News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 8.6K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 39K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 4.9K     0 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Damn!!

So if this is all the police has, then he will still be mayor in name until Oct and we all wait for election results.

I, and probably most on this board, expected so much more. Very disappointed if true.


He was always going to still be mayor up to the election. Even if charged with conspiracy to commit murder in Smith's death, he'd get bail until trial which likely wouldn't happen until afterwards anyway. I'm sure a dozen or so pages back it was detailed that as long as Ford remains a free man, he's eligible to remain in office, and even get re-elected.

Under the criminal code, the law treats a conspirator the same as they do the ones who do the "physical" work. If you order a hit, you're going down just as hard if not harder than the guy who actually pulls the trigger.

http://yourlaws.ca/criminal-code-canada/465-conspiracy

"465 - Conspiracy

465. (1) Except where otherwise expressly provided by law, the following provisions apply in respect of conspiracy:

(a) every one who conspires with any one to commit murder or to cause another person to be murdered, whether in Canada or not, is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to a maximum term of imprisonment for life;

(b) every one who conspires with any one to prosecute a person for an alleged offence, knowing that he did not commit that offence, is guilty of an indictable offence and liable

(i) to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years, if the alleged offence is one for which, on conviction, that person would be liable to be sentenced to imprisonment for life or for a term not exceeding fourteen years, or

(ii) to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years, if the alleged offence is one for which, on conviction, that person would be liable to imprisonment for less than fourteen years;

(c) every one who conspires with any one to commit an indictable offence not provided for in paragraph (a) or (b) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to the same punishment as that to which an accused who is guilty of that offence would, on conviction, be liable; and

(d) every one who conspires with any one to commit an offence punishable on summary conviction is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction."

Extortion is an indictable offense. It's a serious enough of a crime that it can be punishable up to life imprisonment in certain circumstances, and minimum sentences also can apply.

Please, don't be disappointed with an extortion charge. It'd be phenomenal if he was charged with extortion and/or conspiracy to commit extortion. "Fancy lawyers" are also overrated as even the best lawyers can only do so much sometimes. The fact that he was mayor may in fact be to his detriment, since more is expected from him (not from Ford Nation, but the courts tend to see things a little more rationally on these matters), not unlike a situation where punishments are harsher when one takes advantage of their position of authority.

Have some faith. I think he'd do time.
 
I really don't think enough has been made of the guns angle to this story. I'm not saying that the Fords are involved in gun trafficking, but they are probably fewer than 6 degrees of separation away from it.

As for charges, frankly, what I want more than anything is for TPS to charge him DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE. My biggest fear is that he'll run over a kid as he drives around after a tough afternoon of not working.
 
Hahaha. We've heard this one many, many, many times before!

cbcsteve 5:46pm via Web
.@TOMayorFord on attending Hollywood parties tonight: "I can assure you there won't be any alcohol involved"
 
Last edited:
I guess if you can't charge him with having or doing drugs, the consolation prize is that you can charge him with "facilitating drug trafficking"? Possibly the burden of proof is less with that? As in, you don't need to catch him in the act?

I'm assuming this is related to his paying some of the bills for 15 Windsor and not his personal drug use.
 
I'm assuming this is related to his paying some of the bills for 15 Windsor and not his personal drug use.

I was thinking about the "legal" grow op on Supertest Rd., maybe the trafficking is related to that. I know there was a shitload of weed being grown with a medical permit, but the amount far exceeded what anyone would need for personal use.
 
I'm assuming this is related to his paying some of the bills for 15 Windsor and not his personal drug use.

Now that I think about it, it's most likely related to Lisi buying Ford's lost cell phone back with a couple hundred dollars worth of weed.
 
Now that I think about it, it's most likely related to Lisi buying Ford's lost cell phone back with a couple hundred dollars worth of weed.
So maybe Lisi recorded a conversation with Ford in which Ford gave Lisi the money to purchase a large amount of weed to give to the cellphone holder in exchange for the phone?
 
My biggest fear is that he'll run over a kid as he drives around after a tough afternoon of not working.

I think many people feel that way.

Does anyone know what liability ( if any ) the City of Toronto would face if - heaven forbid - such a tragic event were to happen?
 
So maybe Lisi recorded a conversation with Ford in which Ford gave Lisi the money to purchase a large amount of weed to give to the cellphone holder in exchange for the phone?

Well, logically Lisi's not going to use his own dope/money to get back someone else's cell phone, no matter how best buds they are. Wouldn't surprise me at all if he recorded Ford planning the deal with him, just as insurance.
 
I think many people feel that way.

Does anyone know what liability ( if any ) the City of Toronto would face if - heaven forbid - such a tragic event were to happen?

I don't think there would be any, unless he was using a city-owned car. I don't think he does that. His staff has used them for football, though, and he should called on that. Would have been very messy if there had been an accident.
 
Quite frankly, I'm not sure I'd even recognize Kimmel in a police line-up. Let me guess ... American late-night network TV host. Male and white, right?
Remember how Doug Ford attempted to diminish Margaret Atwood by saying he wouldn't recognize her if he passed her on the street? Your statement is just as meaningful. Congratulations.

And it's okay not to watch late-night TV because you need to go to work in the morning, or you've passed the age where you feel the need to stay current on celebrities, or you don't find them entertaining. No need to put a moral spin on your viewing choices. It's both arrogant and foolish.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top