Ford’s conflict of interest case certainly seems to be getting lots of attention, including much on this little blog too. For that, loathe as I am to do so, I really should be thanking Robbie.

It’s interesting to note that some of the comments on my earlier post echo, pretty much verbatim, what Rob’s brother Doug is now bringing out to distract from the upcoming court case; the very same anger-laced diatribes that Rob himself brought out during the election, like Kyle Rae’s $12,000 going-away party — which you either abhor and therefore must love Ford, or love and therefore are critical of Ford (and clearly there’s nothing in between). It’s the kind of logic that only the Fords can pull up — like Doug’s, “Should Rob Ford be in front of a judge for helping kids? No, he shouldn’t be”

No, he’s not in front of a judge for helping kids from “disadvantaged” neighbourhoods like Forest Hill or schools like his own Catholic Don Bosco to play football, he’s there because he broke the law and engaged in what looks an awful lot like influence peddling.

Ultimately, it leads one to wonder if the same people dredging up these comparisons and urging everyone to look every which way but forward are not on the Ford payroll, or somehow part of the same team that got him into power. I’m willing to bet that if you visit The Sun or The Star and read the comments on earlier articles related to Ford’s trial, you’ll find the same commentary and use of distraction tactics.

Coincidence?

But that’s a bit beside the point, because in this post I wanted to talk a bit about what Rob Ford said when he sat with Clayton Ruby and his own lawyer. It’s kind of a long and tedious document owing mostly to Ford’s refusal to own up to anything and arguing over pretty much every definition of every other word Ruby would put to him.

The first four or five pages, for example, are filled with back-and-forths like:

(regarding signing the Declaration of Office when Ford was elected)

Ruby: The declaration is a serious promise?

Ford: I can’t remember what exactly the declaration says.

Ruby: But you understand it to be a serious promise?

Ford: I don’t recall what is says.

Ruby: I’m not asking you to recall what it says … were you making a serious public promise?

Ford: I don’t remember exactly what the wording said on the document…The clerk asks you to sign it, but I can’t remember exactly what it said.

Ruby: Was it a formal occassion?

Ford: How do you define “formal”?

This goes on for an excruciatingly long time with Ford insisting that signing such documents “happens at City Hall”, reiterating that he wasn’t sure what “formal” meant, was unsure of the definition of the word “serious”, and didn’t really get what “important” means. Basically, Rob has never seen a dictionary and doesn’t quite seem to have a good grasp on conversational English either.

Eventually, after huge lapses in memory, Rob reluctantly agreed that he might’ve signed some sort of document where he might’ve agreed to follow some rules, or something like that, maybe.

On page 17 it starts to get a bit more interesting when Ford is asked what his understanding of “conflict of interest” with regard to pecuniary (financial), interest means. “If the City if benefiting from it”, he replies. In other words, if the city of Toronto makes money from the result of his vote, it’s a conflict of interest. (How many Councillors are guilty of that?!) Later this changes to, “if something comes up with the printing”, an allusion to the Fords’ printing company which supplies City Hall with printing services. Either way, both responses display a gaping ignorance of what “conflict of interest” means. Or a put-on ignorance.

Thing is, Ford had gotten the book of rules just like every other Councillor — of which, of course, he has no memory but does have a clear recollection of what he ate for breakfast that morning (that’s the actual reply) — sat in and voted on meetings with reports by the Integrity Commissioner where conflicts of interest were clearly spelled out, had access to Ana Kinastowski who heads City Hall’s legal department, and could also use a part of his office budget for independent legal advice if he wants it. And don’t forget how many times Ford had recused himself in the past when the conflicts of interest were laughably far removed from him. And just in case there was any doubt, Ford is reminded how Sandra Bussin had mentioned that Ford might be in a conflict of interest prior to the meeting, and that according to the same document he kinda remembers signing, the final responsibility for such things lies with him.

Ruby then questions Ford about his previous conflicts of interest; you know, to try to wrap his head around how Ford would’ve recused himself at previous meetings but for some strange reason completely failed to do so when this glaringly obvious one came by. One of these sections questions Ford’s previous statements about how he deems conflicts of interest to arise:

Ruby: On March 8th, 2011…That’s involving your brother, Councillor Ford. That matter was the appointment of your brother, Doug Ford, to a particular entity, Region Conversation Authority [sic] in project green…I have trouble seeing how you have a pecuniary interest in Doug Ford’s appointment.

Ford: Again, whatever the staff tells me to do, I do.

Ruby: You don’t get or give money to your brother? You each earn your own incomes?

…

Ford: We have our own incomes, but if he needs five bucks for lunch, I give him 20 bucks or 10 bucks for lunch.

A similar line of questioning follows in which Ruby asks Ford about development along Lakeshore Boulevard; Ford also made himself scarce for that Council meeting because of a court proceeding against him (probably the Boardwalk Pub one). “Okay. It doesn’t seem to me to be involving any economic interest,” says Ruby.

After one additional example, Ruby comes to the point:

Ruby: So in all these conflicts of interest, they’re all very different, yes?

…

Ford: It all depends how you define “different”.

Eventually we get to the meat and potatoes where Clayton Ruby asks why Rob Ford thought that a vote which was solely and exclusively about a punishment against him wouldn’t be considered a conflict of interest:

Ruby: In your affidavit at paragraph 16 you say: “…There is no financial consequence to any of the recommendations put forward by the integrity commissioner…” Can you explain what you mean by that?

Ford: I don’t see how the City benefits from this under the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act.

Ruby: And therefore there is no need for you to worry about a conflict, correct?

Ford: I wasn’t given…I wasn’t told by legal to declare a conflict.

Ruby: I know that, but I’m trying to figure out what was going on in your head.

Ford: I don’t remember what was going on in my head. I have thousands of thoughts that go through my head every day.

Although earlier in the deposition Ford barely understood what the words Municipal Conflict of Interest Act meant, he now appears to be referring to it. At least he’s sticking to his “all of Council is guilty” logic that the City must somehow benefit financially from this.

Ruby: When you say now: “…There was no financial consequence to any of the recommendations put forward by the integrity commissioner…” Didn’t the integrity commissioner recommend earlier that you pay back, council adopted that, and now they were asking for a time limit on proof that that had happened? In your mind…

Ford: I don’t recall exactly what it was, but yes, the integrity commissioner said I should pay this back.

Ruby: And in your mind, that is not a financial consequence?

Ford: It has nothing to do with the City under the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act. I don’t see how the City benefits from from this.

Perhaps the most telling and laughable section appears on pages 72 to 73 where, after all of this has been established, Ruby asks Ford about his speech (available on my previous post), during that fateful Council meeting:

Ruby: Okay. After your speech, Councillor Ainslie brought a motion to rescind the previous council order requiring you to reimburse the $3,150. Is that correct? … I take it that [the speech] wasn’t an accident? It was deliberate?

Ford: No, I speak when I want to speak.

Ruby: It had nothing to do with a deliberate choice?

Ford: You’re only allowed to speak once at council on every item…You can speak to a deferral for two minutes after that, but if someone amends the item, no, you’re not allowed to speak to it. You’re allowed to speak once for five minutes, plus a two-minute extension.

Ruby: All right. So there was no significance in terms of whether you spoke or whether you voted for the fact that Councillor Aisnlie brought that motion. Am I correct?

Ford: I couldn’t speak to it. It’s against the law…It’s against procedural bylaws. You cannot speak once you have spoke on the item once, and I spoke on the item.

That’s right, Ford wouldn’t want to break procedural bylaws (by order of Council) by talking too much, but having to repay money (by order of Council) can be completely ignored, and the more serious provincial law governing conflicts of interest doesn’t need to be taken seriously at all. If he were up on federal charges like murder, I wonder how absolutely insignificant they’d be to him.

The questioning goes on and on about how Ford dealt with the repayment order, how he understood the Integrity Commissioner’s reports and so on, but it’s really this last exchange that defines what a joke any of Ford’s defense is.

Ford and his brother typify this as “politics”. In fact, they typify anything and anyone who disagrees with them as “politics”, their ignorance of laws and common sense as “misunderstandings”, and anything that smacks of benefiting the common good as pinko Communism.

The real problem with Ford, aside from believing he can pick and choose which laws to follow, is that he’s personally offensive, and has been from day one. He shows no remorse for any of his actions, and if he stays in office there’s no reason to believe that things will get anything but worse. Much worse.

It’s not that I believe that politicians, as a group, are necessarily much better, but at least that push-and-pull of public perception keeps most of them in check. For Ford, that’s obviously not the case, and if we allow it, he’s going to redefine the office of the Mayor to something ugly, decadent, and genuinely offensive, if not outright criminal.

Did you ever see Purple Rain? You know, the one with Prince — or the more endearing TAFKAP, as he’s now known? I didn’t either. Well, kind of … I vaguely remember a scene in which Prince was on stage, dolefully strumming out some sort of thin-moustached melodrama, and in the foreground were a couple of people talking about him, and to dissuade the one from approaching Prince the other said, ”He’s in one of his moods again.” Maybe I’m thinking of the Princess Bride. That was a good movie :)

Anyhow, I believe I’m in one of those moods today. It was one of those lurching days in which clarity decides to rear its ugly head – a light was cast on a vexing situation that’s been festering on my mind for a few months and – to be blunt – both shocked and pissed me right off. I probably shouldn’t go into detail because I have a feeling I’ll be wielding the business end of legal prosecution pretty soon; I can think of no other word than fraud, or something very close to it. Certainly some very odd dealings that I just can’t explain. You know? Stuff just doesn’t add up, like 1 and 1 is supposed to equal FF in hexadecimal. Yeah, that’s not even the same numbering system.

There are lots of fiddly little details that, hopefully, I’ll be able to share once it’s all done with. I think they’d make good reading if you have a few minutes on the shitter (get a netbook—best investment ever ;)). However, droning on about some vague misdoing is boring my tits off and I know the details, so let’s let’er rest a while there.

Besides, some things don’t need to be discussed because they kinda stare you in the face, you know?

Take the story about a young mother who was murdered in her car while tending to her two-year-old daughter. Yep, no way to put a frilly ribbon on that story; shot right in front of her little girl. The story is tragic no matter how you spin it; that kid’s just been handed a life sentence. Who’d argue with that?

But just beneath the surface there are things that aren’t quite right.

To begin with, Detective Sergeant Pauline Gray is quoted as saying, “I think the careful thing is not to look for a reason, because as far as I’m concerned, there is no reason.”

Did I read that right? The careful thing is not to investigate the motive because there isn’t one? Okay, well, for an officer to be making extrajudicial pronouncements at a press conference probably isn’t a great idea, but it also shows that the good Detective has been compromised. Clearly am emotional basket case. Hey, can’t blame her, but don’t we owe the mother and kid a proper, thorough, and unbiased investigation? The careful thing to do is to look for a reason, because as far as I’m concerned, there’s always a reason. I believe that’s the difference between first and second-degree murder — planning requires a purpose, or a reason, as they call it out west.

I also subscribe to Occam’s Razor which bluntly states that the simplest and most direct explanation is usually the correct one. Don’t over-complicate shit, I believe, is the original expression. If she had a jilted ex-husband, my odds are on him. But there’s another possibility; please allow me to connect a few dots…

She’s from Columbia where her parents still live. Upon moving to Toronto, she started a successful container shipping company. Initially she was sending a container or two a year (was that enough to live on?), but recently business had picked up to the sum of one or two per month. To and from South American countries. Do we need the white connecting lines here?

Okay, that’s just rampant coke-fuelled speculation, but any investigator worth their salt should be knee-deep in blow by now. To dismiss some possibilities because they may harm the reputation of the deceased person does them a disservice. And the little girl too. Even if some dark details are revealed, who knows what the circumstances were around those details?

If you’re a keener and read the story, you’ll note that I took most of the drug runner scenario from the Star piece. Almost verbatim, except that I took out a bunch of expletives. I still don’t know why The Star swears so much, it’s really off-putting. But the facts remain about the same. Possibly manufactured for my benefit. However, I still stand by my argument that a thorough and unbiased lookseeinto is the way to go.

It’s the same with the McCormack case. That’s the former police chief’s son (and also a cop), accused of pulling money from club and bar owners in exchange for favours. Hehe, no, not sexual ones. Although, you know, I shouldn’t judge … who knows? Definitely the accusation of money exchanging hands for services of some sort (no, no jokes about hand services, that’d be crude and never proven in a court of law). Impropriety on the one side, corruption on the other, but either way it was looking meaty.

I guess we’ll never know for sure how meaty because the case was thrown out of court for taking too long. If proceedings extend for five years, I believe, the court is obliged to remove them from before its just gaze. “And don’t let the door hit you on the way outtay”, in Latin.

Wow, my head’s really gone over to the lawyer side of the force. Maybe I’ve been spending my time in that headspace for too long and now I just zero in on any little litigious thing I see. I probably just need a good sleep – I mean, who knows, maybe I’ll dream up an out of court settlement. Or maybe cast a dark habeas corpus upon them from my slumber — the sleeping subconscious mind has mysterious powers, possibly even occult. I guess that path will be determined by my mood. Prince or Princess Bride?

Okay?

Just flour. Maybe bleached. Let’s say it is. And slightly lumpy.

If you chucked it in my face, that’d suck. If it got in my eyes, like happened to a high school vice-principal in June of this year, it would really suck. Could it do some longer term damage? I think it’s likely. But would you call it a weapon?

I know that legally, if it’s not your fist it’s a weapon, but it seems like a funny definition. Why not assault with an object? Does an object become a weapon the moment I pick it up to bash someone with? So if I were to fling cats at people, those cats would become weapons? Haha! Oliver would not want to stay in a police evidence baggie.

Laws is weird! :o

Hmm. I guess it kinda makes sense that laws would be a bit loopy. They’re put there by people who’ve listened to the most fucked up criminal trial shit day in day out for decades. Like the Rengel case. You remember:

Oh man — that doesn’t get any easier.

This is the teenager who coerced her boyfriend into killing another girl because she was jealous of her. She was tried and sentenced as an adult and the boyfriend, D.B., is on trial now. In his case, it’s going to be simply a matter of how much time he’ll get. The trial will just be going through the motions. And they’re deliberating whether or not to try him as an adult, meaning they’d release his identity as they did hers. Sure hope they do! I’m curious to see, aren’t you?

The other thing I’d be curious to see would be the plans for the proposed Loblaws supermarket / Ryerson hockey rink. Right. And not just some weird hybrid, but inside the hallowed halls of Maple Leaf Gardens, no less:

You may remember a few years back when Loblaws tried to buy the Gardens to make the building into another supermarket. I’m one of those odd Canadians who don’t follow hockey at all, but even I knew that that wouldn’t fly. After all, the Gardens are an institution. To have a university hockey team in there seems appropriate, but a supermarket… It just doesn’t sound like a way to popularize the idea of re-opening the place.

There’s also the problem of having all that flour (not to mention other baking supplies), near all that violence and with no laws.

Oh, Gene.

Let me start by saying that KISS ended up doing the right thing and scheduling that concert in Oshawa. Good call, gentlemen. But I guess Gene Simmons didn’t like the negative spotlight of this little aside and he went and started blaming the media for spoiling the surprise the band had had in store the entire time.

*ahem*

What was the surprise again? I mean, the cat was out of the bag and running around the room hissing and  breaking things when KISS announced that Oshawa had won the well-publicized contest. Toronto was a contender in that contest, as were Los Angeles and New York. Was the “special” surprise that the winner wouldn’t be getting a visit from the group? Would they be revealing some awesome piece of the show simply by announcing that they would be having a show? That would make the tour an awful spoiler. Contest too.

I don’t get it.

Another thing I don’t get is this story of the twenty-two year old student who faked his own kidnapping last weekend. Well, no, I get the story; I don’t get the plan behind it.

If you don’t want to read the whole article, basically the guy called his family some time in the middle of the afternoon last Saturday. He said two guys with guns were trying to run him off the road. Then silence. Parents called the cops; “he’s been kidnapped!” Almost immediately, strange facts start to pop up in the news. He’d just been fired from his part-time job at IBM and was also arrested for stealing stuff. And he had two grand in his pocket at the time of the kidnapping, allegedly on his way to fly out of the country; a big no-no on account of the theft thing.

Then, yesterday, they found the guy in St. Catharines. No kidnappers. No kidnapping. Just a snitch.

Disappearing, okay, that I can appreciate. The kidnapping though. I mean, that’s a guaranteed manhunt; even more people looking for you. And it’s a race against time because now there’s reason to believe your life may be in danger. Sweet sweet irony.

Look, if you’re evading the law, the best and only way is to fake your own death. Something fiery and bally you can watch from the distance while sipping a rare liqueur. I’ve been considering the various avenues now that the government has decided it’s time for me to start paying my back taxes :( Death is an option.

But that’s not my m.o. I’ll just have to become a master criminal so cunning that the shadowy income I pull in will quickly eliminate any debt I have. The death I’ll save for retirement.

What’s the alternative? Blogging? HahahHAHAHahAHAHAhahe hehe HAHAHAhaha! Oh man that’s funny. *wipe tears*

Huzzah for blogging!

Thank. God.

Thirty-six days of military analogy was getting to be challenging, to be quite honest. For some strange reason I had decided I would never use the same term twice to describe the unions. Maybe I was trying to illegitimize them. Half an hour each night trying to come up with a new military unit: squad … squadron … division … unit … Luftwaffe … damn it! … squad? … I’VE ALREADY SAID THAT! … hmmm … how about … unit? … *much wailing and gnashing of teeth*

Not easy work; the cogs turned slowly and in circles much of the time. Did it keep me honest? Oh no, just constipated.

Terrible.

But at least it’s over. Here, have a final gander; bury your face in this one last time:

Has anyone invented Smell-O-Web yet? Because this is the reason to avoid that.

However, I really want to take a moment to stress that this really is both temporary and isolated. A TCL reader had expressed concern that the agreement would be too little, too late for this weekend’s Caribana festival.

I give you my personal pledge of honour (it involves a hand gesture!): even if the strike hadn’t been resolved by this weekend, the wiser and more responsible Caribana leadership had a contingency plan in place. Too many people would be really bummed out if it was canceled, especially over something like garbage. There’s the loss of income thing too.

Besides all of this, neighbourhoods and businesses have done a great job in keeping their own surroundings clean. They’re not as clean as usual, but that should be taken in context; for a major metropolis, Toronto is unusually feces free.

Anyone with a struggling shop open in a highly populated area understands that people don’t want to be shopping on rotting filth. It’s just natural that they’d want to keep the place looking neat.

If you’re looking for something to worry about during your visit, may I suggest murderous teens?

I had followed this case a while ago because it had so many interesting elements. The story basically goes that a teenage girl withheld sex and goaded her boyfriend to kill a girl she had perceived as her rival (though they had probably never met). The boy stabbed the “rival” outside of her own home on New Year’s day, and the murder’s been pretty much under wraps until the verdict. That came today.

The guilty part wasn’t surprising. The fact that they tried and convicted her as an adult was. And the life sentence. First-degree murder, pre-meditated through hundreds of very clear text messages. Not a very bright girl. And then there’s this:

The guy killed for that?!

Look, that’s not even being shallow; everything I’ve read indicates she’s unbelievably self-centered, clearly manipulative, crass, and devoid of any remorse or personality. Along with the extra storage for the winter months, that doesn’t leave much room for advancement in her life, does it?

Obviously, the boy’s father should be held responsible for not teaching him about masturbation, porn, the internet; even a simple Sears catalog for heaven’s sake! The whole nightmarish thing could’ve been prevented.

Such lovely brazier models. If only …

Just kidding. Yup, apparently that’s a bonafide legal defence these days.

In case your cave doesn’t get cable yet, the story is one of your basic teenage withholding-sex-for-murder deals. Right now the jury’s still out on whether or not the female half of the duo is culpable, but the precendent that appears to have been set has already been decided.

After all, if you can say “I didn’t really mean it” when on trial for first-degree murder (meaning it was planned), you should certainly be able to use it in almost any other criminal and civil defence.  Consider this courtroom evidence, a few excerpts from instant messages between the two:

“I want her dead … if it takes more than a week, then we’re just gonna be friends”
“ur getting blocked until u kill her”

The mother of the accused girl suggests that “they were trying to make each other jealous”. Her lawyer says that “things don’t necessarily mean what they appear to mean”*. Presumably Judge Nordheimer weighs each defence before allowing anything under the sun into his courtroom, so in this instance it must have been deemed a-okay.

I’m not suggesting that the defence will fly with the jury. Arguing that the words “dead” and “kill” in instant messages (where brevity usually prevails) mean to disassociate or block, especially when the longer word  “blocked” is used to mean just this, is a huge stretch. Even punctuation seems to be well thought out, and the diminutive “ur” and”u”, and a captilized “I” suggest a domninant attitude in the relationship.

Whatever; the point is that whichever angle you approach this from, it’s been allowed to be a part of the defence, including the bit where it wasn’t really serious. I really hope that when the full transcripts are released, these few details will somehow make sense. Right now, I get the impression that I should be able to make death threats of all sorts as long as I laugh about it afterwards.