ROGER December 12, 2007 at 5:55 p.m.

My, what vulgarity one sees in print these days! Call me oldfashioned, but pricks and such were not words one could see in quality journalism.

leaf December 12, 2007 at 6:05 p.m.

ROGER December 10, 2007 at 5:03 p.m.

SOMEWHERE IN FLORIDA INMATES ARE HOLDING AN AUCTION ON BLACK'S VIRGINITY

i'm gonna call you a phony, a liar and a hypocrit, you creep!

now get back on the previous thread, i'm not done with you, you barbaric soul less cretin!

Jean the Juror December 12, 2007 at 6:40 p.m.

After reading the Globe and Mail article, re: jury instructions, I for one never considered Black for the ostrich ruling. Even if he did think he was entitled to the money, he was told to disclose to the shareholders and get board approval for future transactions. The charges he was convicted on were after this and still no disclosure or approval from Black. I think he should take his punishment, he got off lightly.

Keith Pirelli December 12, 2007 at 7:42 p.m.

'Its failings notwithstanding, there is much to be said in favor of journalism in that by giving us the opinion of the uneducated, it keeps us in touch with the ignorance of the community.'
Oscar Wilde (1854-1900)

Lit 200 December 12, 2007 at 8:14 p.m.

Well said Keith. The far reaches of snobbery. Oscar rules!

Svelt December 12, 2007 at 8:32 p.m.

Another from Oscar: I was always careless to where I placed my seed.

Perplexed December 12, 2007 at 8:33 p.m.

Svelt December 12, 2007 at 8:37 p.m.

Another Oscar: Journalism is to literature is as a pub chorus to the Ninth Symphony.

Perplexed December 12, 2007 at 8:38 p.m.

In July, juror Jean Kelly said:

" I took the instructions as a planned scheme to defraud. I didn’t see that in the evidence. For me the ostrich rule applied if the person knew they were doing wrong and looked the other way."

Today, Jean the Juror says:

"I for one never considered Black for the ostrich ruling."

Are there two Jeans?

Lit 200 December 12, 2007 at 8:52 p.m.

As usual, Doug Bell rings bells. The man's mind has reach. With one deft hand he overturns a rock under which many of the chattering class hide. As Browning reminds us, a man's reach should exceed his grasp ... (or what's a heaven for). But I must be careful here, I turned Barbara on to Reading Gaol and now she can't stop reciting Wilde. Better late than never. Next we'll have her comparing Lord Black to the Duke in My Last Duchess. I am surprised no one on the ABB board of directors has ticked on the Italian nobleman yet.

I am flabbergasted with sweet, dear Roger, who contemplates penal buggery for the august Conrad Black, not only with equanimity but with ill-concealed and frenzied delight, and is suddenly shocked by the word prick. Tut tut. I am sure you have heard that word applied to you time after time after time, Roger by colleagues, drinking companions and family members.

Roger's bedrock feelings and attitudes are emerging. For the second time, he has suggested that Conrad Black's delicate right hand should be severed at the wrist.

Soon all the other delights of eastern thought will emerge: female circumcision, arranged marriages, the veil, morality police, lingering punishment for adultresses (the stones cannot be beyond a certain size under Sharia).

In the political sphere, Roger would like to see the Candian Bill of rights defenestrated and the Constitution abrogated.

Canada is far too good for the Canadians.

Roger is a funny little guy.

Jean the Juror December 12, 2007 at 9:08 p.m.

Nope, just one Jean the Juror. I was referring to Mark Kipnis for the ostrich rule.

ROGER December 12, 2007 at 9:10 p.m.

REPOST:

LEAF'S STATE OF MIND:

>leaf December 12, 2007 at 6:22 p.m.

the truth is roger, i resent you. have NO respect for you and want to deprive you of the twisted pleasure you take in shooting off trashy nonsense at me.

to prove my disdain, i spit on you and the likes of you.<

I think she is having a nervous breakdown.

ysj December 12, 2007 at 9:13 p.m.

Reporters may not be pricks, but they drink eachothers bath water. Get it into your heads that money can get you never to have you go to jail. Conrad knows this, he knows he never will go to jail because with money in a corrupt society in which we live, will save him. The judicial branch is also on the take.

ROGER December 12, 2007 at 9:14 p.m.

LIT 200, NO WHERE IN ANY OF MY POSTS WILL YOU FIND ANY PROFANE WORDS.

It is your interpretation of my chaste posts which transforms them into vile acts. I do not control the way perverse minds may interpret my posts. It is a Rorschacht blot of your mind. Salvador Dali hinted at this in his notorious painting--if you know art, you would know which painting I am referring to. Or better yet, that particular work by Egon Schiele.

ROGER December 12, 2007 at 9:17 p.m.

YSJ--KARL MARX WROTE SOMETHING TO THE EFFECT THAT MONEY GIVES the rich paraplegic legs. Strange how Marx captured the essence of capitalism so well.

alice December 12, 2007 at 9:17 p.m.

Stop dreaming those of you that want to see Con in jail. Prior to sentencing St Ito got calls from neo-con American in power and the sentence was the minimal allowed.

JONES December 12, 2007 at 9:19 p.m.

I see you people are still in a festive joyous mood at the thought of CB going to jail. Excuse me. He will do no time at all. Hello did you hear me? We have all been suckered again. Actually we should all be marching in the streets demanding this felon be locked up NOW. Not in March when pending another appeal he will be free. Then free again pending another appeal. Jail him NOW.

mona December 12, 2007 at 9:28 p.m.

Conrad insulted daily the judge, the jury, the system.
But a few days before sentencing the neo-con US government powerhouses (those who promote federal judges)
leaned on Amy and all the insults were forgotten. Con got off. Does any one of you intelligent bloggers think that this judge will refuse an appeal to set aside the March 3rd report to jail order?

Perplexed December 12, 2007 at 9:44 p.m.

To Juror Jean re:

"...he was told to disclose to the shareholders and get board approval for future transactions. The charges he was convicted on were after this and still no disclosure or approval from Black."

Was there direct evidence that Black was told to disclose to the shareholders? If so, what was it? My understanding of the case was that there was an obligation to disclose to and obtain approval from the audit committee. The issues were whether the audit committee was deceived and, if so, did Black know about the deception?

ROGER December 12, 2007 at 9:50 p.m.

LOL! HEY PERPLEXED, there is a law (actually a couple of laws) that required Black to report not only to the board, but also to the SEC and to the public about taking money and assets that did not belong to him. AND EVEN IF HE HAD REPORTED IT, IT WOULD STILL BE ILLEGAL BECAUSE TELLING SOMEONE YOU ARE STEALING FROM THEM DOES NOT MAKE THE THEFT LEGAL!!! LOL!

Jean the Juror December 12, 2007 at 10:02 p.m.

Perplexed

It was when due dilligence was done for a request to borrow money. The discrepencies were noted and they were informed that in the future timely disclosure and prior board approval was needed. Up until that point, I had reasonable doubt. After having been told what a close call it was and still not getting approval or disclosure, I felt the intent to defraud was there.

Perplexed December 12, 2007 at 10:19 p.m.

Well, actually Roger, if you decide to take property to which you would not be entitled without the owner's permission and the owner gives permission, it is not theft.

ROGER December 12, 2007 at 10:45 p.m.

LOL! PERPLEXED, when you run a PUBLIC company, you take on an onerus burden. The applicable laws and regulations Black clearly violated were the Securities Act of 1934, the SEC regulations, the Delaware articles of incorporation and Delaware corporate law, laws on public accountin and auditing of the State of Illinois and of Delaware, GAAP--generally accepted accounting principles for disclosure and reporting.... and probably a few more, like the criminal law. As for getting permission from the owners, those would be the shareholders and not even their reps could approve that without a full disclosure, full shareholder meeting and declaration and disclosure to the SEC because investors around the world are entitled to full disclosure when investing and is the purpose behind the 1934 statute. Nice huh. Keep trying.

Perplexed December 12, 2007 at 10:49 p.m.

Juror Jean,

That is fair enough. As an admittedly distant observer, I thought that part of the issue was how much Black knew, because he was not directly involved in dealing with the audit committee. To put it another way, who was "they"? That was why the evidence of Radler was featured so prominently in the prosecution's opening statement. It was needed to fix Black with knowledge. I am a bit surprised that the prosecution was able to persuade the jury beyond a reasnable doubt given how easily miscommunication can occur in an organization such as Hollinger, but once again, I was not there.

DON December 12, 2007 at 10:54 p.m.

The US judicial system is in real trouble and Black's conviction only serves to make this point. Where is there any semblence of justice when virtually every witness was blackmailed or threatened by the government if they did not testify along the lines the Prosecution wanted? All three members of the Audit Committee clearly lied through their teeth in return for a promise that the SEC would not prosecute them while the odious spurned Black groupie Paul Healy was given a pass for perjury in return for fabricating evidence. As for Radler, he had every incentive to lie and lie again and try to implicate everyone else to save his own skin! This trial was a disgrace and so is the verdict. The biggest crooks are Breeden and the lawyers who have milked the company's shareholders for more than $200 million while Black goes to jail for supposedly defrauding the company of $2.9 million! Meanwhile, the shareholders stand by while the morons and incompetents like Gordon Paris and Chairman Seitz, both Breeden stooges, destroy the business while paying themselves millions! Get over the envy and the pettiness about Black and get serious about the real issues and the real injustices! The next victim could be you!

ROGER December 12, 2007 at 10:56 p.m.

BLACK WAS NOT DIRECTLY INVOLVED IN DEALING WITH THE AUDIT COMMITTEE? lol! Black was CEO and under the law was required to personally sign a declaration that the financial statements were accurate! Part of Black's timing of his resignation as CEO was to avoid signing the statements because he knew it would be used against him if he signed off on them!

BLACK WAS THE CONTACT WITH THE AUDIT COMMITTEE! Nothing happened without Black being in the loop. Follow the money--it showed up in his bank account! He never asked why millions were suddenly deposited to his bank account? Sure.

ROGER December 12, 2007 at 10:58 p.m.

Ambassador Seitz is a "Breeden stooge"? I see. Why did Black beg him to be on the special committee? Paris--Black hand picked him! Savage--handpicked by Black! LOL! Nice try.

ROGER December 12, 2007 at 11:01 p.m.

BLACK IS GOING TO BE CLEANED OUT IN THE CIVIL SUITS. If he thinks the criminal cases were stressful, he better hang onto his pants in the civil suits. Lady Amiel is going to be ripped too! They are going to be left naked on the sidewalk without even busfare home, which won't be there when they get there because it will have been foreclosed or seized.

home December 12, 2007 at 11:11 p.m.

The florida law does not allow the creditor to take the family-home from the debtor. OJ moved to florida for this reason. Con's home is savely his. The same goes for the pension.
The neo-con judge was careful to reduce the fine to $6M to ensure that Con's home remains his. During these three years, Con probably has hidden all monies and transferred them in such a way that the civil lawsuits cannot touch them.
As the Sun Media Inc board member said, we are giving up on the civil suit.

ROGER December 12, 2007 at 11:14 p.m.

THE FLORIDA HOME IS SO HEAVILY MORTGAGED AND AT SUCH EXHORBITANT AMOUNTS, IT WON'T BE SUSTAINABLE

Creditors are not interested in empty shells --with high mortgages, the Florida place is not much. When the foreclosure happens for non-payment of the mortgage, that is when the creditors will move in for any surplus on sale to pay off the mortgage holders. Nice huh.

ROGER December 12, 2007 at 11:16 p.m.

THE SUN MEDIA FOLKS ARE EYEING THE CONTROLLING SPECIAL SHARES AS BEING RETIRED IN THEIR FAVOUR perhaps? They won't pay Black anything for that and no outside creditors will be able to get hold of it either if Sun takes it and keeps it instead of turning it over to a trustee in bankruptcy. Smart huh.

empty December 12, 2007 at 11:25 p.m.

The voting shares or controlling shares class B are not worth much to Con because he is not allowed to be a director of a public company for being a felon. The class A shares are $1 each (Con has 3M shares A), but he is not allowed to sell them for some reason. So all he has left is the Toronto home, but this home also has a $10M mortgage on it. Doesn't look good. However, he is going to file for personal bankrupcy and creditors will be left empty handed.

Perplexed December 12, 2007 at 11:32 p.m.

Roger:

Blah, blah, blah.

oxos December 12, 2007 at 11:34 p.m.

Perplexed = not a lawyer = Lit200 = Leaf = Con's reportedly "no feeling well" son(s).

Billy December 12, 2007 at 11:35 p.m.

mona December 12, 2007 at 9:28 p.m.

---- Does any one of you intelligent bloggers think that this judge will refuse an appeal to set aside the March 3rd report to jail order? ----

This judge - St Eve - decided there would be no bail by committing him to report March 3rd. So she doesn't hear the bail appeal, an appeal court hears that. The bail appeal won't be successful 1) there is only a slim chance the convictions will be be overturned; 2) St Eve has already refused to "arrest the judgment" (Douglas Bell August 28, 2007); 3)St Eve's judgments have clout in that she is very highly regarded; and 4) Black has no friends in high places- he is a nobody in the US and to back him is anti the incompetent directors the system wants to protect. The only thing Black has going for him is he's not seen to be a flight risk, but that is not enough for him to win bail. He will report March 3rd as scheduled (or flee before then)

ROGER December 12, 2007 at 11:37 p.m.

SO NICE TO SEE A GOOD POST--THANKS BILLY!

dogs December 12, 2007 at 11:45 p.m.

Eddie has emptied his heart and painfully admitted that his fellow defense lawyers were more friendly to the prosecutor lawyers than to him. Eddie complained that the US Eddie did not share his plans with him. Eddie the cry-baby felt left out of the loop. However his principal complaint was against barb. Eddie says that he decide to leave the room when barb was present. Apparently the hired help attack dogs were biting each other.

optative December 12, 2007 at 11:52 p.m.

Welcome back, Perplexed. Long time no read. Did you get a look at Shareholder a thread or two back? The boyz 'o the blog were not impressed with him/her. All their counter arguments were hearsay, from "sensible" authorities. In fact, after St. Eve's sentencing, the boyz was actually quite depressed.

We've added a few funny ones in your absence. There's this Roger fellow who specializes in sadistic fantasies about Conrad; is consumed by them, actually. And this of course is in counterpoint to Fintan's sleaze about Barbara Amiel. But Roger is not a profane sadist, oooooh no! His resentment, although bottomless, is always very proper.

And now that r has been wrong by about ten years on the sentence, the very possibility of Conrad winning an appeal renders him apoplectic. But what really gets the majority of these bloggers is the way Black did not grovel or waver. He kept his dignity. The merest possibility of him retaining his liberty....well, let's not go there... .

Billy December 12, 2007 at 11:56 p.m.

Well that being the situation you have to feel for the guy a little. He's got a good rep here and it must have been difficult to operate in a foreign court in those circumstances. Eddie's claim that he shredded the star witness to the extent the prosecutors told the jury they could ignore him is quite valid, though it appears to have come at a cost -- Eddie was so aggressive they didn't like him, ergo Black suffered.

extended December 12, 2007 at 11:57 p.m.

If the first appeal is lost, there will a second appeal and if the second appeal is lost, there will be an appeal to the supreme court with a timeline of 4 years.
Amy St Ito a light weight pretty face of four feet in height has proven to be not of a strong timber. Male lawyers
have kind words towards women. But their minds cannot be read. Amy's sentencing of Black does not help her reputation.
Contrary to to the general belief Con does have powerful neo-con friends such as perle, will, and others that we don't know about who leaned on Amy to be soft on Con.
The march 3rd jail time will be extended on appeal.

Billy December 13, 2007 at 12:03 a.m.

Black did not and should not have groveled and was right to remain steadfast in claiming he's innocent, given he's appealing the conviction. He already knew the sentence was very low, so there was nothing to gain, everything to lose. Normally that doesn't stop him but he's learning fast.

Billy December 13, 2007 at 12:08 a.m.

There's no appeal of the bail appeal.If he loses, business as usual and he reports March 3rd. If Black loses the convictions appeal, he needs to get leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. Unless there is a unique issue or principal of law that has national significance, they won't hear it. Thus, high odds for jail on March 3rd.

Perplexed December 13, 2007 at 12:17 a.m.

Optative,

The debate on this blog became a little weird when Roger appeared on the scene, so I took a sabbatical. Just thought I'd drop in for the sentencing and will now wait with interest for the appeal to unfold.

ROGER December 13, 2007 at 12:51 a.m.

BLACK IS DONE. He is off to jail. Amiel looks like The Scream come to life!

jade_lee December 13, 2007 at 4:26 a.m.

I would say without a doubt- when you pay yourself not to compete with yourself, you are being deceiving, sneaky, fraudulent, you at taking money that should go to your public company. CB did this and the audit committee claims they did not know he did this.

jade_lee December 13, 2007 at 4:27 a.m.

morning blog

qjc December 13, 2007 at 6:30 a.m.

If the appeal to appeal to report to jail on March 3rd is denied. Conrad can appeal again the report to jail on March 3rd. This can go on several times. Con is never going to go to jail.

Billy December 13, 2007 at 8:19 a.m.

Re qjc. What's your authority for this statement? Even if you're correct, appeals take time and one of them is sure to transcend the March 3rd report date. But if you are correct, then St Eve dramatically boosted Black's bail chances by giving him 3 months to report. This is a big issue.

jade_lee December 13, 2007 at 8:20 a.m.

Sorry qjc but that is not how the process works. One either gets bail pending the appeal or not. This has yet to be requested formally but from my understanding the judge is well aware that CB intends to appeal both his conviction and sentence but she still handed down the March 3/08 report to prison date......

jade_lee December 13, 2007 at 8:23 a.m.

Billy,
She actually gave CB 2.5 months. He was sentenced on Dec 10th and he must start serving his sentence Mar 3.....you do the math. The judge is covering her ass when she gave him time as she knows that he would most likely use that against her if she had not.....the judge is very astute.

Feldwebel Wolfenstool December 13, 2007 at 8:24 a.m.

Reporters puff a lot of hog at work...they mindlessly have to play along, pretending to enjoy professional sports...bloggers are more honest and interesting to read. They don't necessarily have to worry about the PIGS refusing them press accredations for mickey-mouse reasons, just to get you FIRED, just like what was done to me, in '88....

jade_lee December 13, 2007 at 8:26 a.m.

what did you want to cover in 88 ?

JONES December 13, 2007 at 8:27 a.m.

qjc:
Amen to that. Others here just can not or will not face the facts that Black will never serve a day in jail. There are Spades (ruling class) Hearts(clergy) Diamnonds(merchants) and Clubs(ordinary people). Black is a Spade and we are all a bunch of Clubs.I might add more like fools to put up with this.

jade_lee December 13, 2007 at 8:36 a.m.

Jones your fantasy world belongs in the movies. I recall hearing the spades (lol) claiming CB would not be convicted, now here you (spade or what?) are saying he will not serve his sentence. The fact is that a very good judge instructing a very competent jury, who heard arguments from both sides, were able to convict and now sentence CB to jail, the appeal reasons sounded convincing on the television, in that joe ordinary might be convinced he has a reason to appeal but in reality if he is going after the judge's failings which don't appear to exist, his lawyers are stringing him along and CB will pay them for their legal wishful thinking in the end.

Sandy December 13, 2007 at 8:51 a.m.

Jade_lee, I completely agree. And Black is being " strung along " by his high priced alwyers, appeal and otherwise - Frey, Dershowitz, etc. Good free publicity for these lawywers, by the way. Black will lose all his appeals and will be going to jail. He is and was no wealthier than Ebbers or Kozlowski or Lay ( who died before reporting to prison ) and their money did not buy them probation, etc. They are all serving time. Furthermore, Black will never be allowed back into the United States following his sentence and will be deported either to Canada ( if he gets back his Canadian citizenship ) or most probably, the UK. He is a convicted US felon and as such, is barred form entering the US. He is essentially under house arrest at the moment, not free to travel except back to Chicago This must not be a pleasant time for him so he is certainly paying for his convictions albeit in relative comfort for the moment. But compared to what was, it has to be terrible.

jade_lee December 13, 2007 at 9:07 a.m.

I totally believe that CB thinks that Radler is completely at fault with respect to any frauds that may have occurred but that still does not explain where all the money came from in CB mind, did he think he earned the amount he received considering the total earnings the shareholders were presented with? Was his worth at a premium premium? As far as I can tell CB was busy partying and writing subjective history reflexing a bizarre worship of american presidents who in weird ways reflex his own personal view of the world. I made that up, I haven't bothered to read his tripe. He was busy with his personal agenda and did not appear to do much work for Hollinger considering his position and his investment in it. So at best this money was not deserved and at worst he stole it is how I see it.

Fintan December 13, 2007 at 9:23 a.m.

I agree with Jade-Lee and Sandy in their optimism that the crooked Lard will indeed end up doing porridge. And "screw" will have a different meaning than what it means in the UK:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lkwmPYWRB...

The judge is highly unlikely to grant him bail pending appeal, especially now with the presidential election campaign gaining momentum.

The only place he can go is the UK (and the rest of the EU countries). He would certainly have neck enough to resume his seat in the House of Lards, but even that possibility may soon be legislated out of existence.

Where Morticia goes is irrelevant. She has been publicly shamed and humiliated and no one of any significance would be found dead with her.

Karma has done its wondrous thing.

Sandy December 13, 2007 at 9:29 a.m.

I agree again, Jade_lee. As far as I can determine, Black lived up to a conversation he had with I think Peter Newman or in any case, a friend who was visiting him in Florida ( this chat is mentioned in one of the Black biographies that I have read recently ) that he had 2 choices re business / lifestyle. He told his visiting friend that he was content to sit back and live the life of a wealthy newspaper publisher rather than be a proactive CEO. He was also quoted as claiming that greed had been ascribed a bad name and was unfairly denigrated, actually quite positive and a terriffic motivating factor as an influence upon one's life. Essentially, he had zero interest in being honestly productive except to live off " other peoples' capital " and wrote biographies as true reflections of his exalted opinions of himself. He is a psychopath who feels zero remorse for anything he does or has done and it is therefore not surprising that he believes he was entitled to all that money stolen from his shareholders. This leopard will never change its spots.

Kelly December 13, 2007 at 9:46 a.m.

DON says:
"The US judicial system is in real trouble and Black's conviction only serves to make this point. Where is there any semblence of justice when virtually every witness was blackmailed or threatened by the government if they did not testify along the lines the Prosecution wanted?"

Actually Don, the newspaper owners testified that they didn't ask for non-competes, in fact, they thought it was a questionable request and one balked entirely when asked to make the payments directly to the sticky-fingered executives. It's not as if they had immunity deals.

It's unfortunate Healy allowed himself to be pressured into wrongdoing regarding the NYC apartment - it's not as if he profited from that and but for that he would have been clean.

You should be worried about the Cdn justice system - there are white collar criminals walking around as we speak. Some could be helping themselves to your pension...

Kelly December 13, 2007 at 9:55 a.m.

Oh and DON:

The "envy" accusation is laughable - it's the kind of thing that a grade schooler would say. There are people far wealthier than Black and they are well respected. It helps that they respect their shareholders instead of acting like modern-day robber barons.

There are instances when the American justice went awry, but this isn't one of them - Black got off lightly.

That you would defend this criminal is very telling....

Billy December 13, 2007 at 10:01 a.m.

Come now, the US judicial system is in real trouble? What a throw-away statement. The difference is they have a slightly different system that gives advantage to the prosecution - it seems to have worked well by putting away the likes of Kozlowski, Skilling, Fastow etc and getting people concerned about white-collar crime. There is a fundamental difference between Black's role in the crime and the directors' participation. Black picked the pockets of shareholders by committing fraud, but he was not a lazy and stupid CEO; the directors picked shareholder pockets by being lazy and stupid, but they did not commit fraud.

Nothings perfect.

Billy December 13, 2007 at 10:03 a.m.

and to go on, all were exposed for what they are.

lorraine in Ottawa December 13, 2007 at 10:28 a.m.

to Jean the Juror and any other jurors on this blog, or Prosecution team members

I thought you did a tremendous job! I still have a photo of the four young prosecutors next to my computer at the office. I was so impressed by their talent and diligence. Bravo to the US judicial system and to Americans for bringing Conrad Black to justice! I expect that he would have continued to "get away" with fraud in both Canada and the UK. If anyone knows how I can send a congratulatory email to Eric Sussman or any of the prosecution team, please reply.

wave99 December 13, 2007 at 10:30 a.m.

Jade.

Re. your comment.

"Paying oneself to not compete with oneself."

2 comments/thoughts.

First, it creates money from buyers that would not have existed in the first place.

Considerably better than accessing a 'bonus' from existing sales margins/profits.

Secondly, it was a tempting move by the Exec's to avoid paying income tax on the amount of the non compete 'bonus'.

That seems to be its primary purpose.

It was sneaky. It was smart.

Not in a sense of blind siding investors , but in its proven methodology of creating a loophole Exec win/ shareholder win in a bottom line NET scenario.

Shareholder funds would not be used for the purpose of bonus ( the NC's being in line and below, what other comparable Exec's get annually ) by creating this new income flow in the form of a NC.

And, the Exec's benefit more by skipping some of the tax burden they would have accrued had it come in the more conventional form of a bonus.

Everyone wants to legally avoid paying more than necessary income or capital gains tax.

To me it is completely irrelevant if on 3 cases, Black and Co asked buyers for NC's, if , as they had, the buyers agreed and signed off.

Ask yourself. As a shareholder. Where would you rather a bonus to the Exec's come from.

The accumulated and exsiting shareholder holdings,or,
money that had not existed before the creation of what in Canada was a perfectly legal tax transaction ?

It's obvious.

wave99 December 13, 2007 at 10:31 a.m.

Lorraine.

Non compete's were legal in Canada. What fruad ?

dh December 13, 2007 at 10:33 a.m.

Fintan: Funny link to Porridge.

Billy: Directors at Hollinger were hand-picked by Black to be lazy and stupid.

Billy December 13, 2007 at 10:42 a.m.

dh -- totally agree, and to enhance his global status.

wave, non-competes are still legal in Canada. Black's fraud was constituted by the use of non-competes in an illegal way - facts proven by the prosecution beyond the reasonable doubt of the jury and St Eve. See, there's a need to understand these things in order to have an informed opinion.

Kelly December 13, 2007 at 11:04 a.m.

Wave99:

Oh dear, as always your theories are full of holes.

That presumes the shareholders wanted Black to have those funds as bonuses to begin with which isn't the case. They were already bothered by him living large at company expense at the same time the share price was stagnating.

The way it works wave99, is that the funds should go to the corporation, and not be hijacked by the CEO on their way there.

Hopefully you're not a finance exec for you seem to have a propensity to think of creative ways to disguise/justify embezzlement (that you troublingly disguise as "strategies"). It also suggests you have the same conscience deficit as Black.

Kelly December 13, 2007 at 11:09 a.m.

...describe as strategies...

jade_lee December 13, 2007 at 11:10 a.m.

"It was sneaky. It was smart. Paying oneself to not compete with oneself."<<<<<Wave it also was criminal according to the conviction registered and sentence handed down on Dec 10, did you miss all that? So not so smart in terms of trauma and legal fees alone!!!!!!!!!!!

jade_lee December 13, 2007 at 11:12 a.m.

The legality of non competes is not the issue, taking money not it compete with yourself was the issue, it was fraudulent.

jade_lee December 13, 2007 at 11:14 a.m.

Or at the heart of the frauds, you don't pay yourself not to compete with people who don't request or require that protection.

Fintan December 13, 2007 at 11:15 a.m.

A movie to look forward to if they ever make it.

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs...

John Candy as His lardship, Lara Flynn Boyle as Morticia (again), Tom Cruise as Eric Sussman and, just to help the creature get a job and perhaps a life, the leaf in drag as Bubba's original bitch.

jade_lee December 13, 2007 at 11:16 a.m.

Inserting the information that you paid yourselves despite others not being privy to the transaction is also unacceptable and a convincing attempt to cover fraud.

jade_lee December 13, 2007 at 11:17 a.m.

John Candy is no longer with us, he died years ago fintan.

Kelly December 13, 2007 at 11:23 a.m.

It's amazing to me that these people would align themselves with a convicted felon. It's one thing for his long time friends to stand by him (and perhaps wave and the other lemmings are them) but quite another to spend all this time trying to justify criminal activity. It confirms Black isn't the only crook around.

Kelly December 13, 2007 at 11:26 a.m.

Didn't anyone watch "Shades of Black"?

I thought the male actor did a pretty good job of portraying him (and even resembled a slimmer Black) but the movie itself seemed a little disjointed.

Fintan December 13, 2007 at 11:27 a.m.

"John Candy is no longer with us, he died years ago fintan."

Sorry to hear that, jade_lee. He was a great talent, and I wasn't aware that he'd passed away.

Come to think of it, they might be able to find some portly Brit, perhaps a descendant of Robert Morley, to do a caricature of His Lardship.

Lunchtime O'Booze December 13, 2007 at 11:31 a.m.

Speak for yourself, Mr. Bell. Many of us hacks are not pricks at all and much nicer people than the pricks, like Con Black, that we slave for.

Anal Roberts December 13, 2007 at 11:53 a.m.

Why bring up the subject of pricks?

"... it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks."
Acts 26:14

With his photographic memory and love of arcane knowledge, Black should have read the Bible a little more and he'd have found that bit of advice.

Dennis December 13, 2007 at 12:22 p.m.

Re:
jade_lee December 13, 2007 at 11:14 a.m.

"Or at the heart of the frauds, you don't pay yourself not to compete with people who don't request or require that protection."

The jury acquitted on some of those transactions I think. Jeanne the Juror indicated that they were OK as long as they were properly disclosed. The APC transaction was not, thus the conviction on that count. I think the defense to that is that Conrad was unaware that the APC transaction was not disclosed (Radler negotiated it and had indicated that it was disclosed). The jury did not find that defense credible.

jade_lee December 13, 2007 at 12:29 p.m.

Money for nothing must be a divine right of kings and governments no? CB is not credible.

The Boss December 13, 2007 at 12:59 p.m.

Conrad schmonrad! If I ran businesses like he did, you'd all be unemployed and living on welfare. He's history.

Now forget about that jailbird and get back to doing some of the work I'm paying you for!

leaf December 13, 2007 at 1:04 p.m.

Roger takes his ideas about Islam from these cockamamie Human Rights Commissions which are an abomination to any free society

Perplexed December 13, 2007 at 1:17 p.m.

What do roger's ideas got to do with the blog you nutcase

mul December 13, 2007 at 1:22 p.m.

I was impresed by the Hon Brian Mulroney's presentation at the committee. He indeed came accross as a former prime minister. It appeared to me as good politics for the Dion and Layton. It is diversion from the important issues facing
the country, but both the dion and layton are bankrupt in ideas. I learned a lot and Mr Mulroney is an intersting and talented man.

leaf December 13, 2007 at 1:32 p.m.

if you don't respect me, i'll leave you and stay with this blog http://suzieqq.wordpress.com/2007/12/10/......

JONES December 13, 2007 at 1:35 p.m.

Jade_lee:
Fantasy world huh? Is CB in jail now? he was suppose to be sentenced Nov30/07. That was "stayed" to Dec. 10/07 account legal mumbo Jumbo. Dec 10/07 came and CB was sentenced and he is free until March now. My fantasy world will have to wait until March to see this "thief" in jail. But somehow just somehow I have this feeling March will turn into maybe March 09. Then March 09 will turn into only God knows what else. Point being he is not in jail and IMO he will never serve a day. I suggest you come out of your fantasy world and see the world the way it really is. Rich old money people do not spend time in jails.

Fintan December 13, 2007 at 1:43 p.m.

Good article in the Scotsman. It shows what a laughing stock that vile couple have become among most of their former friends in the UK. http://living.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=...

But who would have expected anything else?

Fintan December 13, 2007 at 1:58 p.m.

Jones: I agree with you to a large extent, but I think you are painting the devil on the wall unnecessarily.

You write "Rich old money people do not spend time in jails."

Very true in most cases, but it can happen nevertheless. Here's one example from the UK: http://www.speakers-uk.com/profile.phtml...

Baron Black of soon-to-be Crosswaysshagged will probably be another exception to the rule. He is not really old money to any significant degree and, in the US scheme of things, he is not now and never has been even new money to the extent that matters. He just presented himself as that.

Now the bubble is burst and he can expect little mercy from the pack of wolves in which he wanted to be a leading player. He pissed on some of the alphas' turf. And that means trouble.

So, my friend, be of more cheer and touch wood we'll soon see him take up residence in the hoosegow.

Rene December 13, 2007 at 2:02 p.m.

Well, at long last this scoundrel who ruined a once great company, which he took over cash rich by dubious means to squander and impoverish not only the company but the legacy of the good men who originally built it, is going to jail to do time.

Good. To Conrad Moffat Black I say:

Time wounds all heels.

Good Riddance!

jade_lee December 13, 2007 at 2:02 p.m.

Very cynical indeed, but wait and see is all I am saying. "Rich old money people do not spend time in jails." or is it that rich old money people do not get convicted of fraud and obstructing justice? Listen I am surprised that CB was convicted, the US prosecution did not source out their work and hence failed in many areas but and the big CB but remains that the case was presented in a court room that was a showcase of decorum and rule of law and the lady has song. Everything else is window dressing from here on in.

leaf December 13, 2007 at 2:07 p.m.

The previous ‘leaf’ posts, at 1:04pm & 1:32pm are not from me.

BBC won’t be posting today. Explanations follow in the reposted post below.

I won’t comment any further for now but I welcome and encourage any sensible opinions from all of you.

Please, let’s not make this personal because it is not.

Interestingly enough, we have a situation here where parallels can be drawn to CB’s own case. On a much smaller scale of course, but similar action/reaction.

Thanks in advance for being objective.

Barbara in BC December 13, 2007 at 10:56 a.m.

leaf said:
"hypocracy, lies, denial, abuse, deceit... it's all right here in this thread, courtesy of the forever shameless BBC."

Wow, I got a taste of how Conrad Black must be feeling. No wonder he's in denial, nobody enjoys being shunned by decent society. Makes me admire David Radler for his true attempt to atone for his crimes as described in yesterday's Globe and Mail:

“The repentant”
'In Judaism we learn that there are three parts to repentance; confession, regret and resolution to change. I believe you have witnessed the first part - confession. I have heard and felt the second part - regret. The third part - resolution to change - can be plainly seen in David's life over the past year.' 
-Friend Daniel Nack

So: For not paying leaf $100. I will atone by not posting here for the rest of the day. That ought to do it. And if I hear one more word from leaf about it, she will become invisible to me same as happened to Donna.

JONES December 13, 2007 at 2:20 p.m.

Jade_lee
Sometimes people like Black over step the line. Black did this when he went public with his company. He stepped on some big toes but he still knows some big toes. Black doesn't give a fiddlers fadoo about what people think about him.The bravado about not being afraid of jail is just that bravado. He does not want to be in jail. He has a new team of professional mouth pieces. Why? To keep him out of jail and that is just what they will do.Smart lawyers don't defend their clients smart lawyers keep their clients out of jail for a long long time for a lot of money.

JONES December 13, 2007 at 2:30 p.m.

FINTAN:
Thanks very interesting article. Yes there are exceptions to the rule as you note. Lets hope Black does serve time. Its just that I live in Canada Fintan and have seen the SOB's get away with murder. If dumb Black had not given up his citizenship I doubt if the Americans could have got him to trial. Plus I smell something very strange. The judge was all gung hoe then all of a sudden she used old guidelines and even gave his Lardship almost 3 months to prepare for jail. Something just doesn't add up here.

LOL! December 13, 2007 at 2:33 p.m.

>leaf December 12, 2007 at 6:22 p.m.

the truth is roger, i resent you. have NO respect for you and want to deprive you of the twisted pleasure you take in shooting off trashy nonsense at me.

to prove my disdain, i spit on you and the likes of you.<

jade_lee December 13, 2007 at 2:36 p.m.

Sorry jones but I disagree with you with respect to CB and I am convinced that he is going to be incarcerated on March 3/08. This Judge has done her job. I respect what the jury did. CB was shocked upon being convicted and he remains in shock about going to jail, His declaration that he thinks jail will be a bore is hilarious. I have always known that CB will be able to adjust to prison but that does not mean I don't think it will be hell for him, it's hell for most people no?

wave99 December 13, 2007 at 2:40 p.m.

Jade.

As a reasonably reasonable (!) person,, you understand that what I have provided in my second to last post is the viable suggestion that if this is a crime ( I won't dispute the result and verdicts for this purpose ), it was a RESULT of a few disgruntled shareholders who believed they were losing money by Black and co creating the enviroment in which these additional 3 NC's were attained.

But the reality that has slowly crept in for shreholders was this.

That act saved them money.

The corp. bonuses they would have taken had these 3 NC's not been requested would have been at the very least equal to those questionable NC's.

Possiblymore,if the Board approved a comparable amount plus coverage for tax.

This NC funds was money that did not exist in the first place, so it could not have been taken from anywhere but company/shareholder equity.

Undoubtedly Black and co made several errors in all of this, but the most influential error was not predicting that shareholders might not understand that the perception of loss,in these 3 NC's, holds equal gravity to the reality of 'loss', coming in the form of bonus.

It was a calculated transaction that undoubtedly walked precariously close to the edge. This is territory that accountants through-out the country get rewarded regularly for hitting and stopping.

In the US it apparantly crossed over. It had, also apparantly, not crossed over in Canada.

National differences. Systemic difference. Accounting differences.

It's not someone sticking a knife in your back and robbing.

It's subtle. Selfish...sure. But not clearly unethical in a capitalist society.

I just don't but the current comparisons with Enron and others. Or with violent crime.

It was a formula, these NC's, that had a positive and legal track-record that was pushed forward, within the US by Radler I might add, to create a win/win.

It really comes down to this.

Either you feel it is fairly irrelevant that Radler and Co asked for these 3 NC's, or you don't.

To me, it is the same thing, if and only if ( as is the case here ) the buyers agree.

They did. Saved stockholders inevitable bonus payouts and that's that.

wave99 December 13, 2007 at 2:43 p.m.

Kelly.

I'll try to keep it simple.

The funds from the 3 dubious NC's would not have existed for shareholders to have, as you suggest, without Black, Radler and co asking for them.

Had they not asked, the liklihood is the same amount of more ( taking into consideration tax loss on bonuses ) being removed from what is in effect, shareholder wealth.

It's logical.

Obvious.

Intially some shareholders resented this and viewed it as NET loss.

Many have since realized it had been a win/win.

LOL! December 13, 2007 at 2:44 p.m.

The corp. bonuses they would have taken had these 3 NC's not been requested would have been at the very least equal to those questionable NC's.--wave99

The bank robbers would have taken more if they did not rob the bank the old-fashioned way?

wave99 December 13, 2007 at 2:46 p.m.

Billy.

Same comment as towards Lorraine.

No crime took place in Canada re NC's. There is/was no fraud here.

shareholder December 13, 2007 at 2:46 p.m.

It's amazing to me that these people would align themselves with a convicted felon. It's one thing for his long time friends to stand by him (and perhaps wave and the other lemmings are them) but quite another to spend all this time trying to justify criminal activity. It confirms Black isn't the only crook around. - Kelly

you've got a lot of nerve when you can't even outline the crime, why don't you do that before pound your keyboard taking the moral high ground with the utmost righteousness, explain the crime commited by Black, that goes for the nit wit Jean the juror who ruined 3 men's lives over government lies, shame on you Jean the juror you're just as corrupt as your whole country is.

LOL! December 13, 2007 at 2:50 p.m.

explain the crime commited by Black--shareholder

LOL! Black violated the 11th commandment--they shalt not be caught with thine fingers in the cookie jar. They caught Black stealing. A lot. Millions.

LOL! December 13, 2007 at 2:54 p.m.

when they strip search Black, theyre gonna find the loot inside him.

WAVE99 December 13, 2007 at 2:56 p.m.

Kelly.

I understand your perspective,but would ask you to think outside the emotional,dogmatic box for a minute.

Let's say that Black and co still had asked for the NC's, but instead of those funds going into their own accounts, as what for all intents and purposes is a bonus, it went back into the corporation.

What you have suggested very clearly, is that then would be ok.

You are implying then that what you preceive as an illegal act when Black and co takes hold of those funds, would be a lesser illegal act,or legal, if the funds went to the corp.

You clearly have stated the wrong-doing was that the shareholders did not benefit from this, what you suggest is illegal, money.

Now, that is circular logic.

Illegal acts, as YOU define them, are wrong when Black more directly benefit, but ...what...less so...not wrong at all...passible...if the same acts enrich the shareholders.

Regardless, their formula was obviously wrong. It did not work.

It's a subtle and fine line between right and wrong here and accountants all over the country reliably and regularly walk that line.

There were other motivations in taking Black to task.

shareholder December 13, 2007 at 2:58 p.m.

LOL! Black violated the 11th commandment--they shalt not be caught with thine fingers in the cookie jar. They caught Black stealing. A lot. Millions. - LOL

That's all I get from you creeps, you know nothing about thias case at all. If you did you'd be able to outline the crime, you snear, puff out your chests and recite the Breeden Report. you all are the lemmings, just eread what some of the jurors have wrote on ehre and you will see theat they are typical arrogant ignorant Americans who bought into the class hatred. It's obvious Black was set up and framed none of you can refute this, you can only snear and make depraved jokes and name call. Let's hear outline the crime Conrad Black commited, again you will fail to do so and I again I will remind you that you anti's are all filth, that goes for you too juror.

Kelly December 13, 2007 at 3:05 p.m.

No need to keep it simple Wave - I, like others, understand these matters well enough to see right through the gobbledygoock that you routinely post.

You're just spouting the same tripe and have already received countless smackdowns. Again, it also demonstrates that you are dishonest and evidently shameless

It's doesn't matter who asked for the NCs. What matters is they belong to the corporation. Conrad is and has been deemed a thief, no way around it.

Here's an example of more garbage:

"The corp. bonuses they would have taken had these 3 NC's not been requested would have been at the very least equal to those questionable NC's."

It's not up to CEOs or other executives to "take bonuses" - that's the point, lol. Only someone hopelessly clueless would think that.

shareholder December 13, 2007 at 3:12 p.m.

It's doesn't matter who asked for the NCs. What matters is they belong to the corporation. Conrad is and has been deemed a thief, no way around it. - Kelly

total B.S, there was no law that prohibited management from recieving NC's, if so provide us with a link that varifies that mangement can't recieve individual NC's. It doesn't matter that whether the buyers insinsted on the NC's which was done in the Canwest deal that CB negotiated, Izzy Asper put it in writing, further the juror can coroberate that Radler told the other Hollinger execs that they had been requested, no criminal intent, no fraud scheme.

Kelly December 13, 2007 at 3:12 p.m.

"The bank robbers would have taken more if they did not rob the bank the old-fashioned way?"

Good one "LOL!".

LOL indeed. Poor wave.

shareholder December 13, 2007 at 3:13 p.m.

Radler put it in writing re. the CNHI transactions that were in question at the trial.

Kelly December 13, 2007 at 3:15 p.m.

Examples of more criminality form the Scotsman article:

"His second fraud was to sell some of the newspapers to Horizon, his own private company, for criminally low amounts. For example, the Journal of the San Juan Islands was sold to Horizon for 50 cents and re-sold shortly after by Black for $280,000".

Blatant self-dealing.

shareholder December 13, 2007 at 3:25 p.m.

His second fraud was to sell some of the newspapers to Horizon, his own private company, for criminally low amounts. For example, the Journal of the San Juan Islands was sold to Horizon for 50 cents and re-sold shortly after by Black for $280,000". - Kelly

David Radler was the one who controled Horizon, he organized those deals exclusivly and he controled Horizon fraudulently through his straw man Todd Vogt, Vogt had a secret agreement with Radler that surrendered his voting interest to Radler, Radler perjured himself when questioned on this in a BC court, Radler had always insisted that he and Cornad were minority holders of Horizon with 24% interest each when in reality Radler was controling Horizon and lying to everyone about it. That's the sickest part of this case, Radler was and is a crook and a liar and Conrad get;s blamed while Radler comes off as the benevolent one who confessed, no dounbt, Radler was the only crook. This goes for his fraudulent allocation of $8mm re a supposed non compete signed for American Trucker, he just trnsfered the dough to his personal account calling it a NC when no agreement had even been drafted. You fools are still falling for this garbage.

wave99 December 13, 2007 at 3:29 p.m.

Kelly.

I return to my last point.

What you view as illegal for Black and co, you view as something less so if the proceeds had gone to the corp.

You don't want to see your own hypocracy. I know you can see it.

You are not stupid.

You have now also suggested that I am a criminal.

Thanks.

I don't have a criminal record and as far as I know, have not done anything to warrant it.

You mean to say yet again, in your unique circular logic, that because I see ample room to view Black quite differently than you, that I therefore am a criminal or should be ?

How odd is that.

I just don't get you and some of your fellow Black haters.

The degree of your personal dispise transcends the facts and doubts about this.

Worse still, free 's you to call others criminals,and wrongly so.

Wow.

wave99 December 13, 2007 at 3:36 p.m.

Kelly.

You probably are being honest in saying that there is no need in keeping it simple.

But that onlyplaces you in this category.

Black haters who don't care about facts and plausible alternative scenarios.

As such, to me at least, no longer of any relevance.

So...I'll dive in...if you wish to go head to head...give me your best.

Let's have fun...

JONES December 13, 2007 at 3:46 p.m.

Jade_lee

I can not answer your last remark about jail being hell for most people. For me and you and most I guess it would be. I know I would not want to go to jail not even for a night. But Black is a different creature. They say a mad man knows a certain pleasure that a sane person will never know. Who knows what goes on in his mind?

Question December 13, 2007 at 3:48 p.m.

Has Black lost his Lordship or will he? How about his order of Canada?

Billy December 13, 2007 at 3:51 p.m.

it gets "reviewed" once he exhausts his appeals on the convictions. There is nothing automatic, but there have been a few cancellations.

Billy December 13, 2007 at 3:53 p.m.

I think there's nothing in place now to revoke the Lord thing, but apparently its under review

Kelly December 13, 2007 at 3:53 p.m.

Wave:

As Billy succinctly said: you need to understand these things in the first place to have an informed opinion.

Absolutely, I think you are dishonest. I've already mentioned one reason previously and the second is because you try to pose as someone informed about how public companies work when your garbled posts make it glaringly evident that you don't even have a rudimentary understanding. Either that or you must be smoking something.

I'm not a "Black hater". I've dealt with shareholders and know full well the destruction that corporate criminals like Black wreak.

It's been unwise for me to even respond to you - other posters who've been here longer clear know that. Total time waster.

Kelly December 13, 2007 at 3:57 p.m.

Funny, I had to deliberately mis-spell "gobbledygoock" to get past the censor.

Sandy December 13, 2007 at 4:04 p.m.

leaf December 13, 2007 at 1:04 p.m.

Roger takes his ideas about Islam from these cockamamie Human Rights Commissions which are an abomination to any free society

If this post of yours above doesn't prove how really disturbed you are, I suggest you simply buzz off and follow your own advice - go hang out on another blog, you nutcase.

Fintan December 13, 2007 at 4:05 p.m.

Billy. "I think there's nothing in place now to revoke the Lord thing, but apparently its under review"

Correct. As things stand, a Member of the House of Commons who commits a criminal offence loses his or her seat, but a Peer remains in the House of Lards irrespective of criminal record. I kid you not, and yes, it is the 21st century.

Jack Straw has pledged that legislation will be put through to remedy this anomaly - besides which the upper house is going to be restructured quite radically anyway and there will no longer be any place for crooks who bribe their way into it and become life peers.

That legislation may take a while to go through, but His Lardship will be "on an extended sojourn abroad" for 5-6 years anyway.

Not waxing maple leafs on TV, but waxing his carrot in an uncomfortable bunk.

shareholder December 13, 2007 at 4:06 p.m.

I'm not a "Black hater". I've dealt with shareholders and know full well the destruction that corporate criminals like Black wreak. - Kelly

That's rich! Either effectivlely outline an actually crime committed by Black or admit that your wrong, malicious and are whipped by sensationalism in the media. You can't outline a crime, it should be easy since you allude to some sort o capital markets expertise. In reality, your just another fraud like the rest of the anti's.

shareholder December 13, 2007 at 4:07 p.m.

(sic) you're wrong you''re a fraud Kelly

shareholder December 13, 2007 at 4:10 p.m.

Not waxing maple leafs on TV, but waxing his carrot in an uncomfortable bunk. - Fintan

You too - you're the biggest fraud on this site, why don't explain for everyone Fintan what exactly His Lordship did that was criminal, let's hear it.

Billy December 13, 2007 at 4:22 p.m.

to shareholder,
To what Black did that was criminal? How about committing fraud, a criminal act under the statutes. I thought everyone knew that.

wave99 December 13, 2007 at 4:22 p.m.

Kelly.

Thank you.

I have to be honest. There have been so few times in my life where I have been placed in a position in which I have had to view myself in the mirror and ask, " is this really the guy you wanted to be as a kid ?"

All the short-cuts I have taken.

The laziness in school.

The inability to work in a group setting.

The dictatorial management style.

The false bravado.

The incredible defensiveness.

I could go on.

Now,that you have made me see myself for who I truly am.

Let me ask you.

How did you get over those qualities and characteristics so effectively ?

I'm open to learning.

Kelly December 13, 2007 at 4:26 p.m.

Shareholder:

It doesn't bother me a wit that a criminal's apologist like you thinks I'm a fraud. I chuckled when I saw that actually.

As I said previously, I'm not going to rehash a tedious case just to give you an opportunity to then respond with your spinning, obfuscation etc. The jury has spoken. Your friend/relative Conrad has been exposed to the world. Not to say that there weren't people who pegged him even before that.

In a way I feel sorry for you "shareholder". What a thankless, grim task to have to paint Black as an honest man. Bright and accomplished, for sure, honest or honorable, no.

Sandy December 13, 2007 at 4:30 p.m.

shareholder December 13, 2007 at 2:58 p.m.

That's all I get from you creeps, you know nothing about thias case at all. If you did you'd be able to outline the crime, you snear, puff out your chests and recite the Breeden Report. you all are the lemmings, just eread what some of the jurors have wrote on ehre and you will see theat they are typical arrogant ignorant Americans who bought into the class hatred. It's obvious Black was set up and framed none of you can refute this, you can only snear and make depraved jokes and name call. Let's hear outline the crime Conrad Black commited, again you will fail to do so and I again I will remind you that you anti's are all filth, that goes for you too juror.

I think you are another nutcase who also cannot write / speak English properly or spell. You are a name caller and as disturbed as leaf. Why you continue to post on this blog is a mystery - find another blog to accept your garbage.

jade_lee December 13, 2007 at 4:31 p.m.

Shareholder,
The crimes committed by CB been explained by the judge who is far more learned than fintan or any of us writing on this blog. It's a wee bit late to hide behind what the perceptions others have of this case writing on this blog, The sweeping statements I have read by those defending CB on this blog are simply regurgitations heard on the television or read in pro CB propaganda.....how bout we wait for the appeal summary CB's legal team will no doubt hint about in the legal circles they travel.

wave99 December 13, 2007 at 4:36 p.m.

I'm ready.

I never thought this day would come.

An apology to several pro justice types and pro Black allies.

I am not coming to this opinion now with the goal of provoking you, annoying you or belittling you.

It's called PROACTIVE VERBAL DISMEBOWLING.

A safe, gentle way of having youcome to terms with how bad you are regardless of how good and generous a life you live.

Though your views are moronic and show no inclination of any knowledge or thought or experience in, well anything, I am stating this to help you find the light in the same way in which Kelly has helped me.

THANK YOU AGAIN KELLY.

Lit. Leaf. Shareholder. Had you any experience in business, stocks, worked with a broker, self directed stocks or just read up on them, you might be in a position to talk on this legal subject of Black.

You have not.

Plain to see.

You are criminal types. And I mean no disrepesct what-so-ever. Remember. PORACTIVE VERBAL DISEMBOWLMENT.

I think we can mention that with no offense taken, right ?

We've known each other a long time.

shareholder December 13, 2007 at 4:38 p.m.

to shareholder,
To what Black did that was criminal? How about committing fraud, a criminal act under the statutes. I thought everyone knew that - Billy

My point has been that he did not commit fraud, i have outlined why i believe this. Can you oultine what in fact he did that was fraudulent and criminal?

said previously, I'm not going to rehash a tedious case - Kelly

thanks Kelly, that's exactly what I expected to hear.

I think you are another nutcase who also cannot write / speak English properly or spell - Sandy/Donna

whatever Donna, yawnnnn don't you get tired of yourself?

The sweeping statements I have read by those defending CB on this blog are simply regurgitations heard on the television or read in pro CB propaganda..- JL

Blah, blah, blah...in your words can you outline what exactly Conrad Black did that was criminal without sdaying some variation of see!! so and so says he's guilty therfor I don't have to think, I can just abuse hurl insults and smear a great man and a great Canadian. I pity fools.

wave99 December 13, 2007 at 4:39 p.m.

Shareholder.

Come on.

Who are you fooling you idiot ( PROACTIVE VERBALDISEMBOWLMENT ).

Our Kelly does not have to go over any points of fact in the case.

Seriously.

It'snot about that youmoron.

If you knew anything about anything, you would know that.

But how could you. You know nothing.

PROACTIVE VERBAL DISEMBOWLMENT.

Kelly speaks with knowledge that transcends, well, knowledge and fact.

Buy in.

It's easier in the end dumb ass.

Billy December 13, 2007 at 4:41 p.m.

Its meaningless to argue about Black's guilt if you didn't hear and see the evidence offered to judge and jury. The fact that one or the other on the blog has a little more or a little less information about the trial is irrelevant to Black's guilt or innocence. Besides, that was four months ago! It is what it is.

wave99 December 13, 2007 at 4:42 p.m.

shareholder....again...wow.

As Jade stated Sir...any thoughts or ideas on your pro Black side have been regurgitated and un-original representations of stuff heard via the pro Black, anti democracy,anti justicemedia personalities.

Grow up and start to develop a mind of your own.

PROACTIVE VERBAL DISEMBOWLMENT

You might find that there is still time to learn something and then,and only then,attend a blog format in which you won't have to answer questions about the actual facts of the matter.

shareholder December 13, 2007 at 4:42 p.m.

that's funny,

thanks for the clarification.

I hear you loud and clear

Kelly December 13, 2007 at 4:44 p.m.

Considering how litigious Black was - good tactic to intimidate journalists or others into not scrutinizing his business affairs - it must be maddening for him to see all the negative press etc.

One more thing "shareholder"....from what I've heard about Breeden, it wouldn't surprise me if there is a lawsuit winging it's way to you about now. You have called him a thief repeatedly on here - apparently you consider that appropriate even though there's no evidence or court decision to back that up. Hypocrite.

wave99 December 13, 2007 at 4:45 p.m.

Lit.

There is one point that seems to have, in particular, failed to resonate with you during these conversations.

BLACK IS GUILTY.

YOU ARE AN IDIOT.

PROACTIVE VERBAL DISEMBOWLMENT.

Any who....give it up.

Your proven facts and quality un-answered questions have no measure of effect at all on the commentaries here.

If anything,it reflects Barb's point,on what a dumb ass you really are for writing them in the first place.

Have you learned anything ?

Billy December 13, 2007 at 4:45 p.m.

A "great man". LOL!!

Kelly December 13, 2007 at 4:55 p.m.

Shareholder should change his alias to Sisyphus.

wave99 December 13, 2007 at 4:56 p.m.

And you Leaf.

Where to begin ?

Hmm.

Perhaps I should gebin where all conversation around Leaf ends.

For all your looking at the historical comments of this blog you have failed to learn...IDIOT, that our words mean nothing.

PROACTIVE VERBAL DISEMBOWLMENT

If they meant anything,do you actually think we would have written them in the first place, moron ?

Are you...are you Leaf, a girl ?

You really act like one and we should know.

PROACTIVE VERBAL DISEMBOWLMENT

Get a life creepizoid.

Oh...and um, Black is guilty. And you know nothing.

wave99 December 13, 2007 at 4:59 p.m.

Kelly:

"Shareholder should change his alia to Sysiphus."

Ha ha ha ha.......LOL LOL.......I wish I could make larger letters.

FACE...shareholder....in your face.......LOL

What a loser,ah Kelly.

Great point again.

shareholder this idiot.

PROACTIVE VERBAL DISEMBOWLMENT.

We don'tneed to entertain you with any facts twitholder. We KNOW the facts, so we can just shout at you all day long and make you feel like the worm you are.

LOL......................ha ha ha ha ha at YOU Shareholder.

wave99 December 13, 2007 at 5:02 p.m.

Pro Black losers.

If you knew anything, you would know that the less we talk about the facts OF BLACKS GUILT, the more we actually do know about Black's guilt.

And we have no intention of sharing that WITH you no good, criminal types.

It will onlygive you knowledge. And youmay use it for evil.

What a waste of words.

PROACTIVE VERBAL DISEMBOWLMENT

shareholder December 13, 2007 at 5:04 p.m.

. You have called him a thief repeatedly on here - apparently you consider that appropriate even though there's no evidence or court decision to back that up. Hypocrite. - Kelly

I will outline precisely why I believe Richard Breeden is a criminal.

He asserts himself as the guardian of the shareholders saving them from Conrad Black, he demands that Black return money from non competes attached to deals that Black had negotiated, Black is forced out of Hollinger by way of Breeden pressuring the board, than Breeden appoints a team of recievers, all of whom are paid multi millions of dollars to oversee the sale of all of the remaiing assets at HLR, this ofcourse is to finance the $50mm Breeden takes for protecting the shareholders from Conrad Black, his legal operatives who number around 30 or so milk Hollinger for $800 an hour to protect the company from Conrad Black. Breeden than appoints Gordan Paris as president of Hollinger International, Paris is paid $3mm to liquidate more assets to finance the legal experts and regulators to protect the shareholders from Conrad Black, altogether the company has been squeezed for $300mm to pay those protecting the shareholders from Conrad Black's 6.1mm fraud. Through all of this the share price has dropped 98% since Black was ousted the dividend has been canceled and as I've said Breeden and his group have happily helped themselves to $300mm of money that should have gone to the shareholders.

that is why I think Breeden is a fraud and a criminal, can you outline in your own words what exactly Conrad Black did that was fraudulent and crtiminal?

Kelly December 13, 2007 at 5:04 p.m.

Shareholder:

With all the (supposed) exonerating evidence you have about Conrad, why not send it to the appeal's judge? Perhaps wave can also submit his ahem...."alternative theories" (I'm trying to muffle a laugh).

Why waste your time on here with frauds (I know, speak for myself) and impressionable idiots??

You should be helping your esteemed chum to extricate himself from this mess. Go on shareholder...

shareholder December 13, 2007 at 5:09 p.m.

Kelly,
can you outline in your own words what exactly Conrad Black did that was fraudulent and criminal?

leaf December 13, 2007 at 5:12 p.m.

Sandy December 13, 2007 at 4:04 p.m.

leaf December 13, 2007 at 1:04 p.m.

Roger takes his ideas about Islam from these cockamamie Human Rights Commissions which are an abomination to any free society
If this post of yours above doesn't prove how really disturbed you are, I suggest you simply buzz off and follow your own advice - go hang out on another blog, you nutcase.

It defies any and all logic that the real leaf would’ve written this post but it makes perfect sense that this should go right over sandy/donna’s head.

Like I often say, I don’t need to make fools of yourselves, you do it all on your own.
My thanks and appreciation for that.

wave99 December 13, 2007 at 5:13 p.m.

Commentary:

wave:

Kelly, I am starting to feel alittle akward in what seems tome as insulting some people who have differing opinions than us.

Kelly:

Wave, grow a penis. First off. If we share knowledge of facts than we open ourselves up to questions about the case.

wave:

Isn't that the goal ? To enlighten the deprived ,criminal types herein ?

Kelly:

Partially. But you have to understand. We can enlighten them by not talking about anything resembling facts. It confuses them even more.

They get frsutrated and reply with personal attacks or angry words.

wave:

But are not our words angry and personal?

Kelly:

No idiot. You really don't know anything at all. Anyway, the
purpose of PROACTIVE VERBAL DISEMBOLMENT is kind of like a diplomatic pass.

It frees us from any responsibilityin what we say AND more importantly,in what we don't say.

It's how we can 'chat ' and have our correct and strong opinions without providing any evidence or facts.

wave:

Oh, brilliant.

Kelly:

Yes, two-fold.

Aside from that, it also means by not providing any facts or replying to what the unbiasded idiots who sometime partake call, ' a losing position', holding back detailed logical arguments allows us tonot create the argument against OUR ARGUMENT, in the first place.

Get it ?

wave:

I think so.

You mean, the less we share about relevant stuff, the less they can challenge us on the facts.

And since we know the facts alone, there is no prupose in writing them within that blog.

Kelly:

You are still a criminal typeand fairly moronic, but ...basically, yes, that'sit.

WAVE:

Thanks Kelly.

Kelly.

Don't thank me.Thank PROACTIVE VERBAL DISEMBOWLMENT.

WAVE:

Thank you PROACTIVE VERBAL DISEMBOWLMENT.

Kelly ?

Kelly:

Yes.

wave:

One more question.

Kelly:

Sure.

wave:

Can I practice PROACTIVE VERBAL DISEMBOWLMENT ONE MORE TIME THIS AFTERNOON ?

Kelly:

Sure.

wave:

Thanks..check out the blog.

wave99 December 13, 2007 at 5:14 p.m.

Pro Blacks.

You people are a disgraceand of little human value.

PROACTIVE VERBAL DISEMBOWLMENT.

wave99 December 13, 2007 at 5:15 p.m.

Kelly.

I just used it again....did you see it ?

LOL

Ha ha ha ha ...........

WAVE99 December 13, 2007 at 5:23 p.m.

You pro Black's are so stupide and you just will never get it.

The more we do not talk about the facts, reflects the more we know about the case.

And the more we know about the case, reflects on the more we will call you names, because we so not have to chat about anything else.

We know.

You don't.

Grow up you thieves.

PROACTIVE VERBAL DISEMBOWLMENT

Kelly December 13, 2007 at 5:24 p.m.

Shareholder:

All that demonstrates is the fallout from Conrad's self-dealing. Anyway you cut it the shareholders have paid a high price for Black's criminality. Few public companies can withstand the strain that a criminal investigation causes. It creates a destructive downward spiral - downgrades by rating agencies, a run on the bank, shortselling, defaults on debt interest payments etc.

And I am aware that shareholders have criticized his successors for their pay packages and for spending too much on funding litigation to recover misappropriated funds from Conrad. That's the destruction his actions unleashed. It's his legacy.

Conrad should never have taken his company public (given his personality)...but he wanted a cheap source of capital. With that comes oversight, and his conduct couldn't withstand that scrutiny.

I will say I don't wish him some of the horrors in prison that some do.

WAVE99 December 13, 2007 at 5:29 p.m.

wave:

I'm confused.

Your 5:24 post seemed to protray a reasoable perspective worthy of deciplined chat ?

Kelly:

When you mix in just enough seudo knowledge it really blows them apart and keeps them coming back for more of the nothingness.

wave:

Ahhhhhhhhhh.....I see.

Phallologist December 13, 2007 at 5:34 p.m.

None of this need ever have happened if Black had had a decent sized willy. With his pitiable little thing, he had to try to impress Babsie that he was somehow superior to the guys who had already boned her, and luxurious living, glitter and all those things was the best way that he could think of doing so.

Moral of the story, he who thinks with a boner is a bonehead.

leaf December 13, 2007 at 5:38 p.m.

Phallologist December 13, 2007 at 5:34 p.m.
None of this need ever have happened if Black had had a decent sized willy. With his pitiable little thing, he had to try to impress Babsie that he was somehow superior to the guys who had already boned her, and luxurious living, glitter and all those things was the best way that he could think of doing so.

Moral of the story, he who thinks with a boner is a bonehead.

rejoice, fickton is among us.
he knows about little willies. and i don't mean his...

ndp December 13, 2007 at 5:40 p.m.

As predicted by this humble blogger, Schriber conned the ethics committe gong-show and the morons dion-layton three ring circus about having info that turned out to be false. Schriber dubbed the morons dion-layton to get him a stay-in-canada pass by filing a false affidavit. Schriber is now on the record of having perjured himself. The morons on the ethicts committee look like fools facing the Canadian public. There was particularly an NDPer who must have attending Eddie's lectures coz he called everybody liars. The dion gang looked so bad that they asked "How thick was the brown bag".

leaf December 13, 2007 at 5:41 p.m.

ROGER December 10, 2007 at 5:03 p.m.

SOMEWHERE IN FLORIDA INMATES ARE HOLDING AN AUCTION ON BLACK'S VIRGINITY

i'm gonna call you a phony, a liar and a hypocrit, you creep!

who needs an auction+ many woud pay for a bit of jiggy-jiggy with such a grate man. all you peple are sick!

wave99 December 13, 2007 at 5:43 p.m.

Ok, the real wave is back.

Kelly have to apologize.

You are an easy target and Ilikely overdid the drama a little.

It's just that talking about the case and facts,even politely gets commentarites out of you actually suggesting I am a criminal.

That leads nowhere and that is why I felt like making fun of, not you, but the absence of facts in your present position.

Shareholder had some excellent questions and points, and too often personal assualts prevailed in your reply.

Alot of words, but no context,substance or facts.

Anyway, all in fun.

PS: I don't think you are a criminal or a bad person. I hope that reduces the defensiveness a tad. Cheers.

leaf December 13, 2007 at 5:47 p.m.

mummy gave me a hig tonite. i feel alot better.

Sandy December 13, 2007 at 5:48 p.m.

As usual, leaf alias shareholder is trying to sabotage this blog.Why? Nothing better to do. Leaf appears to believe that her identity is anonymous - first reason she is labeled a nutcase. I may not agree with Wave99's opinions, but it is obvious that the above posts are not by him. The sole identity masquerader on this blog is leaf - she must think we are all oblivious. Notice how no one even responds to her anymore and ignores her incredibly disturbed posts. She is merely desperate for attention. Sad to watch her implode.

cach December 13, 2007 at 5:50 p.m.

The nerds on the ethics committe look so bad, that they
are demanding that the enquirey be cancelled. After warming their seats for 4 hours, the nerds gave themselves one month and one half holidays. These MP's if they show themselves more often, they would get elected to be dog-catchers.

Sandy December 13, 2007 at 5:59 p.m.

Methinks that leaf, when not attempting to destroy this site and why she is not around sometimes is obvious. She is hanging out on either some freako porn site or kiddie porn site particularly, as a very disturbed and evident paedophile. Hopefully, law enforcement will catch her asap.

leaf December 13, 2007 at 6 p.m.

didn't i say sandy/donna did all the work herself?
are you posting as me as well, doona?
only saying because of the spelling...content is fab, as usual.

Kelly December 13, 2007 at 6:07 p.m.

Wave:
All your "seudo" chats prove are your idiocy and need for attention.

You've been implying I am slow etc. ever since I first refuted some misinfo