Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch
This just seems to be a case of picking and choosing and a judge who seems to have a dislike for Ford.
When you have other mayors who are completely corrupt and lining their pockets.
Or city Aldermen paying $12,000 dollars out of their office fund for a retirment party for themselves.
Its crazy that a judge can overturn a basic election result based on this.
Did Ford do something stupid, absolutely, but I don't know if it should have been enough for the bench to step in and kill a results election.
|
That's an unfair accusation to make. Justice Hackland really had no choice, Rob Ford voted in council on a matter that he was in financial conflict, and that he did it knowingly. The mandatory punishment is removal from office nothing else is permitted under the law. The only thing that Justice Hackland could adjust is how long Rob Ford could be barred from Municipal office and Hackland choose to bar him from the rest of his term rather than the maximum of 7 years. The law is both too narrow in it's application and too harsh because of the law of judicial flexibility, points that both Judge Douglas Cunningham (the Judge who oversaw Hazel McCallion's inquiry) and Justice Hackland have both made in their inquiry/verdicts.