News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 8.9K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 40K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 5.1K     0 

Status
Not open for further replies.
I wonder why cops went after a weed bust and not something like coke. Buddy could have left a little packet of coke in his pocket instead.
 
Goldsbie's Tweets this morning are wildly entertaining.

Jonathan Goldsbie @goldsbie · 15m 15 minutes ago
This is kind of a wild judgment, like a dramatic reading of an especially well-written Christie Blatchford column.

Jonathan Goldsbie @goldsbie · 28m 28 minutes ago
Explaining the defense strategy, Justice Khawly compares Project Brazen 2 to Howard Hughes's Spruce Goose.
 
Jimmi T said:
It'd be a shame if Sandro gets off but the drycleaner gets punished. He's a nice guy!
Click to expand...

I do find myself marvelling at the decision-making. Lisi feared, and then knew, the police were on to him, but never stopped dealing. Bahrami knew Lisi was worried about the police but never stopped dealing with him.

I agree that weed should be legal, but there's a part of me that thinks stupidity of this magnitude should be punished.
 
kaboi said:
I do find myself marvelling at the decision-making. Lisi feared, and then knew, the police were on to him, but never stopped dealing. Bahrami knew Lisi was worried about the police but never stopped dealing with him.

I agree that weed should be legal, but there's a part of me that thinks stupidity of this magnitude should be punished.
Click to expand...

On the other hand, it looks like Lisi's strategy makes sense.
 
This is confusing. Seems the judge is going to let these guys off because it's a David vs Goliath case and he wants to side with the underdogs?
 
I hope a copy of the verdict will be made public, it's rather interesting as the various tweets have informed us. Pretty cool being in the old council chamber too.
 
Jimmi T said:
I wonder why cops went after a weed bust and not something like coke. Buddy could have left a little packet of coke in his pocket instead.
Click to expand...

The impression I got from the ITO was that Ford was bankrolling Lisi's pot dealing. I'm now hazy on what led me to that at the time (frequency of meeting? Timing of meetings?) but assuming the police also suspected that, and Ford was the real target, then the I guess the goal would have been to unravel the pot dealing. Which they didn't, leading Ford to turn to ebay for his supplememtary income.
 
When the officer claimed he didn't know that Ford was the real target, he...probably wasn't being completely honest. Since the judge is finder-of-fact, the officer made the mistake of telling the sort of...questionable truth that says "I think you are stupid enough to believe this". It also destroyed his credibility as a witness.

I'm basing this solely on my understanding of judges and the bits of the ruling that are being tweeted (so, I'm guessing, but they are informed guesses), but, generally speaking, insulting a judge, even somewhat inadvertently, pretty much destroys your chances.

And saying "I had no idea this investigation had anything to do with Ford!" doesn't really make one look honest, forthright and forthcoming. Those are generally speaking the things one wishes to be perceived as on a witness stand.
 
expat said:
throughout this whole affair i've been wondering if the police suffer more from incompetence or corruption - i'm still not sure. either way, rob and friends have really benefitted.
Click to expand...

The main trial looks to be run much more professionaly.
 
kaboi said:
The impression I got from the ITO was that Ford was bankrolling Lisi's pot dealing. I'm now hazy on what led me to that at the time (frequency of meeting? Timing of meetings?) but assuming the police also suspected that, and Ford was the real target, then the I guess the goal would have been to unravel the pot dealing. Which they didn't, leading Ford to turn to ebay for his supplememtary income.
Click to expand...

Ya, that's what I heard. Cops thought he was bankrolling a few guys and not just for weed. And they also though they were linked to at least the Windsor Road pipe attack.
 
animatronic said:
The main trial looks to be run much more professionaly.
Click to expand...

I hope so! I don't really support the idea of convicting someone for weed but since I consider Lisi an all-round criminal scumbag and not just a small-time dealer, I'm hoping the extortion charge will stick, since he's gotten away with just about everything to this point.

What kind of sentence could we expect if he's found guilty?
 
the lemur said:
I hope so! I don't really support the idea of convicting someone for weed but since I consider Lisi an all-round criminal scumbag and not just a small-time dealer, I'm hoping the extortion charge will stick, since he's gotten away with just about everything to this point.

What kind of sentence could we expect if he's found guilty?
Click to expand...

Short answer is maximum life, but no prescribed minimum because a firearm was not used.

346. Extortion

346. (1) Every one commits extortion who, without reasonable justification or excuse and with intent to obtain anything, by threats, accusations, menaces or violence induces or attempts to induce any person, whether or not he is the person threatened, accused or menaced or to whom violence is shown, to do anything or cause anything to be done.

Extortion

(1.1) Every person who commits extortion is guilty of an indictable offence and liable

(a) if a restricted firearm or prohibited firearm is used in the commission of the offence or if any firearm is used in the commission of the offence and the offence is committed for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with, a criminal organization, to imprisonment for life and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of

(i) in the case of a first offence, five years, and

(ii) in the case of a second or subsequent offence, seven years;

(a.1) in any other case where a firearm is used in the commission of the offence, to imprisonment for life and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of four years; and

(b) in any other case, to imprisonment for life.

Subsequent offences

(1.2) In determining, for the purpose of paragraph (1.1)(a), whether a convicted person has committed a second or subsequent offence, if the person was earlier convicted of any of the following offences, that offence is to be considered as an earlier offence:

(a) an offence under this section;

(b) an offence under subsection 85(1) or (2) or section 244 or 244.2; or

(c) an offence under section 220, 236, 239, 272 or 273, subsection 279(1) or section 279.1 or 344 if a firearm was used in the commission of the offence.

However, an earlier offence shall not be taken into account if 10 years have elapsed between the day on which the person was convicted of the earlier offence and the day on which the person was convicted of the offence for which sentence is being imposed, not taking into account any time in custody.

Sequence of convictions only

(1.3) For the purposes of subsection (1.2), the only question to be considered is the sequence of convictions and no consideration shall be given to the sequence of commission of offences or whether any offence occurred before or after any conviction.

Saving

(2) A threat to institute civil proceedings is not a threat for the purposes of this section.



R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 346;R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 46;1995, c. 39, s. 150;2008, c. 6, s. 33;2009, c. 22, s. 15.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top