Jean the Juror October 25, 2007 at 6:22 p.m.

Wow Mr Bell, you aren't pulling any punches are you? First let me say, all 12 jurors were asked to be on this show. I wish they would have done so. I would have liked to argue the "civilized way people offered their opinions" As for the gun incident, it happened at the back of the room, directed at two people. Maybe some did not hear this statement but it did happen. Was it taken seriously? NO. Maybe you should have questioned a few other jurors as well before assuming we were lying. As far as emailing me again with your questions, don't bother.

Barbara in BC October 25, 2007 at 6:44 p.m.

"All in all, the piece smacked of sensationalism and self-promotion. Yet another black eye for our beleaguered national broadcaster" says Doug Bell. Seems to me that CBC is getting a raw deal from Bell, since according to Jean the Juror it all happened as described.

Feel free to come back here Jean, we appreciate your input

wave99 October 25, 2007 at 6:47 p.m.

Jean.

You have represented yourself really well. Obviously you do not need to hear that from anyone, but I am profoundly grateful that people like you find their way onto a jury.

I do not feel the jury conclusions are by any means unfair or wrong, but I have concerns that the sentencing guidelines in the US are deeply unreasonable.

My one take that significantly differs from your own, is that Black is as likely unknowing about the SEC order as knowing.

And it is that which, combined with all the other variables that required him to remove his things, which leads me to believe Black likely was acting in good faith.

None the less. It was interesting to see and hear from you on CBC and I appreciate your taking the time to comment here on this blog.

wave99 October 25, 2007 at 6:57 p.m.

Jean.

You were, I believe, really the first juror to offer public insight into the deliberations. And I believe that was done with this blog host, Bell.

The value that Bell seemed to place on your contributions , answers and views during that interview seems to have changed between then and now, based on this particular blog entry.

If I may ask, had anything occured which suggested to you that you were being viewed more skeptically or differently ?

LJW October 25, 2007 at 7:42 p.m.

Mark Kelley is a lightweight.

Lit 200 October 25, 2007 at 7:47 p.m.

I too am grateful for your post here and appreciate your sharing with us. I too have a question. Do you still feel that Conrad Black was guilty of obstructing justice when he removed what he said were his personal effects from his office building? I mean to say, do you still believe he had a criminal intent to thwart the cause of justice? Many thanks again.

Jeanne October 25, 2007 at 8:45 p.m.

wave99: Many people have trouble with spelling. They use a program like Word, let the program find their spelling problems, and then use the program to correct those, before cutting and pasting their posts onto the blog for everyone to see. In a similar way, I have trouble getting arithmetic correct. Since I know I have that problem, I double- and triple-check my math before placing it in front of other people's eyes. Because I've come to understand people think my ideas have more credibility when I've taken time and effort to get the details right.

It's one thing to recognize you have a problem, and then do something about it. It's another thing entirely to recognize you have a problem and say you're proud of it.

wave99 October 25, 2007 at 9:14 p.m.

Jeanne.

Thanks for the concern. I'm aware of spell check. I just don't really care ! Sorry that it bothers you, but as it does, it has become, allow me to suggest, YOUR problem more than my own.

But in an effort to simply chat with you, what I am just a little proud of is not particularly caring. I don't want to exaggerate that point. It's only spelling.

I've always been interested, I'll note as an aside, in who is interested in the message and who is interested in the delivery.

And perhaps it is that curiousity which has resulted in my not being fussy, if you will, about spelling in this type of format.

Truthfully Jeanne, because you sound alot like one of my older sisters who rides me a little on petty issues, I will humour you a little further.

During grad school,when it did matter a bit more, I did pay attention. I just don't need to now.

Can you live with that ?

Cheers.

wave99 October 25, 2007 at 9:20 p.m.

Jeanne.

I won't intentionally use the fact that English is a second language as an excuse.

It just occured to me, were you subltly making that the point in pointing out my spelling error ?

My first language is Japanese.

I'm an equal opportunity bad speller. I frequently use kanji ,hiragana and katakana inter-changably !

jade_lee October 25, 2007 at 9:56 p.m.

Jean,
Did you think Radler was a crediable witness after reviewing all the evidence during your diliberations?
My apology if you have answered this question prior.

ROGER October 25, 2007 at 10:44 p.m.

I NEVER WATCH TV SO I MISSED ALL THE FUSS, BUT THERE WERE MANY ARTICLES ON THE MATTER PRIOR TO THE TV SHOW. CBC is going downhill fast, even CBC Radio is turning more and more into a pathetic shadow of its former self. They will fail to garner newer loyal audiences of younger viewers (yes, they too are obsessed with youth) and will lose their loyal listeners with their childish, low quality programming designed to irritate and annoy and provoke.

leaf October 25, 2007 at 10:44 p.m.

ROGER July 22, 2007 at 3:19 p.m.

Convicted criminal Conrad Black lacked the personal courage to even testify at his own trial! I thought he had more guts! I guess he is more of a coward than I thought.

ROGER July 20, 2007 at 8:44 p.m.

Were I to have represented Black, I would not have let him take the stand either.

thank you roger, for letting us know where you stand.

and i shall try to really stay on topic right now.

jean the juror,

if you are still with us, was conrad black's absence of testimony a factor? was it up to interpretation?
thank you

ROGER October 25, 2007 at 10:50 p.m.

JEAN THE JUROR-- I am not a partisan supporter of Mr Bell. In reading his article above, there is nothing which he has stated or implied with respect to yourself that is negative or critical. Therefore, I do not understand why you take offence. I have not seen the program on tv and do not know you at all and nothing I have read here would give me a negative view of you.

Congratulations on a job well-done of fairly and objectively serving on the jury as a trier of fact and coming to a decision in a complicated and long trial. I personally would have liked to see Black convicted of all charges, but that means nothing. The only ones whose decision matter in this instance is that of the jury members, including yourself. You do not need to defend yourself or explain yourself to anyone.

ROGER October 25, 2007 at 10:54 p.m.

WAVE99 -- stop whining. Jeanne has made her sensible point eloquently and made you look foolish. The best thing you can do is admit your error, apologize and move on. Instead, you are whining and whimpering and digging yourself in deeper. Stop blaming the Japanese nation for your personal shortcomings. Everyone knows a real Japanese person would use a spell check rather than lose face.

Barbara in BC October 25, 2007 at 10:59 p.m.

Roger: "Everyone knows a real Japanese person would use a spell check rather than lose face."

Good point!

ROGER October 25, 2007 at 11 p.m.

LOL, Leaf can never get it right.

If I were representing Black, of course I would not want him to testify! Which lawyer in his right mind would allow Black on a witness stand where he faced life in jail?

But the judge does not ask the lawyer what he wants in such a trial. No, the judge asks the accused what he wants. So, Judge Amy St Eve asked Black directly, "Do you want to testify in your own defence?" and Black whimpered, "No!" Black the coward, the loud-mouthed blowhard, the self-described brilliant witness of 1983 Hanna Mining infamy, cowered before the Chicago court, as well he ought to have, given his guilty mind and all.

If it was me on trial and my reputation was on the line, I would have stood up and spoken in my own defence, but then I know myself to be innocent, whereas Black had a guilty mind! Poor Leaf, keep trying.

ROGER October 25, 2007 at 11:11 p.m.

THE JAPANESE ARE AN INTERESTING PEOPLE

A few centuries ago, they took a liking to the pale white translucent-like pottery they saw in Korea. Anyone else would merely buy a couple of pots and stick it on a table somewhere and admire it now and then.

But like true lovers of art, Japan started the Potters War. They fought a war in Korea to steal..... the potters... yes, the skilled artisans.... so they could show them how to make the pottery and make pottery of that type in Japan. While I despise all nationalism, and the Japanese have had an excess of nationalism at times, one has to fascinated by the single-minded devotion of someone to actually so value aesthetic pieces as to fight a long war over enslaving the artisans. Where else would someone pay tens of thousands of dollars for insects to chirp? Of course they are also killing and eating all the whales and other nasty stuff.

the fly on the wall October 26, 2007 at 12:11 a.m.

I was a fly-on-the-wall during the jury deliberations.
I never missed a day. I listen carefully to all events.
i can state clearly that from day one all the jurors
considerd the lord a despicable individual and guilty on all charges. I can tell you that if this half-learned jury found him guilty, the learned appeal judges are gonna
concur pronto.

ROGER October 26, 2007 at 12:25 a.m.

BLACK'S RECORD IN US COURTS

1983--lost the Hanna Mining case

around 2003/4 Lost twice, TWICE, in the Chancellery Courts of Delaware

2007 Lost in Chicago

Four losses, no wins.

Does not look for Black. No wonder he and his supporters are so desperate. Amiel has dropped out of sight. So have all the others. 35 days left.

cb October 26, 2007 at 12:31 a.m.

jean the juror is not a juror. It is not believable that a juror would write in this pathetic blog. jean the juror is one of the felon's posts.

ROGER October 26, 2007 at 12:32 a.m.

I WONDER WHETHER AMIEL WILL SHOW UP ON NOV 30 AT THE COURTHOUSE FOR SENTENCING?

Imagine what she is going to call the reporters and journalists then! We will hear her fine vocabulary on display.

The jurors did a fine job!

leaf October 26, 2007 at 12:51 a.m.

ROGER July 20, 2007 at 10:16 p.m.

The justice system is not fair. Lord Black is now finding that out first hand.

gary e October 26, 2007 at 12:53 a.m.

cb, don't be so hard on yourself for posting on this "pathetic blog"

wave99 October 26, 2007 at 7:20 a.m.

Well I opened myself up to the inevitable. In explaining that I am Japanese as well as Canadian, Barb and Roger feel inclined to say that I am not a true Japanese because,of all things,I don't use spell check and a "real" Japanese would !

Profoundly ignorant statement and not unexpected..

Growing up with a white father and Japanese Mother in Japan, I was frequently told the same, I was not "real" Japanese.

Your comments place you on the very same level of all bigots worldwide. Congrats ! And for the record, hypocrits ( notice no 'e' ? I therefore can't be Japanese....wow )

ester Judith Kranchivisky October 26, 2007 at 8:24 a.m.

Black is guilty on all counts. He is going to receive a 26.5 year jail term. By the time he is out of jail he will be a differet man. The correctional system is going make him into a vegetable worthy of society. His arrrogance and petulance are all going to be gone. That is good.

cb October 26, 2007 at 8:38 a.m.

Wave99-
If you are so smart and above employing a spell - check mechanism so that you can ostensibly display more respect for those whom you expect to read your posts, what are you doing on this pathetic and low level blog in the first place? Surely, your intelligence and wit can locate a blog more suitable to and appropriate for your " high " standards. Jeanne is correct in her judgement of your arrogance and your posts are long - winded, full of hot air, annoyingly dull and reek of self - importance and sel - righteousness. For once, come down off that pedestal you have erected for yourself - you are a joke.

maria October 26, 2007 at 8:58 a.m.

Juror kelly-the-gunner got paid to appear on the cbc in order to improve their tiny viewership. All i notice on billborads are the faces of the highly paid cbc staff from
our tax money. The cbc is irrelevant as is this blog.

wave99 October 26, 2007 at 9:41 a.m.

CB...aka Donna...aka Jeanne...I wondered where you had gone !

I'll try to take your suggestions to heart.

Thank you.

cb October 26, 2007 at 9:48 a.m.

Maria, I agree with your assessment of this pathetically dim - witted blog that has now succeeded in attracting the alienated, the societal outcasts, strange and ignorant who have, understandably, found a home here where they can all comiserate in their strangeness, lonliness and sadness. These seriously disturbed regulars here feel comfortable and accepted because they are among losers who are just as lost and alienated as themselves. It is from a group such as that which regularly congregates here that you will most likely find your pedaphiles, stalkers, sickos and every and all manner of societal scum.

A juror October 26, 2007 at 10:05 a.m.

I would like to know who got paid. I was not going to be paid for being on the show. The gunner wasn't on the show.

another phoney juror October 26, 2007 at 10:35 a.m.

Another phoney juror. Of course you did not get paid
coz you're a phoney juror.

cb October 26, 2007 at 10:41 a.m.

the alienated, societal outcast, strange, ignorant, lonly, sad, disturbed, loser, sicko, societal scum = perfect description of the felon

a real juror October 26, 2007 at 10:43 a.m.

i got paid and i depsoited it in the cayman islands bank.

george w October 26, 2007 at 10:58 a.m.

Yo Perle called. He asked me to get a pardon for a lord felon who helped us with the lies re Weapons of Mass Destruction never found. I told him to call cheney coz i'm an idiot as you all know. Scotter got off but it stinks.

Uncautious October 26, 2007 at 11:13 a.m.

What a great blog! Every manner of malcontent! Wow! Couldn't be greater. A fandango of idiots. I am most impressed. While the rest of humanity grovels to eek a living, nose to the grindstone, waiting for relief to show up, this bunch of mid-educated, privileged non-commissioned Canadian citizens attempt to out-do each other; I got a gold star in spelling.

Carry on. Wow! I am alive!

Curious October 26, 2007 at 11:14 a.m.

Juror,
I heard that the juror who threatened to bring in the gun was the "african American" lady who slept through the entire trial. Could on of the real jurors confirm or deny this. If so, if Conrad Black was Black would she have threatened to bring in a gun if they didn't acquit. So goes justice in Amerikwa. Furthermore, why on Earth would this threat not be reported to St. Eve??? death threats are a felony in the US.

leaf October 26, 2007 at 11:30 a.m.

Barbara in BC October 25, 2007 at 10:59 p.m.

Roger: "Everyone knows a real Japanese person would use a spell check rather than lose face."
Good point!

BBC…. Thank you so much for that post. You make it so much easier for me to demonstrate that you too are a proud member of the hipokryts.
In your case, hippo-kryts.

Try crying ‘racist!’ again…

leaf October 26, 2007 at 11:40 a.m.

I wonder what ‘true’ anything roger is.

Is he a true muslim?
A true African?
A true monk?
A true Canadian?
A true democrat?
A true conservative?
A true capitalist?
A true psychotherapist?
A true taxpayer?

None of the above.

Roger is a true fake.

bunch of losers October 26, 2007 at 11:41 a.m.

Those against black are a sad lot.

The prosecution should have gone after Richard Breeden, he's the one who bankrupted Hollinger, not Black. Talk about a Kleptocracy - Breed made $100 X million along with the lawyers he hired.

The prosecution started out with 17 charges saying Black took something like $83 mil. When the trial was handed to the jury the charges had been reduced to 13 and the dollar amount to less than $3 million. And the sad losers here are saying what a great victory the prosecution won!!! LOL!!!

As the trial came to an end, Sussman begged St Eve to let him drop the money laundering charge, after they had already dropped tax evasion charges. If St Eve hadn't been so kind, the prosecution would have looked even dumber than it did.

Then the jury threw out nine more, including the incredible racketeering charge (What a AH move THAT was) and the charges on misuse of funds and wire fraud etc.

And now the Appeal court is going to throw out the obstruction thing and probably one of the three remaining non-competes. They'll be lucky if they get Black into jail for more than a month or two.

What a friggin scam by Breeden, Fitzgerald etc and all.

The idiots who are slavering for Black to be put in jail and buggered, well, they're crimnals really.

A juror October 26, 2007 at 11:43 a.m.

Ok- the gun thing is being taken out of context.It is being made a much bigger deal than it was to anyone who heard it at the time. The comment was made to two people, they were not hold outs at all. It was not made in a sense of change your mind or I'll bring in my gun. The comment was made because she was mad, or irritated with these two people, not related to the deliberations at all.
It was not reported because it was a comment made in anger, and we knew she didn't mean it. We had spent a lot of time with her. Yes, it was the juror you were describing.

alice October 26, 2007 at 12:06 p.m.

I don't think leaf message is very nice. prsnally i red ever one of rogers posts and i thnk he's really smart anhd leaf R DUMB as a POST.

roger pls tell me wht u studyed on 4 continants and r u a canadian and wher u went to school here? i think u sed mcgil in montreal bt u dint study much ther. anyway. think ur gret bye bye from port aux basques.

Barbara in BC October 26, 2007 at 12:10 p.m.

I will take the post from A juror made at 11:43 as the real deal. It sounds like the truth.

Barbara in BC October 26, 2007 at 12:16 p.m.

leaf said about my assertion that a true Japanese would avoid spelling mistakes:

"BBC…. Thank you so much for that post."

You're welcome. I think old wave99 was making up a story about being Japanese. I mean he was previously so terribly condescending to Roger, that it's impossible that he is anything other than a white guy.

Lit 200 October 26, 2007 at 12:19 p.m.

A Juror: thanks for your message. That is what I expected happened and it sounds entirely reasonable.

I have asked this before and I don't want to be tiresome. But I am wondering whether jury members are still certain that Conrad Black intended to obstruct the course of justice when he removed those 13 boxes from his office in Toronto. Was there a lot of debate on that question or was it a foregone conclusion?

Anyway, many thanks for being here.

leaf October 26, 2007 at 12:30 p.m.

"Hurricane Donna in the 1960 Atlantic hurricane season was a Category 5 Cape Verde-type hurricane that interfered with the Leeward Islands, Puerto Rico, Hispanola, Cuba, The Bahamas, and every state on the East Coast of the United States. It caused billions of US dollars in damages and killed an estimated 364 people."

It’s all here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_D...

Let’s not take hurricane donna lightly. She is currently interfering with all posters from the blog and causing palpable damage to its integrity. She killed an estimated 364 posts and the ravage continues.
Donna the hurricane is unstoppable. Donna gone berserk.
The girls gone wild!

Watch in horror (and laughter) as the mayhem spreads before your very eyes.

ROGER October 26, 2007 at 12:35 p.m.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/07102...

>OTTAWA - Canada's prison system is in dire need of federal cash to address problems that are increasing despair and violence among inmates and raising their risk of reoffending once released, the federal corrections ombudsman says. <

W101 October 26, 2007 at 12:40 p.m.

Black and his dimwitted cronies continue to disparage the court.

Blame the JURORS?! For having heated discussions!? This is grounds for appeal?

LOL! One of jurors farted. Mistrial!

The news reports of the deliberations only prove what a stupendous job the jury did.

And proves absolutely how desperate the criminal Black must be, cornered like a TRUE rat.

Black should start practicing for prison. Lock himself in the closet and eat nothing but HOT DOGS for the next few weeks.

Fall training, Black really needs to trim down the wobble ass and love handles for the upcoming prison fashion parade.

A juror October 26, 2007 at 12:40 p.m.

There was NO debate on it whatsoever. We read the court instructions on it, voted, and it was done. As far as if we still believe it, I can't speak for everyone, but I would say yes.
To be honest- I'm tired of debating that on this blog. I don't know if you remember but we did this awhile ago.

leaf October 26, 2007 at 12:43 p.m.

Barbara in BC October 26, 2007 at 12:16 p.m.

I mean he was previously so terribly condescending to Roger, that it's impossible that he is anything other than a white guy.

More and more thanks, ‘blonde’ in bird-brained country.

Talk about digging one’s own hole…

ROGER October 26, 2007 at 12:49 p.m.

LOL

Life with Amiel in the Florida mansion prison must be hell! Imagine, no private jets, no company paid butlers, chefs and chauffeurs, no jet set celebrities dropping by, just media "vermin" and corrections officials and process servers with more civil suits. Amiel is probably nagging Black constantly, when she is not lingually emasculating him with her sharp verbal onslaught.

alice's buddy October 26, 2007 at 12:53 p.m.

Roger is a true fake. - leaf

But not you, scumbucket - you are the real thing. Furthermore, at least " Roger " makes sense, is smart and informed. You are a bottom - feeder, dumb outcast / homeless and jobless bum who literally stands on street corners and begs the couple of bucks or whatever it costs to use an internet cafe - too broke are you to even own a computer. Then you log onto this site and spread your crap. Go get a job, loser.

ROGER October 26, 2007 at 12:54 p.m.

DO YOU KNOW WHAT THEY PUT IN HOTDOGS?

Thank god I am a vegetarian! Imagine what those cheapskates put in prison hot dogs. I bet Fintan's dog would not eat those hot dogs! It would be good for Black to lose some weight. And living like a poor person would teach him valuable lessons so he can be a better human being. Prison life is a time for Black to get in touch with his feelings and his body and to explore new ways of being. Serving his fellow man would be good for Black--it would allow him to grow as a person.

ROGER October 26, 2007 at 12:58 p.m.

A JUROR-- some people refuse to accept the decision on those obstruction charges. They will keep asking you the same question over and over again in the hope of hearing something different, some minute insignificant detail that they can use to pretend there has been a miscarriage of justice. Fact is, you folks did a great job and a big thief has been convicted after his lifetime of crime. He has been a thief since he stole exam papers as a schoolboy and sold them to his classmates and was praised by his father for his criminal enterprise and that started him on a long career of theft, fraud and abuse of the system. Thank you for putting a stop to his crime spree!

Curious October 26, 2007 at 12:59 p.m.

"It was not reported because it was a comment made in anger, and we knew she didn't mean it. We had spent a lot of time with her. Yes, it was the juror you were describing."

Juror,
what did she have to be angry about? how could she have had any opinion on this case? she slept through it's entirety and this is no exageration which you can varify. the whole case should be thrown out on this basis. Non competes are not illegal, the late filing of these APC payments were Kipnis's fault, Ron Safer shouldn't have tried to distance his client from Conrad since he was the only capable Lawyer in the room, he should have focused on the fact that nothing illegal was done.
Juror, does the fact that Conrad Black's assets were seized and frozen prior to the trial (and this was the only reason he had to settle on Greenspan who was willing to work for free) change your view of things at all, Do you think if Black had a capable lawyer and wasn't destroyed financially by Sussman and his gang before the trial things might have been different and jurors would have seen what nonsense this trial was??
or were the jurors willing to convict because they thought the FBI guys sitting next to Sussman were handsome???

gary e October 26, 2007 at 1:04 p.m.

Poor Alice.

Barbara in BC October 26, 2007 at 1:05 p.m.

I will echo Roger's tribute to the juror:

"Thank you for putting a stop to his crime spree!"

ROGER October 26, 2007 at 1:05 p.m.

WAVE99 AND LEAF ARE THE SAME PERSON

It took me seconds to spot Wave99 was not a real Japanese person! After much deliberation, he had to admit the obvious. Now Wave99 is further trying to impune the Japanese people, after blaming all of them for his spelling incompetence!

ex blogger October 26, 2007 at 1:14 p.m.

Uncautious October 26, 2007 at 11:13 a.m.

What a great blog! Every manner of malcontent! Wow! Couldn't be greater. A fandango of idiots. I am most impressed. While the rest of humanity grovels to eek a living, nose to the grindstone, waiting for relief to show up, this bunch of mid-educated, privileged non-commissioned Canadian citizens attempt to out-do each other; I got a gold star in spelling.

Carry on. Wow! I am alive!

YOU RAWK, dude! This is a blog of idiots - just read the stuff that gets typed here - it's hilarious. No wonder whoever moderated it initially has escaped. This place is filled with just about the lowest sleazos anywhere. Anyone with a brain has stopped posting and departed long ago.

A juror October 26, 2007 at 1:15 p.m.

Please- you can give us a little more credit. None of the people on the jury would ever convict Conrad Black because they thought an FBI guy was handsome! What does that have to do with Conrad? Sorry- but none were that shallow.
As far as the case being thrown out because a juror slept, well they could of chose to use her as an alternate I suppose. But they didn't, and that has nothing to do with me, or any of the members of the jury. That choice was made by someone else.
I'm sure different lawyers would of changed the trial. But there is no way I can predict how it would of been different,and see know reason to try.

ROGER October 26, 2007 at 1:17 p.m.

LOL--CURIOUS, BLACK IS A CONVICTED CRIMINAL! You can delude yourself as to what is fair and legal, but Hollinger International shareholders were calling Black a thief to his face at shareholder meetings back in 2003 and when the full revelation of what scheme Black and Radler and the gang had engaged in was laid out by the committe chaired by Parish, a man handpicked by Black to chair the board investigation, with other handpicked Black members Seitz and Savage, it was clear that Black had ripped the shareholders off.

On November 13, 2003, when Black was confronted by James Thompson, Gordon Parish, Richard Breeden and James McDonough on the 18th floor of the Fifth Avenue, New York offices of Hollinger International, Black admitted that there had been wrongdoing and quietly accepted the demand for his resignation as CEO on the spot! Black, well-known for tantrums and bluster RESIGNED ON THE SPOT WHEN CONFRONTED! He accepted the terms put to him--resign as CEO and be replaced by Parish, repay millions and help with the restructuring and sale of assets. Then Black reneged and tried to play another game.

THREE COURT CASES HAVE RULED AGAINST BLACK AND YOUR VERSION OF THE FACTS! THREE COURTS!

Time to accept reality. Black is was and will always be hence forth a convicted criminal. Case closed. The end.

leaf October 26, 2007 at 1:23 p.m.

i'm surprised roger hasn't brought up WW2 - pearl harbor -hiroshima in the current wave99/japanese debacle.

oops....what can of worms have i just opened?
dear god, here we go.......

ROGER October 26, 2007 at 1:25 p.m.

THE BEST DEFENCE LAWYERS IN AMERICA WOULD NOT HAVE TOUCHED THE BLACK CASE FOR ALL THE MONEY IN THE WORLD

Lawyers need to be able to work with their clients and to respect them on some level and believe in their case. The best defence lawyers in America looked Black over and passed. If they believed in the case, they would have taken it on. When someone does not want a job, asking an impossibly high retainer is the way a lawyer gives a potential client a brush off. Take a look at Gerry Spence's clients--not many of them would be able to pay any kind of retainer, and yet Spence is probably the best lawyer alive in America today. I am pretty sure Spence would not have touched Black's case, no matter how much money Black had for a retainer.

leaf October 26, 2007 at 1:27 p.m.

hey blonde in bird-brained country, will you echo this roger's tribute to the justice system as well?
i know i do.

ROGER July 20, 2007 at 10:16 p.m.

The justice system is not fair. Lord Black is now finding that out first hand.

ROGER October 26, 2007 at 1:29 p.m.

LEAF-- you missed that whole discussion some weeks ago with Peter Griffith. I guess your other identities were dominant back then? See how easy it is for me to expose you and your Wave99 identity? Any Japanese person would have been in on that discussion!
Leaf and Wave99 have been exposed as complete liars. No surprise there.

ROGER October 26, 2007 at 1:33 p.m.

LEAF AND WAVE99 WILL REFIGHT IWO JIMA TO PROVE BLACK IS INNOCENT-- and other diversions for despondent Black supporters. LOL!

34.5 days to Black's tryst with destiny. Panic is everywhere in the Black camp.

Curious October 26, 2007 at 1:56 p.m.

'back in 2003 and when the full revelation of what scheme Black and Radler and the gang had engaged in was laid out by the committe chaired by Parish'

Roger, Conrad was acquitted of the scheme related charges.

'THE BEST DEFENCE LAWYERS IN AMERICA WOULD NOT HAVE TOUCHED THE BLACK CASE FOR ALL THE MONEY IN THE WORLD'

I'm sorry but this sounds crazy, Andy Frey and Dershowitz are considered some of the best appeals lawyers in America and they have no problem working for Black. Brendan Sullivan who got Oliver North acquitted was working for Black until he (Black) got his finances frozen by the USDJ thugs. Baker Botts is one of the premier civil firms in washington and they not only work for Black, 2 of their lawyers testified under oath on his behalf. Good Lawyers don't turn down corporate fraud clients for moral reasons, I'm not sure what world you're living in Roger.

Barbara in BC October 26, 2007 at 1:56 p.m.

As a comment on the smokescreen tactics we're seeing here, this is brilliant Roger:

"LEAF AND WAVE99 WILL REFIGHT IWO JIMA TO PROVE BLACK IS INNOCENT-- and other diversions for despondent Black supporters"

Barbara in BC October 26, 2007 at 1:58 p.m.

leaf: Since you asked, I think the North American justice system is fair: especially if you are white and have a good lawyer.

leaf October 26, 2007 at 1:58 p.m.

ROGER October 26, 2007 at 1:25 p.m.

Lawyers need to be able to work with their clients and to respect them on some level and believe in their case.

I wonder on what level the lawyers of, to name a few - bernardo, pickton, dahmer, manson, bundy, gacy, dutroux – respected them.

When incarcerated hard core criminals have no respect for such monsters, is it reasonable to suggest, as does roger, that their lawyers do?

Watch roger sink as he tries to stay above water…

ROGER October 26, 2007 at 2:04 p.m.

CURIOUS-- so how come Black ended up with the two duds he had as lawyers? LOL!

Curious October 26, 2007 at 2:10 p.m.

"leaf: Since you asked, I think the North American justice system is fair: especially if you are white and have a good lawyer"

What about OJ? was he white or innocent? I think you're view is out of touch, perhaps a remnant of the 1960's civil rights era. Now a days if you're Black and have a Black juror you have a better chance of getting off. I think your insinuation that Whites have a better chance of getting off if they have good counsel is patently racist.

ROGER October 26, 2007 at 2:12 p.m.

ROGER July 20, 2007 at 10:16 p.m.

The justice system is not fair. Lord Black is now finding that out first hand.
===

Barbara in BC: "I think the North American justice system is fair: especially if you are white and have a good lawyer." TRUE.

====

On July 20, 2007, I was obviously wrong. That I make mistakes will not help Black. LOL!

Black was charged, tried and convicted by a system he believed in and supported and defended.
Black got the due process of law, natural justice, his rights to a fair trial were respected, rules of evidence were scrupulously respected, the judge was fair and highly competent, the jury was impartial and fair, and he was represented by high profile lawyers of his choosing who charged millions for his defence. Moreover, the only chicanery was on Black's part--he tampered with evidence and was convicted of so doing in the obstruction charge and conviction.

Vice-Chancellor Strine of the Delaware Chancery Court ruled twice against Black, questioning Black's honesty and integrity, and the Chicago court convicted Black. This on top of the 1983 SEC conviction against Black in the Hanna Mining case. Black is a convicted criminal.

Barbara in BC October 26, 2007 at 2:15 p.m.

Roger: Lawyers are not magicians. Though I sometimes wonder about OJ's lawyer...

Curious October 26, 2007 at 2:17 p.m.

CURIOUS-- so how come Black ended up with the two duds he had as lawyers? LOL!

Because he had his assets and finances frozen by the government without the nuisance of securing a conviction and those 2 clowns were willing to work pro bono, I assume due to Greenspans ego and obsession with media attention. I never said good lawyers would work for free. LOL

Lit 200 October 26, 2007 at 2:18 p.m.

LOL!!!

G&G made the prosecution drop four charges before the trial ended and then they won acquitals (that"s "NOT GUILTY" verdicts) on NINE of the 13 remaining. They reduced the amount that Black was accused of stealing was reduced from $83 million to $2.8 million.

And now Andrew Frey will deal with the four remaining ones on appeal.

Some duds! The prosecution's case was shredded and the anti-Black brigade doesn't seem to notice.

They are a prefect representative for Monty Python's Black Knight, with no arms or legs and still shouting: "come on and fight you cowards."

Hilarious.

leaf October 26, 2007 at 2:21 p.m.

blonde in bird-brained country…. In an earlier post, you called someone ‘simplistic’.

As the most simplistic poster across this board, bar NONE, you deserve a rightful slap across the blond brain for even thinking of calling ANYONE simplistic.
You are so damn blind as to your own deficiency that it has to be vigorously shaken up till it crawls out of you and slap you again.

figuratively of course. don't start with the violence against women discourse.
this is about the blind leading the blind, regardless of gender. it's about stupidity, regardless of gender. it's about ignorance of one's own stupidity, regardless of gender.

Curious October 26, 2007 at 2:22 p.m.

"This on top of the 1983 SEC conviction against Black in the Hanna Mining case" Rog

this is fiction, provide one link to a conviction re. Hanna mining, I dare you. There was no conviction on anything on CB in 83, you are just making things up Roger.

ROGER October 26, 2007 at 2:22 p.m.

Lawyers need to be able to work with their clients and to respect them on some level and believe in their case.

The first question to a criminally charged client is "tell me what happened." The next thing is "so you are saying you did not commit the act or you did commit the act?"

If I were representing a Pickton or Bernardo, all of whom are entitled to a defence, I would act like a professional lawyer and either take on the case or refuse if I could not provide them the best defence. If they are pleading guilty and I represent them, I would provide competent, professional representation based on law and jurisprudence. If they are pleading innocent and I do not think I can believe in their innocence, I would probably turn down representing them because I would not be able to do a good job of defending them, not because of moral reasons. It is not a question of morality, it is a question of professionalism to provide the best defence the client is entitled to receiving. Motivation is a critical determinant of performance. Most lawyers who provide lousy representation do so because they do not care and are not motivated.

Why did Black choose the lawyers he had if he wanted someone else? No one else wanted to take his case on. All the other lawyers who had worked with Black knew him only too well.

DH October 26, 2007 at 2:24 p.m.

Lit 200 - They are a prefect representative for Monty Python's Black Knight, with no arms or legs and still shouting: "come on and fight you cowards."

I've always thought of Conrad Black more fitting as the Black Knight.

ROGER October 26, 2007 at 2:26 p.m.

CURIOUS BLACK DIE-HARD SUPPORTER WROTE "Now a days if you're Black and have a Black juror you have a better chance of getting off. I think your insinuation that Whites have a better chance of getting off if they have good counsel is patently racist."

The statistics and case review studies speak for themselves--white, rich Americans can get away with murder while poor black Americans can get put away for life for committing no crime at all!

ROGER October 26, 2007 at 2:28 p.m.

ACCORDING TO LIT, BLACK IS INNOCENT BECAUSE HE ONLY STOLE A FEW MILLION...LOL! Lit logic at work.

Btw, those civil suits will illustrate the dollar amount of the actual fraud. Check how many tens of millions Radler has already repaid and paid in settlements. Even Black had originally agreed to repay $7 million!

leaf October 26, 2007 at 2:36 p.m.

ROGER October 26, 2007 at 2:12 p.m.

ROGER July 20, 2007 at 10:16 p.m.
The justice system is not fair. Lord Black is now finding that out first hand
On July 20, 2007, I was obviously wrong.

One full week after verdict, roger was wrong.
Roger saying “ I was obviously wrong” : music to my ears.

I don’t usually gloat but this one is particularly delightful to read.

Leaf 1 roger 0
And we’re not done yet…

one who bets on winners October 26, 2007 at 2:37 p.m.

Lit 200 October 26, 2007 at 2:18 p.m.

LOL!!!

G&G made the prosecution drop four charges before the trial ended and then they won acquitals (that"s "NOT GUILTY" verdicts) on NINE of the 13 remaining. They reduced the amount that Black was accused of stealing was reduced from $83 million to $2.8 million.

Not Guilty does not mean Innocent. You are living in a dream world of your own making if you think Frey or anyone can get Black's convictions reversed on appeal. Won't happen and Black will lose again, as he has lost in everyone of his court cases to date. Face it - the man is as guilty as charged, tried and convicted.

Lit 200 October 26, 2007 at 2:38 p.m.

Typical Roger argument: I point out the amount he is accused of stealing is reduced from $83 to $2.8 million (and Breeden & co took a lot more than that away from Hollinger) and Roger comes back with "Lit says Black is innocent."

Didn't say it. Didn't infer it.

Where on earth did you learn to counter an argument that way, Roger? Did you not take logic or common sense on your way to those five degrees? Did your professors teach you to use that kind of reasoning when you took instruction on how to be a pschotherapist?

Lit 200 October 26, 2007 at 2:40 p.m.

Roger says he never watches or listens to CBC but says that the corporation is now a pitiful shadow of its previous self.

Logical.

leaf October 26, 2007 at 2:42 p.m.

Tut tut tut roger…. This was not about representing or not a defendant. It was, and I quote you: “Lawyers need to be able to work with their clients and to RESPECT (my capitals, key word) them on some level and believe in their case.”

Your answer evaded the point.
Hypocrit!

Leaf 2 roger 0

ROGER October 26, 2007 at 2:42 p.m.

http://www.straight.com/node/4912
>According to the book, a U.S. judge concluded that the evidence supported Hanna Mining's allegations of "manipulative violations" of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Act; Black filed an appeal, though he also signed a consent decree with the SEC promising not to violate federal securities laws.

SEC spokesperson Peter K.M. Chan told the Straight on November 23 that a civil injunction was filed as part of Black's consent decree in the Hanna Mining case. Speaking generally about the law and not about Black specifically, Chan said, "If that same person is found to have violated the federal securities law again in violation of the civil injunction, that may--I emphasize may--lead to a finding that the person is in either civil or criminal contempt of the court's order."<

Yes, you are right, Black was not convicted, in exchange for him filing a consent not to ever break SEC rules ever again! LOL! Guess what, he has just been convicted of doing exactly that!

Curious October 26, 2007 at 2:44 p.m.

If I were representing a Pickton or Bernardo, all of whom are entitled to a defence... - Roger

Really,
who cares what you would do? i'm sure you would submit document after document of your long winded ramblings with the top 2 lines on caps lock.

ACCORDING TO LIT, BLACK IS INNOCENT BECAUSE HE ONLY STOLE A FEW MILLION...LOL! Lit logic at work.

Non competes are NOT ILLEGAL in the US or Canada, how could it be considered stealing? the jurors already admitted that they convicted Black based on their dislike of Greenspan who still was able to get 12 of the original charges pitched despite a JURY THAT LOATHED HIM.

ROGER October 26, 2007 at 2:45 p.m.

I listen to CBC Radio all the time, have for years, all over the world on CBC Radio International too. Always said so. Lit, the comic book editor, can't read or maybe it is just comprehension?

Curious October 26, 2007 at 2:49 p.m.

Not Guilty does not mean Innocent - One who bets on winners

Not Guilty means you WON the count if you are a defendant.
by your rationale does Guilty than mean innocent. If you don't kill someone but you go on trial for murder and are found Not Guilty are you not innocent? this is fabulous logic.

ROGER October 26, 2007 at 2:50 p.m.

LOL! LEAF IS TRYING TO THINK! Lawyers represent clients. If someone who is not a member of the bar in the jurisdiction in question tries to do so, they would be charged with unlawfully practicing law. That Leaf does not understand this is not surprise. He thinks it is evasion to point out his mistaken beliefs. Leaf, if you are keeping score, give yourself a few hundred extra points. Its called a handicap. LOL!

ROGER October 26, 2007 at 2:54 p.m.

LIT200, Black is not accused of stealing anything. He has been convicted of stealing millions. It is no longer a question of whether, but one of having been found guilty of doing so. I am glad you recognize that Black committed serious crimes and that you see the error of minimizing the scope of his crimes. Those poor widows never had justice when Black stole their inheritance and their family's inheritance. One of those families have now regained possession of 10 Toronto St, which Black stole from their family.

ROGER October 26, 2007 at 2:55 p.m.

Curious October 26, 2007 at 2:49 p.m.

Not Guilty does not mean Innocent - One who bets on winners

Not Guilty means you WON the count if you are a defendant.
by your rationale does Guilty than mean innocent. If you don't kill someone but you go on trial for murder and are found Not Guilty are you not innocent? this is fabulous logic.

===

The courts ruled on this last week. There is no such thing as an innocent ruling by a court was the decision. Please try and keep up with the court rulings.

a passerby October 26, 2007 at 2:58 p.m.

well at least we already know that leaf, the scumbag, will never be able to find a lawyer to represent him on anything. Lawyers like their clients to be clean and smell good. Leaf, from hanging out on street corners bumming pennies and hitting on passersby, will have the doggy scent of poo on him and especially his pants legs where most dogs lift their legs to pee. Poor leaf. A regular fire hydrant personified.

ROGER October 26, 2007 at 3:09 p.m.

CURIOUS BLACK DIE-HARD SUPPORTER WROTE "Non competes are NOT ILLEGAL in the US or Canada, how could it be considered stealing? the jurors already admitted that they convicted Black based on their dislike of Greenspan who still was able to get 12 of the original charges pitched despite a JURY THAT LOATHED HIM."

1. the jury made no such admission. On the contrary, the jury clearly acted on the most compelling evidence only and submitted to the will of the small minority who wished to give Black every and any benefit of the doubt so that only 100% certainty was used as a standard for conviction--Black was very very lucky!

2. You really hate Greenspan huh. He is your scapegoat.

3. Whether non-competes are legal or illegal is a mute point. Black could have called it anything he wanted. He could have called it a bonus, pocket money or an allowance, it does not matter what he called it, because it was plain old theft. He took what did not belong to him. He embezzled funds. Plain and simple. If it is so common a practice to pay executives and company officers non-competes, produce examples of such--non-competes go to companies, not individual company officers. Black was not a proprietor, he was an employee. The money ought to have gone to the owners, the shareholders. Black was only entitled to compensation that was approved. Not approved through fraud and lies, but up front disclosed and transparently presented to shareholders and directors and reported to the SEC. Black is a thief who has been caught. Calling it a non-compete does not excuse his thievery.

winner October 26, 2007 at 3:10 p.m.

Curious? My guess is you're an idiot. Am I correct? I also bet that you are leaf's panhandler friend. I can just picture both of you on that street corner hitting on all the passersby. Getting a paying job would never enter your brainless heads. Far better to sit in some computer cafe hacking away until the owner kicks you both out.

Curious October 26, 2007 at 3:10 p.m.

Those poor widows never had justice when Black stole their inheritance and their family's inheritance. - Rog

Those poor widows? one of them was the widow of Bud Macdougal the other was the sister of Bud Macdougal, get facts strait. Bud Macdougals wife was worth $130mm when she died in the early 90's Black had her sign a document with her lawyer persent selling (not giving for free) her voting control of Argus to Conrad Black, Mrs. Macdougal lived fat off the hog in Palm Beach lunching at the bath and Tennis club daily until she died. She signed the papers and no one, not even Conrad put a gun to her head. Whatever you know about Bud's widow seems little, one thing is for sure she was never POOR, before or after her signing those famous documents.

ROGER October 26, 2007 at 3:13 p.m.

CURIOUS RAGED AND RANTED "i'm sure you would submit document after document of your long winded ramblings with the top 2 lines on caps lock."

If you look carefully at the docs your secretary prepares for submission, you will notice that indeed the first two or so lines are indeed capitalized. Have you never actually prepared a filing yourself? You ought to try it sometime. It is good to understand the whole process and not rely on secretaries to bail you out. Too many lawyers are lost without their secretaries, who are often under appreciated.

ROGER October 26, 2007 at 3:23 p.m.

"It was bad enough for Black to lose such a one-sided decision. But however painful that might have been, it paled beside the damage inflicted upon his reputation. Although Judge Strine was known for his pointed commentary, nobody had foreseen the extent to which he would assail Black's character and question his integrity. Judge Strine concluded,

>As to Black himself, it became impossible for me to credit his word, after considering the trial testimony in light of the overwhelming evidence of his less-than-candid conduct towards his fellow directors.... I found Black evasive and unreliable. His explanations of key events and of his motivations do not have the ring of truth. I find it regrettable to say so but it is the inescapable, and highly relevant, conclusion I reach<"

How damning! Curious, any comment? That was the Delaware Court, far away from Chicago in both geography, time, and a seasoned corporate law judge as opposed to a jury. Same conclusions, very different folks doing the judging.

Curious October 26, 2007 at 3:26 p.m.

The courts ruled on this last week. There is no such thing as an innocent ruling by a court was the decision. Please try and keep up with the court rulings.

fantastic,
i see that you subscribe to the logic of this ruling, therefor anyone who goes on trial for anything will be tainted with being not innocent ever again in their lives.
I am sure the Bolshevics are celebrating in their graves

ROGER October 26, 2007 at 3:29 p.m.

CURIOUS THINKS THAT THE WORD POOR ONLY HAS ONE MEANING. Conrad conspired with the advisor to the widows to steal their and their kin's inheritances. He stole control of the companies. He then turfed out the legitimate controllers and seized control himself. Now those families he cheated have regained possession of 10 Toronto St! It is fitting that that was the scene of his Waterloo! The edifice stolen is the place of his ultimate downfall. It is a great irony. Divine retribution for Black's evil deed.

ROGER October 26, 2007 at 3:30 p.m.

Curious October 26, 2007 at 3:26 p.m.

The courts ruled on this last week. There is no such thing as an innocent ruling by a court was the decision. Please try and keep up with the court rulings.

fantastic,
i see that you subscribe to the logic of this ruling, therefor anyone who goes on trial for anything will be tainted with being not innocent ever again in their lives.
I am sure the Bolshevics are celebrating in their graves
===

It is called respect for the rule of law--you ought to try it sometime.

leaf October 26, 2007 at 3:30 p.m.

Too many lawyers are lost without their secretaries, who are often under appreciated. - roger

hehehe.... roger's subtle attempt at recovering from his male chauvinist recent exposure.

lovely, just lovely.

leaf October 26, 2007 at 3:33 p.m.

donna is on a roll today, i can't keep up!!!

hey donna, can you spare a dime?

ROGER October 26, 2007 at 3:35 p.m.

CURIOUS'S IDEAL COURT DECISIONS:

1. guilty 2. not guilty 3. innocent 4. not innocent

5. a little guilty with some innocence 6. not guilty but also not innocent.... Curious lives in a curious Alice in Wonderland world... Kafka anyone?

W101 October 26, 2007 at 3:43 p.m.

BBC: I will echo Roger's tribute to the juror: "Thank you for putting a stop to his crime spree!"

---

Me too.

Thank you for putting a stop to his crime spree!

ROGER October 26, 2007 at 4:01 p.m.

LEAF is unable to engage in substantive debate. Leaf and his other id Wave99 have been beaten so often, they have given up. Now they just post noise.

ROGER October 26, 2007 at 4:02 p.m.

leaf October 26, 2007 at 3:30 p.m.

Too many lawyers are lost without their secretaries, who are often under appreciated. - roger

hehehe.... roger's subtle attempt at recovering from his male chauvinist recent exposure.

lovely, just lovely.
==

Why do you assume lawyers are male and secretaries are female?

a juror October 26, 2007 at 4:13 p.m.

In answer to your question, yes, we all without exeption felt that the felon was obstructing justice. In fact, this charge was the first one that go through. It is so obvious.
Some could not understand why the felon was as stupid as to
video his wrongdoing.Maybe he got advice from his secretary?

leaf October 26, 2007 at 4:34 p.m.

Why do you assume lawyers are male and secretaries are female? - roger

so so so so so predictable.

i don't assume.
while there are more women lawyers than ever, i'm afraid the secretaries field is majoratively women, with an extreme margin.

go into any law office rog podge. check it out for yourself.
then come back here and tell me: you are rong leaf! you are so rong rong rong. all i saw were male secretaries everywhere.

you just can not accept being wrong. it eats at you. you are prepared to twist yourself in all manners of knots to prove you are right. if it means lying, conniving, cheating than so be it.

i think we pretty much got your number mister roger.

by the way, they deported that imam fellow of yours. good riddance. the illuminated one lamented that homosexuals were sinners and kept wasting taxpayer's money in submitting motion after motion in an effort to stay in a country where he disapproved morals.
what's the matter with you people?
i mean, not all you people, for there are reasonnable muslims who distance themselves from the illuminated kind who demand sharia courts, praying spaces in shopping malls, tearing down christmas trees etc etc etc. the list of unreasonable demands is endless.

but i'm off topic. sorry.

leaf October 26, 2007 at 4:41 p.m.

roghead is just gonna go ballistic after my last post.

HAHAHAHAHAHA

work that ulcer roger!

A juror October 26, 2007 at 5:21 p.m.

I just want to say that I have posted under this name since I came here- but someone else is too.
The post at 4:13, not your usual A juror

Barbara in BC October 26, 2007 at 5:43 p.m.

A juror: I was hestitant to believe that you would suddenly start calling Conrad Black "the felon" so I guessed that the 4:13 post was a fake. Not very helpful when people start imitating others around here.

ROGER October 26, 2007 at 5:55 p.m.

LOL! LEAF is getting paranoid.

Now about you sexist assumption that all lawyers are male and all secretaries are female, a simple admission that you are wrong is all that was required. Your long nonsensical defence of the indefencible does nothing to improve your error.

As for your desperation to lash out at Muslims when caught out, it is pathetic, but not unexpected.

I am getting tired of always winning every encounter with you and your many incarnations. By posting under numerous ids, you do spread out your failures, but you also demonstrate how many different ways you can lose.

a juror's juror October 26, 2007 at 6:05 p.m.

Newsflash! leaf, the panhandling, personal fire hydrant - to - dogs, sleazebag, is a WOMAN!! She gave herself away in one of her posts recently. Nice to know that human fire hydrants are gender neutral or is that female too? Good luck to the poor dog who tries to lift its leg on old leaf -she ( leaf )would probably chase the pathetic mutt away with her broom or mop. Maybe even kick it. Just sad.

wave99 October 28, 2007 at 4:41 p.m.

It's interesting how being a mix of Japanese and English Canadian can bring about such intense debate.

Thanks for the interest.

Much already discussed about Japan, ie with Peter Griffith and many of Roger's pre Peter's comments, are fairly regularly heard and tend not to warrant a reply in too great a detail.

The thing is. If we are honest, we can't help but find flaws in all our ccultures, nations and , undoubtedly within this blog anti's, personalities.

That's not news.

I should add for Barbara's sake as she is guided by Roger in most every area of discussion.

I do not eat sushi.
I am only quite average in math.
I never dreamt of being an engineer.
I have never played Nintendo, though we lived very near where the Nintendo factory now exists in Kyoto.

I understand, in your biased and generalized framewrok in which you see the world operate, these things too must mean I am not Japanese.

Now, one of my personal stregnths, I will suggest and why I have a solid business, is being able to recognize the strengths and weaknesses of my cultural background.

As Roger likes to point out, there were many black moments in Japan's history. There is great beauty too. Revisionist history in any society is regretable, be it Iraq, Japan, Isreal, US, etc.

What I love about Canada is the pluralistic society. We have every opportunity to be successful and some of us are.

When we are notsuccesful despite this opportunity, we must only blame ourselves.

There are literally thousands of academics nationwide who likely do not have the general knowledge that, say Roger has. But they have jobs and fuction in our society. They are successful.

You must be able to debate. Make your point. Take the counter-point and reply logically to be successfully engaged.

Roger presently can't.

Time after time, as per the easy to understand, paint by numbers explanations LIT patiently affords doubters.

Roger changes the subject when he is lost.

Does this mean we hate him ? Of course not. Does this mean we don't believe he has potential to be successful in Canada ? Of course not.

But to be Roger's supporter, one should take a moment to reflect and ask oneself : "Am I really doing Roger a service by blindly acknowledging his style as fair, as accurate and as intelligent "?

In the real world, the world where creative ad intelligent people work in equally creative and intelligent careers, that style simply does not get by.

Thus...a very well educated gentleman with most all the attributes required to be successful, isn't.

Sad, but that is the reality. We can either help nudge his positive change. And if it happens, I would bet a great deal of money, he becomes a happily settled Canadian.

Let's hope. Cheers.