Fred Z June 22, 2007 at 3:18 p.m.

Hey everybody, get over here and keep me entertained. I don't care if it's a nice Friday afternoon, get to work.

Amused June 22, 2007 at 3:35 p.m.

Hey Fred Z, as a change of pace, how about I libel someone instead?

Ummm, let's see....Ah yes, the prosecution blows goats.

Entertaining enough? :)

Maharajoo June 22, 2007 at 3:41 p.m.

Inclusion of Kipnis - bad move:

From Skurka's site - thecrimesheet:

...charging Mark Kipnas with the fraud scheme with the expectation that he would fold his tent, take a plea and turn into a cooperating witness. If the account is indeed accurate, the prosecution took a big chance by rolling the dice and including Mark Kipnas. His presence has damaged the overall case. The prosecutors will have all of Monday to think about that predicament as they listen intently to Ron Safer’s final address to the jury.

Colm June 22, 2007 at 3:51 p.m.

Fred Z it is usually yourself who does much of the 'entertaining' and I don't mean 'Black Style'!

Moments ago I came across the story of Lloyd Case and his Jamestown Sun newspaper. (This was a byline in the Guardian Unlimited site by Andrew Clark called "if Conrad ever walks" / Black appears utterly")

Mr Case bought this entity from Hollinger for 14 MILLION DOLLARS! Man, these papers, print media, have some fabulous value! The JT Sun operates in a town off the highway just west of Fargo ND and has barely 10,000 inhabitants.

14 mil for the town's paper! These people know something we don't.

And what raised my eye to the word Jamestown? My Ex lives there!

Now, the non-compete portion was $400,000 within, to be clear, the $14m. Case didn't care whether the NC money was inside or outside the selling price, and neither did he believe that anyone would ever compete in Jamestown. Same price, extra clause, for free, as he put it.

My point is the NC payment was agreeably proper and in good order. It (the NC money) was paid to Hollinger INC., however, not Hollinger International. All along the way, and commenter 'CB' explained this in detail, NC payments were/are PERSONAL.

No way can the Shareholders, apparently the aggrieved parties, be entitled to them, even though they got 75% of the money.

Magnanimous of Conrad in the extreme, I'd say! Is he possibly entitled to a refund?

In addition, the Guardian Unlimited article, which makes for hilarious reading in describing typical Jamestown daily events, accuses Black of 'pulling the same trick time and time again'...a totally unfair conclusion since no 'trick' has yet been determined.

My take: "If you cannot find the crime, He cannot do the time"

Fred Z June 22, 2007 at 4:21 p.m.

Amused, amusing, but you're no Donna.

Amused June 22, 2007 at 4:22 p.m.

:(

Fred Z June 22, 2007 at 4:43 p.m.

Maharajoo:

Good comment. The flimsy case, or even non-case against Kipnis, will surely taint the slightly better cases against the others.

You'll note that (professional?) journalist Skurka cannot even spell Kipnis' name, getting it wrong no less than 3 times. Where are the journalism professors when you need them?

Are you the chess player?

Maharajoo June 22, 2007 at 5:32 p.m.

Fred Z ... I haven't played in a while.

Skurka's a noted criminal defense lawyer from TO...so don't hold his neophytic journalism abilities against him. He's also in the minority w/r/t the verdict against Black.

Amazing how some people have invested so much of themselves into this trial. I wonder what will happen to the vociferous anti-Black Contingent on this blog <cough-Donna> if Black were to walk.

Fred Z June 22, 2007 at 5:51 p.m.

Maharajoo:

We shall have to find out their real identities, buy them drinks and cheer them up.

If Skurka is a lawyer, does that make his (minor) errors better? I posted earlier about the criminal defence bar's inability to master detail and Skurka makes my point.

Colm June 22, 2007 at 6:17 p.m.

Frde Z..."IF"

To enlighten you about what others know, Mr. Steve Skurka is an experienced trial lawyer and an accomplished legal commentator in various Canadian media.

He works for Skurka, Spina, Cugliari, LLP.

His site can be viewed at www.thecrimesheet.com

Therein you fill find a most interesting read.

vnm June 22, 2007 at 6:20 p.m.

Great joke by comedian S. Wright: "There's a fine line between 'going fishing' and 'standing on the shore looking like an idiot'".

This case diminishes even that fine line, the line is practically invisible, or is there in fact a line at all, maybe it's just our imaginations. And so what of it, is either fishing or standing around like an idiot a crime?

Kipnis can't go to jail, it would like sending Neil Armstrong to jail for trespassing in outer space.

For that you should only get a fine.

Perplexed June 22, 2007 at 7:06 p.m.

Fred Z.: I don't know if it's an inability to master detail or a low tolerance for boredom. If you asked your average criminal lawyer to sit and read a few feet of commercial documents he (or she) would run screaming from the room. It admittedly creates a bit of a problem when the crime which they are being asked to defend is a commercial crime. That and the fact that it is foreign to their training.

Perplexed June 22, 2007 at 7:13 p.m.

vnm: Lore has it that there are some who take their fishing gear to water and drop a line without a hook, just so that people will leave them alone and they can have some peace. So what would that make them?

vnm June 22, 2007 at 8:03 p.m.

Perplexed: Well you don't qualify for sure ... i can see the barb at the end of your line!

Daniel M. Ryan June 22, 2007 at 8:08 p.m.

A more explicit variant of what Mr. Bell has called "journalistic cruelty" is now up; it's by David Litterick.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jh...

Theme: Conrad Black is no Joey the Clown.

vnm June 22, 2007 at 8:16 p.m.

" If you asked your average criminal lawyer to sit and read a few feet of commercial documents he (or she) would run screaming from the room."

Thank you Perplexed!

As if lawyer Big Jim read any of that junk he signed -- who actually reads that stuff? The typist maybe.

Donna June 22, 2007 at 8:59 p.m.

Greenspan made a big deal about all that " junk ", vnm....lol His defense arguments are so weak that he is more focused upon his performance at this trial rather than on his client's case, according to ( and dang, I read this earlier but forget who interviewed him - if anyone can locate this....please post link here ) media reports. In fact, Greenspan, when asked how he thought he was doing, replied that it has taken him about 6 weeks but he has finally settled in. Of which his interviewer noted that Greenspan's response should have demonstrated interest, not in his own position and performance but rather that of his client's. Reporter went on to kind of mock Greenspan's win record in Canada ( essentially lousy - mostly, apparently, corrupt law enforcement ), his constant ad nauseum comments about his idol, Clarence Darrow ( Greenspan not in same league let alone any positive comparison to him ). I had read much in the Canadian press, before this trial began, of Greenspan's great reputation. To say that I have been hugely disappointed at what I have read about same would be understatement. The 2 Eddies, as someone on this site stated, together make up one barely competent lawyer. I agree and think that Black overpaid if he paid 10 bucks. ( CDN ).

Fred Z June 22, 2007 at 9:34 p.m.

Donna, just to cherry pick one of your insults towards Greenspan, of course he has a lousy win-loss record.

Most people charged are guilty. Probably 99.99% so if Greenspan has a 90% loss rate he's a genius, 95% makes him fantastic and 99% makes him 100% better than average.

Greenspan has the American lawyers imitating him, and that is the sincerest form of flattery.

I honestly have no idea why you would insult Greenspan and Genson. What could they possibly have done to offend you? How can you call perfect strangers incompetent at their profession when you are completely, utterly ignorant about that profession?

Anyway, enough dumpster diving.

Perplexed, you probably have the right of it. It never occurred to me that maybe criminal lawyers are easily bored rather than lazy. Perhaps they are easily bored and lazy and we can both be right. We agree on the conclusion - they need help with complex civil matters and the Black case was just that. They needed a good civil litigator and I hope Black had one in the background.

Colm, I do read Skurka and I do not like his work. When I said 'if' he was a lawyer I phrased my comment poorly. I know he is a lawyer and I understand he is a good one. I was trying to say that being a lawyer does not excuse his mis-spelling of Kipnis, it might make it worse, and it supported my belief that criminal lawyers don't do detail.

His blog has insufficient detail, errors in detail, too much time with personal anecdotes and hobbyhorses, and he is a name dropper. His latest riff on American justice with forays into political commentary on the death penalty and Guantanamo left me particularly cold. Interesting topics but nothing to do with Black.

Bob C June 22, 2007 at 9:47 p.m.

Donna, how about this quote from Mark Steyn.

"As I've been told by innumerable wise old Chicago birds since I got into town, the conviction rate in Patrick Fitzgerald's fiefdom is 95% - which means they surely win regardless of the facts at least some of the time. I can't see why that number is anything to be proud of, anymore than Saddam's triumphant 97% of the vote was back in his 2002 re-election."

So now, if Black's convicted it because he was being tried by a man the likes of Saddam. What a pathetic sack of... Just when I think he's reached the bottom, he slithers another notch lower.

Fred June 22, 2007 at 10:08 p.m.

From the Breeden Report (It is the question of trust and misrepresenting the facts that will lead to Black's conviction):

The Audit Committee’s failure to perform any independent analysis of the management fee and the non-compete requests was influenced by the trust they had in Black and Radler to be honest, and their belief that Black and Radler were capable executives. Thompson in particular would never claim to be a businessman, or an expert in financial analytics. However, he is a highly experienced lawyer, and he understands the fiduciary duties that Black and Radler had as controlling shareholders. Thompson knew that if Black and Radler charged Hollinger more than a fair and reasonable amount, they would be violating their duties under Delaware law. At that stage Thompson probably couldn’t believe Black and Radler would consciously disregard the fiduciary standards they knew governed their related-party transactions.

Unfortunately, Thompson seems to have trusted Black and Radler to honor their fiduciary duties when it turned out that he was dealing with individuals who had long since ceased to pay attention to those concerns. Thompson did not realize that Black and Radler might be regularly feeding inadequate or misleading information to the Audit Committee. Thompson largely accepted Radler’s assertions that the management fee was as low as Black and Radler could make it, never believing that Radler would make that assurance to his face while proposing a fee each year that was tens of millions of dollars higher than it would have cost Hollinger to perform the services for itself (or than it was costing Ravelston). He failed to apply the critical part of former President Reagan’s famous dictum to “Trust, but verify.” Thompson, Burt and Kravis similarly failed to respond critically to the repeated demands for non-compete payments even though they should all have know these payments were highly unusual from the numerous boards on which they had served.

Fred June 22, 2007 at 10:15 p.m.

Regarding why the non-competes don't make sense, I think Breeden sums it up well here:

Officers of several buyers from Hollinger during the period told the Special Committee that they had not even heard of some of the corporate entities offered up to provide non-compete agreements, and that their concerns were with Hollinger rather than any other entities. Even in CanWest, where the buyer did want a non-compete from Black and Radler as well as Hollinger, CanWest didn’t specify that any payments be made to Ravelston, or to Black, Radler and the other individuals. Where buyers demurred on the offer of getting a non-compete from HLG (as in CNHI I) or from others, Black and Radler would insist. Once a non-compete was referenced in an agreement with a buyer, even though they themselves usually suggested it, Black and Radler then had a pretext for telling the Board that they had done something onerous and deserving of a special payment. The non-compete payments were in effect a device for allowing Black and Radler to take a cut of the sales proceeds from every Hollinger deal. In other transactions Black and Radler and their associates paid themselves ostensible non-compete fees even when there was no third-party transaction, or when the agreement with the buyers was silent on the matter. The Special Committee believes that it is utterly nonsensical to claim that senior corporate officers such as Black, the CEO, and Radler, the COO, should be paid anything personally simply to go along with agreements that Hollinger had signed (let alone payments of tens of millions of dollars). They had fiduciary duties to Hollinger, and once Hollinger signed a non-compete agreement with a buyer of assets that commitment should have bound Black and Radler for as long as they served as officers of Hollinger. Since Black and Radler were bound not to violate Hollinger’s agreements as long as they were officers, that meant that neither HLG (which didn’t have any other employees) nor Ravelston could compete with someone else even if they wanted to do so. Therefore, there was no logical or rational justification for why buyers from Hollinger would need an agreement from those entities either. The entire concept of these payments was simply bizarre.

13 The device of allocating a portion of the sales price for a community newspaper to a non-compete agreement is not unprecedented, particularly in the case of founder-sellers. This can also be a de facto source of seller financing if the non-compete component is taken over time. Neither the Special Committee nor its compensation consultants could find examples of transactions in which large public companies paid non-competition payments to their own officers while still employed in connection with contracts signed by their own company as seller.

Fred June 22, 2007 at 10:17 p.m.

Two clicks and I can get all of these great details. Prepared by a respected expert in corporate governance. Do you think the jury members have not seen this? Do you think they have not referenced the internet and read newspapers and other information? How will that influence their decision once they sit down to weigh the evidence?

Does it help Black or hurt him?

mark June 22, 2007 at 11:23 p.m.

Fred:

Canwest did definitely insist that Black and Radler personally agree to the non competes.

If you were a potential buyer and knew that Black was involved in HI, HIC, Revelston, Horizon plus individual papers etc. etc. etc. would you be satisfied with a nc from Hollinger only? How would you feel if Horizon started a competing paper? So that goes in Black's favor.

However many of the nc's do have quite an odor. Given the incestuous related parties here the Board, Outside Auditors and Audit committee needed to be super duper extra vigilant. They weren't.

While Black may have thrown some tricky curve balls confident that he could get them by the board - the external auditors are paid to examine the internal controls and related party stuff. So the fact that Black got $60M in related party transactions past KPMG is an indictment on both the firm and the profession. You simply can't approve the financial statements unless you have signoff from the audit committee.
From a shareholder point of view the question would be are you better off with or without Black? You need to accept that Black is a super greedy extra shrewd businessman. On one hand he will probably be helping himself to some arguably unwarranted second helpings. On the other hand you will be the beneficiary because he will exhibit the same characteristics when buying low and selling high. (He maybe got an extra billion when selling to Canwest - compared to say a reasonable and fair man.)
So you give up the billion in equity but save $14 million N/C expense. (penny wise pound foolish?)
Would anyone out there be unhappy with that tradeoff?

Marilyn June 22, 2007 at 11:26 p.m.

Just came across this article: http://news.independent.co.uk/people/pro...
Ah, Lord and Lady Black, she hates parties (so maybe the surprise birthday party was for business after all) and he plays with toy boats in the bathtub! Published in The Independent, in October,2006.

Bob C June 22, 2007 at 11:49 p.m.

Fred Z, this is further to your post on June 20;

"Bob C:

Your argument has its strengths, but my argument was intended to counter yours. On the 'informal' side we have individuals saying they did not want something. On the formal side we have their written and signed corporate statement to the contrary, backed by their lawyers' intentions and usual practice.

Which should prevail?

Do you understand your own personal risks if the informal approach is supported? None of your contracts are worth the paper they are printed on.

You sell a house with a problem. The written contract says 'as-is, where-is, no representations', the buyer says 'Bob C told me the house was great'. You get successfully prosecuted for misrepresentation. Tough."

You and I can sign anything we like, but if it can later be proved to be a willful misrepresentation, that in turn caused damage to a third party, we are in no way insulated from civil action by the aggrieved party, or prosecution by the authorities if they think what we did rose to a certain level.

So, all you have to do is the hard part. Convince a jury that what you're saying now is true. Would one purchaser claiming that what he signed wasn't an accurate representation of what actually took place be enough? I hope not. How about two? Three? Six? Eleven????

I have to think that when you get to that number, with none taking the stand to validate the contracts, that left an impression on the jury. It sure did on me.

Donna June 23, 2007 at 12:44 a.m.

To Fred Z -

I agree with your comments about Steven Skurka - and will even go so far as to add that he comes across as someone impressed by his own self - importance - totally engrossed in his take on himself and his own insufferable opinions of this case - he clearly appears to be on some kind of glory path in his own peculiar, rediculous ( in my opinion ) arguments of Black's innocence but more importantly and significantly, his ludicrous and puzzling anti American bias as well as his views that the US justcice system is thoroughly corrupt. His tired and boring little diatribes about cases that he has been involved in smack of blatant self promotion and help pave the way for the alleged book that he is apparently hoping to write and sell to some poor publisher about his take on the current trial. To say that I think that he allegedly belongs in the same category as Greenpsan as a complete ahhh blowhard is one more item about him that makes me uncomfortable. But it is his strange seeming alleged hatred for all things American as related to justice that infuriates me.

Donna June 23, 2007 at 12:55 a.m.

To Fred - I agree with your long post 150% and having read the Breeden Report myself, it is fascinating to imagine that the jury may be entertaining itself by doing so as well...:-). I have stated since day one of the charges against Black that, after reading the Breeden Report in its entirety as well as any and all books, articles, media reports, interviews, etc. about him and Judge Leo Strine's ( Delaware Cnacellory Court ) ruling against Black, etc., that I believe him to be 100% guilty as currently charged.

Fred Z June 23, 2007 at 1:06 a.m.

Bob C and Fred: We disagree but your reasoning is excellent. How dull. Can't you please call me a name or two? Donna has agreed with me about Skurka so I must reconsider my position. Goodnight all.

Fred Z June 23, 2007 at 1:09 a.m.

I missed something. Donna agrees with Fred 150% but only finds Black 100% guilty. Black, you lucky beggar, you're only 2/3 guilty by Donna's raucous and hostile standards so you got reasonable doubt for sure.

TTFN.

Donna June 23, 2007 at 8:13 a.m.

To my buddies here ( see? I'm not a mean, spiteful individual after all...:-) ), who disagree with me, such as Fred Z, et. al -

I want to kind of reiterate what I posted on an earlier blog on this iste re Black's numerous, ongoing, constant lawsuits against anyone and everyone - now, granted he is kind of a public figure and one whose lifestyle, views, former occupation invite commentary, crticism, etc., but take Rupert Murdoch, for example - of these 2 men, WHOM do you guys think engenders / initaites more lawsuits against his alleged " tormentors "? Black or Murdoch? Or, say, Mort Zuckerman of " US News and World Report ", etc.? Doesn't it make you guys ask yourselves why Black 1) invites so many critcisms, etc. 2) initiates so many lawsuits for alleged libel / slander? Most people, famous, infamous or otherwise, never sue anyone in ther lives yet it appears to me, anyway, that Black's hobby or even occupation consists of allegedly suing anyone who allegedly disagrees with him. Furthermore, his lawsuits ( take the one against author, Tom Bower ) comprise actions aginst what Black deems malicious lies, ad nauseum. Yet Black's vicious attacks of the prosecutors in current trial ( " Nazis and Fascists who will be left with toilet seats hanging around their necks " ) are just as malicious and hectoring. What is good for the goose is good for the gamder - wouldn't it be a fascinating bit of karma to have Eric Sussman, et. al decide to sue Black for libel / slander? Anyway, just some Saturday morning musings for what they're worth...:-).

Fred Z June 23, 2007 at 11:13 a.m.

Donna, much of what you say is true but none of it points to criminality. Rather the reverse as Black knows that people dislike him and watch him.

If offensive or insulting language were indicia of criminality, Donna, then...

Donna June 23, 2007 at 12:34 p.m.

Of course I agree, Frez Z, but my belief in Black's alleged criminal intent / motives as well his alleged frauds is founded upon my conclusions, after reading up on all the evidence I could reasonably locate without having " been there " and all the info out there about Black ( books, etc., media reports, etc. ) are that Black is guilty as charged. Maybe I am wrong but we shall have to await the verdict from 12 honest, reasonable, logical jurors. I have never, ever based my presumptions of his alleged guilt on my personal dislike of the man, my opinions as to his alleged pompousness and arrogance ( as has been reported countless times over the years ), his spending habits, lifestyle, alleged mistreatments of underlings....whatever is deemed anything other than direct and circumstantial evidence presented to date by USJD.

Donna June 23, 2007 at 12:45 p.m.

Furthermore, Fred Z, years ago, Black was quoted in various media as having referred to some Cardinal in western Canada as a " trumped up little twerp " ( or something of that nature. Or his insults against the McGill University Professor who heavily panned his Master's thesis based upon the late Maurice Duplessis. ( which later became a book ). Surely these alleged personal attacks by Black merited lawsuits against Black, no? Again, what is good for the goose is good for the gander. Black simply cannot have his cake and eat it too - even IF Ms. Amiel ( who came dressed as the following to a costume party ) allegedly thinks of herself as Marie Antoinette.
Must run - things to get done.

Sam June 23, 2007 at 1:10 p.m.

Fred Z

You must have hit a nerve. The most recent blah, blah, blog entry by Donna (who really should just take that extra minute to preview her comments before posting) now use the word "alleged" repeatedly when speaking of Blacks shortcomings.

You are one of the best posters in this forum - I agree more often than not with your take on things.

I think you will miss the "family" immensely when this is all over. I am reminded of the OJ Simpson trial where there was such a huge investment of time and thought into the trial by a group of people that they continued to get together after the fact to continue with a post mortem and discussion.

This is one trial where it is hard to ferret from the press accounts what really is going on. There is clear bias both for and against Black.

I hope he will get off - primarily because the evidence does not rise to the "beyond a reasonable doubt" threshold and secondarily (but of equal importance) to give the USJD pause to think twice about their modus operandi. They do themselves no justice by throwing the kind of money and effort into a case which had no place being other than (as has been pointed out by other posters) a civil matter.

J2B2 and Nala miss reading posts from you.

Donna June 23, 2007 at 1:20 p.m.

to Sam -

If you think that Fred Z is " one of the best posters on this forum ", one can only imagine what you think of yourself and your own opinions and posts....no need to ask you what your reasons are, nevermind that you will and conitnue to claim lack of evidence, ( how generalized can one get? ) for believing in Black's innocence. They must be doozies.

Donna June 23, 2007 at 1:20 p.m.

to Sam -

If you think that Fred Z is " one of the best posters on this forum ", one can only imagine what you think of yourself and your own opinions and posts....no need to ask you what your reasons are, nevermind that you will and conitnue to claim lack of evidence, ( how generalized can one get? ) for believing in Black's innocence. They must be doozies.

Sam June 23, 2007 at 2:01 p.m.

Donna,

Weren't you just "running" like thirty five minutes before you posted again with "things to get done".

I think quite well of myself thank-you very much - but what does that have to do with passing on a compliment to a poster?

If anyone has given generalized, always negative, I'm fighting the crusade for the children opinions it is you. Think we've heard quite enough about your gut feelings and just knowing he is guilty because of everything you have read.

Many times you have been asked to put forth the evidence which the USJD has not been able to do so far as I have seen and you blather on.

I really do not like to attack or be put in the position of counter attacking. Like you have said before - it is my opinion - I hope he is found innocent. And like Nala has said please ignore my posts. Just sieve through to the ones who agree with you.

It is truly hopeless trying to get anything through to you and I admire the people who continue to try.

Donna June 23, 2007 at 2:42 p.m.

To Sam -
Contrary to your accusation re my " running " comment, I do have a life beyond this blog and your insulting and presumptious remarks to me are unnecessay. With reference to evidence, I don't know how many times I have posted to this site regarding same nad I am tried of typing it all again. READ THE ARCHIVES!
Bye - gotta run again and will be back, hopefully, later today. Argue with someoen who really cares, Sam.

Donna June 23, 2007 at 3:08 p.m.

Absolutely could not resist posting the following link before heading out.....enjoy, people...An anthology of Conrad Black quotes in following article and entitled " The World According To Conrad Black "

http://www.thestar.com/News/article/1906...

Fintan June 23, 2007 at 3:41 p.m.

Thanks a lot for the link, Donna.

Hilarious to read those quotes. What a tosser Black is!

I've just thought of a suitable jail sentence for him, when the jury find him guilty. He should be sentenced to the clanger for as long as it takes him to transcribe Tom Bowers' book longhand - say, five times.

Bob C June 23, 2007 at 4:04 p.m.

Fred Z, you said;

"Most people charged are guilty. Probably 99.99% so if Greenspan has a 90% loss rate he's a genius, 95% makes him fantastic and 99% makes him 100% better than average."

I couldn't agree with you more. A 00.01% chance of Black being innocent is about what I figure too. Would you think me cheeky if I quote you again the next time you rise to defend him.

dr June 23, 2007 at 5:04 p.m.

Interesting diversion and a reminder that there are other litigation battles being fought...

http://www.cavanaghwilliams.com/blawg/?p...

Donna June 23, 2007 at 6:25 p.m.

LOL, dr, thanks for link! The gaul of his lawyers is simply too appalling and yet perversely laughable for words.......

Donna June 23, 2007 at 6:40 p.m.

To Sam -

I decided to post, for the zillionth time on this blog, one example of evidence ( direct ) that Black is guilty of charging to Hollinger shareholders the majority of that infamous trip to Bora Bora. ( go check out my other posts on this blog vis a vis all the other direct and circumstantial evidence against him. )

Black's customs declaration card, that he filled out for Bora Bora trip, and which was not only introduced into evidence but enlarged on screen, apparently - on said customs declaration card, Black wrote in the word " PERSONAL " as opposed to " BUSINESS " for reasons for trip. Further evidence related to this trip produced by Ken Whyte when he was forced to admit to Julie Ruder, after Mr. Whyte was unsuccessful in contacting Black about business matters at the time of this trip by Black, bore witness to the fact that Whyte was told that Black was incommunicado. ( he could not be reached ).....This latter item is circumstantial evidence but I am sure that you get the picture......

Fred Z June 23, 2007 at 7:04 p.m.

Sam: Thanks, I'm flattered.

Donna: "some Cardinal in western Canada as a ' trumped up little twerp ' ( or something of that nature". It was Fred Henry, my Catholic Bishop (not Cardinal) in Calgary. I know him, he confirmed my two sons and he can indeed be a jumped up (not 'trumped up') little twerp from time to time. He is a short man, and voluble, and admits he can be twerpish and rather enjoys it.

Great link to the Black quotes, which you obviously never read because they have the correct Conrad Black quote about Bishop Henry, which you mangled. I guess you skimmed the material you referred us to. Skim the evidence too?

Fintan, I think I know what a tosser is, and yup, Black seems to be one. I dunno if he should be jailed for that but do I note a more friendly and jovial note in your comment?

Bob C: Don't get me wrong, I don't 'believe' Black is innocent. It's just that the little I know about the evidence does not seem to come near proving guilt.

Devil take this trivia, I'm off to ride my motorbike.

Donna June 23, 2007 at 7:12 p.m.

to Fred Z -

I mangled quote because I was quoting, not from link that I posted to you, but from one of the biographies I had read about Black. I located that link I posted AFTER I posted the " trumped " vs. " jumped " erros and only then did I notice my mistake.Make sure you wear a helmet. I love motorbikes, by the way - great way to save on fuel and do one's bit for the ecosystem.

Sam June 23, 2007 at 10:30 p.m.

Donna,

This may come as a suprise to you but a lot of people who travel on business have ticked the personal box as their travel reason if for no other reason than as a means to speed them through customs. My last trip south I sat with an American software manager (who worked for Disney no less) who said that he regularly dressed in his biking gear and told customs that he was in Vancouver for pleasure because he knew the option would be a lot of time spent answering a lot of questions. He also said his company knew and even encouraged him to do this. Not that what he was actually doing (as a manager) was breaking any immigration law - it's just that he had precious little time to spend talking to often inexperienced customs and immigration officers about the purpose of his trip.

Most of us who travel use the travel time to get work done. Not sure what else could occupy a lengthy trip like that and pretty sure movies alone wouldn't cut it.

Also, Black did acknowledge and pay for a portion of the trip as personal as you know - from what I understand more than he should have - but then I am not a forensic auditor and wouldn't know the operating cost of a private jet. Bet you do as you know quite a bit about just about everything. Even the ecosystem.

Next thing we know we'll hear that you and Fred Z are organizing an across the country bikeathon to save the Rainforest.

Colm June 23, 2007 at 10:46 p.m.

1976 Kawasaki KZ 900 here, Donna.

However, I rather doubt that you will come along with me for a tour after the verdict, Donna.

Donna June 23, 2007 at 11:28 p.m.

To Sam

Your argument souds reasonable even plausible. HOWEVER, please explain in 10 words or less 1) what sort of business Black ( and Amiel ) was possibly conducting on a far away, tiny, remote, semi civilized ( meaning quaint and simple as opposed to sophisticated, big cityish newpaper - like business, etc. ) 2) what he meant when he described the quaint, pathetic details of said trip in an email that was introduced into evidence by prosecution; said email referred to ( as I cringe )" loutish young men with their perky wives " gamboling on the beach reducung Black and Amiel to feeling like geriatric freaks...LMAO - who, in this day and age, WRITES like this?.....LOL and because of an outbreak of dengue fever, mosquitos and lack of airconditioning, etc., trip was a failure....now I am no expert, Sam, but seriously, does all this sound like a business trip to you? 3) why he was incommunicado to anything and anyone vis a vis business, according to Ken Whyte's forced testimony...if this trip to Bora Bora was anything but a business trip, I will eat Fred Z's motorbike....I am sorry, but I am laughing too hard at Black's attempts to pull the wool over the eyes of 12 intelligent, reasonable jurors who can easily tell the diff between a vacation ( FROM buiness ) and a business trip....

Donna June 23, 2007 at 11:34 p.m.

oops - if trip was anything but a VACATION ( NOT business trip )......apologies

Donna June 23, 2007 at 11:48 p.m.

Furthermore, Sam, you can well imagine the eyebrow raising of cusoms officers that mmight have ensued upon reading " business " trip, had Black ticked off same on card.....what kind of business? - ataring a local newspaper there?...lol...surfing business?....beachball business? c'mon- who goes to Boara Bora on ummm business?

Sam June 24, 2007 at 2:35 a.m.

Donna

On a count of three...inhale, hold, now exhale. Repeat.

It was (I believe) Kravis who encouraged Black to use the company plane as a security measure because of his position in the company. That is why that threatening email was introduced by the defence - remember when Genson made the remark that the email was signed by Sussman?

Also, as you know he has not tried to portray the whole trip as business, that is why he paid for a personal portion of the expense. Whether the amount paid is fair or not,opinions differ. There are those (like you) who think not and others (like his supporters) who say he overpaid. I frankly wouldn't know since I haven't priced the expense of flying a private jet lately.

As well, I am reasonably certain that if you checked the Time Warner guys (for example) travel logs, the Ted Turners of the world and a host of other senior executives travel itinaries you would find guests on board (with no business connection) and trips taken which were not all about business. But who is quibbling? If there was an issue with this, take it up in civil court. The issue should not have been raised to this level.

I for one, would really appreciate it if you would please just take that extra minute to read over what you write and preview/check for typos. It really distracts from the message and speaks volumes about your personality when "might" has two mm's and Bora Bora is typed "Boara Bora".

No doubt you know how to spell and have an extensive vocabulary - we all make mistakes - you just are too vested in proving your point of view to make this effort.

Sorry I could not respond in ten words but given that you rarely respond in less than a hundred and ten I'm sure I will be forgiven.

Donna June 24, 2007 at 3:11 a.m.

To Sam -

I apologize for my many typos - you are right, I am too vested in proving my point of view and get carried away far too often. Now I am going to say something that might make you and others here in support of an acquittal really happy......
I have no doubt that USJD is basing most if not its entire case upon that infamous Breeden Report. One of the things in Report that is heavily emphasized is that Black and Radler ( especially Black ) arguably looted Hollinger, from 1997 - 2003, of 95% of its entire profits for those years, or about 400 million dollars. But white collar crime in general and fraud in particular are especially difficult to prove, if sometimes downright impossible because, generally speaking, you are dealing with very sophisticated execs who steal and conceal, brilliantly, as I have been given to understand superficially. This particular case of alleged corporate fraud falls into that murky or grey area, particularly vis a vis the non competes. The obstruction of justice and NYC charges, however, are pretty clear, in my opinion, of ( alleged ) outright fraud so it kind of points to a general mindset of Black and Radler. Given the entire picture of the Hollinger case, as I have read that Julie Ruder stated in her Closing arguments, and based upon mindset, emails / musings which look to intent to deceive, the 400 million dollars that disappeared, etc., I believe that the USJD went after only those items that it figured it had even a slim chance of winning.
I have always claimed that Black's ouster sufficed for me because the charges would be difficult to prove in a court of law, in my opinion but also keeping in mind that he was allegedly systematically, with Radler, looting the company and effectively destroying the proverbial golden goose - he once claimed that an ipo is a relatively cheap use of other people's capital and it was supposedly stated within the parameters of him being the proprietor of a public company ( as in the true Argus tradition ) and having access to all those hundreds of millions as the controlling shareholder.
I am the furthest thing from a shewd or smart investor, I am neither a corporate governance expert ( heaven forbid ), a lawyer, financial expert, etc. I am simply an interested observer of this particular trial. I could really care less if Black walks and maybe he will because, as I said, white collar crime is so dang difficult to prove. But, Sam, the mindsets were in place, in my humble opinion, at Hollinger. I apologize too, if I have come across as too vehement at times - it is really only because I am a passionate person and believer in and defender of principal. I have always taught my kids to vociferously stand up and argue for that which they truly and wholeheartedly believe.
Said in way over 10 words or less.........

Ian June 24, 2007 at 3:45 a.m.

20 years or Black walks and the Feds pursue again

Donna June 24, 2007 at 8:06 a.m.

Addendum, by the way to my earlier post above - Black's emails / musings have claimed that Hollinger was the " golden goose " laying golden eggs.....Defense position is that Black and Radler, however, started selling off this golden goose because, as they depicted situation, the newspaper business was diminishing in general. Yet Prosecution is arguing that Black and Radler started selling off golden goose to reap cash in an alleged scheme to defraud shareholders by taking non compete payments for themselves. And Radler's testimony backs up this claim - that these guys were doing this to raise much needed cash to pay down corporate and personal debt ( Black's lavish personal spending and lifestyle, for example ). So which is it? Black sold off assets to raise cash or he sold off assets because, contrary to his emails / musings but in support of Defense claims that the newspaper business wasn't doing so well and prognosis for same was negative. Black cannot have it both ways, it seems to me and Defense arguments - " read my lips " - simply do not wash, certainly nOT vis a vis Black's patting himself on back for winning " the great battle of the non competes ". Incidentally, Radler has also testified that, because they were going to lose management fees as result of selling off assets, they needed to make up this lost cash in other ways - hence the non compete ( alleged ) scams. Sorry guys. Prosecution argument has it right and it makes reasonable, logical sense, as Julie Ruder explained in her Closing Dissertation.
And now I have a life to attend to......back soon - argue among yourselves.

Fintan June 24, 2007 at 10:01 a.m.

I always thought Bora Bora was the place in Afghanistan where the Americans demolished a lot of mountain rock at enormous expense and failed to get Osama bin Laden, but I was wrong. That place is Tora Bora.

So I looked up Bora Bora. It has a population of 4,500, not even half as much as Mammoth, and most of the people there speak French or Polynesian. If the jury believe that Black could possibly have had any business to do there ...

This is what the Bora Bora website has to say: "Two towering peaks of sheer black rock dominate the center of the island and make an impressive backdrop to an assortment of blue waters that will dazzle the eyes. Bora Bora's lagoon is its most treasured feature, and allows the traveler many opportunities to experience it in a variety of ways. Windsurf, jetski, scuba dive, swim, bask in its warmth... the list goes on.

"Bora bora is truly an experience worth having. A wonderfully relaxing place to be as well as a great island for you to experience, your Bora Bora vacation will never be forgotten."

In Black's case, the last sentence is certainly true.

Bob C June 24, 2007 at 11:28 a.m.

Sam, that you take issue with Donna over misspelling a couple of words just might say something about your personality. Since we're being anal, your use of punctuation is a little weak in a couple of places, and you didn't put a space between a couple of words. Tsk, tsk, tsk.

C'mon! Does Donna's spelling of Bora Bora as Boara Bora really distracts from the message, or are you just having a bad day?

Donna June 24, 2007 at 12:44 p.m.

To Bob C -

I agree with your earlier comments about buyers having testified to fact that they never asked for non competes from Black, et.al. This glaring fact ( nc's not requested ) was deliberately witheld from AC and Board, as Radler testified and which Black, according to Radler, was in full knowlege thereof. So AC now has to make a decision based upon incomplete / faulty / misrepresented info as well as quickly read over reams of filings, papers, etc. presented to it moments prior to meeting. The AC members were also yes men appointed by Black ( NOT Radler ) and cronies of Black ( NOT Radler ). They trusted Black and hence, Radler, never doubting that the CEO and COO were telling the COMPLETE truth. In my opinion, therefore, Black and Radler committed fraud here ( to be proved or not when jury receives case for deliberation ) AND when they deprived Hollinger shareholders of these ncp payments. Taken together, now, with all the other direct and circumstantial evidence - with NYC co op purchase, Bora Bora trip, removal of 13 boxes, all the incriminating emails / musings that point to knowledge of Black ), Black's receipt of all those nc payments, Radler's ( who pleaded guilty and is going to prison ) testimony - I believe that this jury will vote to convict Black, and the others will be convicted on guilt by association. This case was built upon huge amount of circumstantial evidence from Black's lifestyle and over the top spending ( which fed an appetite to reap more and more and more cash - too much was never enough ) to all those awful emails and Radler's guilty plea ( they were partners for almost 40 years and Black was / is way too smart to have been both duped or ignorant of what was going down with all those nc's. )

vnm June 24, 2007 at 12:46 p.m.

"Sam, that you take issue with Donna over misspelling a couple of words just might say something about your personality. "

That's for sure. Way better to have good post with crappy spelling than a crappy post with good spelling.

Ottawa girl June 24, 2007 at 12:55 p.m.

Surprising comment from Worthington:

"In brief, the essential difference between Conrad Black and David Radler may well be that both were comfortable in the grey area of business , but Black preferred the paler side of grey, Radler the darker side of grey; one marginally legal, the other somewhat illegal."

Marginally..........????????????????
Somewhat...........??????????????

Difficult to draw the line

vnm June 24, 2007 at 2 p.m.

Donna,
The cocksure stance Black took in distancing himself from Radler from the very outset, presenting a split Hollinger empire as a cornerstone of the defence, Black and his lawyers must have been confident that the position was indeed defensible.
Which is rather bizarre, partners of 40 years, speaking at meetings as a single voice -- it defies common sense.
Make that really bizarre. Why would the defence tackle something which is both counterintuitive, and so easily contradicted in testimony, as we saw during testimony.
More than likely because it was more or less true -- at least from Black's perspective. Despite outward appearences Black and Radler got to the point where, due to increasing personal animosity, they stopped working together, and only talked when absolutely necessary.
For once in his life Black may have actually been telling the truth when he told Eddie G: " I wasn't directly involved in any of those deals, Radler and I weren't even talking at that stage."
Who knows, Radler himself may not have been fully aware of it until it blew up in his face and the authorities came knocking ... and he realized "uh oh, my fingerprints are all over this stuff".
I"d give it all up for a recording of the "we're in trouble" Black-Radler conversation .
Radler calls Black: "We're in big doodoo."
Black: "Cest what?"
Radler: "We gotta give the money back"
Black: "Money, whazzat?"
Radler: "We're in big trouble"
Black: "What we partner."
Radler: "Bastard!"
Amiel (chiming in from background): "You got that right, snicker, snicker"
Black: "It took you 35 years to figure that out? Have a nice day."
Click.
Black (mildly disgruntled) : "Henri, where did that damn chef get to now. Henri! or is it Pierre? Where are my poached ostrich eggs?"

Sam June 24, 2007 at 2:12 p.m.

vnm & Bob C

Didn't say she didn't know how to spell - I actually said that she knew how to spell and had an extensive vocabulary - I simply asked that she preview and check for typos as they distracted (obviously only me) from what she was trying to say. I even gave myself wiggle room in case I made the same mistakes which Bob C pointed out.

If it were just one post no big deal - it has been almost every single one. Think of the children that might read these posts and not understand the difference between a typo and incorrect spelling.

And you are right on - I am anal - good on you for catching that.

vnm to go on to say that her posts are good - is a bit of a stretch. They are however fairly consistent. Nice to see chivalry is not dead.

Fintan June 24, 2007 at 2:54 p.m.

"Think of the children that might read these posts and not understand the difference between a typo and incorrect spelling," writes Sam.

BMAL, Sam, I wonder how many children are following a blog about a near-geriatric crook who has finally fallen foul of the law?

You sound as ludicrous as the American neocons who tried to ban the TV cartoon Sponge Bob, because they see it as promoting homosexuality. Or the two identical Gartenzwerge twins who are now President and Prime Minister of Poland. They have just set up a commission to examine whether the Teletubbies should be banned from Polish TV. In their extreme homophobia, they believe that the fact that Twinky Winky has a handbag somehow or other promotes homosexuality, which will mean the end of western civilisation.

Teletubbies is aimed at 4-year-olds or so.

I doubt whether many of Donna's readers are in that age bracket.

Ian June 24, 2007 at 3:04 p.m.

WHA: “Good-day Madame Trucker, we are from the Witch-Hunters Authority of the Illinois District.”

MT: “Witch-hunters! What do you want with me?”

WHA: “Do you know a Ms R?”

MT: “So what if I do?”

WHA: “We have a sneaking suspicion that Ms R is a witch.”

MT: “A witch? What makes you think she’s a witch?”

WHA: “Oh, we have our sources. A feller from New York sent us this report, and another guy lodged a complaint about her. Seems these two fellers are pretty convinced Ms R is a witch alright, so we’re here to investigate.”

MT: “Well what does that have to do with me? I’m an upstanding citizen. The American Trucker family has been an upstanding clan ever since we landed here.”

WHA: “We understand you recently met with Ms R.”

MT: “So what if I did?”

WHA: “Could mean you’re a witch too.”

MT: “I ain’t no witch!”

WHA: “We’ll be the judge of that. All I can say is you’d better not be because do you know what we do with witches? We burn ‘em. Burn ‘em real good. And I got to tell you, for every 100 we suspect of being witches; we burn 95 of ‘em.

MT: “Wow! That’s incredible.”

WHA: “Odds are we probably burned a few we shouldn’t have because some of them probably weren’t witches at all. But just the same, they could have been. And you can never be too careful. There are witches all over the place.

Now, what did you meet Ms R for?”

MT: (trembling at this point) “She wanted to sell me a potion. Said if I bought it from her, she wouldn’t sell it to anybody else around these parts. So if anybody wanted some of it, they’d have to come to me.”

WHA: “Sounds like you’re a witch too!”

MT: “No! I ain’t no witch!!”

WHA: “Jake, you’d better start building a fire because I think we’ve got ourselves another witch.”

MT: “No! No! I ain’t no witch!!” How can I prove it to you?”

WHA: “Well, let’s see. Maybe you could come to Ms R’s trial and tell the inquisitors that Ms R tricked you; sold you this potion - claiming it was perfume - we may take this into consideration and not investigate you further.” You’ll like it too. We’ll have a lot of witches there - sure to get our number even higher than 95! And once we burn Ms R and the others, you’ll never have to worry about any of them nosing around your parts.

MT: “Okay, okay. I’ll do whatever you say, just don’t burn me as no witch! Tell me what I gotta say again.”

vnm June 24, 2007 at 3:53 p.m.

Ian, nice first draft, one small problem with time frame ... the investigators are at the first stage of the witch hunt at the beginning, (jes lookin' into the complaints) , and suddenly jump the point of coercing witnesses for trial later in the same interview.
i know, it's tough fabricating a world from scratch, with no basis in reality to hold the framework together. you do have to be more careful. remember, even though it's fantasy literature, it has to be consistent to be believable.
Change "witch" to "crook", a bit of polishing, ... you might even want to post it!

vnm June 24, 2007 at 3:57 p.m.

"BMAL, Sam, I wonder how many children are following a blog about a near-geriatric crook who has finally fallen foul of the law?"

LOL. I keep trying to lure my kids to the Webkins online club, but no, they just sit hour after hour at the computer reading Black trial blogs, taking note of all the spelling mistakes.

Ian June 24, 2007 at 4:07 p.m.

To vnm:

Thanks for your comments. When one has a limit of only 3,000 characters of text,….

As for the ‘crook’ exchange, if I did that, my story would have to show the prosecutors showing some sort of evidence. Heck, they’d even have to produce a victim.

Sorry, I think my version is closer to the USJD’s fantasy case.

Donna June 24, 2007 at 4:28 p.m.

To vnm -

Sorry, vnm, but your story re Radler and Black not being on same page financially and corporately much less, in each other's pockets just does not wash, makes zero sense to anyone with half a lame brain and is an insult to the intelligence and sensibilities of this jury. These 2 guys started their empire together, ran it fo 40 years and Black being the smart erudite war tactician he is - yadda, yadda, yadda - had zero clue what his COO and partner was doing??? Give me a break - and by the way, last time I checked, ( I could be confusing you with another blogger here ), you seemed to be firmly ensconced on the side of prosecution and have now, apparently, decided to support Black's case. Well, that's your right naturally, but if I am correct in my assumption about your switch, I have some land down in Costa Rica that I would like to sell you - umm - some swamp land......LOL.

Fintan June 24, 2007 at 4:37 p.m.

All the stuff that has come out at this trial demonstrates how gullible many people are and how easily even the most worldly of them can be taken in by a truly gifted con artist, who bluffs, cajoles, licks arse, bullies, plays erudite and rewards or penalises as the situation demands.

Now it looks like Lard Black may finally have gone a little bit too far (all things are relative, as dear Albert taught us) over the line and now has a good chance of doing at least a little time.

I've thought a lot lately that just a conviction without one of those ridiculous American prison terms (according to which he's be eligible for parole when he's 109) would be enough to protect people from predation in the future.

But then I thought of a quote I remember from one politician about another: "When he's buried at a crossroads with a stake though his heart, I'll still wear a clove of garlic around my neck just to make sure."

Donna June 24, 2007 at 4:42 p.m.

Moreover, vnm, upon Amiel's entry into the marriage, her quasi inclusion in corporate matters at Hollinger ( I just read that many observers think her to be an alleged unindicted co conspirator herein ), Radler's apparent alleged growing dislike for and intolerance of her, ( and Amiel's absolute alleged hatred of Radler ), Black's increasingly lavish spending, etc, upon his marriage to her, the beginning, some would say, of their social climbing that make Black's ealier, pre Amiel social brownosiing ratty, tacky and little by comparison - all this and Black suddenly decides Radler can do his own thing and is ahhhh surprised at what Radler did vis a vis the non competes but still ummmmmmm took the moola and ahhhhh ran? And had zero clue why he was getting said moola or where it was coming from but HEY! Radler can be trusted so I won't ask him ( Ostrich, anyone? ) anything that might make us give up our golden goose......nevermind Costa Rica, vnm, lemme tell you about some land in Toronto that may be up for sale soon...LMAO. Sorry to be laughing here but your story is rediculous and Greenspan, to use this particular defense, in my opinion, blundered badly because it is soo easy to disprove.

Fintan June 24, 2007 at 4:52 p.m.

"...according to which he's be eligible for parole ..." should be " ...according to which he'd be eligible for parole ..."

Sorry, Sam and all kids reading, I try hard to avoid typos, but that one got through.

Fintan June 24, 2007 at 4:57 p.m.

Further to Donna's gags about land, I've heard it said that the best time to sell land to an American tourist is when the tide is out.

Bob C June 24, 2007 at 5:33 p.m.

Donna,

Good points all. For myself, I simply can't accept that Black would allow anyone to go out and liquidate hundreds of millions in company assets without being aware of the details, especially a guy who he was on the outs with.

What fool would do such a thing? I wouldn't let my dearly loved brother do that, let alone someone I was at loggerheads with. No good businessman would either. Conrad may be a lot of things, but stupid isn't one of them.

I'm with you in thinking Black's likely going down, certainly on at least some of the counts.

Do you have any idea whether the jury was shown the Breeden report? I didn't read it all, but I did wade through some of it the other day. What a damning indictment. Connie will be getting off light at 99 years if they did.

Donna June 24, 2007 at 6:03 p.m.

To Bob C -

As I am given to understand ( and I am understandably peeved at same ), the Defense apparently argued successfully to prevent the Breeden Report ( and Radler's close to 100 million dollar SEC payment ) from being entered into evidence. I have read the entire report and to say the least, it is damning as well as absolutely shocking.

Bob C June 24, 2007 at 6:28 p.m.

Donna,

The feeling I had after reading it is that Conrad is lucky he's only facing the charges he is. What was the number Breeden mentioned, 95% of net earnings from 97 to 03 flowed to B/R. Staggering.

I guess with the trial already having taken 3 months, I can understand why the prosecution didn't include more charges. The breadth and depth of Connie's shenanigans can't reasonably be dealt with by one jury.

Those who rise to defend Black should think about that for a minute before the next time they do.

Ian F June 24, 2007 at 6:39 p.m.

Reposted because I didn’t realize there was another Ian here with different views.

"20 years or Black walks and the Feds pursue again"

Donna June 24, 2007 at 6:49 p.m.

To Bob C -

The Breeden Report is so explosively damning and shocking, as I stated, that to enter it into evidence would have been prejudicial and Judge St. Eve wanted, I guess, the charges that were visited on Black to stand on their own. Had the jurors read this Report, ( and God knows, maybe they have via their computers and the internet, although they have been warned not to read / listen to media reports of trial )Black probably would have been convicted the first day of trial. It is interesting to contemplate the jury acquitting Black ( God forbid...lol ) and then reading the Breeden Report for the first time......Do you think that they would possibly then be kicking themselves?.....lol

Sam June 24, 2007 at 7:35 p.m.

vnm and Fintan -

Just taking a minute to catch-up on the site.

The children reference was a joke. One only I got obviously. Whenever Donna goes off on why she fights the good fight it's for the children. So me thought I would be funny. Yes written that way on purpose to get a rise out of you.

Once more, if you read my post I didn't accuse Donna of not being able to spell, I suggested she take a minute to preview her posts to catch those typos because they are distracting. I'm okay being a little anal - if you're okay beating something to death that should have died a few posts ago.

Donna -

Much improved. Thanks.

Marilyn June 24, 2007 at 7:56 p.m.

Donna: Further to your entries at 4.28 and 4.42 re the relationship between Radler and Black, I refer you to this letter from Black published in the Sunday Telegraph on Oct. 17, 2004: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main....
In this letter, Black is commenting on an introduction to an article by one Richard Siklos. He says the introduction "included the false assertion that there has been recriminations between my associate of 35 years, David Radler, and myself. There have been none."

Bob C June 24, 2007 at 8:46 p.m.

Donna,

They sure would kick themselves, but I don't think that's going to happen. I think the ostrich instruction gives the jury the latitude to draw inferences and logical conclusions, like in the case of the NC's, is it believeable that the guy who got most of the money didn't know anything about it?

I don't see how he isn't convicted on the condo. "Fair market value" simply doesn't mean "what was paid for it 6 years ago." It seems pretty obvious. How much time do you get for stealing 3-5 million?

The obstruction of justice charge is the interesting one. What do you know about that Donna? Who told what to Black's U.S. lawyers, who in turn didn't inform Black before he removed the boxes? Was it just a notification by the USJD that they wanted them, or was it a decision by a court on an application by the USJD.

If the latter, wouldn't that mean that Black's lawyers, and Black himself, would have been aware that the USJD was hot on the trail for them.

vnm June 24, 2007 at 9:15 p.m.

Donna, whoah there! sorry , I didn't at all mean to imply that Black didn't know what Radler was up to -- of course he did, that's a given!

My speculative question was, why would they make the cornerstone of their defense a position that, as you say, "makes zero sense to anyone with half a lame brain".
I think his lawyers would only embark on that kind of strategy if they thought it were OUTWARDLY defensible. (sorry for caps, but it's the key point).

Inwardly, due to increased animosity, how much were they talking? (LIke that famous 60s folk rock band. The players hated one another, came in from opposite sides of the stage, were suing each other in court, yet in public performance, to keep the act going, smiled side by side and sang about love and togetherness).

What I"m saying is that Black may have latched on his personal split with Radler as a convenient defence -- he figured he could make it appear like a split in the business. Better to have a story, however embellished, with a vein of truth in it. You never know what evidence might pop up to contradict an entirely fabricated story.

If Radler seems increasingly off in the corner doing stuff on his own, it's not as the defense would have us believe, because Black wasn't up to his neck in the shenanigans, it's because they wanted to have as little to do with one another as possible.

vmn June 24, 2007 at 10:20 p.m.

>>I've thought a lot lately that just a conviction without one of those ridiculous American prison terms (according to which he's be eligible for parole when he's 109) would be enough to protect people from predation in the future.

But then I thought of a quote I remember from one politician about another: "When he's buried at a crossroads with a stake though his heart, I'll still wear a clove of garlic around my neck just to make sure."<<

Fintan, again, you tug the heartstrings.

No matter what the outcome I think I'm going to feel horrible when they finally post the Fraud 101 exam results.

Donna June 24, 2007 at 11:49 p.m.

Thanks to Marilyn for that link she posted earlier. That Radler, as defense would have everyone believe, was off doing his own thing on another continent and Black and he were estranged, etc., is silly, simple to disprove, has been disproved and anything to contrary is stupid and insulting...Black's and Radler's estrangement came, in my opinion, only AFTER Radler decided to turn states evidence, plea bargain and testify to what Black, allegedly and he conspired and did together. No way to know how or what this jury is thinking but as I have claimed, fraud / white collar crime difficult to prove. One can only hope that this honest, reasonable, sensible jury gets it and does the right thing - for all those who want to see justice, for all those little investors out there who want so badly to reclaim trust in how public companies are managed by their senior executives, for all of us who have so profoundly lost faith in corporate governance, etc.

Dead Horse June 25, 2007 at 12:12 a.m.

Catching up on the comments over the weekend and, wow, did this blog go downhill fast. The discourse has really declined.

For the record, Donna's or anyone else's typos don't bother me; what bothers me are the repeated corrections, as if we can't determine what was meant or what the correct spelling is etc. So I agree with whoever first complained about the typos insofar as it is indeed annoying that someone would take the time to re-read his or her post after it is posted and only then make a correction to it, instead of previewing it carefully in the first instance. But whatever.

Finally, I really find it amusing that when Donna finally relents and posts a response to the request to provide one fact that really points to guilt, she chooses to come up with the customs declaration form stating the trip was "personal". That's the one concrete fact she chooses to point to in support of her anti-Black view. Has anyone ever suggested that this trip was anything but a vacation? Of course it was personal. If he had listed it as a business trip, THAT would have been misleading. The point, however, is that Black was always conducting business, even while on vacation. So whether it was clearly a vacation in Bora Bora or a weekend getaway to, oh, Miami, he was always running a business. And as pointed out above, the jet was supposed to be used by him for all travel. And, most importantly, so what if it was personal or vacation -- HE PAID FOR IT!

Can't believe we're back to arguing about typos and this part of the case, of all things.

Donna June 25, 2007 at 12:17 a.m.

Just thought of something - Wouldn't it be interesting if that juror who was dismissed ( Grubar? ) is privately reading this blog, the Breeden Report, etc.? Hopefully, if she is, she is sufficiently discreet, trustworthy, posseses the utmost integrity, morality and ethics not to try to contact her former jury collegues but I guess anything's possible given what Black is charged with and Radler's already estblished guilt...lol. And on that note, I am saying good night to all my buddies on this site....:-).

Ron June 25, 2007 at 9:50 a.m.

CBC radio's phone-in show, cross country checkup on Conrad black's trial at the following link:

http://www.cbc.ca/checkup/archive/2007/g...

Ron June 25, 2007 at 9:55 a.m.

Re: CBC radio show, Cross country checkup:

Please go to past shows and look for June 24, 2007 show.
Both real audio and MP3 format are available.

Donna June 25, 2007 at 10:47 a.m.

To Dead Horse -

I have posted many more pieces of direct and circumstantial evidence and I am tired of typing same again - if you cannot be bothered to read my past blogs or delve into the archives on this site ( if old blogs are maintained ) then that's your problem, not mine! You come onto this site sporadically and yet post as tohugh you are a regular her, expecting everyone to repeat what they have typed and it's insulting, not only to me but to others who reglarly post to this blog.

Dead Horse June 25, 2007 at 12:35 p.m.

Donna,

Just because I am able to exercise some restraint and have some unexpressed thoughts on the issues, does not mean I am not a regular reader here, which I am. And I didn't know there was a membership requirement. I've read your comments for weeks and weeks now, and when you chose to put up one example of direct evidence, I found it quite revealing that the customs form for Bora Bora is what you selected. As I said, I think that is extremely weak evidence, but I will grant you that it IS evidence. We just disagree on its significance.

You have made your case repeatedly based on the totality of the circumstances, including as far back as Black's days selling exam answers and with Hanna (sp?) Mining. I agree with you that Black's public persona and history do not paint the picture of a life beyond reproach. But in a court of law, the jury has not heard and should not hear about these things, and gut feelings and dislike of the defendant does not trump written contracts and other evidence or lack thereof. By the way, I do agree with you that the perks may be an area where Black is most vulnerable for a conviction, but we obviously disagree on the other charges.

I didn't mean to insult anyone but the bickering about typos sure suggests there wasn't much of value being discussed over the weekend.