Donna July 13, 2007 at 10:14 p.m.

Conrad Black's fate with destiny was decided all those years ago when he was thrown out of UCC for selling for profit those exam papers that he had stolen. He thought that he was smarter than everyone else then and he continued to believe he was smarter than everyone else, right up to as recently as when he swore that the prosecutors were Nazis who had done a smear job on him and whose case was a toilet seat hanging around their necks. Greed did not do him in as much as his arrogance, pomposity and disgraceful sense of entitlement. I stated repeatedly on this blog that I was satisfied with his removal from Hollinger and that a conviction would be the icing on the cake. Karma is a wonderful thing, especially for all those shareholders who lost out on the 60 million that Black embezzled.I also stated recently that, Like Icarus, Conrad Black flew too close to the sun. When he figured that he was Conrad Black and therefore had a right to abscond with those 13 boxes of evidence, this absolute arrogance was finally slammed by 12 honest, decent, hardworking jurors - the ultimate irony in this case - Black, the pompous Lord done in by 12 ordinary men and women to whom he never gave the time of day when he was flying so close to the sun.

Ken July 13, 2007 at 10:25 p.m.

I was struck by a comment about the "surgical" nature of the jury's verdict:

They only brought in guilty verdicts on fraud counts where the non-competes were unsigned, self-dealing, and/or unrequested.

In addition, the obstruction of justice count was documented by video with no evidence by Black to provide an alternate explanation.

To me, they were skimpy with the prosecution... returning guilty verdicts only where there was zero doubt.

Bob C July 13, 2007 at 10:58 p.m.

Donna;

I'm struck by the deafening silence of those who so vehemently disagreed with you throughout. Seems like acknowledgements are in order. I'm not sure any are coming, but from me anyway, well done. You knew your stuff.

Donna July 13, 2007 at 11:08 p.m.

To Bob C -

Thank you - it is indeed kind of you to validate what I have been stating and which invited so much abuse towards me from so many Black supporters. J2B2 calling me " scum ", a Tom calling me " trash " and an "internet stalker " and to " piss off ". Terribly sad and awfully scary, frankly. This was my very first blog and to be so abused has kind of turned me off ever becoming this involved again. I so appreciate your post and again, offer my sincere thanks.

Colm July 13, 2007 at 11:13 p.m.

Well, Donna, you win.

The Appeals are merely the aftermath.

No way should you have had to endure the abuse you referred to.

I remain astonished at the verdict...but accept it nonetheless, for now.

Donna July 13, 2007 at 11:20 p.m.

To Bob C -

I apologize for inadvertently ommitting kudos to you as well - your blogs were right on the mark and you, too, knew your stuff better tgan any of us antis..:-). Warmest and sincerest acknowledgements to you.

SUSAN July 13, 2007 at 11:23 p.m.

The jury convicted on "guilt beyond a reasonable doubt" on those charges they felt were indisputable and not easily overturned on appeal. Lord Black's arrogance, sense of entitlement and total disregard for the shareholders he owed a fiduciary duty to were indeed his downfall as it was one of those pesky little minority shareholders that was instrumental in bringing Lord Black to justice. He will have many years in prison to ponder this reality.

Donna July 13, 2007 at 11:24 p.m.

To Colm -

I didn't win, the shareholders of Hollinger and all the other shareholders of public companies have won - a great victory - for the little guy...:-). CEOs and their executives will think twice before they consider putting thier hands into the coporate cookie jar in the future.

Roger July 13, 2007 at 11:40 p.m.

Canada has a poor track record of holding members of the elite accountable, especially high level corporate and political figures. There is something profoundly wrong with the Canadian judiciary and justice system. The Canadian police force is both incompetent and corrupt while crown attorneys and judges are deferential to characters like Conrad Black. How can a prime minister be shown to have personally pocketed $300,000 from a businessman wanted in Germany for fraudulent business transactions and there is no charges and no public inquiry?

Black and the rightwing zealots in Canada have always extolled the virtues of America. It is fitting that Black has been prosecuted and convicted in America!

C.M. July 13, 2007 at 11:42 p.m.

Now that he is a convicted felon, how long will it be before he is stripped of the Order of Canada?

Does anyone know whether he can be removed from Her Majesty's Privy Council for Canada? Or is he entitled to be styled "the Right Honourable" despite that he is no longer honourable - though, at least politically, still right.

sourgrapes July 13, 2007 at 11:50 p.m.

This day will go down in infamy as "BLACK'S FRIDAY"

Shylock July 13, 2007 at 11:50 p.m.

The only charges I thought had any merit to them -obstruction and paying himself non-competes- were gladly the charges he was found guilty on. Still, I take no joy in seeing the man facing up to the rest of his life in jail. I truly feel sad for him and his family (as much as I think he broke the law on those counts). Arrogance must be punished, surely. But 20 years for obstruction is overkill.

The good news is that Mark Steyn will go back to what he does best, I hope; write witty analysis of the defining issues of our time...rather than have anything resembling an open mind. For all his railing of the American justice system, 12 ordinary people sealed his fate (and not the justice system which appears to favour the prosecution). Black should be lucky that the Government can't appeal all those charges the jury found him innocent innocent on.

Roger July 13, 2007 at 11:54 p.m.

Hopefully, there will be a substantial forfeiture of assets as a result of todays conviction. Once all the civil law suits by the SEC and corporations and shareholders are completed, I certainly hope Lord and Lady Black are forced to do honest work to support themselves in order that they can gain an appreciation for the lot of the masses they held in such contempt.
It is a pity that Lord and Lady Black could not be forced to live as poor people in America--they would have gained an appreciation of "socialized medicine" and social justice.
Unfortunately, Black will probably be deported as a convicted felon upon his release some years from now, if he ssurvives the ignomy of prison! I sure hope Canada does not ttake him back! Perhaps he will have a deflated ego after a ffew years as an aging butler to a real English lord, or perhaps a prince like Harry?

JONES July 13, 2007 at 11:57 p.m.

DONNA
One Big Kiss and a Hug. You didn't deserve the abuse you got. He (Black) still doesn't get it. He never will. Prisons are full of innocent people at least in their own mind.

Roger July 13, 2007 at 11:59 p.m.

Barbara Amiel Black = Lady Macbeth

It is a pity they did not charge and convict her as well!

Roger July 14, 2007 at 12:09 a.m.

Lord and Lady Black will now be even bigger objects of derision and cutting humour amongst their erstwhile social circles in England and the USA. It was bad enough to have their sordid and shabby private lives exposed without having to live down a criminal conviction of such paltry proportions! Not only was he not a billionaire but a mere millionaire, not only were they social climbers, commoners trying to be aristocrats, but even their crimes did not rise above petty sums! Lord and Lady Black have been exposed for the uncouth louts they always were. They had such impudence.

Nala July 14, 2007 at 12:15 a.m.

Bob C -

"Donna I'm struck by the deafening silence of those who so vehemently disagreed with you throughout. Seems like acknowledgements are in order. I'm not sure any are coming, but from me anyway, well done. You knew your stuff."

Bob, I would hate to disappoint you, so to you I write my final comment. Everyone here knows that I am disappointed and saddened by the verdict. I actually agreed earlier with Donna that I behaved like a sore loser earlier today., for which I apologized.

However, what has struck me most about todays post verdict comments, is your praise of Donna. This is an individual who trivialized this whole blog with her vulgar and malicious personal attacks directed not only at Mr. & Mrs. Black, but at anyone who disagreed with her. In doing so, she also encouraged the worst in others.

Had she limited her "opinions" to issues discussed at the trial or in the media would be one thing, but to have made so many personal attacks was detremental to the quality of the blog and to the people who participated in it. Many of your fellow antis have been very fair in their post verdict comments. While I never expected it from Donna, it would have been nice if she were able to take a page from Patrick Fitzgeralds book, and "win" a little more graciously. That is my acknowledgement of her......

Roger July 14, 2007 at 12:32 a.m.

Nala,

As someone who never came on here until today, I find your comment about winning graciously disingenuous. Lord Black and Barbara Amiel are crude, vulgar people who were never gracious or magnanimous in victory, ever! The supporters of these scumbags have over the years gloated at the vicious conduct of their heroes. Today is for dancing on the ruins of their notorious reputations just as they stomped on people their whole lives!

sourgrapes July 14, 2007 at 1:05 a.m.

Roger said..."I certainly hope Lord and Lady Black are forced to do honest work to support themselves in order that they can gain an appreciation for the lot of the masses they held in such contempt...."

You should read Tom Bower's book on Barbie doll. She is really the biggest nouveau-riche you'll ever meet. She's from the other side of the tracks, and just happened to marry money. Her morals were quite loose before hooking up with Conrad.

It was said that almost everyone at her "jobs" bedded her. So no, this is NOT a LADY who has lived in luxury all her life. In fact, she admitted to sharing her apartment with rats during her 'poor period', so look at who calls whom vermin! I think she shoulda been imprisoned too, as she was the reason Conrad got in trouble, methinks...

Brad July 14, 2007 at 1:34 a.m.

The misapprehension of the comments today are somewhat surprising. Lord Black is not a felon. He is god like in his manner. He will not shirk from the small mindedness that currently surroubds him. He recognizes the mediocrity that attempts to tear him down. Like Napoleon, he reluctantly deals with those who refuse to acknowledges his greatness. Lord Black will indeed triumph. He will smite his godless enemies. He will rise to be once again a corporate titn. He will commnd public corporations without rgard to the mindless peasants.

Fintan July 14, 2007 at 2:31 a.m.

Despite her support for such people as August Pinochet and convicted criminals like her own son Mark, don't count on Thatcher to intervene on Black's behalf. She's ga-ga anyway, and her own party the Conservatives has just "withdrawn the whip" (sounds like something from the script of an S&M movie) from Black. What that means in English is that he is no longer allowed to sit as a Conservative peer in the House of Lards.

Someone has speculated that he would end up doing time in Brixton if allowed to serve the sentence in the country of his citizenship. It is very unlikely that he would be sent there. Like Jeffrey Archer, he would serve his time in an open or semi-open prison. I have no problem with that and feel that all prisoners, whatever they may have done, still have the inalienable fundamental and human rights that are enshrined in the CoE Human Rights Convention, to which Britain is a signatory. Those rights must be respected. Despite the fact that the media reflecting Black's views seem to regard them as some kind of insidious threat to national sovereignty, the security of the realm and the availability of plumbers at the weekend.

My problem is not with HM's institutions for the ethically and morally challenged treating their inmates humanely and with dignity. It would be a pity to think that some minor clerk doing a few years for embezzlement might have to do their time in harsher conditions.

For Donna's delectation, here is a link to an article in the Daily Torygraph, the vehicle on which he rode into the House of Lards. Enjoy:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jht...

Fintan July 14, 2007 at 2:56 a.m.

Thanks, Brad, for lots of food for the good sniggars that I will certainly have in a few minutes, when I walk my dog along the Baltic shoreline.

"He will smite his godless enemies. He will rise to be once again a corporate titn. He will commnd public corporations without rgard to the mindless peasants."

Smiting his godless enemies! Wow, that's a bit of a worry for atheists like me, but at least it lets Donna off the hook, since she has proudly declared her religion and is therefore not godless. Or could it apply to all that do not belong to the same faith as Black currently considers to be the only one and true?

A corporate 'titn'? Obviously a typo. I, too, often hit a key with the side of my finger and get an extra 'n'. But do please tell us what a "corporate tit" is. If it's what it sounds like, wasn't it sucking a bit too hard on the corporate tit that set this tragedy in motion?

The word peasant is bandied about far too much, often by loud-mouths in pubs who seem to confuse it with 'ignorant' or 'uncouth'. You should look up its meaning for anthropologists. They use many definitions, but all include 'hard-working' and 'shrewd'.

There would be no pinnacle to a pyramid were it not for the lower and broader strata on which it rests and from which it derives its elevation.

Remember the Wizard of Id cartoon where the knight gallops up and tells the little king: "Sire, the peasants are revolting!". "Yes, aren't they," replies the king.

Many have seen their lives go pear-shaped when they underestimated the peasants.

p.s. I did spell the 'sni---' word right, but the PC screen rejected it and I changed one letter.

Paul G July 14, 2007 at 3:05 a.m.

For the hundreds of millions of dollars spent by all sides on the case, they didn't get Conrad for much, except the obstruction of justice charge. Kipnis being found guilty of anything truly surprised me.

Sad about Conrad. For a period of time, he greatly improved the quality of newspapers in Canada. Even the Globe had to respond, though now they are settling back into the comfortable medicrity that made it such a tiresome read in the first place.

Conrad lost, shareholders lost, and people who enjoy newspapers lost.

Peter Griffiths July 14, 2007 at 3:34 a.m.

So, the US government, in Blacks words, before the judge told Greenspan to shut him up or she would, had their case "hanging around their necks like a toilet seat"

Brave words, but I think you just got flushed, Conrad.

Although Greenspan seemed to have taken her instruction to heart and appeared to restrain his client accordingly, he obviously didn't think they applied to him.

Seemingly distressed that his $1.9 million to-date efforts had failed, Conrad's premier partner in bombastic blather couldn't keep his own mouth shut. In his As-It-Happens interview last night, Eddie vowed that it was not going to be over until November 30th. Should be good for another Mil, give or take, eh Eddie?

He went on to say that "at the beginning of the trial the charges were that $90 million had been fraudulently diverted". The verdict on the 3 charges that stuck only came to 2.9 million". So the sentencing should be reduced by an equivalent amount.

He added that the major ground for an appeal was that the "Obstuction of Justice" occurred in Canada, in contravention of a Canadian court order and therefore should not have even been considered in the US Court.

Which brings me back to what I, as a Canadian, see as the foulest part of this whole process - that the Canadian Court that Black showed such contempt for, when he tried to sneak those bulging boxes of Black Secrets out the back door of 10 Toronto Street, did not take any action whatsoever when he blatantly disobeyed that order.

And also has me wondering, and researching, how Black was able to flit back and forth in and out of this Country, when as a foreign national indicted in criminal proceedings outside Canada, he was clearly subject to the Criminal Inadmissibility sections of our immigration laws.

To me this case has the potential to wake Canadians up to how our colletive acquiescence to the long inbred culture of institutionalized plundering, not just an historical artifact like the Ruperts Land Charter, but evidenced today in our "screw Kyoto till we've pumped the last drop out of the oil sands, or the rampant rape of BC Forest for the export market, under the guise of Harpers "negotiated" settlement of the softwood wars.

Without meaning to dissemble, have you ever heard of a crazier deal. One of Steve Harpers big selling points was that he was an economist. To me he is living evidence of the truth of the old saw, that an economist is akin to a blind man, sitting in a dark room, looking for a black cow that isn't there.

Peter Griffiths July 14, 2007 at 3:35 a.m.

His deal with Mr. Bush, is in its raw essence, was that the lower the price, the higher the tax. I am sure you could comb back through the days or Rome's predominance or even to Byzantine times and never find a deal as stupid as this was.

Especially considering that it is Canadians who were getting hurt far more from the subsidies to private forest companies than those American producers who raised the initial countervail cases.

The secret saw-off in the lumber deal was that quietly, American producers would gain access to Canadian timber, at equivalent or "free market" prices, the same as Canadian producers had to pay.

Now thousands and thousands and thousands of truckloads of BC logs are being shipped south to US producers, rolling past closed sawmills, down the roads where redundant BC forest workers watch them pass to the waiting export ships.

Remember Cheney’s visit to Alberta a few months back, when form the air he was shown how big the holes we were digging, and the steam from the vanishing rivers was pumping out oil that would flow straight from this friendly, subservient neighbour to their refineries?

You want to hear something radical? How about hydrogen fuelled cars? The technology exists. At least six models can be purchased today. The problem is as old as Newton’s grasp of basic physical laws.

Water is a unlimited source of hydrogen, but the energy required to split the hydrogen and ozygen atoms in water actually exceeds the power potential of the resultant hydrogen. Still with me.

So the problem isn’t the availability of water – it is much more plentiful and easier to obtain than fossilized plant matter thousands of feet below the earth.

If we really wanted to make a concerted global effort to stop killing our planet with exhaust fumes from cars of any size, trucks, busses, airplanes etc., we could switch to hydrogen.

Commercial units costing approx $15,000 are available on the market. There are two required inputs. Water and electricity, to free the hydrogen from the oxygen.

But where is the electricity going to come from, when we are already browning out trying to keep our air conditioners going? The answer is nuclear energy.

Bang – I just lost probably 75% of you supposedly enlightened and feisty fulminators for a new and better world order. But hold in for a few more thoughts.

Peter Griffiths July 14, 2007 at 3:36 a.m.

There are currently more than 500 nuclear power plants working around this world, 24X7. Only two ever gone postal – Chernobyl which was an ancient and bad Soviet design and Three Mile Island in the US which gave a 2 minute belch.

All the others are working as designed. Ontario derives 40% of it’s electricity from Nuclear plants.

So, if we were to build say 10 of the most advanced nuclear plants, dedicated to providing electricity to power hydrogen generation stations – fridge sized units that sit at the back of you car-port, we could eliminate nearly all fossil fuel generated carbon dioxide releases.

Think one each in Vancouver, Calgary, Saskatoon. Winnipeg, Toronto, Hamilton, Montreal, St John – that’s only seven, dedicated to provide only the electricity to power our vehicles – at a fraction of the cost of gasoline – and all that comes out of our tailpipes is water vapour?

Before you jump on me and start talking about how we get rid of the spent nuclear fuel, I am not sitting in for Gary Lunn. Think about it.

Does it make more sense to build nuclear power stations to extract oil from the tar sands? Which is what Lunn is talking about.

Coming back to Conrad Black, and Rupert Murdoch, and the Aspers. These guys work hand in glove with governments, which in the “free west” means framing all debates before they get into public discussion. Keeping debate narrowed into the confines of manageable manipulation.

My take is that George W. Bush was sent to the White House by big oil and he has done his best to deliver on their expectations. At what cost?

To me Conrad Blacks outrageous example provided the best possible illustration of how our society and democratic underpinnings were being perverted by media barons.

Some posters to this blog tell us that Blacks crowning glory was the creation of the National Post – yesterday I saw someone claim that it hadn’t been for Black, we wouldn’t have been blessed with Mark Steyn’s brilliance. Which is for me, another reason to detest what Black tried to do to this land.

His ambition in starting the Post was to reshape Canada some kind of last grand bastion of unfettered free enterprise.

One thing that stood out from yesterday’s postings was the reference to “the pro’s” who knew what the real issues were.

Peter Griffiths July 14, 2007 at 3:36 a.m.

The fact that I can post such ravings here is a testimony to the growing power of commoners everywhere – to oppose the bludgeons and whacks that guys like old “Lord Was” could throw at us.

Let’s not waste this freedom by barking up a dead dog’s ass.

This world needs the passion, intellect and independent thought that you all are providing in places like this.

We can make this world a better place.

It may be that we are all only taking baby steps, but over a lifetime they will add up to millions of miles.

I don’t know who said it for sure, but I think it was Crazy Horse. “How can the earth love the white man, for everywhere he touches her she is sore.”

I beseech you all to look beyond your love/hate for Conrad Black, and reconsider how you can use your energy to make this world a better place.

Cheers
Griff

Peter Griffiths July 14, 2007 at 3:52 a.m.

Hey Donna,

I was at Lakefield Preparatory School (the Grove) in 5th form when Conrad was first brought to justice for theft and conversion.

We whipped their sorry asses in soccer and hockey but none of us ever got to give him the kick in the shins he deserved for his crime.

How quickly nothing changes.

Griff

Barbara in BC July 14, 2007 at 4:20 a.m.

The Black Philosophy: more quotes to be found at blackenvy site

"Capitalism always starts with a robber baron phase. You cannot crank it into life without a laisser-faire approach. Moscow today may be like the Chicago of the late 19th century, but look at what that built - America. And with all its disadvantages, that type of energetic, often crooked, free enterprise can create wealth for everyone."
--Reference: Barbara Amiel, Daily Telegraph, September 27, 1997.

Peter Griffiths July 14, 2007 at 4:40 a.m.

Truly a quote to memorize - thanks for that nugget Barb!

Griff

Peter Griffiths July 14, 2007 at 5:42 a.m.

So Al Capone was a quintessential component of America's sucdcess?

No wonder they call her Atilla the Honey.

Try selling that to the burned babies in Baghdad, Ms. Black.

Fintan July 14, 2007 at 5:47 a.m.

I thank Barbara in BC for the quote from the other Barbara, the ghoulish Bride of Blacula:

"Capitalism always starts with a robber baron phase. You cannot crank it into life without a laisser-faire approach. Moscow today may be like the Chicago of the late 19th century, but look at what that built - America. And with all its disadvantages, that type of energetic, often crooked, free enterprise can create wealth for everyone."
--Reference: Barbara Amiel, Daily Telegraph, September 27, 1997.

"Look at what they built, America" - indeed!

We Finns have been doomed to live beside Russia and our experience of any kind of Russia is not good. It was not a good experience when Russia was capitalist pre 1917.

Today Russia is capitalist again, but unlike Chicago in the 1920s, the gangsters are running the government. President (Ras)putin is a KGB thug, who is committing vile savagery in Chechnya and attempting to bully his tiny democratic neighbour Estonia. When they rightly moved a massive and ugly monument to the Red Army from its location in the middle of Tallinn to a military ceremony, Russia resorted to the most naked forms of pressure and threatening behaviour.
Two weeks ago, a monument to the East Karelians and Ingrians (citizens of the Soviet Union who fought in the Finnish Army against the Soviets in 1941-44) was erected near my home. I'm surprised (Ras)putin hasn't yet threatened dire consequences. But then again, we're a bit bigger than the Estonians and Russia may well remember how they got their butts kicked the last time they tried it.

Amiel concludes that the kind of capitalism they have in Russia can "create wealth for everyone". I wonder, then, why my wife is one of the many Finnish people who collect used clothes from families with growing children and take them to St Petersburg and Vyborg to help out at least some of the needy there.

That at the same time as the "New Russians" flood the ritzy boutiques of Helsinki and stay in the best hotels.

Amiel should see the street children begging in Nevsky Prospect. Or what I saw there once: a very old man sitting on the pavement with a carboard box as a begging bowl. He only wanted to have a meal. He was wearing a chestful of medals - among them the Stalingrad medal.

I rest my case.

Fintan July 14, 2007 at 7:09 a.m.

The Guardian is calling for a law to have him removed from the House of Lards:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/...

And the Mail has a good summary of the whole case, with pictures:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/ar...

mark July 14, 2007 at 7:26 a.m.

Well its over. 4 out of 13 convictions is 30%. A far cry from the vaunted 95% average conviction rate. I accept the jurys decision and predicted the counts with the exception of the obstruction.

I rate the defence's performance a C-. I don't think they put forward as strong an argument as they could have and were obviously unable to convince the jury.

I rate the prosecution's a D. First for bringing the bogus charges. For outlining thr $84 million stolen - which turned into $3 million on conviction.

Given that the Bredeen report cost $180 million and Hollinger has paid hundreds of millions the entire case is blown out of proportion.

In the end this was about corporate governance and protecting the shareholders. Well the cure is far worse than the disease - the shareholders got slaughtered - pennies on the dollar remain after all this.

The only winners? The legal profession who is taking home a the better part of a billion dollars - thats with a B.

I did enjoy the blog and thansk to everyone - especially donna for sparking my interest.

ttfn

JONES July 14, 2007 at 7:50 a.m.

I see damage control has already started MARK above "For outling the $84 million stolen-which turned into $3 million on conviction". It never ends. Black will be another criminal in jail who was wrongly put there in his eyes.
The only thing I object to is jail. I don't think jail serves any purpose. The alternative? Beats me. Maybe when I joked he should be sentenced to ride public transportation in the nude for the rest of his life isn't a bad idea.

Bob C July 14, 2007 at 9:14 a.m.

Peter Griffiths;

Agree with your 3:34am post. Look at 2 of our former Prime Ministers. One of them pulls out a napkin and insolently passes it off as a contract. The other admits to having received 300k in a brief case in a hotel room leaving me to wonder what possible legal transaction would be handled in that way.

And what of our RCMP who could have asked a few questions about both; they're busy doing their impression of a police force from the worst kind of banana republic.

norah July 14, 2007 at 9:20 a.m.

I happened by chance to be passing the Black family tomb the other day and noted that the two Montague Blacks died at age 62 and 65. Conrad's only chance of staying out of jail would be to prolong the appeals process and croak like Ken Lay, who managed to die an unconvicted felon.

DH July 14, 2007 at 10:02 a.m.

Bob C. and Griffiths have it right. It is a huge irony that Black has been tarred and feathered by the country he has always tried to foist on Canadians as the example we should live by. If he had ran Hollinger as a Canadian business only our wimpy system would have never charged or convicted him. I wonder how that crook, Chretien, is reacting to Black's conviction. Chretien, the lawyer who writes up business transactions on a napkin.

I am listening to Pink Floyd right now, 'Wish You Were Here'. That may be Barbara's theme song soon. 'Shine on You Crazy Diamond' may be Conrad's.

Bob C July 14, 2007 at 10:37 a.m.

As I look back on this, I can't help but feel I watched a slow motion train wreck that took about five years to happen, and to wonder at how many points along the way could Conrad Black have simply jumped off by giving the money back.

Would an intelligent man, the day before he is to create Breeden, and knowing full well what is likely to come out of that, not figure out where it would all lead if he didn't put a stop to it?

It never ceases to amaze me when I see brilliant people, and both friend and foe say that of Black, do incredibly stupid things. I guess greed and arrogance do over rule critical faculties. I just find it incredible that a simple calculation, laying in bed in luxurious comfort verses occupying the upper bunk in a 6 by 12 cell, somehow gets lost. Boggles my mind.

Fintan July 14, 2007 at 10:38 a.m.

DH, I'd suggest "Diamonds are a girl's best friend" as Borabora's theme song. Kris Kristofferson singing "Oh Lord, it's so hard to be humble," would be his Lardship's.

Bob C July 14, 2007 at 10:59 a.m.

DH;

Very appropriate music for the occcasion. What came to my mind was the blues. From Eric Clapton Live in Hyde Park, (highly recommended DVD) for Conrad, I'm Tore Down, Five Long Years, and Everyday I Have the Blues. For Barbara, Tearin' Us Apart, Old Love, and It Hurts Me Too.

vnm July 14, 2007 at 12:06 p.m.

With .7% of the US population in jail, more than Russia, and only .13% per capita incarceration in Canada, I must say, I prefer living in a relatively lawless state.
Jail, as Fintan and now Jones says, at least in this case, doesn't seem much of an answer to anything.
What is sweet is that until November at least, Black is going to have to be contrite, polite, gracious ... can he do it? Who knows, it's never been tested before.
His media supporters should reign it in as well, their efforts have only damaged Black's credibility further.
Bad enough to piss off Hollinger, USJD, the SEC, and Donna, you really don't want to irritate the judge any more than she is already.

Black can get through this. H. Charriere, who wrote Papillon, truly an incredible story if you haven't read it (its authenticity i gather has been challenged, either way it's a great book). He was framed and sent to devil's island, and came out with an undaunted spirit. He spent years in solitary confinement wearing a hair shirt in cells with seawater that came up to his waist when the tide came in. The guards broke his feet with the butts of their guns. The only way to survive was to eat bugs.
Black is not facing a neocon torture chamber in Afghanistan. It's not going to be anywhere that bad, no matter what happens. And perhaps he'll even win on appeal.

Colm July 14, 2007 at 12:20 p.m.

Donna and Readers

Seems to me like a Pyrrhic Victory of sorts when you look at the damage the whole process did to the asset value at Hollinger International.

That result, I must agree is the fault of Conrad Black whose ruthless style of management allowed for no course of corrective action.

There were no winners here...though one might say as Bob Dylan put it..."Things Have Changed"

Eddie Greenspan said this morning that they are in a good position to Appeal. It will be interesting. The only charge I see (now) that might be overturned is the Obstruction.

A fascinating tussle for most of us on account of the polarization, and the surprise Verdict, though not for Donna and her Anti's.

Peter Griffiths July 14, 2007 at 12:44 p.m.

Bob C:

Regarding the $300,000 paid to Mulroney. It wasn't the RCMP who didn't ask the questions. Remarkably it was the Crown - Mulroney was on the stand but no-one ever asked him - did you recieve money from Karl-Heinz Schrieber? That one and quite obvious question would have done it but it was never asked.

Mulroneys rationale for taking the money, but not while under, oath was that he was paid for consulting work to help KHS set up a Pizza business.

Apparently KHS has recently scoffed at that suggestion.

Naked fact is that within a month of leaving office, Mulroney got the money with no good reason to explain what is was for.

The biggest crime in this however, from my point of view was the way Stevie Cameron was savaged not just by the Mulroney crew but particularly by other media people. It was brutal.
As I recall it, the exposure of the $300K came out long after Mulroney had received his appology. The Globe ( I think) did a series over 4 consecutive days of which maybe 10 % was the details of the money and 90% was piling on Stevie, questioning her ethics, whether she had been a snitch, blah, blah. As a young boy at Lakefield Prep., I was taught that anyone aware of a crime but who said nothing was guilty and a party to that crime. That we are all obliged in a civil society to bring wrong-doing to attention and if we don't we are complicit to some degree.

Almost a paralell to the Radler the Rat (now Rattler to some on this forum)gang bang. In the first case, Radler didn't just cut a deal to testify in return for a reduced sentance. He also forked over close to $100 million bucks in restitution.

Meanwhile Black, who first said he would pay back the $7 million, decided not to, which was when he passed the point of no return.

My take was that Radler did what all of us were taught, no matter what race/religion/social status. If you do wrong, you fess up, take the consequences then try and move onwards an upwards.

Black's posturing reminded me of an old timer I knew who had spent years in the Congo. He has a saying "no matter if you shoot your grandmother in front of the whole family - never admit you're guilty. Which attitude is not going to help him at all at sentancing time.

As to a tune for Ghengis and Atilla, how about the theme from Friday the 13th?

PG

Bob C July 14, 2007 at 12:44 p.m.

VNM;

Here's a quote that might explain some of the difference between incarceration rates in Canada and the States. "In 2006, Jacob Frenkel, a former enforcement lawyer with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission, was asked to talk about the differences between how the U.S. and Canada were cracking down on corporate crime. He said, "one does and the other doesn't."

Not much different between us I suspect, just a different level of seriousness about crime.

Bob C July 14, 2007 at 1:04 p.m.

Peter Griffiths;

You say, "Meanwhile Black, who first said he would pay back the $7 million, decided not to, which was when he passed the point of no return."

Do you mean that had Black paid 7 million, it wouldn't have ended up in a courtroom? You're kidding. Good grief! Any more detail you have on that aborted settlement would be appreciated.

Slothful Lizzy July 14, 2007 at 1:17 p.m.

I came on this blog with enough knowledge of the law to stay within it (I hope) and with no interest in Black personally other than a mild dislike based on his reputation. (I'm curious why so many of you have taken such a violent personal dislike to a person I presume you have never met). I did however have a concern that what was happening in Chicago wasn't right. I have learned a little more about the law thanks to the many discussions that have taken place here, and still think the trial process was unfair. I can understand the gloating that has been going on from the antis but am not sure I'd have joined you even if I'd disliked Black as intensely as some of you do. Winning at all costs isn't right and that I believe is what has happened here. And will happen again and again to others.

Barbara in BC July 14, 2007 at 1:32 p.m.

Glad you liked the quote from Barbara Amiel. I knew she was a big supporter of Conrad's thievery.

About the outrageous incarceration rate in the States. Their jails are packed with marijuana users.

DH July 14, 2007 at 1:33 p.m.

I don't think Black will win on appeal. Eddie Greenspan is just saying what he is paid to say. An article in today's G and M claims that the jurist with the feather pen said a majority of the jury wanted to convict on more non-competes but the minority convinced them to concede (this was supposedly the deadlock issue).

To VNM:

Maybe there is such a high incarceration rate in the US because of archaic laws such as 'three strikes'. Can you believe being incarcerated for life for stealing videos and having two previous offences (it happened in California). America's jails are full of people who cannot afford to higher the 'two Eddies'.

I do believe that white collar criminals should not be allowed to walk. How do you punish these people who have infinitely deep pockets? A fine won't do it. I don't think there is much sympathy in the US for Skilling, Ebbers, etc. by the people who lost their pension incomes. A couple of years in the slammer for Black won't hurt. Hopefully, it will make him think twice about how to run a public company. I know I sound hard, but remember Black has had his hands slapped before for his business dealings. The only lesson he appeared to learn was that he could continue to get away with it.

I hope the USDJ starts to go after boards. Boards should not be filled with pals and cronies of the CEO. There should be stiff consequences to board members who allow the type of fraud to be carried out as seen at Worldcom, Enron and Hollinger.

Barbara in BC July 14, 2007 at 1:56 p.m.

Right DH. If the Board had been doing their job, none of this would have come to court. They were just rubber-stamping documents and ignoring all the illegal transactions. Talk about money for nothing.

vnm July 14, 2007 at 2:07 p.m.

Tons of great posts above, even one about hydrogen fuel. Right on!

Bob C: "Not much different between us I suspect, just a different level of seriousness about crime."

Brilliant quote, thanks.

It's a darn shame we can't behave ourselves without needing an army of policemen and prison guards to keep things in check.

I suspect that, like everything else, we will continue to be transfixed by the pointing hand, and ignore why it's pointing and what it's pointing at.

Fixing up the legal system is important, the real problem is the underlying philosophies which lead to social inequality, racism, and ultimately, authoritarian governments and war.

Akin to second hand smoke, some demand the right to pollute the world without regard to the planet's future or the collateral damage to others.

Even, with Iraq in chaos, tens of thousands of innocent cilvilians killed by American and British bullets and bombs, a fifth of Americans say Bush is doing a good job over there.

Anyone who thinks that is too stupid to think, and gets it from bad media, who knows, with Black gone, it might be safe to read the newspapers again.

Bob C July 14, 2007 at 2:09 p.m.

Slothful Lizzy;

Whether you or I agee with U.S. laws and their judicial system, the United States is where Conrad chose to set up most of his empire. There simply is no beef with him being held to their account. Conrad can't claim ignorance either, he was a man surrounded by high paid legal advice.

As to why I'm not disappointed by the verdict, I'm old enough to remember the numerous times Black walked a very fine line. It wouldn't be right to say I'm happy with it, just satisfied that he finally was held to account. I've felt him deserving for a long time.

It wasn't an out of control prosecutor or an unfair judicial system that rendered Black low, but 12 ordinary people who couldn't look at what he'd done without holding their noses. Good for them. Will it happen again and again? As often as need be I hope to get the message across that no one is above the law, not even Lords and Ladies.

Perplexed July 14, 2007 at 2:09 p.m.

More from Wikipedia on rates of imprisonment:

"Compared with other countries, the United States has among the highest incarceration rates in the world. More people are behind bars in the United States than any other country, according to available official figures. As of 2006, a record 7 million people were behind bars, on probation or on parole. Of the total, 2.2 million were incarcerated. China ranks second with a reported 1.5 million followed by Russia with 870,000. Note however that China's true prison population has been speculated to be considerable higher by activists such as Harry Wu. The United States has 5 percent of the world's population and 25 percent of the world's incarcerated population. [2]

As of 2006, the incarceration rate in prison and jail in the United States was 737 inmates per 100,000, or 1 of every 136 adults. [3]. For the most part, the U.S. rate is three to eight times that of the Western European nations and Canada."

And to vnm: I'm curious. In an earlier post, you acknowledged that this was properly a civil case. You now say that the U.S. system of justice is too harsh and you hope Black gets a light sentence. Yet you consistently supported a conviction. How do you separate your support for criminalizing Black's conduct from your view that the system is too harsh and the consequences to him are likely disproportionate?

And to any anti Blacks who care to comment: Do you think the process operated fairly for Mark Kipnis? If not, where do you see the unfairness arising?

For my part, I'm interested in seeing how the appeal process plays itself out. One of the things that struck me when reading the jury instructions was just how brief and general they were when compared to what you would expect here. After several weeks of complicated evidence and a week of arguments from lawyers, the jury was given a 60 minute primer on the law and was basically told to "go figure it out". They really didn't get much help on the law and how it related to the evidence. We shall see.

vnm July 14, 2007 at 2:22 p.m.

DH/Barbara in BC -- sorry for ranting off topic, thanks for the comments, I'm very much in agreement.
Yeah, think of all the people in US jails for smoking grass. Read recently about one guy, a war vet who'd lost both legs, with phantom limb pain, was sent to jail for 20 years just for possession.
Also insanely high percentage of black males end up in jail for one reason or other.

Bob S, not Bob C (nor Bob B) July 14, 2007 at 2:23 p.m.

Slothful Lizzy:

I'm with you on that.

DH:

I'm with you too, insofar as your last paragraph is concerned. I think you and I will hope in vain tho'.

Questions for everyone. Comments, views would be appreciated.

Now that the role of audit/remuneration committees has been thrust into the limelight, together with a stark illustration of how not to do it:

(a) will there be a newfound reluctance to take on the role, and
(b) for those that do,(cynic that I am) a demand for more money "to reflect the considerable responsibilities we are undertaking" (not that they will have in any way changed)?

Ken July 14, 2007 at 2:23 p.m.

Conrad Black was lucky that he wasn't convicted on every count and was saved on many by confused jurors, *not* the skill of his lawyers.

From the jurors' comments, there was a faction that misunderstood the concept (and law) regarding circumstantial evidence. That group refused to convict without seeing "paper evidence".

Some of the counts did have hardcopy exhibits to back them up so everyone agreed on those. The jury as a whole went with the "paper evidence" and gave in on the rest to the holdouts.

http://www.suntimes.com/business/holling...

Bob C July 14, 2007 at 2:30 p.m.

Perplexed;

Regarding your question about whether the process was fair to Mark Kipnis. The honest answer is that I don't know and can't make a fair judgement without seeing and hearing what the jury did.

If I sensed that a lawyer had just prepared paperwork, but was not in a position to appreciate the totality into which those documents played, then he walks. On the other hand, if I got the sense that he had to have a good sense of the total picture, he goes to jail.

Not having seen the entirety of what the jury did, I'm not sure any of us are in a position to judge, just to hope they got it right.

janet July 14, 2007 at 2:47 p.m.

to douglas bell - thanks for heading up your most recent blog with the title "black day in july", which is exactly what i posted yesterday...i would imagine that you will be a busy man from now until november 30th - and after...this will all be interesting - my only question is will conrad even be allowed back in to canada to await his sentence....as he is now a convicted felon, and no longer a canadian citizen, would the harper government even countenance this considering the present circumstances? i would hope not! what's sauce for the goose etc.

Slothful Lizzy July 14, 2007 at 2:57 p.m.

Bob C:

You make a good point about Black being in the US and being aware of American law. However, suggest there are few people aware of the finer points of American justice - unless they've been through it. Did he really run afoul of the law or was he subjected to something akin to a kangaroo court? Did Kipnis really commit fraud (a crime for personal gain) or did he get nailed because a blue-collar jury couldn't conceive of the idea that $150,000 (pre-tax)isn't a lot of money - or at least not enough?

Unless the appeals system regularly reverses convictions, there are plenty of innocent people in American jails, not just lords and ladies. And they will continue to be sent there.

Peter Griffiths:

Love your posts. Disagree on a lot (not a fan of the Liberals and how about Chretian not being involved in Adscam - very suspicious), but keep it up. Your nuclear idea has merit.

Donna July 14, 2007 at 3:15 p.m.

" Nala July 14, 2007 at 12:15 a.m.

Bob C -

"Donna I'm struck by the deafening silence of those who so vehemently disagreed with you throughout. Seems like acknowledgements are in order. I'm not sure any are coming, but from me anyway, well done. You knew your stuff."

Bob, I would hate to disappoint you, so to you I write my final comment. Everyone here knows that I am disappointed and saddened by the verdict. I actually agreed earlier with Donna that I behaved like a sore loser earlier today., for which I apologized.

However, what has struck me most about todays post verdict comments, is your praise of Donna. This is an individual who trivialized this whole blog with her vulgar and malicious personal attacks directed not only at Mr. & Mrs. Black, but at anyone who disagreed with her. In doing so, she also encouraged the worst in others.

Had she limited her "opinions" to issues discussed at the trial or in the media would be one thing, but to have made so many personal attacks was detremental to the quality of the blog and to the people who participated in it. Many of your fellow antis have been very fair in their post verdict comments. While I never expected it from Donna, it would have been nice if she were able to take a page from Patrick Fitzgeralds book, and "win" a little more graciously. That is my acknowledgement of her......"

To Nala -

Essentially? Your post that I have copied and pasted above is an absolute joke and a laughable, pathetic commentary from someone who has obviously NOT read any or few of my posts from the day I started commenting on this terrific blog. So many, many times I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt - I even stupidly, referred to you as one of the classier posters here until that disgusting, VULGAR ( swearing ) outburst after verdict was announced yesterday.
I would have responded to your appalling comments sooner but I was enroute from Chicago to Canada. You are a loser, Nala, in every sense of the word. I once called you a highschool kid to which you replied " Ouch ". My original comment stands. From now on, I shall ignore you. You deserve to be ignored.

DH July 14, 2007 at 3:24 p.m.

J2B2 stated to me on July 11th:

'I hate to enact Godwins law, but this is what is referred to as the "Eichmann defense." '

Can Kipnis claim he was just doing what he was told to do? Obviously not. A life lesson for all those little in-house lawyers and accountants in the US.

Maybe the big lesson is: If you want to get away with 'corporate' murder, set up in Canada. Hal Jackman has been quoted as saying that our laws in Canada are too weak for corporate crime.

Slothful Lizzy July 14, 2007 at 3:25 p.m.

Bob S (Not Bob C or Bob B)

Re Audit Committees: There's some prestige associated with the role and members are usually comfortably well off. Suspect more money won't be demanded but the roadblocks might be insurance and time. No more skimming. The company can probably fix the insurance, but the time could limit your available selection. So yes, there might be an issue.

Perplexed:

Believe the process for Kipnis was somewhat unfair - possibly some blame should go to his defense. He appears to have been charged simply because he refused to cave. Is there a word for refusing to submit to extortion and so becoming extorted? See earlier post about personal gain. Even if the jury couldn't understand the relative importance of $150,000, the prosecution certainly could. Not entirely sure Ron Safer is absolved from blame. I didn't see anything come out about his annual income (probably missed it) which might have helped the jury. As somebody else posted, the jury seems to have looked at each transaction as a whole. If there was something wrong with the transaction, everybody involved was guilty. Is this his defense's fault? All this in the absence of understanding the jury's thought processes.

rs July 14, 2007 at 3:36 p.m.

Donna,
What ARE you going to do with yourself now that the Conrad Black trial is over? I find it ironic that you are slinging out insults to Nala, calling her a loser when clearly you are the one failing in life. You are full of hate and rage, against a man (Mr. Black) you know nothing about, but in your self-importance you believe you do. Only someone who feels so terribly about themselves could be so negatively vehement and so clearly preoccupied with someone they do not know, and a case that anyone not involved in knows nothing about. If anyone here deserves to be ignored it is a small-minded, uninformed, self-satisfied, simpleton like yourself.
Now that you have spent the last 4 months desperately wishing for Mr. Black's life as a free man to cease, why don't you spend the next 4 months coming up with ideas on how to actually get a life for yourself. It will do you some good and might save all of us from ever having to hear your brainless comments again.
Take care, I truly wish you well.

JONES July 14, 2007 at 3:51 p.m.

rs.
Now now lad or lassie. That last comment "having to hear your brainless comments again" is uncalled for. As for worrying about Donna and what she will do with her life worry about yourself. I am sure Donna has lots on her plate to keep her busy and for all you other people who critcize people who blog and are on the net a lot, Mind your own business. The net and blogs are a fantastic way to express yourself and communicate with others. Why old Con Black was "enspector" on yahoo. I will give his profile link.Notice it is still active and last updated 02/04/1998

http://profiles.yahoo.com/enspector

which leads me to believe Con still surfs the net.

Paul G July 14, 2007 at 3:51 p.m.

== Peter Griffith says above: ==
="Some posters to this blog tell us that Blacks crowning glory was the creation of the National Post – yesterday I saw someone claim that it hadn’t been for Black, we wouldn’t have been blessed with Mark Steyn’s brilliance. Which is for me, another reason to detest what Black tried to do to this land."=

The National Post was a great achievement. Not many people start a national newspaper from scratch. It also had the Globe and Mail running scared for the first few years.

The NP broadened and enlarged all areas of public debate in Canada. And that was a very good thing. It continues to be a good thing.

janet July 14, 2007 at 3:59 p.m.

rs - don't play "push me -pull you" with donna...she has one characteristic that many lack - a strong sense of moral outrage...you may not always agree with her, but, by god - she's out there, and more power to her....conrad black has no moral boundaries, and lacks any consience - he's basically what alot of people would term a sociopath= although undiagnosed at present.....stay on your meds, rs.....you could be next.

Fintan July 14, 2007 at 4:01 p.m.

rs to Donna: "Take care, I truly wish you well."

And pigs will fly. If Donna is 1% as bad as rs sets forth in the preceding lines, how could anyone wish her well? Be honest, rs, you wish Donna about as much well as Bush wishes bin Laden (and vice versa).

Donna has been right all along. Your advice to her to "get a life" is oafish.

I think that any woman who has children and grandchildren and gets on well with them HAS A LIFE and needs nothing more, except perhaps to be able to live in a society where the ordinary people can trust that those in positions of power and trust will not rip them off.

janet July 14, 2007 at 4:07 p.m.

thank you fintan - i guess we crossed paths in cyberspace- birds of a feather as they say.

DH July 14, 2007 at 4:11 p.m.

To Donna:

Thanks for your courage. I don't think I would have posted except for your 'O Yah, well take this' kind of attitude. I didn't always agree with your methods, but I admire your courage. Shine on, Donna.

Donna July 14, 2007 at 4:19 p.m.

To Fintan, Janet and Jones -

Thank you, you terrific people. Your comments are very much appreciated and Janet, how well you understand my sense of moral outrage at what Black, Radler, et. al did. I do not need to defend myself to losers like rs and Nala and will simply ignore their totally baseless, ludicrous comments.

Many thanks again...;-).

rs July 14, 2007 at 4:39 p.m.

You Canadaians are pathetic. You think you know it all. You promote Donna and her 'courageous' and "'Oh yah, well take this' kind of attitude,'" but you 1) hate Conrad Black for, according to many of you, having the same type of attitude and 2) You as a general population of narrow-minded, insecure and overly self-righteous people barely accomplish a thing except for perhaps reproducing. You hate wealthy and prominent people for speaking out, being courageous and having a 'take this' kind of attitude, but you promote imbecilic, biggoted and biased people like Donna????
Oh and Janet, I certainly do not lack a strong sense of moral outrage, and from reading posts on this site, I don't think there are a lack of people who do not have a sense of moral outrage. I am outraged at how predictably ignorant many of you are. I am outraged that many of you think you know the inner workings of Conrad Black and basically elevate yourselves to self-proclaimed experts on him. When you hear something negative about him you believe it, if anything positive is said about him it is totally discreditied. It's outrageous!

dONNA July 14, 2007 at 4:40 p.m.

To DH - I accidentally left you out - thanks so much for your kind comments too...:-).

Donna July 14, 2007 at 4:41 p.m.

OOPS - Mistyped my name ab ove...caps lock got stuck.......lol.

Donna July 14, 2007 at 4:45 p.m.

To rs -

Blow it out your ummmm ear?.......you need to take anger management classes, darling......and get a REAL life not one where you try to defend yourself on a blog and to some of us who don't give a damn what you have to say about Canadians. I am proud of my heritage and also of the fact that I spend half the year in the States. You are a joke and this is my last comment to you, too.

janet July 14, 2007 at 4:47 p.m.

donna - thanks for your thanks....like you, this is the first time i have ever posted on a blog - it's been quite an experience...i know conrad and barbara (a time from my past), and honestly believe that they have both lost their moorings- sad as it may be - karma is the big equalizer in life - conrad shuns this theory - but barbara understands it better than alot of people will give her credit for-despite what the chattering classes say, i feel that she will continue to remain loyal to him - come what may....good for her, at least.

Slothful Lizzy July 14, 2007 at 4:55 p.m.

rs:

What is the source of your knowledge of Canadians?

Donna July 14, 2007 at 4:58 p.m.

" DH July 14, 2007 at 1:33 p.m.

I don't think Black will win on appeal. Eddie Greenspan is just saying what he is paid to say. An article in today's G and M claims that the jurist with the feather pen said a majority of the jury wanted to convict on more non-competes but the minority convinced them to concede (this was supposedly the deadlock issue). "

I was frankly surprised that Black was not convicted on more or all of the non competes but at least jury nailed him on the slam dunk as well as the other absolutely guilty - obstruct justice count. Black COULD have been convicted for almost a century - he ought to count his lucky stars that he is only probably going to get between 188 and 235 months ( as per Patrick Fitzgerald in various media reports ) or the equivalent of 10 - 15 years. Fitzgerald claims that he and his terrific team will push for this jail sentence. The fact that Black is now a convicted felon and shall lose on appeal - another reason that perhaps jury decided to stick with the 4 slam dunks - is justice well served. He thought he was smarter than everyone else - how wrong he is and was. All he is is just what I have stated - a felon. And the fact that he STILL demonstrates zero contrition is just plain sad. The arrogance will not serve him well when he winds up behind bars in November.

Perplexed July 14, 2007 at 5 p.m.

To Bob C. re the following comment: "Here's a quote that might explain some of the difference between incarceration rates in Canada and the States. "In 2006, Jacob Frenkel, a former enforcement lawyer with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission, was asked to talk about the differences between how the U.S. and Canada were cracking down on corporate crime. He said, "one does and the other doesn't."

Not much different between us I suspect, just a different level of seriousness about crime"

Once again the Americans are the guardians for the rest of the world of all that is right and just?

Might it be that Canada and other countries of the world just criminalize and incarcerate with less abandon than the Americans and that there is a reasoned basis for that decision?

janet July 14, 2007 at 5 p.m.

rs - give us all a break - you're the one who really doesn't know what he's talking about - nobody HATES conrad...it's really more of a "hate the sin - love the sinner" thing- canadians are much more laid back than you give them credit for - just don't piss them off.

DH July 14, 2007 at 5 p.m.

To RS:

If you are not Canadian, there is one thing you must learn to understand about Canadians. There is nobody harder on Canadians then other Canadians. If you screw up: look out. We don't look down or envy wealth: look at the outpouring of warmth for Ed Mirvish who passed away this week. I think Canadians hold a high moral standard for their citizens of privilege, but ask, don't abuse it.

Bob S, not Bob C (nor Bob B) July 14, 2007 at 5:16 p.m.

Perplexed:

I'm with you too.

Donna:

You need to take a deep breath and slow down a bit. The passion I've referred to before is now bcoming rather wearying.

janet July 14, 2007 at 5:20 p.m.

dh - you nailed it - good for you....had conrad had more of ed mirvish's sensibilities, he would probably never have found himself in his present hell.

Slothful Lizzy July 14, 2007 at 5:29 p.m.

DH:

Well said.

Perplexed:

More re Kipnis: he was also charged with some memos to the Audit Committee for which he was acquitted. Spaghetti?

Perplexed July 14, 2007 at 5:36 p.m.

To Slothful Lizzy re:"As somebody else posted, the jury seems to have looked at each transaction as a whole. If there was something wrong with the transaction, everybody involved was guilty. Is this his defense's fault? All this in the absence of understanding the jury's thought processes."

The decision on whether to call an accused to testify is a difficult one and is ultimately the accused's decision. It's pretty easy to blame the lawyer when things go wrong. Safer, in his comments to the press, made the point that the jury was unable to differentiate between defendants. I expect that in that comment you will find the seeds of an appeal. In Canada, appeals from jury verdicts focus on the judges instructions to the jury and on whether or not the instructions might have left the jury confused or misinformed about the question(s) which they had to answer. The American approach to jury instruction seems much different than ours. They are much shorter. In my opinion, they are confusing by omission, because they really don't clarify the issues for the jury very well. My guess is that a Kipnis appeal would focus on whether the combined effects of the jury instruction and prosecutions submissions, especially Sussman in reply where the defense did not get a chance to respond, might have misled the jury. The jury instruction certainly didn't differentiate Kipnis' position from the others, although the judge acknowledged, in the absence of the jury,that his position was different. Daniel Ryans earlier post about the motions to dismiss which were not ruled upon may also have a bearing on this. One American legal commentator made the comment that this case is far from over and that the appeals would be "tough and ugly". I assume that the prosecution will be very much under attack again.

Slothful Lizzy July 14, 2007 at 5:47 p.m.

Bob S (not Bob C or Bob B)

More re Audit Committees: Think there may be a structural problem. When they were set up (30 years ago?), it was much more high level. Now there is so much detail to go through - just look on Edgar or Sedar. The expectation - if the Black trial is any guide - is that they are responsible for every line. Board membership is not supposed to be a full or even a part time job, just your time from time to time (amount left deliberately vague) which includes Board meetings. To put the onus of going through all that material several times a year on three or so Board members with the right qualifications is perhaps not realistic. Perhaps the company could hire someone independent of the company to go through it for them, but who could do it a) with the same wealth of experience that a board member is supposed to have and b) is available for short bursts of time throughout the year? What happens if that person makes a mistake? So I don't know what the solution is. But one needs to be found because the expectation of responsibility is there and so is the mountain of detail.

Slothful Lizzy July 14, 2007 at 6:04 p.m.

Perplexed:

The judge was expected to take several hours for her charge to the jury and I believe had indicated that herself. Instead it was around 53 minutes. One commentator suggested that because she had said so little, there would be little ground for appeal of her instructions. Where did Sussman potentially mislead the jury? In his "focus on the buyers, not on Radler" comment? Is that misleading? Is that kind of thing often done: a last minute dodge in a different direction when the defense has no chance to respond. I would be glad to see that as a basis of a successful appeal. The judge should have accepted the misstrial evidence in his case and didn't. She might be faulted on that although I don't know American law at all.

The defense stuck together remarkably well. That probably hurt Kipnis.

Bob C July 14, 2007 at 6:30 p.m.

Slothful Lizzy;

You said of Black that he would not understand the "finer points of American justice - unless they've been through it." With due respect, he was up to his armpits in American lawyers he paid to advise him.

You said that Black was subjected to a "kangaroo court". Is that just a throw away line, or do you have something to back it up?

You said, "Did Kipnis really commit fraud (a crime for personal gain) or did he get nailed because a blue-collar jury couldn't conceive of the idea that $150,000 (pre-tax)isn't a lot of money - or at least not enough?" Did I really understand that correctly? Are you actually arguing that 150k is an insignifigant amount for legal authorities to get concerned about? You can't be serious. We throw hoods into jail for stealing $1000 from a corner store. Why wouldn't 150 times that amount count?

Last but not least, what makes you think American jails are overflowing with innocents, or that per capita they would have that happen more than us. Remember Milgard and Marshall before you start feeling too morally superior. Those happened right here at home.

Donna July 14, 2007 at 6:54 p.m.

To Bob S

" Donna:

You need to take a deep breath and slow down a bit. The passion I've referred to before is now bcoming rather wearying. "

Bob, I do not post to this board to please or upset you - get over it. I care not one whit whether you are growing " weary " of my posts - who the hell appointed you my watch dog and please tell me why I should care what you think...?
Black's troubles are just beginning. From prison, garbed in an orange jumpsuit, he faces years and years of civil suits, etc., and total financial ruin, if said ruin has not already occurred. The money that Hollinger was forced to pay his lawyers as part of Black's insurance policy as former CEO must now be paid back because of his conviction. He will lose on appeal, just as I predicted that he would be convicted as per yesterday's verdict. To be forced to endure still, ad nauseum, this pathetic criminal's continuing lack of contrition, his promises that he will ultimately " win ", that he is " innocent " is just so much absolute, bloody hogwash and totally disgraceful.
Radler is having the last laugh at his former laughingstock of a partner. Radler has paid back almost 100 million to settle SEC claims, etc. and as far as I have read, his legal problems are pretty much behind him.
I predict that Babs will ultimately ( not yet - give her a few years ) quietly divorce her fraudster hubby. Her biggest fears, as some reporter put it so well, are growing old and poor. Well welcome to the real world, Babs.........

Perplexed July 14, 2007 at 7:09 p.m.

Slothful Lizzy:

I don't know if or where the prosecution misled the jury. You would really need to read an entire transcript of the evidence and argument. The media reports suggested pretty strongly that the prosecutions case changed from opening to closing and again in reply, which is usually pretty damaging to your case. Part of that is the change in focus from Radler to the buyers. It seems to me that the evidence of the buyers was only one step in the process of proving the fraud and that inviting the jurors to focus on the purchasers and ignore the rest is a bit like inviting them to ignore an essential element of the crime itself. No one was charged with deceiving the buyers. They were charged with deceiving the audit committee. One of the more interesting comments about the reply was a comment by Amanda Lang, who said that Sussman made the argument that what was at stake was not Radler's credibility but the governments. She said it was oddly compelling. This strikes me as a not very subtle appeal to a commonly held bias which says that if the government charges someone, they must be guilty. Inviting a jury to trust the governments decision to initiate a charge is a bit like inviting the jury to disregard the presumption of innocence. I think asking the jury to follow the money is also a bit disingenuous. Proving that someone received money is not the same as proving they knew the money was paid illegally. It seems to me that if the prosecution characterized the issues for the jury in a way that was legally incorrect or insufficient, that should form the basis for an argument on appeal. There may also be issues about admissibility of some evidence and I agree with an earlier post by Nala which said that allowing the jury to have and review the videotape on the obstruction but not transcripts of other relevant evidence may have been prejudicial because it would tend to give that evidence more prominence than other equally relevant evidence. My best guess is that an appeal will turn on whether or not the case was put to the jury unfairly either because of something the judge said or failed to say or because of something the prosecution said which it should not have. In Canada, it is the judge's job to make sure the jury is not misled or confused, but this judge seems to have taken a more hands off approach. The American approach seems different. We will just have to wait and see how it plays out.

Perplexed July 14, 2007 at 7:34 p.m.

To Slothful Lizzy:

One final comment on the Amanda Lang report about Sussman's argument that the government's credibility was at stake. In this jurisdiction, it is unethical for a lawyer to personally vouch for the innocence of his or her client. If Amanda Lang's report was accurate, what Sussman did amounted to the same thing. He was staking the governments credibility on the claim that the accused were guilty. There is nothing to indicate that the trial judge admonished him or corrected any false impression which his comments may have left with the jury.

Bob C July 14, 2007 at 7:38 p.m.

Perplexed;

In response to my suggestion that at least some of the difference in incarceration rates between Canada and the States traces itself back to the attitudes of law enforcement in either country, you said, "Once again the Americans are the guardians for the rest of the world of all that is right and just?"

What happened was within their own borders, where they absolutely have the right to decide what's "right and just". While we are not the 51st State, neither are they the 11th province.

To the first half of your final question, "Might it be that Canada and other countries of the world just criminalize and incarcerate with less abandon than the Americans", I believe that is precisely what the stats show and what I said.

To the second half of the question, "and that there is a reasoned basis for that decision?", that's precisely what I'm saying. They take a dimmer and more serious view of crime than we do and based on a reasoned (not necessarily correct) discussion of the issues by their citizens and legislators. We did they same here in Canada, we just came to a different reasoned view.

Either way, Conrad Black knew that as well as you or I or anyone else on this board for that matter, and came better advised by American lawyers than any of us I'd venture.

Peter Griffiths July 14, 2007 at 8:03 p.m.

For those curious about Mr. Black's Canadian citizenship status and where he might do his time, check out

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/07/1...

A great quote therein:

"It is kind of an irony that he would want to abandon citizenship for the (British) House of Lords and want to regain it for prison," observed immigration lawyer David Matas.

Slothful Lizzy July 14, 2007 at 8:03 p.m.

Bob C:

This is addicting. I should be doing something else and here I sit.
Point 1. Corporate lawyers may not know the ins and outs of criminal courts - unless they've been there. In Canada, litigators are a specialist breed, I've assumed the same is true in the US. Possibly not.
Point 2. I have a whole list and have been waiting for someone to ask me. (Poor you). Will post separately. (possibly tomorrow - I really should be doing something else)
Point 3. Yes. Motive is important. And the temptation point if you like is not a straight multiplication. It depends on what you've accumulated and what you still need and the risks and probably other things as well. I've assumed that Kipnis was not extravagant, perhaps wrongly, but I've seen nothing to indicate he was. He's an American in house lawyer and would have been earning well over $100,000/year and perhaps significantly more. I've assumed, not unreasonably, that he had all the basic requirements, kids education and retirement years sorted out after years of that kind of salary. What's he going to do with $150,000 - minus tax? Buy a home for his child? It wouldn't take him long to do that if he just saved out of his salary. His risk level is too high. He has so much more to lose than the $1000 hood: career, reputation, lifestyle, etc. I also believe that the prosecutors, themselves lawyers, would have understood that. Greed or a sense of entitlement might make sense and I may have missed that evidence. I've basically assumed that Kipnis is a normal kind of guy because I saw no evidence to the contrary. Does he have a temptation point? Maybe, but common sense says it would have to be a lot higher than $150,000. A number of assumptions, Bob C, but reasonable and normal and none to my knowledge contradicted by the evidence.

Donna July 14, 2007 at 8:11 p.m.

I wante to add something to my previous post:

Black's recent middle finger salute to the media ( and probably, given his recent comments re his opnions of same, his remarks that prosecutors are " Nazis ", with " a toilet seat hanging around their necks " per their " bulls--t " case against him - his word, not mine ) and all the mud slinging he engaged in re prosecution and their case - just read any media archives - all this hate filled commentary from Black, as one lawyer put it - High Totten - will surely come back to haunt Black both next week when it will be determined if he goes straight to the slammer instantly or be allowed to remain free until his sentencing in November. It will also hurt him at his sentencing when prosecution and judge are going to throw the proverbial book at him. I predicted this outcome as well, on this blog, several posts ago.
The really pathetic thing in all this is that Black could have ended it 4 years ago if he had not double crossed the Special Committee and Richard Breeden and Hollinger's shareholders by refusing to refund some non compete payments. Black could have prevented his current predicament by demonstrating good faith and fiduciary responsibility to his shareholders who were demanding return of some funds by promising reform within the company. Instead, as Steve Maich of Maclean's has suggested, Black was the absolute total architect of his final losing battle and ultimate downfall. Why? because, as I stated earlier, he figured he was smarter than everyone else and entitled to these payments because he felt that Hollinger WAS Black and Black WAS Hollinger. He got it wrong.

van koh July 14, 2007 at 8:17 p.m.

i am pleased with the verdict,
hope black and his cohords rot in jail for the rest of their lives, but i dont think they will get near the jail time described by the prosecutors.

but any sort of jail time or just the word 'convict' next to his name will be a deathnail to a stubborn, arrogant sob like black.

a black day indeed for the neoCONS..

hope cheney is next...

gb July 14, 2007 at 8:23 p.m.

the cat is after the magpies again.

Perplexed July 14, 2007 at 8:29 p.m.

To Bob C.: "Either way, Conrad Black knew that as well as you or I or anyone else on this board for that matter, and came better advised by American lawyers than any of us I'd venture"

That is fair enough. I agree, by the way, that sophisticated fraud artists often use lawyers to create a paper trail and to hide their tracks. They don't usually choose from among the largest and most prestigious firms to do that, choosing instead to rely on lawyers who they see as being more vulnerable economically and therefore more susceptible to pressure. It seems that the prestigious lawyers thought it was all legal.

VNM July 14, 2007 at 8:30 p.m.

Would like to add to the generous posts above: kudos to Douglas Bell for his absolutely brilliant blog. Respect and thanks to Donna for being the life and substance of the party, fintan for his entertainment and Entian wisdom, Bob C, Peter, Jones, and all the other good guys. Even buttonman FredZ, j2b2, perplexed, and all the pros . Thanks for the ride ... a bit heartwrenching, but an exceptional learning experience.

Peter Griffiths July 14, 2007 at 8:45 p.m.

Bob C:

You say, "Meanwhile Black, who first said he would pay back the $7 million, decided not to, which was when he passed the point of no return."

Do you mean that had Black paid 7 million, it wouldn't have ended up in a courtroom? You're kidding. Good grief! Any more detail you have on that aborted settlement would be appreciated.

I could go dig up the exact chronology but from general recollection this was shortly before or after he got his first whack, in the Delaware court.

Tweedy Browne was getting grumpy about management fees and there was an agreement reached where Black and at the least Radler, not sure about any others, would pay back some money. I think Radler did so but although Black had agreed to pay $7,000,000 he subsequently reneged.

It is not clear to me if the USJD would have pursued this case whether or not he honoured that deal but it certainly would have turned down the heat at a critical juncture.

Maybe his legal advice was that making the payment would be admitting guilt. I don't know.

I have not been a regular on this site and think I will drop off now - not because Black has finally been brought up short - but because I am not sure this is a really useful exercise or use of time.

To be frank, I think the site should be renamed Toronto Get A Life - so much of the writing has so little to do with issues but I feel a sadly disproportionate amount of bitter back-biting and petty personal slights.

I guess I was naive in thinking that this might be a forum where the undue influence of people like Black and other media moguls could be seriously challenged.

I'm going to get back to the book I am writing - it's called The Lumbering Behemoths and I hope you might enjoy it when its done.

Cheers
Griff

Bob C July 14, 2007 at 9:24 p.m.

Slothful Lizzy;

The point I'm trying to make about Black is that he couldn't have been under any illusions that if he were to be caught committing a crime in the U.S. he would be dealt with more severely than here. You know it, I know it, as does every other adult aged Canadian not in a coma. As a matter of fact, the neo-con philosophy he and many of the writers he hired praise the tougher stance on law and order in the U.S. I can't quote him saying so, but he sure hung around a lot of people who did.

As to Kipnis, I really don't know what to think of his conviction. In everything the jury heard, was there something that made them feel he was involved in the crime as opposed to someone who just did the paperwork? It would be interesting to hear a juror's take on it , which I assume we will in time.

As far as the assumptions you put forward, they may all be true, or wrong. We simply don't know.

Howz July 14, 2007 at 9:27 p.m.

As an American and as someone who has worked under the Hollinger empire, I've found these posts over the past couple weeks to be fascinating. It's really interesting how culture clouds what people see. For the person who brought up Wikipedia stats on the high incarceration rates in the U.S. -- yes, it's true about the high rates, shamefully high (in my opinion) especially among African-American males -- however, most of that is due to the misguided "war on drugs" which nails people for petty drug offenses. The high incarceration rate is MOST CERTAINLY NOT due to white collar criminals. Frankly, we need more Conrad Blacks (and Jeffrey Skillings and the rest) behind bars so people will finally get a clue that they can't get away with ripping off people. Don't forget, many "ordinary" people are harmed by white collar crime. And that's what it is -- crime. Conrad Black and Barbara the rest of them had plenty ... and they got greedy, that's all. They thought they could get away with it. And at trial they had the best lawyers money could buy. Thank goodness they got what they deserved.

Bob C July 14, 2007 at 9:35 p.m.

Peter Griffiths;

Thanks.

Donna July 14, 2007 at 9:44 p.m.

To all - even the antis -

Thank you for the opportunity to allow me have my say. Thanks also for all your excellent arguments, both pro and anti Black - some, like Colm, while I did not agree with you, I consider myself fortunate to have at least benefitted from your wisdom and good arguments.
To Fintan - I always adored your posts and shall never forget how much you made me laugh - Schweyn, his Lardship, Morticia...lol.
To vnm - always a pleasure to read your sensational posts - intelligent, knowledgeable, fact based, insightful and interesting. Same for Bob C, Janet, Jones, DH and anyone else whom I may have forgotten....Kudos to you all - you gave this blog something truly unique and memorable - be damn proud of yourselves...;-).
To Douglas Bell - fantastic site and always a pleasure to log on. My son in law tuned in while I was in Chicago - he sometimes stood behind while I was typing.......:-). My daughter as well.
I am so glad that I had the opportunity to express my opinions about a case and man that and who touched a moral chord within me. I am happy for the chance to vent my total outrage as well as profound sadness for something that so easily could have ended differently or been avoided.

JONES July 14, 2007 at 10:54 p.m.

DONNA
TY. All the best to you and yours.You are remarkable.

sourgrapes July 14, 2007 at 11:51 p.m.

One question.....
HOW is it possible for "Black & white and RED all over's" defense team to cost a BILLION dollars?

If that IS true, then Greenspan should be charged with something too!

Peter Griffiths July 15, 2007 at 12:09 a.m.

I know I said I would go away and I will but Bob C made a comment about the RCMP and I thought I should put this out.

RCMP – Rampant Corruption by Men with Power

Too bad we don’t have Capital punishment anymore – I for one would like to see former RCMP commissioner Zaccradelli hung, drawn and quartered. He has left a horrible stain not only on the force he led, but on all law enforcement in Canada. It amazes me that Stephen Harper, with his supposed law and order priorities, seems to think that the cursory review by David Brown is sufficient.

I raised my kids to respect policemen – that they were the people they could and should look to if they ever felt threatened or needed help. I always resented the term “pigs”. Although there were many obscene illustrations, particularly in the US, of horrific abuses by officers on the street, as a citizen I always considered those to be aberrant individuals and certainly not representative of policing in Canada. To me, the RCMP were the best of any/all police forces anywhere.

This morning, while grabbing a quick breakfast at Tim Horton’s, I overheard a table of teenagers next to me coming up with new meanings for RCMP – the one that won was “Rampant Corruption by Men with Power”. The “GRC” was “Gendarmes Really Corrupt”.

The scandal surrounding the West Vancouver police force drinking and driving fiasco and the firing of their Chief, combined with the allegations against outgoing Vancouver City Police Chief Jamie Graham, were bad enough. These are all “top cops”.

Out here in BC there is a widely held sentiment that Ian Bush was murdered by a green officer, in the Houston RCMP station, but, even worse - if that could be possible - that “the force” circled their wagons and the perp got a walk. The fact that his original notes were destroyed before the coroner’s inquiry was the ugliest nail in poor Ian’s coffin.

Immediate and severe action must be taken to salvage the public concept of policemen as friends and helpers - people we can trust when things go bad.

Zaccardelli and his stooges must be brought to the most severe accounting possible.

I fully agree with NDP MP David Christopherson’s statement – “You’re going to tell me that one person, a super-investigator, was able to come bouncing out of a phone booth and go in there and by himself, get to the bottom of this in a few weeks? It’s ridiculous.”

This is not something that can be swept under the carpet – the stench will pollute the entire atmosphere and the public’s faith and trust in policing generally.

Peter Griffiths July 15, 2007 at 12:09 a.m.

One of the defining characteristics of our national identity has always been that we didn’t have a “wild west” and have enjoyed a much less violent and more civil society than the USA, thanks in no small part to the RCMP.

I fear greatly that if there is not severe and immediate punishment, in all the instances described above, the respect for law and order across this land, particularly among young people and those already bumping at the margins, will plummet and we will all be very much the worse off.

If good old “Three Strikes Steve” really believes in enhancing respect for and observance of the law, he should have acted, immediately, by calling a full public inquiry, and the courts need to put the hammer down in all of the above mentioned cases.

Fintan July 15, 2007 at 3:04 a.m.

Thanks to Donna and vnm for kind words. I saw someone (don't know what nationality) wearing a t-shirt yesterday. It read "Dans la merde ..." and, miserable as my French is, I think something like "you know your real friends." The two Blacks will soon find out the full extent of that truth.

For your pleasure, this is what his former pride and joy the Torygraph writes about him in today's issue:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jht...

Acquiring the Torygraph was a big heave up in his social mountaineering, because its proprietor has traditionally been given a seat in the House of Lards. And he did sing so sweetly from Thatcher's hymn sheet.

Now he says he's looking forward to returning to the UK in the spring. The only question is which spring.

At least by then he'll be entitled to a bus pass to get around.

Fintan July 15, 2007 at 3:52 a.m.

Always enjoyable to read, Tom Bower is back in the Sunday Times.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/wo...

Black would have tried (most likely unsuccessfully) to nail Bower to a cross if he had been acquitted. Bower, by contrast, is not gloating, but hopefully will write another book about this whole sad tragedy of blindness, ambition and sheer greed.

I see there is a civil suit pending against Amiel. Let's hope they uncover everything she certainly has squirreled away.

I'll shriek if I see the word "willowy" applied to Alana Black again. Schweyn is its biggest überuser, but others are following suit.

What does it mean? Why not "tall and slim" or something like that?

Tom July 15, 2007 at 4:30 a.m.

Did anyone notice lawyer and talking head Steven Skurka whining on CTVnet about how rigged the American justice system is towards the prosecution and how ours is so much fairer?

What f*cking horsesh*t.

Ours is a joke.

It took the U.S. justice system to convict Alan Eagleson and our politicians to pardon him.

The German government wants to get its hands on Karlheinz Schreiber yet our so-called justice system refuses to hand him over.

Brian Mulroney perjures himself yet is a free man.

Hey Steven, if you read this post, you're full of sh*t.