• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Toronto-Age |OT3| Going Off the Rails on a Gravy Train

A

Acheron

Banned
Earthstrike said:
The judge went out of his way in the decision to make it clear he gave ford the lightest possible punishment with respect to the law. For the love of god, read or do some research before you post.
Click to expand...


Yes, because a judge's reasoned opinion of the law is always right. It's not like we have higher courts where the trial judge's opinion gets tossed.

So let's look at a MCIA exception:

(k) by reason only of an interest of the member which is so remote or insignificant in its nature that it cannot reasonably be regarded as likely to influence the member. R.S.O. 1990, c. M.50, s. 4; 2002, c. 17, Sched. F, Table; 2006, c. 32, Sched. C, s. 33 (1).
Click to expand...

How about another defence:
Saving by reason of inadvertence or error
(2) Where the judge determines that a member or a former member while he or she was a member has contravened subsection 5 (1), (2) or (3), if the judge finds that the contravention was committed through inadvertence or by reason of an error in judgment, the member is not subject to having his or her seat declared vacant and the member or former member is not subject to being disqualified as a member, as provided by subsection (1). R.S.O. 1990, c. M.50, s. 10 (2).
Click to expand...

It is the judge's opinion that the amount was material (I disagree, and I think this is the most reasonable leg to attack at appeal) and also the judge's opinion that Ford demonstrated wilful blindness, rather than inadvertence. Neither of which are immutable facts. Given that, I think it's clear the utility of, in effect, scrubbing the 2010 election over the matter is outweighed by the costs and damage to the mayor's office, and the law had multiple "outs" for the judge to take.

So laws shouldn't apply to a ruling body because they won an election?
Click to expand...

Do keep up.
 
D

Divvy

Canadians burned my passport
Acheron said:
How about another defence:


It is the judge's opinion that the amount was material (I disagree, and I think this is the most reasonable leg to attack at appeal) and also the judge's opinion that Ford demonstrated wilful blindness, rather than inadvertence. Neither of which are immutable facts. Given that, I think it's clear the utility of, in effect, scrubbing the 2010 election over the matter is ridiculous and the law had multiple "outs" for the judge to take.
Click to expand...

First one is debatable, but the second is not. He clearly displayed and personally reaffirmed that he refused to read to read the handbooks he was told to read. He was told repeatedly by several people including supportive councillors like Minnan-wong that what he was doing was not acceptable. I don't know how you can even argue that point.
 
A

Acheron

Banned
Divvy said:
First one is debatable, but the second is not. He clearly displayed and personally reaffirmed that he refused to read to read the handbooks he was told to read. He was told repeatedly by several people including supportive councillors like Minnan-wong that what he was doing was not acceptable. I don't know how you can even argue that point.
Click to expand...

If I was his lawyer, I certainly would have attacked the former rather than the latter. I think it's a very difficult claim to prove.

Nevertheless, I don't think anyone outside of the most rabid Ford enemies thinks this process is "good" for any greater reason than to see him go. Nobody I think could say with sincerity the law's impact is proportionate to the "damage" done. So the point is more that the judge had a few opportunities to take an accommodating position and suggest the law be updated. He didn't, we'll see what the appeals court thinks.
 
T

thabiz

Member
Ford was warned multiple times prior to the vote that put him in this predicament, not to vote on the matter.

Meanwhile, Councillor Michael Thompson, a Ford ally, was in the mayor’s ear.

“I told him, ‘Don’t speak on the matter,’” Thompson recalled Wednesday. “And just before the vote, I said, ‘Just step outside for a minute, don’t vote."

But Ford did speak, influencing his colleagues. Before the Perruzza motion was crafted the debate was cut short, and Ford voted with the majority in a 22-12 decision to rescind the previous council decision and free him from repaying the $3,150.

“People now say, ‘Why didn’t you guys warn him?’ Well, we did,” said Thompson.
Click to expand...

This is all Ford's doing. ignorance of the law is no excuse
 
Oppo

Oppo

Member
Yeah. He got smacked for giving absolutely everyone who called him out the middle finger, repeatedly. That's why the Don Cherry fans love him. Except this isn't an act.

I wonder if Willectro will come back. Dude called people names for pages them got huffy when someone termed Ford a "bully".
 
D

Divvy

Canadians burned my passport
Acheron said:
If I was his lawyer, I certainly would have attacked the former rather than the latter. I think it's a very difficult claim to prove.

Nevertheless, I don't think anyone outside of the most rabid Ford enemies thinks this process is "good" for any greater reason than to see him go. Nobody I think could say with sincerity the law's impact is proportionate to the "damage" done. So the point is more that the judge had a few opportunities to take an accommodating position and suggest the law be updated. He didn't, we'll see what the appeals court thinks.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure there's anything wrong with the law. The system had multiple failsafes at multiple levels to prevent this sort of thing from happening. He was warned by people of various positions, was given oppourtunities by the judge, and had a chance to argue his own case. It's not the law's fault that he busted through every single one of those failsafes. If he had a modicum of sense it would have never gotten to this point.
 
E

Earthstrike

Member
Acheron said:
Yes, because a judge's reasoned opinion of the law is always right. It's not like we have higher courts where the trial judge's opinion gets tossed.

So let's look at a MCIA exception:



How about another defence:


It is the judge's opinion that the amount was material (I disagree, and I think this is the most reasonable leg to attack at appeal) and also the judge's opinion that Ford demonstrated wilful blindness, rather than inadvertence. Neither of which are immutable facts. Given that, I think it's clear the utility of, in effect, scrubbing the 2010 election over the matter is outweighed by the costs and damage to the mayor's office, and the law had multiple "outs" for the judge to take.



Do keep up.
Click to expand...

Again, I read the judgement, and the justification for not allowing the error in judgement was outlined in that decision. Rob Ford chose not to attend classes on the MCIA when he was newly elected, nor did he read it once in his 10 years in power, nor did he bother to read it after council found that he should return the money. He was found to be in violation of a specific document, was subsequently told this, and STILL didn't read the MCIA. That is the justification the judge gave for not allowing it to be invoked. He even outlines when it can be invoked (most commonly for newly elected coucillors, or when someone receives erroneous legal advice from a trusted source).

I mean did you read the document. You cited the defences that were discussed in the judgement.
 
A

Acheron

Banned
Earthstrike said:
Again, I read the judgement, and the justification for not allowing the error in judgement was outlined in that decision. Rob Ford chose not to attend classes on the MCIA when he was newly elected, nor did he read it once in his 10 years in power, nor did he bother to read it after council found that he should return the money. He was found to be in violation of a specific document, was subsequently told this, and STILL didn't read the MCIA. That is the justification the judge gave for not allowing it to be invoked. He even outlines when it can be invoked (most commonly for newly elected coucillors, or when someone receives erroneous legal advice from a trusted source).

I mean did you read the document. You cited the defences that were discussed in the judgement.
Click to expand...

So how about the exception?

I understand you read the judgement, still didn't get that the appellate judge can disagree, but at least complete the analysis.
 
E

Earthstrike

Member
Acheron said:
So how about the exception?

I understand you read the judgement, still didn't get that the appellate judge can disagree, but at least complete the analysis.
Click to expand...

Complete the analysis with respect to what? I do not mean that sarcastically, I need to know what you are referring too.

Is it this?
(k) by reason only of an interest of the member which is so remote or insignificant in its nature that it cannot reasonably be regarded as likely to influence the member. R.S.O. 1990, c. M.50, s. 4; 2002, c. 17, Sched. F, Table; 2006, c. 32, Sched. C, s. 33 (1).
Click to expand...

The defense also tried to invoke this argument. It is discussed between in (c) subsections (41,42,43,44) and can be found here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/114454163/Rob-Ford-Conflict-of-Interest-Decision

I will paraphrase: The judge found that the money was of significance to him because of him delivering a speech about the importance of what the money would achieve at the foundation. The fact that the money mattered to him so much that he felt the need to give a speech in and of itself was evidence of it being signifcant to Rob Ford.

Section (d) of the judgement deals with the inadvertance/ error in judgement defense. I've already discussed this, but if you felt it was incomplete, you could elaborate.
 
P

-Pyromaniac-

Member
Am I bad citizen? I don't care about this ford shit and I don't know anything about it and I don't want to know anything about it. I simply cannot summon the will to care about anything he has done, is doing, or will do.

Then again I'm kind of guilty about being like that when it comes to canadian politics. I'm part of the problem!
 
H

Hieberrr

Member
-Pyromaniac- said:
Am I bad citizen? I don't care about this ford shit and I don't know anything about it and I don't want to know anything about it. I simply cannot summon the will to care about anything he has done, is doing, or will do.

Then again I'm kind of guilty about being like that when it comes to canadian politics. I'm part of the problem!
Click to expand...

It's not that I don't care, it's just that I don't really follow what city council does all the time. So I'm kind of in the same boat as you. I do think that with all of the negativity that he gets, he must be doing something wrong.
 
A

added_time

Member
eAwdY.jpg

source
 
A

arts&crafts

Member
Guys any good hole in the wall designer stores on Queen or elsewhere? Its time I do my yearly shop and Holt Renfrew caters too much to the businessman for me. (23 year old male)
 
D

Dyno

Member
Willectro said:
Wrong, but I can't reply to all the commie posts here.
Click to expand...

The only thing left to say is that you are an ignorant troll. You do respond to most of the posts in this thread, you just ignore that parts that prove how wrong you are.

Nothing to do but mock your stupidity at this point.
 
F

Flash

Member
lol Willectro's arguments belong on Fox News. Resorting to name calling tactics, vaguely responding to cherry picked points while ignoring the rest, and then crying foul when someone calls Ford a bully. Kind of reminds of the the Republican's strategy in the American presidential debates.
 
H

Hieberrr

Member
Does anyone know where I can buy 3.5 mm earphones with a mic for my Nexus 4? I've tried ebay twice and my experience has been so shitty it't not even funny.

First order = Lost in mail.
Second order = completely wrong product.

I need something cheap (sub $10) that either ships really fast or can be picked up at a store downtown. I don't even know if I should trust Amazon right now, because those sellers aren't Amazon.

Ugh....

I'm also still waitng for my case from Hong Kong and that was ordered on the 16th of Nov.
 
D

Divvy

Canadians burned my passport
Hieberrr said:
Does anyone know where I can buy 3.5 mm earphones with a mic for my Nexus 4? I've tried ebay twice and my experience has been so shitty it't not even funny.

First order = Lost in mail.
Second order = completely wrong product.

I need something cheap (sub $10) that either ships really fast or can be picked up at a store downtown. I don't even know if I should trust Amazon right now, because those sellers aren't Amazon.

Ugh....

I'm also still waitng for my case from Hong Kong and that was ordered on the 16th of Nov.
Click to expand...

Not really sure you can get those that cheap here in Canada, maybe Pmall...
 
H

Hieberrr

Member
thabiz said:
Futureshop, Best Buy?
Click to expand...

Their lowest ones are $15-16 and those are some wacky rocket fish ones, which I think will break on me within a weak :(

I got a pair from ebay for my Galaxy S last year for $8 and those are the bomb, but they don't work on my new phone.

Divvy said:
Not really sure you can get those that cheap here in Canada, maybe Pmall...
Click to expand...
Aw, man Pmall is too far for me.
 
H

Hcow

Member
Yeah, you're not going to find earbuds with mics <$10 that will last. I've bought expensive ones (~$100) that lasted at best 1.5 years.
 
D

Dyno

Member
Hieberrr said:
Hm, I haven't even thought of that. I don't like spending unnecessary money on headphones :p
Click to expand...

Hit up Active Surplus on Queen St. W. There your cheapness will be satisfied.

If you're not going to do that then straight up thieving is the way to go.
 
A

Acheron

Banned
Earthstrike said:
Complete the analysis with respect to what? I do not mean that sarcastically, I need to know what you are referring too.

Is it this?


The defense also tried to invoke this argument. It is discussed between in (c) subsections (41,42,43,44) and can be found here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/114454163/Rob-Ford-Conflict-of-Interest-Decision

I will paraphrase: The judge found that the money was of significance to him because of him delivering a speech about the importance of what the money would achieve at the foundation. The fact that the money mattered to him so much that he felt the need to give a speech in and of itself was evidence of it being signifcant to Rob Ford.

Section (d) of the judgement deals with the inadvertance/ error in judgement defense. I've already discussed this, but if you felt it was incomplete, you could elaborate.
Click to expand...

Your point is the judgement is right because the judge made it, and then explained it. Just like there's howling over every Supreme Court (US or Canada) ruling there are some who see the judge interpreting the law and the facts in ways we wouldn't.

You've made pains to say this is a different case, and that there is only one, clear and undeniable answer.

My point:
Let's cut the sanctimonious "the law is the law" argument. GAF has like fifteen threads a day about stupid laws, stupid judges and stupid cops. This has never been a board where ridiculous rules that fly in the face of common sense get by without criticism.
Click to expand...

Your point:
However, I don't think our "the law is the law" argument is sanctimonious. Noone is stopping anyone from arguing that the MCIA is stupid. Maybe the MCIA is stupid. But then argue that. Not that the law shouldn't be enforced. I think the war on drugs is dumb as hell but while the laws are on the books they should be enforced. What I fundamentally oppose is their existence.
Click to expand...

and

The judge went out of his way in the decision to make it clear he gave ford the lightest possible punishment with respect to the law. For the love of god, read or do some research before you post.
Click to expand...

I gave you two opportunities that would have maintained the democratic will of the people without in effect striking out the MCIA, though it would be agreeable if it was on materiality rather than inadvertence.

Your response:
I will paraphrase: The judge found that the money was of significance to him because of him delivering a speech about the importance of what the money would achieve at the foundation. The fact that the money mattered to him so much that he felt the need to give a speech in and of itself was evidence of it being signifcant to Rob Ford.
Click to expand...

I don't think it does much to harp that it's the judge's opinion, after all it's their job to give them. If the appeals court agrees with the original ruling all my grumbling is just that. However, you have made the argument this is a black and white, clear-cut case that the amount is material and that by law this is the minimal penalty for such.

I disagree, I've given you two points where the judge could have deferred. On the more reasonable one the result is "it's a material amount to Ford, because he said it's a material amount to his football charity" which is not nearly as stark and clear a rationale as you represent it as.
 
S

Stet

Banned
Painting conflict of interest laws as frivolous is silly. As for governance, I'd be satisfied if every mayoral candidate had to take a basic council procedure test before being put on the ballot.
 
T

thabiz

Member
Its been mentioned a couple of times now, but i think these ford convo's need to be moved somewhere else. It obviously causing friction.
 
F

firehawk12

Subete no aware
thabiz said:
You must really not give a fuck at 2.50. lol.
Click to expand...
Hey, at that price, you could order 4 of them and come out ahead. lol

I don't know about their quality, but for cables, monoprice is my go to source. 3 dollar HDMI cables? Thankyouverymuch!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

  • Locked
Toronto GAF Meetup XXX: Vancouver GAF Meetup.
2 3
144
11K
Deraldin replied
In honor of 30 years of Demon Summoning, GAF Plays: The (Shin) Megami Tensei series
2 3 4
150
23K
TheCthultist replied
  • Locked
Metal Gear Community Thread |OT3| The Best is Yet to Come
397 398 399 400 401
20K
1M
brau replied
  • Locked
Spring Anime 2013 |OT -7| My Giant CG Pony Can't Possibly Read This Much Baudelaire
391 392 393 394 395
20K
2M
Theonik replied
In honor of 25 years of Demon Summoning, GAF Plays: The (Shin) Megami Tensei series
31 32 33 34 35
2K
259K
cj_iwakura replied
Top Bottom