Ford Desecration Pt IV - the march to Detroit continues

861 posts / 0 new
Last post
NorthReport

I think they framed it that way otherwise contributions might have dried up. Initially these folks only wanted $100, 000 so they will probably settle for less than $200,000. but I'm still skeptical the deal will ever be made. There are the police and people with deep pockets around. 

NorthReport

What If Political Parties Stood behind Their Bozos?

Have we gone too far in preventing Rob Ford-like outbursts and gaffes on the campaign trail?

 

http://thetyee.ca/News/2013/05/20/Political-Bozos/

onlinediscountanvils

voice of the damned wrote:
And if that's what it means, who is putting that stipulation on indiegogo?

It was Gawker that chose to go the 'Fixed Funding' route. That means if they don't meet their goal, they don't receive any of the money, and Indiegogo doesn't charge a fee. If they had chosen the 'Flexible Funding' Route, they would have received pledged money, but Indiegogo woul dhave charged a 9% fee.

Their fee for campaigns that reach their goal is 4% for both flexible and fixed options.

http://www.indiegogo.com/how-pricing-works-on-indiegogo

voice of the damned

Anvils:

That clears things up. Thanks.

mark_alfred

The Ford story animation.

NorthReport

Was this a video of an event in Canada or the US?

nicky

For those who might want to help buy the video:

http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/rob-ford-crackstarter

 

Already at $89,162. It was at 85,000 about 8 am so it seems to be going up about $1000 per hour.

Sineed

This is a horrible precedent to be setting. And what will the release of this video achieve? There's already ample evidence that Ford's a lying bumblefuck and a generally repugnant human being. That's what makes him so populist.

mark_alfred

Sineed wrote:

This is a horrible precedent to be setting. And what will the release of this video achieve? There's already ample evidence that Ford's a lying bumblefuck and a generally repugnant human being. That's what makes him so populist.

I'm torn on that.  There's the "do what it takes to get him out" thought, versus the "horrible precedent" thought. 

I've been watching the progress of the donations, and initially it seemed to be coming in at $30,000 a day.  But that had slowed down to a rate of $15,000 a day by my last tally.  At that rate, it would not make it.  It would be "close but no cigar".  Apparently it has picked up steam since then though, likely since people have returned to work and water cooler talk has ensued (as nicky reported, it's now at a rate of $1,000 per hour, or $24,000 per day).  At that rate, it will reach $200,000 (note, if it does not reach $200,000 by the deadline, then all the pledges are refunded, and the total raised would be zero).

I heard on CBC this morning that Steven Sal Debus, a business man in Toronto, is going to make sure the video does get shown, via a $50,000 pledge.  He wants to bring the video to Toronto, and charge a fee for the public to come in and view it (and thus recoup his investment).  Presumably this would be an advance showing before Gawker displayed it.  I think he's negotiating a deal with Gawker.

It does show how this is turning into a bit of a freak show.  I think big business wants to instill in the public a mistrust of public institutions and government.  So, a buffoon of a mayor that inspires a situation like this is a wet-dream come true for big business.  Rather than calling upon our public institutions to look into credible allegations of a potential breach of integrity in the office of our chief magistrate, people are turning to crowd-sourcing.

That said, it would still be good to view that video, no matter how it is obtained.  All the niceties, and considerations of what's proper and what isn't... still don't really override the fact that this is just too juicy.  Here is a mouthpiece for law and order bigotry who now could be revealed as completely contradicting this in his own actions.  Who could be positively exposed as a buffoon.  Right now, on a balance of probabilities one could surmise that he had smoked crack (and was booted from the military ball, and assaulted Sarah Thomson, etc.)  But to see the alleged content of this video, if it is legitimate as the reporters who've seen it believe it to be, would make this crack smoking allegation, this clear breach of integrity of our chief magistrate, true beyond any reasonable doubt.  It's such a juicy prospect that it seriously challenges any consideration of populism vs proper diplomacy in how to respond to this odd event.

nicky

I too thought about the ethics of this for a while and then pledged $20 to the cause.

I am largely motivated by the fact tht I am a citizen of Toronto and see what this clown is doing to my city.

Through brazen mendacity Ford has weathered previous scandals and still pulls 40% or so in the polls. He has a serious chance of re-election with catastrophic consequences for the city.

If the video is not released it is apparent Ford and "Ford Nation" will once again deny and obfuscate and perhaps prevail. Ford has mainatined his silence so far because he does't know if the video will suface. If he becomes convinced he is safe then we will hear all over again how he is persecuted by the elites.

If the BC election taught us anything, it is that we should not play nice with right-wing liars. We should drive the stake through their hearts when we have the chance and NEVER let them up off the canvass. We should all remember Harper's resurrection when he was allowed to prorogue Parliament.

Incidentally, the tally is now $92,562, up $3400 from my last post about 3 1/2 hours ago.

voice of the damned

I heard on CBC this morning that Steven Sal Debus, a business man in Toronto, is going to make sure the video does get shown, via a $50,000 pledge.  He wants to bring the video to Toronto, and charge a fee for the public to come in and view it (and thus recoup his investment).  Presumably this would be an advance showing before Gawker displayed it.  I think he's negotiating a deal with Gawker.

Interesting. But I'm really wondering if he can recoup his investment.

At a hundred bucks a ticket, he'd have to sell five thousand tickets to get his money back. How many people would pay that kind of money to see a 90-second video that Gawker will be releasing in a few hours anyway? And that's assuming a hundred bucks is the going rate. It actually seems kind of steep to me.

I guess he could make a big event of it, have food and drink for sale, maybe music and dancing afterwards.

mark_alfred

From a search of Steven Sal Debus, I found this.  His business site is modrobes.  It occurred to me that he may just be trying to leer people into a false sense of security to sabotage the initiative, but from his site it seems possible that he'd like it succeed.  It has a slight progressive feel to it (his business involves clothing for bicycles).  Even if he doesn't recoup all of his investment, it would be good advertising for him (potentially international in scope).  Anyway, I'll believe that he's pledging $50,000 when I actually see it on the Crackstarter site.  From the interview, it would be a collection of businesses, and not just him (though the pledge would be through him).

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

This is ridiculous. Everyone with any influence on city hall -- funders, party workers, media, politicians (municipal, provincial, federal) should be calling on Ford to resign, irrespective of the alleged video. He has disgraced the office and his position is so clearly untenable, whether or not he can win an election (which I highly doubt). This gong show with Gawker has got to stop. 

mark_alfred

Good news!  Layton succeeds in killing the casino.  link

cco

I like how a few people have said we shouldn't be giving $200k to "murderers" (because, of course, anyone who's ever sold drugs is a murderer). Seems to me that if they have information on a murder, they should be giving that information to the police, n'est-ce pas?

Oh, wait, they have the names of neither victims nor perpetrators, but just a "gut feeling" that these guys are murderers? Well, I have a "gut feeling" that Rob Ford smokes crack. That and $200,000 will get the video published.

Sineed

cco wrote:
I like how a few people have said we shouldn't be giving $200k to "murderers" (because, of course, anyone who's ever sold drugs is a murderer). Seems to me that if they have information on a murder, they should be giving that information to the police, n'est-ce pas? Oh, wait, they have the names of neither victims nor perpetrators, but just a "gut feeling" that these guys are murderers? Well, I have a "gut feeling" that Rob Ford smokes crack. That and $200,000 will get the video published.

I work in rehab in Toronto and prepare methadone for incarcerated persons. The drug trade, especially crack cocaine, is responsible for many murders in this city. Many of these murders remain unsolved. I mean, if you have an illegal activity involving huge profits, there's going to be violence. Just look at the (much worse) carnage in Mexico, where the police regularly find people tortured, missing their heads.

Gang violence is drugs, mostly. Follow the money.

For instance:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012/01/18/shower-posse-jamaica-gang-...

cco

Of course it is. I'm not contesting that. Having lived in cities like Baltimore and New Orleans, I'd have to be insane to argue that the drug war doesn't result in violence. But there's a difference between that and making an allegation that these *particular* anonymous drug dealers are automatically murderers because of what they do for a living. Many soldiers are also murderers, but merely being a veteran doesn't automatically mean you have a body count.

NorthReport

Isn't there a municipal election this year?

Perhaps the best approach would be to find another candidate who will give the voters what they want to hear and defeat him at the polls.

mark_alfred

Catchfire wrote:

This is ridiculous. Everyone with any influence on city hall -- funders, party workers, media, politicians (municipal, provincial, federal) should be calling on Ford to resign, irrespective of the alleged video. He has disgraced the office and his position is so clearly untenable, whether or not he can win an election (which I highly doubt). This gong show with Gawker has got to stop. 

I'm reminded of the recent cartoon about Ford:

Quote:
Then again, maybe Rob Ford shouldn't worry about the tape. If his smoking, drinking, fighting, bad driving, and colourful racial comments didn't bother Toronto voters, crack smoking probably won't either.

However, people have tried to get him out and failed, the conflict of interest case being one example.  So many efforts have failed.

It might be an idea to write to Janet Leiper – Integrity Commissioner, jleiper@toronto.ca, 416-397-7770, and state something like "hey, I'm a citizen of Toronto, and I feel the credible reports, by two different news organizations, of a video depicting Toronto's chief magistrate, Rob Ford, smoking what appears to be crack cocaine in questionable circumstances, have harmed the integrity of the city of Toronto, and I wish him removed from office for breaching s. XIV of the Code of Conduct (DISCREDITABLE CONDUCT)."  In fact, after I finish this post, I'm going to send this email to Janet.  Likely also send it to my councillor.  But, you know, there is that thing called "just cause" when employers dismiss someone, and usually this involves the burden of proof.  I don't know if reports of a video would suffice to move the commissioner to turf Ford.

Some pressure was put on Ford today, but not nearly as much as would be expected.  The public still isn't there.  Remember, this guy was elected with people knowing about his past DUI, marijuana use, drunkenness in Maple Leaf Gardens, etc.  Refer back to the quote of the cartoon I mentioned above.  There truly needs to be a smoking gun for this guy.  Like nicky said, "We should drive the stake through their hearts when we have the chance."

Sineed

Ok, that makes sense; we should all be leery of guilt by association. For me, though, the complicity of all drug dealers in a culture of violence that often culminates in murder makes giving one of them a huge cash pay-out morally reprehensible. And if you balance that against the possibility of getting rid of Ford on the basis of this video, I'm not sure that's possible. After all, we don't know for certain that he was smoking crack. We don't know what was in the glass pipe he was smoking. I mean, if we get to see the video, and it's verified as not shopped or otherwise faked, he could say it was medicinal mj he uses for his, um, nerves. Look at how terrified he was of Mary Walsh - he's a pretty anxious guy.

Upon whose word is it crack in the pipe he's smoking? And if we can't prove it's crack and therefore an illegal substance being used by the chief magistrate of TO, can he be forced from office? He is shameless enough to not resign, even in the face of a torrent of protest.

nicky

You don't need a certificate of analysis to convict someone of drug possession. Circumstantial evidence will do.

If the Crown alleges that Ford possessed cocaine it will have to prove it was cocaine, probably difficult to do beyond a reasonable doubt.

However, as the law stands, the Crown can allege merely that he possessed a "narcotic" or a "controlled substance" and not have to prove with specificity what drug it was. it can rely on reasonable inferences that it was some illegal substance.

A video showing Ford stoned and incoherent plus expert evidence that this type of pipe and this type of lighting and inhaling suggests a narcotic, then I think the Crown could get a conviction.

onlinediscountanvils

nicky wrote:
A video showing Ford stoned and incoherent plus expert evidence that this type of pipe and this type of lighting and inhaling suggests a narcotic, then I think the Crown could get a conviction.

The problem with this scenario is it assumes the Crown wants a conviction.

onlinediscountanvils

NorthReport wrote:
Isn't there a municipal election this year?

No... October 2014.

mark_alfred

If the video comes out and it shows what the reporters stated it shows, then it will be unnecessary to prove what he was smoking.  The homophobic and racist language alone would be enough to boot him from office, I feel.

mark_alfred

Crackstarter almost halfway now at $98,051.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

The video will not prove what he was smoking. Personally I want some of what you are smoking Nicky if you think that there are prosecutors who would take this forward. That is not the system we live in.  If he was a left wing Mayor then of course it would be a different matter and your scenario might actually come into play. The real question is how does he perform in his job not what substances does he like to ingest in his time off.

I frankly don't care whether he snorts coke or drinks to much or smokes crack or pot from a glass pipe. The only way to finally kill someone like Ford off is to defeat him at the polls. The video's audio content, if it is authenticated, would be a good thing to keep slapping him with in the lead up to the next election. Who knows he just might break under the pressure and resign.

onlinediscountanvils

Catchfire wrote:
This gong show with Gawker has got to stop.

Compared to The Star, Gawker has acquitted themselves rather well.

mark_alfred

kropotkin1951 wrote:

The video's audio content, if it is authenticated, would be a good thing to keep slapping him with in the lead up to the next election.

I don't think that would be necessary.  I think the audio being authenticated would be enough to force him out immediately.  I think the public would truly turn against him if the audio was authenticated and demand he be removed immediately.  If the public didn't, then I would truly be surprised.

cco

Sineed wrote:
I mean, if we get to see the video, and it's verified as not shopped or otherwise faked, he could say it was medicinal mj he uses for his, um, nerves. Look at how terrified he was of Mary Walsh - he's a pretty anxious guy.

Does Ford have a medical MJ card? Current Canadian law doesn't allow you to merely *claim* you're using it for medical purposes.

Sineed wrote:
For me, though, the complicity of all drug dealers in a culture of violence that often culminates in murder makes giving one of them a huge cash pay-out morally reprehensible.

The dealers are not the only ones complicit in the culture of violence. So are the police and the moralizing, bible-thumping politicians who've decided criminalization is the way to deal with addiction problems.

Personally, I'd like to see recreational drugs -- all of them, including crack, PCP, bath salts, and what-have-you -- treated the same way we do alcohol. Rob Ford is not morally flawed because he smokes crack (though I'd say he's morally flawed for other reasons). Getting high is a natural biological impulse that cannot be suppressed by any level of enforcement action. Just look at reserves where people huff gasoline because they can't get better drugs, or failing that, hang themselves in the closet in the hopes of getting a temporary high and end up committing accidental suicide. Not only that, it's not even limited to humans -- take a look at [url=http://gizmodo.com/5993796/russian-bears-are-hooked-on-huffing-jet-fuel-... Russian bears that've become hooked on huffing jet fuel[/url], or [url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/3231394/Heroin-elep... elephants.[/url]

People are individually responsible for acts of violence they commit, but we can't ignore the system that pushes them into it. Attacking the most economically disadvantaged participants in the drug game is unhelpful and often results in racist outcomes, as in my country of birth, the United States.

My best friend from high school has a brother who developed an addiction to OxyContin. In the depths of his despair, he made the foolish choice to rob a pharmacy -- using a note, not a gun. No one was harmed or even briefly alarmed. If he's well-behaved and satisfies the parole board, he'll see his infant daughter again by her 35th birthday.

Meanwhile, I had major surgery in 2011, after which I was prescribed the same drug. The bottle I bought for $5 at the pharmacy would have satisfied his addiction for at least a month. It would've cost him about $2,500 on the street. At pharmacy prices, a day of begging for change on the corner would've sufficed.

Oh, and [url=http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2012/nov/23/baumgartner-appeals-federal-con... judge who sentenced him was high on OxyContin during the hearing as well[/url]. He was later revealed to have been trading favourable rulings for drugs and sex. He got six months for misprision of a felony in federal court after initially receiving a zero-time slap on the wrist in state court for official misconduct.

If Rob Ford has a substance abuse problem, he deserves help. If he goes to jail, it should be for his corrupt behaviour, not how he spends his free time. And if we put recreational drug profits into tax coffers instead of creating a massive incentive to engage in gang-style behaviour, I'm willing to bet the crime rate would drop significantly.

mark_alfred

The halfway point is reached!  Crackstarter now at $100,747.

Junkyard Dog

It's not often I laugh when watching the news, but I got a good one earlier tonight: I turned on City TV's 24 hours news station, and immediately got a shot of a limousine burning rubber, with a caption helpfully mentioning that Ford didn't hang around long after the casino vote. No kidding! It looked like he couldn't zoom away from the cameras fast enough. Quite the reverse of our Mayor's usual attitude towards the spotlight, no?

Then I got an even bigger laugh when I discovered just how overwhelming the vote was against a casino opening. It wasn't that long ago that Ford was braying to anyone who'd listen that everybody wanted the casino, and that it was going to happen no matter what those few, puny naysayers were claiming. Ah, Boss Hogg. As gracious in defeat as he is in every other facet of life...

nicky

Kropotin, whatever I may be smoking is not enough to make me think I am some kind of anarchist prince who knows more about the practice of criminal law in Toronto than I do.

I will pull rank on you here. This is my profession and I can see a clear route to convicting Ford on the basis of the video if it shows what it is said to show. I also know a few drug prosecutors who would love to take a run at Ford.

nicky

The tally is now $105,590, up roughly $20,000 in the past 24 hours.

At this rate it will clear the $200,000 mark by a small magin by the deadline but this is by no means secure.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

nicky wrote:

Kropotin, whatever I may be smoking is not enough to make me think I am some kind of anarchist prince who knows more about the practice of criminal law in Toronto than I do.

I will pull rank on you here. This is my profession and I can see a clear route to convicting Ford on the basis of the video if it shows what it is said to show. I also know a few drug prosecutors who would love to take a run at Ford.

Go shove your degrees. i have a law degree as well a BA in Political Studies.  Your attempt at using, "I'm better educated than you are so STFU," makes you look elitist and arrogant. 

As a lawyer you should read for context better than you do.  What I said is that no prosecutor will take the case on. Did you miss the part where I also said if it was a leftie like say Glen Clark they would likely try.  In your practice do you normally read sentences out of context and try to base your arguments on the the out of context sentences?  Hows that work for you in the real world?

Your attitude permeates the NDP and its thinking.  I can't imagine why marginalized people get turned off from your party, after all you have all the answers as well as pieces of paper on your wall that prove you are smarter than anyone else.

Junkyard Dog

Did anyone see the Daily Show last night?

http://www.thecomedynetwork.ca/shows/thedailyshow?videoPackage=134643

 

mark_alfred

 

kropotkin1951 wrote:

nicky wrote:

I also know a few drug prosecutors who would love to take a run at Ford.

What I said is that no prosecutor will take the case on.

Your response seems in error.  nicky directly addressed your opinion regarding whether any prosecutor would be willing to take on this case (see above). 

nicky

Prince K, I said nothing about any degrees but only my experience. I have practiced criminal law in Toronto for more years than I care to remember and have defended thousands of drug cases.

Perhaps you have some experience that makes you better able to comment on drug prosecutions in Toronto but if so you have not shared that with us.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Your assertion that you know prosecutors who would actually prosecute the case is nothing more than anecdotal evidence and flies in the face of Canadian judicial history. I know lots of people who would love to stick it to the man and will say so over drinks howevere I've met very few who would be willing to put their careers at risk to tilt at windmills.

The proof will be come if the tape is released. If a prosecutor takes the case forward then I will agree with you . In the meantime I don't put much stock in the bluster from your friends.

mark_alfred

Crackstarter currently $111,884.  The campaign goes to Mon 27 May 11:59PM PT, which I think would be Tue 28 May 2:59AM ET (Toronto time).  There's a three hour difference between Eastern Time and Pacific Time.

mark_alfred

Interesting article on video forensics

morose about th...
mark_alfred

Interesting editorial on the ethical quandary that both Crackstarter and the Mayor have put us in.

NorthReport
RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

I don't care. Doug Ford was despicable today. He's a walking advertisement for Tim Hudak. You go Doug.

 

That speech was (I can't describe it without violating terms) shiite. Everything's so scripted lately, I'm at a loss. It's like my latent mental health gone wild. Everyones' lost check.

 

Where does this go next? Isn't it kool how these GUYS can just brush this off?

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oz_-VaTHpc8

 

 

Kaitlin McNabb Kaitlin McNabb's picture

Hey Everyone,

Reminder that when disagreeing with other babblers, please respond to the issues and not comment on the babbler themselves. It is not within babbler policy to negatively comment on other babbler users -- no one off comment, no telling to "shove" anything, no speculations

Thanks!

 

NorthReport

If what Doug Ford says is true, Rob Ford should be a shoe-in for re-election if he wants it. 

The Fords seem confident they can weather this storm, so that means they think the video will never see the light of day or it's a BS video.

 

 

TORONTO MAYOR’S BROTHER SAYS REPORTS OF CRACK VIDEO FALSE

http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2013/may/23/tp-toronto-mayors-brother-say...

cco

Ford's lawyer said they were holding off suing the Star until it was known whether a video would become public. Isn't that basically a confession? If Ford knows he's never smoked crack and that therefore there can't possibly be an authentic video of him doing so, why wait to sue?

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

I don't believe the Star has necessarily crossed the line.  They have not said the video is real they have just said that the two reporters from the newspaper thought it looked real.  Subtle but a very important difference when it comes to successfully suing for defamation.  Given that the Star is a news agency I believe the Fords would have to prove malicious intent otherwise it is merely a news story about an American website claiming they have a tape showing Ford smoking crack.

The CBC is also following the story and they describe what might be on the video but they always insist they do not know whether it is authentic or not.  I think that same type of disclaimer is buried in all the Star articles.

NorthReport

The question about the Star crossing the line is not necessarily about legalities, but perhaps more about the boundaries of appropriate reporting.

If the tape exists it it bobbles the mind to think that their deep pocket allies or the Fords themselves would allow it to see the light of day.

One possible scenario is that arrangements are being made or may already have been made to destroy the video, one of the problems being however is - have additional copies of it been made?

 

Bacchus

If it was taken on a phone you need the original device to have a shot at proving validity. If its a copy they can plead fake all the live long day and nothing will gainsay them.

Pages