Apparently, Rob Ford has caught the conservative bug for suing everyone in sight.
First of all, while it may be possible to sue over statements that several people gave to police during the course of investigation, I'm thinking that Mr. Ford is going to have a small credibility problem with evidence.
Last week, we had Rob Ford admitting to using crack cocaine "while in a drunken stupor", not to mention an appalling video of an apparently intoxicated Rob Ford ranting and making threats. When asked about the video, Ford actually looked baffled by the video - as if he had no recollection of what happened or when that video was taken.
Now, fair enough, we all forget things. However, when something like this comes before a judge and the plaintiff (who has apparently a seriously flawed memory to start with) is claiming that he "never" said/saw/did what is in the statements to police, one might imagine that the court is going to consider the plaintiff's admitted past behaviours.
One can imagine Rob Ford on the witness stand, and the defence lawyer asking him: "Sir, you have admitted to using crack cocaine while in a drunken stupor, driving while impaired and not being able to remember past events. So, how do you propose to this court that we should take your word for what happened over that of the defendant?"
I'm not thinking Rob Ford would have much to work with ...
Warren Kinsella summarizes this latest outburst rather nicely.
First of all, while it may be possible to sue over statements that several people gave to police during the course of investigation, I'm thinking that Mr. Ford is going to have a small credibility problem with evidence.
Last week, we had Rob Ford admitting to using crack cocaine "while in a drunken stupor", not to mention an appalling video of an apparently intoxicated Rob Ford ranting and making threats. When asked about the video, Ford actually looked baffled by the video - as if he had no recollection of what happened or when that video was taken.
Now, fair enough, we all forget things. However, when something like this comes before a judge and the plaintiff (who has apparently a seriously flawed memory to start with) is claiming that he "never" said/saw/did what is in the statements to police, one might imagine that the court is going to consider the plaintiff's admitted past behaviours.
One can imagine Rob Ford on the witness stand, and the defence lawyer asking him: "Sir, you have admitted to using crack cocaine while in a drunken stupor, driving while impaired and not being able to remember past events. So, how do you propose to this court that we should take your word for what happened over that of the defendant?"
I'm not thinking Rob Ford would have much to work with ...
Warren Kinsella summarizes this latest outburst rather nicely.
No comments:
Post a Comment