? You think a criminal, a drug dealer, selling a video for profit - for 200k profit - is "fair game?" You don't think maybe the law should step in and prevent such a profit?

[Boges]

Really? You think a criminal, a drug dealer, selling a video for profit - for 200k profit - is "fair game?" You don't think maybe the law should step in and prevent such a profit?

What if he claimed it as taxable income?

Edited June 4, 2013 by Boges

[Guest American Woman]

What if he claimed it as taxable income.

[Black Dog]

Really? You think a criminal, a drug dealer, selling a video for profit - for 200k profit - is "fair game?" You don't think maybe the law should step in and prevent such a profit?

I'd be curious to know on what basis the law would be able to prevent such a transaction. The argument that it's evidence of a crime is pretty thin IMO.