TRIBE - tribe.ca
Home Albums Advertise TRIBE logos Subscribe to TRIBE feed About

Go Back   TRIBE - tribe.ca > TRIBE BOARD > TRIBE Main Forum

Toronto police corruption case dismissed on technicality

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 12-08-2009, 05:00 PM   #1
TRIBE editor
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: New Crack City
Posts: 40,284
Toronto police corruption case dismissed on technicality

So the big club district police corruption case has fizzled out. I am unsurprised, considering the stats for convictions when police are charged with anything. It seems that it isn't only on TV that the police get off on technicalities.

What makes this case particularly interesting is the clubs named in the charges against these officers will be familiar to many on the board here (peel pub, easy on the fifth, distrikt, this is london (pre-ink ownership I think)... the extent of the corruption in the club district seemed quite substantial and although I never went to any of these places during the time in question, i suspect that owners at the other clubs i did frequent must have been shaken down too.

I guess its fair game for gouging down there now... Or did the shakedowns stop when the charges were laid against those cops. I wonder...

The star story is here:


Police corruption case killed by delays


December 08, 2009

Peter Small


Former Det.-Const. William McCormack, son of a former police chief, leaves University Ave. courthouse Dec. 7, 2009, after a judge stayed charges against him and two other police officers. The long, high-profile corruption case involved allegations of payoffs to police by nightclub owners, informants with mob ties and witness intimidation.
MICHAEL STUPARYK/TORONTO STAR

The lead investigator in one of Toronto's major corruption trials is being blamed for much of the delay that led to charges being tossed Monday against two former high-profile police officers.

After almost six years, Superior Court Justice Bonnie Croll stayed the charges against Det.-Const. William McCormack – son of a former Toronto police chief – and Const. Rick McIntosh, once the popular president of the Toronto police union, ruling that delays had breached their right to a fair trial.

McCormack and McIntosh were accused of shaking down bar owners in the Entertainment District.

Croll ruled that Staff Insp. Bryce Evans sparked time-consuming legal problems by the way he managed his informants, "triggered a lengthy adjournment ... delayed the examination of witnesses" and created repeated conflicts with defence lawyers' schedules.

The case, which led to the officers' arrests in 2004, involved disturbing allegations and afforded a unique glimpse into the murky world of Toronto's club scene:

Police officers being paid off by nightclub owners to obtain liquor licences and avoid liquor and overcrowding charges.

Secretly recorded conversations of club operators, some with mob ties, describing officers being given free meals and cash payments.

A police informant, Neil Peluso, alleged to have high-ranking mob ties, out to get corrupt officers.

Investigators on the case intimidating witnesses to the point where one fled town.

This is the second major Toronto police corruption case in two years thrown off course by Crown delays.

In January 2008, Ontario Superior Court Justice Ian Nordheimer stayed charges against six former members of an elite police drug squad. That decision, however, was overturned on appeal.

In testimony at a preliminary hearing into the Entertainment District case, Evans admitted to telling Peluso, his key source, that he would be a confidential informant, which would protect his anonymity, while actually running him as an agent, which did not. This led to lengthy court battles between defence and Crown over the informant's true status.

Croll is the second judge on this case to criticize Evans. Preliminary hearing Justice George Beatty said his deception caused "substantial harm to the course of justice."

Evans could not be reached for comment and Toronto Police Services spokesperson Mark Pugash said police were not ready to comment.

The Ontario Superior Court judge also criticized the Crown for problems in providing timely disclosure of evidence for the defence and the calling of witnesses.

She also stayed charges against Const. George Kouroudis, a co-accused, who ran a bar on the side.

The Crown has not decided whether to appeal.

Monday's decision may be the end of the road for a contentious investigation that began in 2003 when detectives probing mob activity in Greater Toronto stumbled across allegations that police officers were demanding cash in return for help with liquor licensing issues.

Investigators came to believe that McCormack – son of former chief William McCormack Sr. and brother of the recently elected police union head, Mike McCormack – had money troubles and a heavy gambling habit, according to affidavits to obtain wiretaps filed at the preliminary hearing.

They suspected he was getting paid off by nightclub owners and that he teamed up with McIntosh – then president of the Toronto Police Association – to demand $50,000 from Peel Pub on King St. W. for help in obtaining a liquor licence, according to testimony at the hearing.

The Entertainment District investigation began when detectives with Project ORA, an RCMP-led multi-force probe into drug and organized crime, learned of alleged payouts to officers.

In response, investigators recruited as their chief informant Peluso, one of the bar owners under surveillance and allegedly a high-ranking member of the Commisso crime family.

Evans, then a detective-sergeant with Toronto police's professional standards branch – which investigates wrongdoing within the force – led the probe, which was dubbed Project Bar District. Peluso told him that club owners were regularly paying off as many as eight officers and that McCormack boasted he was the "new sheriff in town," according to affidavits to obtain wiretaps.

After a year-long investigation, in May 2004, McCormack, 50, and McIntosh, 55, were charged with several counts, including influence peddling and breach of trust.

Allegations related to the case were subject to a publication ban at the preliminary hearing. With the charges now stayed, evidence at the hearing can be made public. However, none of the allegations has been proven.

Project Bar District involved five sets of allegations, presented by the Crown at the preliminary hearing:

That Daniel Contogiannis and Jonathan Vrozos, co-owners of Peel Pub, paid McCormack and McIntosh $30,000 to $32,000 for help in obtaining a liquor licence and in dealing with infractions;

That Joe Gagliano and Vito Barbaro, part-owners of Distrikt club on Peter St., paid McCormack thousands of dollars to speed the issuance of their mysteriously delayed liquor licence, and to avoid charges.

That McCormack warned fellow constable George Kouroudis of "surprise" liquor inspections he was making at Lotus, a club the officer ran against the wishes of his superiors.

That McCormack improperly helped Hotel nightclub avoid an overcrowding charge after its doorman, Claudio Schiavi, approached him for help.

That McCormack used his influence to help his friend, Oliver Geddes, operator of three clubs – Easy and The Fifth, Money and This is London – to avoid liquor licence convictions.

In McCormack's defence, his lawyer argued in written submissions at the hearing that the Crown was seeking to criminalize conduct that, at most, was administrative fault or "errors in judgment."

While McCormack borrowed money from some club owners, that may be a police disciplinary issue, not a crime, wrote his counsel, Jay Naster.

In addition, Peluso was out to destroy McCormack, Naster argued. In one wiretap, Peluso was overheard saying: "I'm gonna f---ing rat him out ... I'm gonna f---ing set him up."

McIntosh, through his lawyer, Peter Brauti, denied having any improper influence over the process of obtaining a liquor licence for Peel Pub. Nor did he have any discussions about liquor law enforcement, Brauti said in written arguments at the preliminary hearing.

Jeffrey Manishen, the special prosecutor on the case, said outside court that the issues were complex.

"This prosecution was probably the most complicated case I've had involvement in in 30 years of practice," Manishen said.

Manishen said he wants an opportunity to review the decision and discuss it with senior Crown counsel, who will determine whether to appeal.

Brauti, McIntosh's lawyer, said he is pleased with the result, but disappointed with the way the accused were treated and the delays they experienced. "You can't avoid looking at the aftermath and the wake of destruction that this case left."

McIntosh is pleased, exhausted and angry about what he was put through, Brauti said.

McCormack himself would only say, "I'm fine."

William McCormack Sr., a former Toronto police chief, said his family was relieved by Monday's decision. "And, as I've always said, in 41 years of policing I have had the pleasure of knowing that justice, the administration of justice will always be there."

Police corruption case killed by delays - thestar.com
__________________
alexd > Editor/Admin > TRIBE®
TRIBE® on Facebook: facebook.com/tribe
TRIBE® on Twitter: @tribemagazine
alexd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2009, 05:08 PM   #2
TRIBE Promoter
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: the phatcave
Posts: 5,797
Evil wins again!

What a surprise!
DaPhatConductor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2009, 05:20 PM   #3
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: with my head in the sand
Posts: 11,591
a technicality is something like someone filed in the wrong date on a court order or used the wrong motion to file for evidence.

this is not a technicality, its an extremely important part of the law.
everyone deserves to have their trial heard in short order.
everyone.

if the prosecution can't get their shit together or simply are unwilling to do so, to the detriment of the accused throughout the pretrial ordeal, that's their own, incompetent fault.
AshG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2009, 05:21 PM   #4
TRIBE Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 51,531
moar reposted news stories pls
Flashy_McFlash is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2009, 05:24 PM   #5
TRIBE Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 2,811
While I'm not entirely happy to see that this prosecution is not going to go through, to say that it was "dismissed on a technicality" is dismissive of enshrined constitutional rights. A stay was granted on the basis of unreasonable delay. It is a Charter right to be tried within a reasonable time if one is charged with an offence (s. 11(b)).

Police corruption cases are incredibly difficult to prosecute, requiring significant disclosure, special prosecutors (in many cases), and time. Lots of time.

Recently, the Drug Squad guys from the 1990s (Schertzer et al.), who had been granted a stay previously on the basis of unreasonable delay, were ordered to stand trial again after a successful appeal by the Crown in the Ontario Court of Appeal. That case illustrates how long it often takes to bring these cases to trial and all of the pieces and players involved.

I believe that the Supreme Court of Canada is going to soon revisit the analytical framework for unreasonable delay. It may be time for a reconsideration on the basis of cases like these and the increasing pressures on the criminal justice system.
emiwee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2009, 05:27 PM   #6
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: with my head in the sand
Posts: 11,591
Quote:
Originally Posted by emiwee View Post
While I'm not entirely happy to see that this prosecution is not going to go through, to say that it was "dismissed on a technicality" is dismissive of enshrined constitutional rights. A stay was granted on the basis of unreasonable delay. It is a Charter right to be tried within a reasonable time if one is charged with an offence (s. 11(b)).

Police corruption cases are incredibly difficult to prosecute, requiring significant disclosure, special prosecutors (in many cases), and time. Lots of time.

Recently, the Drug Squad guys from the 1990s (Schertzer et al.), who had been granted a stay previously on the basis of unreasonable delay, were ordered to stand trial again after a successful appeal by the Crown in the Ontario Court of Appeal. That case illustrates how long it often takes to bring these cases to trial and all of the pieces and players involved.

I believe that the Supreme Court of Canada is going to soon revisit the analytical framework for unreasonable delay. It may be time for a reconsideration on the basis of cases like these and the increasing pressures on the criminal justice system.
what makes you believe this?
i'm not sure how this case changes any of the 4 main factors that every such motion addresses in 11b fillings.

in this case, the judge was well aware of the requirements of the case and in spite of that, upheld the motion.
that tells me the prosecution fucked up, and big.
AshG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2009, 05:35 PM   #7
TRIBE editor
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: New Crack City
Posts: 40,284
Quote:
Originally Posted by AshG View Post
a technicality is something like someone filed in the wrong date on a court order or used the wrong motion to file for evidence.

this is not a technicality, its an extremely important part of the law.
everyone deserves to have their trial heard in short order.
everyone.

if the prosecution can't get their shit together or simply are unwilling to do so, to the detriment of the accused throughout the pretrial ordeal, that's their own, incompetent fault.
The vibe I get from the Star story is that the prosecution was frustrated by a one cop (Evans) not making their job easier. It just sounds like they were all colluding in the delays, and counting on the charter to kick in to dismiss the case eventually. Problem solved.

While not technically a technicality, I don't think it honors the spirit of why that charter provision exists.

I must ask my bud who was a manager at My Apartment at the time what he thinks about the whole deal. They were apparently one of the places that didn't make payoffs and as a result got infractions more frequently.

It would be interesting to read all the wiretap transcripts, or at least post them on the internet somewhere for posterity.
__________________
alexd > Editor/Admin > TRIBE®
TRIBE® on Facebook: facebook.com/tribe
TRIBE® on Twitter: @tribemagazine
alexd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2009, 06:06 PM   #8
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: with my head in the sand
Posts: 11,591
Quote:
Originally Posted by alexd View Post
counting on the charter to kick in to dismiss the case eventually. Problem solved.
well this is a common misconception about how the 11b works.
there is no such thing as a single time, after which it kicks in magically and shunts the accused off to freedom trail. its an extremely flexible timeline and depends on many factors; a judge does not look at the case and simply say its been x months already and that's just too long.

there are 4 separate components to a successful 11b motion that must be argued, and while time is the central theme, it is how the time from accusation to trial affects the trial itself that is the central focus. in particular, it is how the delay introduces bias into the trial itself, and also how the delay affects the day to day living of the accused that is important. and remember, these are - at the end of the day - accusations.

while it might be true that the defendants acted in an ungainly way to delay the trial, it is up to the prosecution to see to it that shit gets done.
and besides, if you were accused of something of a criminal nature and knew the cards were already stacked against you, would you not attempt to defend yourself in every way possible?
if i were a defendant and my lawyer was not persuing an 11b i'd fire them immediately.
AshG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2009, 06:37 PM   #9
TRIBE Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: i'm tagpopular!
Posts: 13,423
the two biggest police corruption cases in recent memory derailed by "delays"?

whether it's to prosecutor fucking up, or the cops impeding the investigation, something is going seriously wrong with the way that we handle these kinds of cases.


just the other night a club owner was ranting to me about how the only bars that can afford to operate in the current nightlife-unfriendly environment are the ones that are fronts for laundering money. unfortunately no one will ever say that shit on the record, for obvious reasons.
why not is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2009, 06:40 PM   #10
TRIBE Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Parentsberg, TMI
Posts: 24,559
acheron is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2009, 07:56 PM   #11
TRIBE editor
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: New Crack City
Posts: 40,284
on the fifth
__________________
alexd > Editor/Admin > TRIBE®
TRIBE® on Facebook: facebook.com/tribe
TRIBE® on Twitter: @tribemagazine
alexd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2009, 07:57 PM   #12
TRIBE Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Spatula City
Posts: 12,000
I wanna easy button. I shall press it when i get my next lotto numbers.

yay!
JamesM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2009, 08:16 PM   #13
TRIBE Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 2,811
Quote:
Originally Posted by AshG View Post
what makes you believe this?
i'm not sure how this case changes any of the 4 main factors that every such motion addresses in 11b fillings.

in this case, the judge was well aware of the requirements of the case and in spite of that, upheld the motion.
that tells me the prosecution fucked up, and big.

What makes me believe what?

I didn't say that there was any problem with the way that the trial judge applied the current framework. I haven't yet read the full decision, but I do know firsthand how much work went into drafting it.

I also didn't say that this case in particular changes any of the factors to be considered on an 11(b) application. I said that it's my understanding that the Supreme Court of Canada may be revisiting the analytical framework regarding 11(b) applications - but I could be wrong about this. The Supreme Court of Canada does sometimes revisit and revise analytical frameworks for constitutional, evidentiary, substantive, and other issues, depending on the cases that come their way. The authoritative cases in regards to 11(b) (Morin; Askov) are almost 20 years old and this could mean that change might be needed.

Most successful 11(b) motions aren't because "the prosecution fucked up, and big," and until I've read the full decision in this particular case, I'm not willing to make that kind of conclusory statement about the conduct of the prosecution. Such motions often involve a complex inquiry into whether the delay is attributable to prosecution or defence and whether prejudice was suffered by the defence, as well as the basic calculation of the total time and whether there was waiver. Most cases involve delay by both sides.

And while your legal counsel should be alert to a possible 11(b) situation (as the case develops), it shouldn't be the case that all counsel should be pursuing 11(b) motions in all cases right from the start. Frivolous defence motions are also problematic and a waste of court time.
emiwee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2009, 08:19 PM   #14
TRIBE editor
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: New Crack City
Posts: 40,284
I wonder if the police are still shaking down the club owners, or has that stopped now?
__________________
alexd > Editor/Admin > TRIBE®
TRIBE® on Facebook: facebook.com/tribe
TRIBE® on Twitter: @tribemagazine
alexd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2009, 08:35 PM   #15
TRIBE Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Carpe testes e yazz floote.
Posts: 46,705
People are looking for justice where the law is being applied.

I'm not happy with the decision, esp. in light of the guy who took over Lotus even when he was told no by Fantino and did anyways. But is anyone really surprised of this decision when you're dealing with a former police chief's son?
el presidente Highsteppa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2009, 08:48 PM   #16
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: with my head in the sand
Posts: 11,591
Quote:
Originally Posted by emiwee View Post
What makes me believe what?
this, just what you said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by emiwee View Post
I believe that the Supreme Court of Canada is going to soon revisit the analytical framework for unreasonable delay.
why would this case in particular merit an entire renewed look at 11b's?
The Askov case was precedent setting for excellent reasons; reasons that stand today.


Quote:
Originally Posted by emiwee View Post
Most successful 11(b) motions aren't because "the prosecution fucked up, and big," and until I've read the full decision in this particular case, I'm not willing to make that kind of conclusory statement about the conduct of the prosecution.
Did i say most were? No.
I certainly said this was, and perhaps that's because I've read the prosecutions comments regarding the case, which were desultory at best.

Most successful 11b's arise out of problems with the system itself and delays due to systemic bureaucracy, but in this case, I cannot help but think it is down to incompetence, lack of will, or lack of resources, or all 3 on the part of the prosecution.

Hell the judge herself called out the lead investigator as the cause of the ridiculous 6 year delay, and the reason for granting the 11b. Part of the job of the prosecution is to manage your witnesses and evidence, and ultimately the buck stops with them in failing to do this in grand fashion.

Imo there are 2 excellent reasons for granting the 11b:

1) the ridiculous length of the delay(6 years!)
2) the REASON for this delay (incompetence resulting in endless adjournments leading to point 1)

And there is one very good reason for NOT granting the 11b:

1) the case is very complex.

But there's the rub - the more complex the case, the longer the delay would be tolerated, purely to allow for the complexities to be unraveled. Any complexity to this case would give ample reason for judge Croll to not grant the stay.

Take it from the lead investigator's own mouth:

"This prosecution was probably the most complicated case I've had involvement in in 30 years of practice," Manishen said.

Well if that's so, then it is in SPITE of this complexity that the stay was granted.

I do sympathize with how difficult it must be to manage something like this, but shit, that's his fucking job.
AshG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2009, 08:48 PM   #17
TRIBE Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: across the pond
Posts: 51,357
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flashy_McFlash View Post
moar reposted news stories pls
How else do we get conversation started on anything around here?
Boss Hog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2009, 04:19 AM   #18
TRIBE Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Lac La Ronge
Posts: 4,826
Couldn't a case be made the the fact that the defendants were out on bail rather than in custody that more leeway can used in allowing for delays.

Sometimes I so wanna be a lawyer.
saskboy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2009, 10:08 AM   #19
TRIBE Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 2,811
Quote:
Originally Posted by AshG View Post

why would this case in particular merit an entire renewed look at 11b's?
The Askov case was precedent setting for excellent reasons; reasons that stand today.

Again, I didn't say that it was this particular case that was going to lead to a renewed look at 11(b) cases. I said that I believed I had heard that the Supreme Court was going to revisit this issue soon - on the basis of another case that has probably already gone to a provincial appellate court and is making its way up.


Quote:


Did i say most were? No.
I certainly said this was, and perhaps that's because I've read the prosecutions comments regarding the case, which were desultory at best.

Most successful 11b's arise out of problems with the system itself and delays due to systemic bureaucracy, but in this case, I cannot help but think it is down to incompetence, lack of will, or lack of resources, or all 3 on the part of the prosecution.

Hell the judge herself called out the lead investigator as the cause of the ridiculous 6 year delay, and the reason for granting the 11b. Part of the job of the prosecution is to manage your witnesses and evidence, and ultimately the buck stops with them in failing to do this in grand fashion.

Imo there are 2 excellent reasons for granting the 11b:

1) the ridiculous length of the delay(6 years!)
2) the REASON for this delay (incompetence resulting in endless adjournments leading to point 1)

And there is one very good reason for NOT granting the 11b:

1) the case is very complex.

But there's the rub - the more complex the case, the longer the delay would be tolerated, purely to allow for the complexities to be unraveled. Any complexity to this case would give ample reason for judge Croll to not grant the stay.

Take it from the lead investigator's own mouth:

"This prosecution was probably the most complicated case I've had involvement in in 30 years of practice," Manishen said.

Well if that's so, then it is in SPITE of this complexity that the stay was granted.

I do sympathize with how difficult it must be to manage something like this, but shit, that's his fucking job.


Again, I haven't read the actual decision, so I'm not willing to make any comment about why the stay was actually granted. Comments from a news story, however, should be taken with a grain of salt as they only tell a small part of the story. While I will agree that 6 years is a long time, the Ontario Court of Appeal recently overturned the stay for the Schertzer case and it was in the 6 year area too.
emiwee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2009, 10:37 PM   #20
TRIBE Promoter
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: the phatcave
Posts: 5,797
Quote:
Originally Posted by AshG View Post
this is not a technicality, its an extremely important part of the law.
everyone deserves to have their trial heard in short order.
everyone.

if the prosecution can't get their shit together or simply are unwilling to do so, to the detriment of the accused throughout the pretrial ordeal, that's their own, incompetent fault.
so should they release the 9/11 suspects then? and everyone else at guantanamo?

lolz
DaPhatConductor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-11-2009, 11:18 AM   #21
TRIBE Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Way out West
Posts: 24,066
More fun...

Toronto drug officers face more corruption accusations

Quote:
"I am deeply saddened and disappointed," Fantino told a news conference in January 2004, commenting about the charges against the six. "I can, however, tell you that the allegations are isolated and confined."

His comments came at the conclusion of an internal probe headed by RCMP Chief Supt. John Neily into the allegations or wrongdoing, which led to 40 criminal charges against the officers.

But police documents that surfaced for the first time this week in a Toronto lawsuit show anti-corruption investigators repeatedly briefed Fantino about similar allegations against other drug officers.

These warnings came several months before Fantino made public assurances that alleged wrongdoing was isolated to Team 3 of the drug squad. A joint CBC News/Toronto Star investigation has found that Toronto police did not allow Neily and his team to complete their investigation into those allegations.
Quote:
STF investigators wrote in internal documents in late 2001 that in three separate cases, Team 2 officers did not follow standard procedures when seizing money from safe deposit boxes.

The investigators reported members of the team repeatedly asked bank staff to leave when seizing cash from safe deposit boxes, leaving no second witness to count the cash, counter to bank policy.

They found that team members delayed handing over seized cash and improperly stored the cash.

There were also discrepancies between the amount of seized cash reported by the officers and the amount of cash the defendants said they possessed.
Quote:
Neily and his task force renewed their interest in Team 2 in early 2003, after getting Markovic to file an official complaint.

Before then, Markovic had repeatedly refusing repeated requests from the STF to complain about Team 2.

He relented after striking a deal that any statements he gave to the STF would not be used against him later, either in criminal court or in a lawsuit he filed against the police service.

Markovic was arrested in Oct. 28, 1999, by the Ross/Abbott crew and charged with dealing cocaine. Those charges were eventually dropped.

Markovic and his wife, Natasha, filed a suit in 2000 against: nine Team 2 officers who searched their home; the Toronto Police Service; its board and former TPS chief David Boothby. The TPS internal documents that surfaced this week were a result of a court motion in Markovic's suit.

The Markovics claimed the nine officers beat him in his pizza shop and later robbed him of close to more than $361,000 in cash and valuables. They sought $1.3 million in damages.

STF investigator Det. Neal Ward said in a report about the Markovic case that "the work of the Central Field Command Drug Squad was sloppy at best and a hair's-width away from being criminal."

Neily had set dates in early 2003 to meet Markovic to take his statement of complaint. But that meeting — and the probe into Team 2 — was suddenly called off.

CBC News has learned that in March 2003, Fantino met with Neily, other STF investigators and TPS chief financial officer Frank Chen. According to sources who requested anonymity, Fantino threatened to cut off all funding for forensic audits on officers suspected of wrongdoing.

The sources said Fantino cited financial pressures and the need for Toronto police to be prepared for a potential "terrorist attack" as reasons for the STF to wrap up its work, closing the door on any further probe of Team 2 officers.
Nothing to see here...
Subsonic Chronic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-11-2009, 12:07 PM   #22
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: with my head in the sand
Posts: 11,591
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaPhatConductor View Post
so should they release the 9/11 suspects then? and everyone else at guantanamo?

lolz
u cannot be this dense.

sometimes i wonder about the people walking upright in this world.
AshG is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:14 PM.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0

Who owns what on TRIBE® | TRIBE® Policy Statements | Monetize your forum with FORUMCAST
Mindful Movement Centre : Pilates, Yoga, and Budokon | Treasure Finders Treasure Hunting Tours in KZN South Africa | ehMac.ca: Canada's Mac Community!



© 1993 - 2014 TRIBE COMMUNICATIONS INC.