Lit 200 February 22, 2008 at 9:56 a.m.

Me first? Wow.

We'll see whether the Hollinger trio is about to disappear into the drain very soon now. I have to agree, it doesn't look promising for the boys.

Doug Bell, have a look at the OSC deciding it isn't in the public interest to proceed against Andrew Rankin. Toronto Star.

what is the defense of a crook? February 22, 2008 at 11:06 a.m.

These lawyers can spin their tales anyway they choose. The fact remains that no matter how you defend against crimes committed, reasonable people see the guilt and declare it. It's all about making the correct decision and the jury did just that.
If one scrutinized the clients Skurka has defended and not written about, one most likely would find scumbags galore who have gotten away with a great deal of illegal behaviour. Just because a criminal lawyer has written a book suggesting everyone else in the justice field is corrupt save and except his or her own profession does not make it so. I realize it's the job of a criminal lawyer to defend those indicted on serious charge(s) but to suggest that the procedure is corrupt when they lose the case they are cheering for is ridiculous given their own personal history of clients.

Lit 200 February 22, 2008 at 11:31 a.m.

Who's the crook here, anyway?

Lit 200 February 22, 2008 at 11:07 a.m.

Hmm the blowhard liar cheat has a defender. Good! He needs one. Even perpetual losers need someone to hold their hand and say "it's OK, shhh, relax, Roger dear, I'll get after that nasty man for you!"

Give him a cuddle and a kiss for me, Chicklets.

Lit 200 February 22, 2008 at 11:12 a.m.

Chicklets misses the point. An innocent man has been found guilty and a guilty man is getting a free pass. Pay attention, dear.

Farblondzhet February 22, 2008 at 11:53 a.m.

LIT: "Chicklets misses the point. An innocent man has been found guilty and a guilty man is getting a free pass. Pay attention, dear."

Can someone help me parse the above litticism?

An inncocent man has been found guilty - by a jury after a four-month trial and with a multi-million-dollar legal team to defend him, correct? And it wasn't a hanging jury, either; they deliberated for many days and acquitted him on several other charges, right?

The guilty man hasn't even been charged with a crime, and in Canada there is still a presumption of innocence, or am I wrong?

Confusing? It's downright doing my kop!

Then another litticism: "...the blowhard liar cheat [Roger] has a defender ..."

Lit is truly fahklumpt! No one on this blog is LESS in need of a defender than Roger, but surely it's not verboten to agree with him when he's right!

I love that simile of Black being about to disappear down the drain, like a turd in its final dizzy spin. Appropriately enough for such a sicko neocon, he has to spin clockwise - to the right. It's a law of nature, and one that no amount of money or sophistry can circumvent.

RENE'S COUSIN February 22, 2008 at 11:54 a.m.

SPLIT 200:
"An innocent man has been found guilty .."

STOP IT! Black has been tried and convicted. He is a CONVICTED FELON!

Get it through your thick skull, Buckwheat.

Dithyrambic February 22, 2008 at 12:02 p.m.

"I love that simile of Black being about to disappear down the drain, like a turd in its final dizzy spin. Appropriately enough for such a sicko neocon, he has to spin clockwise - to the right. It's a law of nature, and one that no amount of money or sophistry can circumvent."

Excellent, Farblondzhet, excellent!

leaf February 22, 2008 at 12:21 p.m.

i'm goin to call fickton now. i have his number. i need to hear his voice. maybe he'll call me bubbala. no one else gives me affection. screw them all.

Lit 200 February 22, 2008 at 12:24 p.m.

RENE'S COUSIN February 22, 2008 at 11:54 a.m.

STOP IT! Steven Truscott, Donald Marshall Jr., David Milgaard and Guy Paul Morin have all been tried and convicted. They are all CONVICTED FELONS!

Get it through your thick skull, Buckwheat."

Sure, sure...

Try this hat February 22, 2008 at 12:33 p.m.

poor lit sees Black as a victim of a flawed justice system where others just see him as a thief and a liar and a person who got caught being himself!

The age of communication they called it February 22, 2008 at 12:35 p.m.

One has to love what a simple email can reveal as it did in the Trial of Black.

Lit 200 February 22, 2008 at 12:39 p.m.

Hattie will ignore the excesses of an over-reaching USDJ until the day he or she finds herself or himself hauled up on some trumped up charge or other.

Anita February 22, 2008 at 12:41 p.m.

The 3 hollinger felons are asking for a brief 4 months delay, while their lawyers appeal their convictions. In other words, the bail-judges are told that because the lawyers are working on the 3 felons appeal, the 3 felons need to be out of jail. This does not make sence. What does make sence is the 3 felons' lawyers need to be out of jail to be able to prepare an appeal. Appeal denied.

RENE'S COUSIN February 22, 2008 at 12:42 p.m.

SPLIT 200

Nice try, Split.

And hard at work you must be - but these reversals had to do with murder and rape - and botched or misused forensics.

Likewise, but on the contrary hand, one could point out that OJ's trial was botched as the overwhelming DNA in matching bloodtypes in the millions to one category was disbelieved by a misdirected jury thanks to the efforts of Johnny Cochrane.

This is open and shut white collar crime brought out about by the accusations and investigations of Black's own shareholders.

Put your crack pipe down and breathe some reality.

Black ignored, no trampled, his fiduciary responsibilities, acted criminally, and ripped off his shareholders, for far more than what he was convicted of.

In nine days he is off to the big house, where he belongs.

ROGER February 22, 2008 at 12:55 p.m.

>Lit 200 February 22, 2008 at 12:39 p.m.

Hattie will ignore the excesses of an over-reaching USDJ until the day he or she finds herself or himself hauled up on some trumped up charge or other.<

Black said that America was a model of perfection, an ideal nation to be emulated and imitated, just like Steve Harper said. On the eve of Black's Waterloo, prior to departure for Chicago, while still in Canada, Black wrote in the National Post of his total confidence in American justice, in the jury system and Chicago court. He wrote of his comfort in placing his fate in such a system he admired, respected and trusted. Eddie Greenspan made similar noises on the eve of his Rubicon crossing. Once the battle was engaged and defeat was upon them, how whiny and two-faced they became, developing amnesia about their earlier pronouncements, in some instances erasing decades of commentary! Such is the value of personal experience. If they were wrong on the score of American jurisprudence and justice system, how can one trust their judgements on medicare systems, economy, social organization and structures/institutions, of public policy and foreign policy? If they could get the justice system so wrong, then they have shown such an extreme lack of judgement, as to render them unreliable and inconsequential commentators and advisors on other matters of importance. From gungho support for all things extreme rightwing American, to a contempt and vicious critique of the pillar of America, its judiciary and justice system, Black, Amiel, Steyn, Jonas, Worthington, Blatchford, Levant, Frum and the other clowns have exposed themselves as the shallow and silly commentators they always were. They are caricatures.

Last night February 22, 2008 at 12:59 p.m.

The time: Tomorrow week
The place: A mansion in Palm Beach
The players: Lord North of Mudchute
Baroness North of Mudchute

LNM: Darling, it's our last proper night. We shall have to retire early tomorrow since we have such an early start on Monday morning. Let's make it a night to remember.

BNM: Oh must we, Conrad? I have such a headache!

LNM: But darling, it's been months.

BNM: Oh don't be such an alter cocker. I'm sick of yentz.

ROGER February 22, 2008 at 12:59 p.m.

WHY IS LIT AGAIN DEFENDING CONVICTED CRIMINALS? Months ago we reviewed the distinctions between the criminal cases she cites and the Black case. All the cases revolved around police and prosecutorial wrongdoing, coupled with poor legal representation and inadequate trial procedures. Failure of full disclosure of evidence was a factor in almost all of the cases.

ROGER February 22, 2008 at 1:13 p.m.

THIS MUST REALLY BE HUMILIATING FOR BLACK, AMIEL, THEIR FAMILY AND FRIENDS

It is terribly shaming to go to prison in any country, but especially in the American jailhouse culture. Yes, there are those who will recall the glorious days of Mahatma, of Nelson Mandela, of Aung San Suu Kyi, tales of the Suffragettes and such, as they compare the miserable Black to these iconic giants of moral rectitude. But Black is more like the horse thief of old, the petty criminal who pilfers and steals from widows and orphans, in a Dickensian drama of unscrupulous and uncaring wealthy people who trample on their fellow human beings. For these rascals to be caught and sent to prison, criminal or debtor prison, was not merely a punishment in common with fellow citizens, it was a shaming process to have fallen in social standing and legitimacy. It was the scarlet letter of moral shame that clung to them for the rest of their lives. That is the mindset of Black and Amiel and their crowd. Now it is visited upon them and theirs and they are howling at the unfairness, demanding a different set of standards apply. They who played with fire have now been singed and burnt. In the evening of their lives, they are ruined beyond repair. Can this sad and pathetic spectacle now move on with some dignity with Black accepting his fate like a man instead of like a snivelling schoolchild? It is too much to ask of such selfish self-centred cads.

How long will she do it? February 22, 2008 at 1:26 p.m.

Reading through these regulations should keep Amielticket busy for a while - less time to write her nasty right-wing, islamophobic drivel.

http://www.bop.gov/locations/institution...

Excerpts.

"Visitors are expected to use good taste in their dress. The officer will
ensure that all visitors are dressed appropriately. See-through
clothes, sleeveless tee shirts, short skirts, wrap-around skirts,
spandex, caps, hats, and clothing with logos that may be affiliated to
a type of gang are not considered appropriate apparel... Clothing worn by
visitors that are considered to be too revealing, provocative or
indiscreet will result in the visit not being allowed until a change into
appropriate clothing is made. The Operations Lieutenant and/or the Duty
Officer has the authority to make final determination as to the
appropriateness of a visitor's dress."

Wow, "little people", are going to judge Amielticket's dress sense. Wonder where they stand on Manolos?

"Handshaking and a brief kiss and embrace may be exchanged by inmates and
their visitors at the beginning and at the end of each visit. During the
visit, crossing legs with each other, kissing, fondling, and other
actions that would bring embarrassment to others will result in
termination of the visit and a determination made by the inmate's unit
team and the Warden regarding the status of future visits."

No nookie then!

JONES February 22, 2008 at 1:29 p.m.

I am still convinced Lard Thief will do no time. I think this extravagnza has gone on far too long. Black et al should be in jail and they are not. If this appeal court allows Black et al to stay out free then this is nothing but a sham...which I have suspected all along.

A word from the wise February 22, 2008 at 1:58 p.m.

Appeals are paid for by rich criminals or zealous lawyers with profit in mind.

RENE'S COUSIN February 22, 2008 at 2:03 p.m.

The emergency appeal for a stay while the Appeals Court reviews Amy St. Eve's decision will be denied and the St. Eve decision will be upheld after review.

Black is grasping and gasping:

Grasping at straws and gasping like beach bloated codfish thrown up on the tide.

Pathetic denial as usual, Black's signature.

a word from the wise # 2 February 22, 2008 at 2:04 p.m.

From Times Online February 21, 2008

Lord Black's bid to avoid jailWhy should Baron Black of Crossharbour, convicted of defrauding millions, get special treatment? Some poor schmuck who knocks over a 7-11 store and steals a few thousand would be sent to jail tout d'suite. Black has a four-month trial before a jury of his peers and was defended by a hugely expensive team of top lawyers - paid for, grotesquely, by the company from which he stole those millions. He is unrepentant and blames it all on the justice system of the United States - a country that he earlier saw as a model for the whole world to follow!

He did the crime and now let him do the time. If he hadn't been such an idiot and disowned his Canadian citizenship, he would have been able to serve his sentence in a Canadian prison and get out in a year or two. But he wanted so much to be a Lord and took British citizenship. Now he has disgraced it and will have to serve at least 5 years.

Bang him up on 3 March and let him learn humility.

Lit 200, Palm Beach, USA

Hmmm....could this poster above be our very own lit 200, Baron Blarney from Malarkey? I have a great idea - let lit 200 stand in for his meal ticket, Black, and then disappear into the US prison system where he, lit 200, can finally stop his annoying and crazy posts.

Lit 200 February 22, 2008 at 2:23 p.m.

If there was truly a presumption of innocence Farblondie, Conrad Black would never have been convicted of obstruction of justice. There was absolutely NO PROOF that Conrad Black intended to obstruct justice.

ROGER February 22, 2008 at 2:31 p.m.

>Lit 200 February 22, 2008 at 2:23 p.m.

If there was truly a presumption of innocence Farblondie, Conrad Black would never have been convicted of obstruction of justice. There was absolutely NO PROOF that Conrad Black intended to obstruct justice.<

Black was convicted of obstruction. In the English law tradition, Black is forever a convicted criminal unless he is successful on appeal. What is his grounds of appeal? We went over this ad nauseam in the summer of last year, but, hey, let's go over it again. Lay out your exhaustive case.

Lit 200 February 22, 2008 at 2:31 p.m.

Once again Roger confuses the issue. It seems to delight in being obtuse, as well as plagiarism, theft of ideas and misrepresentation of someone else's well-thought-out position. It does this all the time.

Why does Roger hate Barbara Amiel so much? She emasculated it.

Lit 200 February 22, 2008 at 2:36 p.m.

There is no case for Black to prove on obstruction. The prosecution has to prove not only that he took the boxes but that there was obstructive intent. It never did that. It showed a video of Black taking some boxes from his office. The jury saw this, put two and two together and got five. It's a miscarriage of justice as plain as the nose on its face.

I am tired of explaining this.

Clit 200 February 22, 2008 at 2:52 p.m.

"Why does Roger hate Barbara Amiel so much?"

Why does pretty well everyone except some rabid neocons hate Amielticket so much?

Because she is a nasty, greedy, malicious, neurotic, scheming, contemptuous, intolerant and ugly bitch.

And those are only some of her least worst sides...

RENE'S COUSIN February 22, 2008 at 2:54 p.m.

SPLIT 200,

You are tired of explaining this because it falls on deaf ears between whch there is gray matter unlike between yours.

The Judge ruled that the office be off-limits and that nothing was to be remomved because there was an ongoing investigation...

That nothing was to be removed
That nothing was to be removed
That nothing was to be removed

Black snuck in there and removed something. This was in direct contravention to a court order NOT TO REMOVE ANYTHING.

That is obstruction and, by the very act itself, INTENT.

Got it, SPLITSY?

Stop being an apologist for a criminal.

Lit 200 February 22, 2008 at 2:58 p.m.

Roger

... Black is forever a convicted criminal unless he is successful on appeal ...

You got it tranny: operative word is "unless." So let's just wait for the appeal before going hog wild on the "felon" epithets. Seem reasonable?

Lit 200 February 22, 2008 at 3:04 p.m.

Oh yeah? Which judge was it that ruled THAT, Chicklet?

RENE'S COUSIN February 22, 2008 at 3:05 p.m.

SPLITSY DITSY 200

WRONG! (on behalf of Roger) Conrad Black is a convicted felon now! This status MAY be overturned by successful reversal of judgment upon appeal but until such time he is a convicted felon.

Case closed.

RENE'S COUSIN February 22, 2008 at 3:11 p.m.

SPLITWIT DIMWIT 200

Justice Colin Campbell

Lit 200 February 22, 2008 at 3:12 p.m.

Well, which is it, what it says or what you say, Chickie?

Lit 200 February 22, 2008 at 3:15 p.m.

Ohhh, that judge, the CANADIAN judge. That's the order that Judge St Eve specifically told the jury they were not to consider in coming to a determination of guilt.

Think again Chickie...

RENE'S COUSIN February 22, 2008 at 3:20 p.m.

Stop trying, Buckwheat, to split your remaining hair you have pressed like Conrad's Maple Leaf between your signed book on Black's idol, Nixon.

Conrad Black is a convicted criminal.

Telltale signs February 22, 2008 at 3:22 p.m.

Note how Lit and leaf reveal their joinedatthehipness in little ways like one calls a member of the ABB a pediophile and the other calls Roger a "tranny" (= transvestite).

What is it that this medusa-like creature has about sexual tendencies?

Heard the anecdote about the time a London bobby stopped Amielticket and breathalyzed her?

She blew into the tube and the crystals turned bright green.

Says the bobby: "Look like you've had a few stiff ones, Madam."

To which she replied, fluttering her false eyelashes: "Oh, does it tell that too?"

Observer February 22, 2008 at 3:23 p.m.

Clit200, I must disagree with you. Amiel is not ugly.

Antonelle February 22, 2008 at 3:28 p.m.

Black's favorite US presidential candidate denial story yesterday has a hole in it. The truth and a politician are incompatible. The hero told the us that he never sent a letter to the FCC and that he did not talk to the lobbist's bilionaire client. Yet newsweek reports that allegedly he did write a letter to the FCC, and the same day he was flying in the billionaire's jet to arizona, and he did recieve $20,000 contribution that day from the billionaire client of the pretty lobbist and talked to the billionaire TV cable owner. Old-geezer who bombed thousands of children and hospitals and maimed hundreds of innocent people, has been calling himself a hero. Apparently now he is going to be found a liar. We have learned that the hero has used the F.E.C. funds to secure a loan to re-vive his faltering campaign in December2007. Now the hero wants to opt-out of the F.E.C. this being rejected by the chair of the FEC. Why is the pretty 24 year old lobbist in hiding? The hero has more skeletons than the lord: liar, fraudster, cheats on his cash-cow wife and is a bomber of children.

Lit 200 February 22, 2008 at 3:35 p.m.

Is that an admission you were totally wrong about the court order and an abject apology, Chickie?

Apology accepted. Good girl.

As Telltale's absolute wonderment about my reference to Roger as "it." It is in reference to Tranny Roger's ongoing penchant for referring to male commentators here as "she." It gets a big kick out of that, even though it betrays a wide streak of misogyny. It goes waaay back to the day Amiel left it standing in a puddle of its own making. It may be why it is an ardent apologist for and defender of FMG, as sanctioned by the Sharia rule of law.

ROGER February 22, 2008 at 3:37 p.m.

>Lit 200 February 22, 2008 at 2:36 p.m.

There is no case for Black to prove on obstruction. The prosecution has to prove not only that he took the boxes but that there was obstructive intent. It never did that. It showed a video of Black taking some boxes from his office. The jury saw this, put two and two together and got five. It's a miscarriage of justice as plain as the nose on its face.

I am tired of explaining this.<

LOL! Lit, I will give you a small hint as to how the legal system works. In the criminal court of first instance, the burden is on the prosecution to prove a charge beyong a reasonable doubt, to the satisfaction of the triers of fact. In an appellate court where the prosecution has succeeded in the first instance and got a conviction, the appellant of the verdict of the first instance court is the convicted felon who stands convicted until and unless the appellate court grants the appeal. Got that? LOL!

Now, about the grounds for appeal, what are they? There are none. All your claims of how unjust the verdict is amounts to nothing if you cannot demonstrate legal error at the court of first instance. The facts were determined by the triers of fact and appellate courts will defer to the triers of fact on the determinations of the factual basis of the case. So, are you going to put up your case? Or are you going to cut and run to another topic and diversion? I can see your fear at being cornered.

RENE'S COUSIN February 22, 2008 at 3:39 p.m.

SPLIT 200:

In point of fact, Judge Amy's ruling on disallowing the appeal on the the obstruction charge was not based on the Ontario Court ruling, to wit:

Judge St. Eve denied Lord Black's position that he should not have been convicted of obstruction of justice for taking a dozen boxes out of Hollinger Inc.'s Toronto office.

A "reasonable juror" could have concluded that Lord Black knew about a U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission probe of his business dealings almost two years before the boxes were removed in May, 2005, Judge St. Eve wrote.

"The evidence more than adequately supports the jury's verdict that Black removed these boxes to conceal or attempt to conceal them with the intent to impair their availability in the SEC or grand jury proceeding," she said in her written ruling.

The judge's order also upheld her "Ostrich instruction" to jurors, which allows for a conviction if there is evidence that a person deliberately avoided knowledge of criminal activity to avoid punishment. "

http://www.financialpost.com/small_busin...

Anyway, Lord North of Mudchute is done as a dinner - as he should be.

So give it a break, Splitsy Ditsy, accept it and get over it.

RENE"S COUSIN February 22, 2008 at 3:44 p.m.

SPLIT 200

And you demonstrate exactly what you accuse Roger of, as I am a male commentator, but you refer to me as 'girl'.

Get a life!

leaf February 22, 2008 at 3:45 p.m.

i'll call fickton now. he must be asleep already.

ROGER February 22, 2008 at 3:47 p.m.

BLACK AND HIS FOLLOWERS HAVE BEEN TRUMPETTING THEIR INTENTION TO WIN THE OBSTRUCTION CHARGE APPEAL

So what is the essence of their case? That the jurors got the facts wrong? LOL! Appellate courts do not challenge jurors' on the determination of facts, because jurors are the triers of fact and the English law tradition allocates to jurors broad powers to determine the facts. Appellate courts deal with errors in how the facts are related to the law and deal in errors in law. Errors in fact alone does not usually reach the level of appellate court review, where the appellate court has a discretionary right to determine whether review is merited.

So, what is the grounds for Black's appeal of the obstruction charge? There is none! LOL! Lit is squirming now that she has to perform, put up and deliver.

As for Amiel, I never met the woman but in the event that I run into her, I will be sure to tell her politely that she is not a nice person and ought to consider apologizing to everyone, starting with poor Black! LOL!

Lit 200 February 22, 2008 at 3:49 p.m.

As always, the tranny is only partly correct. In fact in both common law tradition and in US jurisprudence today, there are several grounds upon which an appeal court will consider the facts of a case as well as the application of the law. I have explained this before and don't feel like going over it again and again. Look it up Tranny, it's not hard to find the grounds upon which an appeal court will go beyond questions of law.

Aside from that, there ARE questions of law in this case that can be put to the judges. There are also constitutional questions to be raised.

This is not rocket science. You can easily find out once you get past your fear and trembling at the thought of "neo cons."

RENES COUSIN February 22, 2008 at 3:55 p.m.

SPLIT 200:

"..don't feel like going over it again .."

Dismal, Splitty, dismal.

Not up to Roger's challenge, hey?

Admit that too.

But you can't because, being like Black, you are always right because everyone else is always wrong.

ROGER February 22, 2008 at 3:56 p.m.

LOL! IT IS NICE TO WATCH LIT200 SQUIRM AROUND, UNABLE TO ANSWER AND LAY OUT THE CASE.

1. Black is a convicted criminal. Period.

2. There are no grounds to appeal the obstruction conviction. All the talk over the past few months has been false bravado, designed to engage in self-deception and fuel delusional thinking and to save face.

3. Those who know whereof they speak in the Black camp, have long since decamped and gone silent to avoid making bigger fools of themselves than they already have!

4. If Black had a case with merit, it would have been all over the media by now with Black leading the interview talk shows about how strong his case is. Instead, we have Black acknowledging jail time is coming up and hoping for a reduction in time, much like any doomed person hopes for a reprieve from the gallows.

5. Did you catch the family interview with the Greenspan lawyer boys on CBC Radio this morning? No plug anywhere for Black in the entire interview.

Lit is unable to answer the challenge to stand and deliver! She will go off on another tantrum now.

Lit 200 February 22, 2008 at 3:56 p.m.

Sorry Rene's cousin, thought you were a gal called Donna. Anyway, that's a nice little dipsy doodle you did there, but at least we have educated you not to bring Justice Colin Campbell and his ruling into this contretemps. That's something.

ROGER February 22, 2008 at 3:59 p.m.

AND BY THE WAY LIT, THANK YOU for assigning me transexual status--many women tell me they like the androgynous look of certain men and women, adds to their allure, they tell me. So, thank you! I really mean it--see, no "lol!"

Nope February 22, 2008 at 3:59 p.m.

At this time, CB is a convicted felon. That's a fact, not an epithet.

ROGER February 22, 2008 at 4:08 p.m.

LIT IS CORNERED. lol! The dilemma is whether to try to bluff her way out, or to try to make a stand and get thoroughly trounced, pretend no challenge exists and pretend to go on as before making false claims and not trying to defend those phony claims when challenged, or to call for help and advice to Black headquarters. All this on a Friday afternoon! Poor Lit, I feel for her.

TGIF February 22, 2008 at 4:11 p.m.

The weekend is beginning just the perfect way for Lit. She is getting a thoroughly good rogering!

leaf February 22, 2008 at 4:12 p.m.

can i have a rogering too. puleesse!

ROGER February 22, 2008 at 4:14 p.m.

BORDER GUARD TO BLACK: "Are you a convicted felon sir?"
Black: "Why no, I am not!"
Guard: "Are you lying to me?"
Black: "Well, okay, you got me. I have a few small convictions, nothing serious. I say, can I go across now?"
Guard: "No, you liar. We need to search you thoroughly before we charge you with lying to a law enforcement officer."
Black: "Well, see it's like this. I have an appeal underway and am not really convicted until my appeal is heard."
Guard: "I've heard enough of your crooked scheming lies. I would advise you to keep quiet until you get a lawyer."
Black: "Now see here you impudent swine, I am a lord in the House of Lords..."
Guard: "I don't care if you're the blinking queen of the House of Lords, shut up!"

Lit 200 February 22, 2008 at 4:18 p.m.

You're welcome, Roger old thing.

Let's not dissemble. You have been trounced on this issue more than once before. I do not feel the need to prove my case yet again, just to satisfy you or that M-A-N (are you really sure about that?), Rene's cousin.

Thing and Rene can get as worked up as they like, call me any names they like, challenge me all they like... it makes no nevermind.

Black like a wise fellow will hope for the best and prepare for the worst.

Seems like a good plan to me.

It wasn't too long ago that the ABB were in a tizzy of expectation of how horrifyingly AWFUL it was going to be when Black FINALLY realizes he might do time. The realization would KILL him. Now they refer to this preparedness as Black accepting his fate.

But then consistency has never been a strong point among the Black haters.

ROGER February 22, 2008 at 4:29 p.m.

LOL!!! LIT HAS TURNED TAIL, CUT AND RUN! Lit, it is no shame to admit defeat. I accept your surrender.

Now you understand how hopeless Black's position is, no amount of Goebbelsdeg.ook propaganda can save him from jail. It is the ultimate shame and humiliation for people like Amiel and Black. Forced to live in close quarters with people he would not have given a thought to in his carefree thieving days, the poor lord is now forced to smell them up close, rely on their kindness for his very survival and existence. Now, not merely sharing a cinema with them, he has to endure his humiliation in their midst. Imagine Amiel standing in line with other cons' wives, being looked over, asked questions, searched for contraband, told her dress is not up to snuff by some lout, it is enough to drive her over the edge--I rather fear she has already gone over the edge! Lit, we all feel your pain.

Looking forward February 22, 2008 at 4:33 p.m.

Lord North of Mudchute will have been in the slammer for around 11 months when President O'Bama is inaugurated. The chances that any of the crook's influential friends will still be influential will have dwindled to a pretty low point by then. That any of them will still want to know is an even more remote possibility. In the googleplex to one event that an appeal for clemency ever reaches the new President, he's ask an aide: "Who?" and get the answer: "A British citizen, neocon, swindler, lucky to get such a light sentence, and - Sir - he made a pretty tasteless comment about the First Lady's -- gulp, blush, ahem, how can I put it?" "Out with it, man!" "He supported McCain and made a disparaging comment about her educational qualifications and -- um -- her ass, Sir, excuse me!"

ROGER February 22, 2008 at 4:34 p.m.

I SURE HOPE AMIEL DOES NOT TAKE IT IN HER HEAD TO MAKE A SCENE AT THE JAILHOUSE! Imagine if she calls the guards "vermin" and other names? After they strip search her and threaten to ban her from future visits for obscene conduct, they will surely take it out on poor Black. Prison is good for reforming Black, but it is too late in his life to do any good. He ought to have been jailed 20 or 30 years ago when he could have benefited from it. By now, it is too late.

ROGER February 22, 2008 at 4:38 p.m.

LOL! BLACK'S LACK OF DISCIPLINE AND MOUTHING OFF ABOUT WOMEN HAS ALWAYS GOTTEN HIM IN TROUBLE--from wanting to horsewhip Linda McQuaig (sadistic fetish, no doubt) to commenting on a lady's derriere, Black often showed himself to be a vulgar jumped up twerp provincial pretender to refinement, just another crude nouveau riche bumpkin. Black is history.

Mercy! February 22, 2008 at 4:49 p.m.

Give us a break, Roger! "After they strip search [Amielticket] and threaten to ban her ..."

That (having to strip search her) would amount to cruel and unusual punishment for some hapless prison guard. Imagine what unaesthetic horrors lie beneath that expensively coutured exterior. Flyswatters would only be the beginning of it!

Anka February 22, 2008 at 6:55 p.m.

The rat is supposed to enter his big house on Monday 25th.
I haven't heared anyone tell the blog where he is going. Hopefully one of the well informed bloggers may report here about the rat where-abouts. Allegedly the bail-judges have reached of split decision 2 to 1 to deny bail, the sentence is being typed as we speak. Speaking for the minority on the panel, the bencher stated allegedly that he felt that the 3 felons should go to the big house on March 3rd, but his beef was with the unsophisticated trial judge who turn him down on a weeked golf event. In a further expected development, the lord and the eddies are going to declare victory for the split sentence. The pro-blacks are going to claim that the two judges opposed to the xtension of the bail are not sophisticated and did not understand the law nor the facts, because it is evident that a rich man has been wrongly convicted despite his innosence. An appeal to the Suprene Court will be started as soon as a lawyer can be found who works for free.

poor CB February 22, 2008 at 8:11 p.m.

Latest Black news in link provided below - I feel nothing but sadness for this convicted felon and lost cause and am of the opinion that his comments about believing that " prison is not shaming " are really a stab at thumbing his nose at the public who no longer respects him. I think Black is scared and depressed and maybe, just maybe, sees the writing on the wall. As Roger said in an earlier post, " the bell tolls for Black ".

http://canadianpress.google.com/article/...

A different perspective February 22, 2008 at 9:35 p.m.

sorry roger but I think naipaul sees india for what it is and he is able to comment on his heritage as he appears to have insight. I enjoy what he has to say.

Lit 200 February 22, 2008 at 9:36 p.m.

Always Blackest before the dawn.

time tells us that February 22, 2008 at 9:36 p.m.

progress is always slow

Just askin February 22, 2008 at 9:37 p.m.

Lit is there more to you than all things black?

Emergency appeal denied February 22, 2008 at 11:35 p.m.

The appeal court denied the "emergency appeal to extend the bail", and told the 3 felons to night to appeal the bail-denial-of-St.Eve as a "regular bail-appeal." I am trying to explain to myself the lawyering going on. I think that the prosecutors on purpose delayed their reply to the "regular" bail-appeal in order that the bail-appeal judges order would have come after March 3rd, and the 3 felons would have gone to prison and then maybe released later. This was the basis of the "emergency" appeal. OK, it did not work, because the prosecutors' reply came on Wednesday February 20th. At-this-point-in-time, the "regular" bail-appeal is being judged by the bail-appeal judges. They have let it known that they will come up with an order before March 3rd.
How much more time of the court system are these 3 felons going to demand before they are put away. truly, we are witnessing justice for the wealthy. It is a shameful spectacle and an insult to us all.

Loretta February 22, 2008 at 11:57 p.m.

If Conrad allegedly believes that jail time is not shaming, why is he asking for delays to start his non-shaming jail time? Conrad could be faithful to his own words and standing tall walk into jail on March 3rd. Conrad has his ID number, the location of the jail premises,and knows the time he needs to stay there. Why not encarcelate himself volunteerly? That would be a first. It would make the anti-black haters bite their tongues. Recall lovely Paris Hilton, she entered jail before the determined time. What a coup that was.

ROGER February 23, 2008 at 12:01 a.m.

A DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE WROTE re VS Naipaul:

Naipaul is a good writer in that he uses language well. But in terms of ideas, Naipaul is a failure. Caribbean writers are hostile to him, whereas Indians seem to have largely ignored him.

But let us look specifically at your statements regarding his trilogy on India, did Naipaul demonstrate accuracy and insight? In which way? Naipaul critiqued modern Indian architecture, with some merit, it is true, but could the exact same critiques and worse not be said of Toronto, London, Berlin, Paris, Madrid, Moscow or any of a number of American cities?

Take his criticism of Indian technology and Indian technological R&D--completely off base and he was writing and making judgements in an area of which he was completely ignorant and uninformed. While his critique of how Nobel laureate Har Gobind Khorana came to do his landmark experiment in the USA instead of India, where he had conceived the idea and tried but failed to get funding, is accurate, it is misleading in the same way that those who decry the Canadian braindrain (Black, Amiel, Harper et al) mislead.

But those are minor errors. What of the biggest ethical and moral mistakes Naipaul makes that has life and death consequences, both domestically in India and internationally? Naipaul was wrong. Not misleading, not mistaken, but wrong and his error covered up a fascism that went on to take hundreds of lives. How can such a person merit a Nobel prize?

ROGER February 23, 2008 at 12:09 a.m.

COMPARE SALMAN RASHDIE TO NAIPAUL. Rashdie criticizes India and Indians, Pakistanis and Muslims, the English and Americans, perhaps not with equal zeal, but at least he spreads around his criticism and becomes the target of the wrathe of both Hindus and Muslims, developing world peoples and UK citizens, who were enraged at his critiques of England. Where is Naipaul's critiques of England? Totally missing. Naipaul has published books about Africa, S America, the Carribean and the Indian subcontinent, all sharply, cuttingly critical, but little or nothing on America and the UK and Europe or Japan. Naipaul is an English redneck racist in the skin of an Indian--to use the vernacular namecalling, he is a coconut!

ROGER February 23, 2008 at 12:14 a.m.

REMEMBER PARIS HILTON SOBBING ON HER WAY TO JAIL--SHADES OF THINGS TO COME FROM BLACK AND AMIEL! I feel sorry for these two old people. They are caught up in an undignified mess at the end of their lives. Say what one will about the Japanese, they know how to end things in a dignified manner. Saving face is not something Black and Amiel understand--they lack a sensse of honour. Strange that a man who claims to understand militarism and the military way does not connect the dots to Bushido. Where is Peter Griffiffs when he is needed? Probably out clear cutting some forests!

I fell for the guy who wanted to survive February 23, 2008 at 12:24 a.m.

I adore the mystic experience in all it's silliness, he lets it all hang out and with that magic ensues.

ROJO February 23, 2008 at 12:25 a.m.

Did Conrad Black receive a fair trial by a Jury of His Peers?
Here is the definition, as recorded by the Law society of the USA;

Jury Of One's Peers
It refers to the right of the criminal defendant to have the jury comprised of broad category of people from any race and from different regions and origins to any gender. It means the court always seeks jury of mixed nature whereby there is no scope for bias decision and can have different heads to think in the jury.

Which sounds well and good in most instances for common everyday crimes that can be identified by the average citizen. However this was not a case of simple right or wrong but rather a massive amount of information that the average person would never be aware of or likely able to relate to. Consequently a Jury of one’s peers might necessarily need be modified to fit the circumstances, particularly when the average Juror might become intimidated by either/or the prosecution or the defense.

The very definition of the word Peer is as follows; (look it up)
1 A person who has equal standing with another or others, as in rank, class, or age
2 A person who is of equal standing with another in a group
3 people who are like one another

Now following these definitions how would this trial have concluded with a jury comprised of the following Peers;
1 Former President of the USA
2 Senators
2 Governors
2 Corporate Presidents
2 CEO’s
2 Private owners of a Corporation
1 Retired Judge

Or in the very least 12 Jurors that understand the jargon and consequence of what has transpired that has brought this case before them to deliberate.

Here is a response to Mark Steyn from a fellow American that was posted on December 11, 2007 in this very regard:

First among "equals"
A Baltimore reader writes with reference to Judge St Eve's admonition:

"In the United States, Mr Black, there is equal justice under the law."
Whenever an official or a judge or a prosecutor proclaims lofty sentiments in high dudgeon, it's valuable to remain alert to incongruities. Is it true, Judge Amy, that in our country there is "equal justice under the law?" Let's examine the record in this case.

It is certainly true that, whether or not you regard the pressures put on the Hollinger Audit Committee, the auditors et al as the "suborning of perjury" (as Conrad Black does), a system in which all the other players are offered real and powerful inducements to sign on to the prosecution's narrative strikes at the very heart of "equal" justice.

Read the rest at;
http://forums.macleans.ca/advansis/?mod=...

ROJO February 23, 2008 at 12:34 a.m.

That last link did not work.
Looks like you will have to copy and paste it.

www forums.macleans.ca/advansis/?mod=for&act=dis&eid=52

Just the Facts February 23, 2008 at 12:36 a.m.

RoJo said that Black should have been judged by high and mighty types instead of regular folk. His crime was different and complicated. Only educated people could comprehend it.

Nope. Stealing is stealing, whether done by a convenience store clerk who steals winning lottery tickets from customers, or Conrad Black and his trusty friend David Radler who acted like "Private owners of a Corporation" but were really not.

ROGER February 23, 2008 at 12:42 a.m.

THE BLACK CASE WAS REALLY QUITE SIMPLE. Of course Black wanted to make it appear complicated, like a child caught stealing, Black wanted to create smoke and mirrors and noise and confusion. The jurors cut through the fog of both the proscution and the defence and got to the substance of the case and ruled. They acquitted on anything that was not unanimous and convicted on the highest standard they could aspire to as jurors.

But what if the jurors had been shareholders like Tweedy Brown who really understand the thievery? Black would be jailed for life!

Observer February 23, 2008 at 12:42 a.m.

ROJO link not working, here is the stupid link -

http://forums.macleans.ca/advansis/?mod=...

ROGER February 23, 2008 at 12:44 a.m.

IF THE HIGHLY EXPERIENCED AND KNOWLEDGEABLE JUSTICE STRINE WAS ON THE JURY, and others as well informed as Strine, Black would have never got bail or even have the chance at freedom ever again! Blue collar working people are less harsh in these circumstances. If Amiel and Black were on juries they would convict in an instant and condemn to death any poor soul before them with life imprisonment at the drop of a hat!

jab3 February 23, 2008 at 12:56 a.m.

Roger: "Can this sad and pathetic spectacle now move on with some dignity with Black accepting his fate like a man instead of like a snivelling schoolchild?" or, one might add, accept it like Martha Stewart, who, after initally stalling, decided to start her jail time before her appeals were finished.

Rene's Cousin is right on the obstruction. When the boxes were removed, Black possibly knew that a US court had specifically indiccated they wanted them secured. He certainly knew that he was under legal investigation in the US, he certainly knew that there were papers relevant to the investigation in those boxes, and he certainly ordered and participated in removing those boxes anyway, certainly without without attempting to notify the authorites. Lit has never dealt adequately with St. Eve's statement on the appeal of this conviction. Nor has Lit dealt adequately with the combination of the four certainties listed above. And Lit and I and Lit and other posters have been through this obstruction thing several times. In order for Black's version of his innocent intent to trump the appearance of guilt to create reasonable doubt, he would probably have had to testify in person and convincingly as to his state of mind. He chose not to take the stand.

What's all thi day-dreaming about Amiel wearing inappropriate garb to the prison? Come on, fancy-dress balls and issues of price aside, Amiel generally wears clothes that are more or less appropriate. I mean, she may have a portrait of Goebbels hanging in her living room, but she is not about to show up to prison in a tight sleeveless tee with Goebbels stencilled on the front and leather hotpants with see-through but-panels. The one thing she might do is wear clothing that is too ostentatiously expensive and thus p.o. other, poorer female visitors.

Unlike Black's books, some of Naipaul's appear actually to have been read by Roger. I deeply admire some of Naipaul's books and essays, paticularly A Way in the World, "The Reurn of Eva Peron", A House for Mr. Biswas, his essay on a biography of Columbus; but some of his books, particularly from the 70s and 80s, are dull and/or excessively bitter and snappish. I am fine with Naipaul's Nobel Prize, but would Roger agree with me that Alice Munro is more deserving of one than Naipaul?

ROGER February 23, 2008 at 12:58 a.m.

IF YOU WERE ON THE JURY, WHAT WOULD HAVE BEEN YOUR DECISION?

If I were there, I would have voted in favour of conviction on all counts for Black.

ROGER February 23, 2008 at 1:07 a.m.

MUNRO A NOBEL CANDIDATE??? God no! As for Naipaul, is a person who missed that he was dealing with fascist racist supremacist extremists and the evidence of his error in black and white for all time a worthy candidate for a Nobel prize? Naipaul can be read for entertainment, but much of Naipaul's work are travelogues and in that genre deals with pressing political and social and ideological issues. When one reads the work in this genre by the German Georg Vorster (who detailed his circumnavigation travels with Capt. Cook as a scientific officer), one sees the measure of a fair and measured person of integrity. When one reads and reflects on Naipaul, he picks on the weak, fauns before the powerful, and is generally a racist passing value judgements on whole civilizations without accepting any accountability or offering any opportunity for reply. But more importantly, Naipaul is an apologist for fascists who murdered large numbers and about which Naipaul has said nothing!

ROGER February 23, 2008 at 1:19 a.m.

JAB3--YOU WROTE SOME DAYS AGO THAT PEER REVIEWED JOURNALS are no guarantee of quality or value and that published books have adequate review and critical evaluation, or something to that effect. Valid points, to a degree. Peer review is not a guarantee of quality or value, and the quid pro quo does exist amongst academics. However, what is the alternative? Besides, it is not merely publishing in journals, but the real measure is whether the work is cited by others who publish and whether the work is cited approvingly or negatively cited. Vanity press books written for the popular market, has no real scrutiny by anyone, at least not in a manner that demands accountability by the author.

But Naipaul is a writer and author by trade and profession. To a great extent, Naipaul specializes in a genre closely tied to travelogues, if not precisely a travelogue. What is Naipaul's ethical responsibilities as a writer? Did the Nobel committee consider Naipaul's ethics and shortcomings? Or did the Nobel Committee wish to send a message to Muslims, as well as black people in the Carribean? Naipaul was a poor choice. Would the Nobel committee ever award a literary prize to a western writer who consorts and writes glowing accounts of the work of fascist genocidal terrorists? No. One could argue Naipaul was misled and did not understand who he was dealing with, but he has had plenty of time to make amends and apologize, but he has not made any statement, nor clarification in his later works.

Garter belt and black stockings February 23, 2008 at 1:32 a.m.

AMIEL HAS BEEN KNOWN TO WEAR NOTHING BUT A TRENCH COAT AND HIGH HEELS AND A GARTER BELT AND TO LET THE TRENCH COAT HANG OPEN! So much for relying on her sense of appropriate dress! Furthermore, Amiel was known for laying a breast on the shoulder of a seated man in the workplace! That was before she was spaced out and under stress! Imagine what she is capable of now!

Roger34 February 23, 2008 at 4:27 a.m.

Re: Circling the drain

Admirably that is a funny line, but not so funny when an accomplished gentleman of Conrad's stature is face to face with the sinkhole and is a victim of the sleazy, corrupt and contemptible American so-called justice system. However, if the worse comes to worst, I wish him well and know that he will make the most of it. He will enrich the lives of many of those lost souls in a Florida minimum security prison. I understand that if Conrad has to do time while his appeal progresses, the Federal Correction System will give him a teaching position. They will be fortunate to have him. I'd LOVE to be in one of his classes.

Roger34 February 23, 2008 at 5:02 a.m.

Re Black Stockings

I prefer black stockings with seams. Black net stockings even more. The trashier the better. Garter belt and trench coat are fine. The coat adds a bit of Audrey Hepburn mystery and ellegance....... Good on ya, Babs.

Amber February 23, 2008 at 7:32 a.m.

By denying the emergency bail appeal, the 3 bail appeal judges are signaling that March 3rd is the date for the 3 felons to move in the big house. Mr rat is going to be in the big house starting February 25th., so justice seems to have been done equally. Based on the lack of gravitas of the reasons to keep the 3 felons out of jail, the sophisticated 3 bail appeal judges are going to take their cue from the unsophisticated jury who convicted the 3 felons, the sentencing of the trial judge and her denial of the bail extension. As it was pointed out by an earlier blogger the time required to pack their belongings for the 3 felons could not possible need more than 3 months. At this time, my advice to the 3 felons is to pack quickly, say good-bye to your loved relatives and friends if any. This is the end of freedom for the 3 felons, and the begining of a long journey of punishment in the big house.
God have mercy on their souls. We feel their pain, but to whom much was given, much is expected. It is going to be very tough for the 3 felons the months, and years to come. We all feel pitty for the 3 felons.

Helen February 23, 2008 at 10:19 a.m.

The Canadian Embassy has been attacked and burned by Serb rioters in Belgrade. Why? Canada has not recognized Kosovo, where 90 percent of the citizens are Albenians. Serbia is isolated enough, now it is going to be even more isolated. The Eurpean Union has cancelled all talks about Serbia joining the EU as a response to the attack on the Embassy. Chretien's advice is to go slow on recognition. Dion wants immediate recognition. Mr Harper's difficult task is to figure out what to do. Steven's superior political instinct will be tested on this issue, but we have confidence in our leader the Right Honorable Steven Harper, PM, QC, etc. We are truly blessed at this time to have Steven in charge, would anyone of us like to exchange him for queen Hillary, hero McCoin, crack-head Obamba or warlord Bush? I think not.

the current Black legal drama February 23, 2008 at 10:32 a.m.

The current thread topic - 3 felons encircling the drain - is an excellent take on Black's, et. al present legal state. Here's hoping that the 3 will shortly go down this drain or be flushed down same with as little fanfare as possible. Black has referred to himself as a " freedom fighter " for all who are subject to mercy of the US Justice system. Let him behave like one instead of behaving like the coward he is - surrounding himself with powerful lawyers to keep him out of prison and to entagle the US legal system in his myriad of filings. Black is a phony, liar, convicted felon and undeserving of any respect whatsoever.

pedro February 23, 2008 at 10:36 a.m.

New Yorker magazine website has been receiving 20,000,000 hits per day since Lindsay Lohan's Marylin Monroe nude pictures have been displayed on the web. The website crashed and the photos have been removed. This phenomenal activity is estimated to generate $500,000 extra revenue to the New Yorker. The old geezer stein (81) got his fee, but Lindsay (19) was not paid a penny.

Real Life is stranger than fiction February 23, 2008 at 10:53 a.m.

Black is much like Castro, how ironic that this association is to be made. Neither side sees these men clearly. Both of these men as leaders ruled with strengths and weaknesses, both men started out in life with enriched environments afforded to them by rich parents.
Black will be remembered, just like Castro will be, by admirers and others who feel satisfied in that neither of these men will be put to rest without enduring scars. Both of these men where caught publicly lying, one about free elections, one about earning cash apposed to stealing it.
Strangely Castro appears better than Black in that he never wavered, he fought a powerful invested American sector, who have yet to be defeated but remain powerless against his rule. Black remains in limbo about to serve a jail sentence, powerless in a world shaped by his own pen supporting the capitalism that is about to incarcerate him.

worth a repeat February 23, 2008 at 11:01 a.m.

earthglider February 22, 2008 at 7:05 p.m.

Assuming we're really monkeys, or at least monkey-like creatures, it's almost as if this monkey worked out how to get all the bananas, climbed up a tree and pronounced himself Lord of the Apes, just for fun.

The other apes, in wigs, got hold of him to work his ego down a bit, give him a good spanking, lock him in a box and maybe get some of the bananas back. That other skinny thing shrieking over in the other branch, is meLord's wife Amy.

A most unpleasant monkey who looks down on other monkeys and thinks she owns the whole bloody place. She won't let her bananas go ... but now that hubby is gone, who knows. She might get up to all sorts of things.

She could probably do with a good spanking herself.

get real, Roger34 February 23, 2008 at 11:16 a.m.

you said:

I'd LOVE to be in one of his classes.

Come on, there is a very high level of illiteracy in prisons. A lot of the cons dont even have a high school level education. CB wont be giving post-grduate level seminars in, for example, European military history. His classes, if he is allowed to teach, will consist of teaching his students how to understand the big words he uses. Seriously, you would LOVE that? It sounds pretty boring to me.

Faustus February 23, 2008 at 12:30 p.m.

Anybody know the status of CB's request to be sent to a minimum-security facility rather than a low?

to faustus February 23, 2008 at 1:09 p.m.

That info will be available on Mar 3 when we see where Conrad Black reports.

jab3 February 23, 2008 at 1:36 p.m.

"MUNRO A NOBEL CANDIDATE??? God no!"--Roger, this statement confirms for me a lot about your values. You like your subjects big, strutting and male, eh. This statement ties in with your attempting to belittle Lit by feminizing him. As well, and as many of your earlier comments about Canada seem to indicate, you share with Black and Amiel a certain distaste for Canada, that is qualitatively different from criticizing the country's real and perceived flaws.

BTW, as to your claim that Naipaul has written nothing about Britain and the US: didn't Naipaul devote a whole non-fiction book to the US? As I recall, it was critical but too dull to finish. And are not one or two of his recent novels set in Britain? Certainly part of "A Way in the World" is, and it is not laudatory of the British.

More on topic, we have yet another poster ROJO going on about jury of peers blah, blah, blah, oh the sad injustice, bleah, bleah, bleah.
Let me repeat. First: No one has claimed that Black wanted trial by judge in this case. He could have asked for it, and would have been assigned a judge knowledgeable about corporate crime. He chose trial by jury, when he had some knowledge of the jury pool (i. e. Chicagoans).
Second: His lawyers had greater choice in excusing potential jurors than a lawyer in a Canadian court.
Third: it seemed that the defense lawyers were excusing jurors who openly stated they thought they knew about how businesses are run.

Fourth: this is merely a matter of opinion, but I agree with Roger: if the alleged inability of the jury to comprehend the mystifications of high finance had ANY undue influence in the verdict in Black's case, it was in the opposite direction: more acquittals than a more business-savy jury might have delivered.

Roger34 February 23, 2008 at 2:05 p.m.

Re: Get Real, Roger34

The prison to which Conrad will most likely be assigned, unless he goes to a Club Fed is segregragated into three categories; hard core criminals, medium security offenders and non violent prisoners with a chance for redemption. The latter is a dream compared to the first two and the inmates who are incarcerated in the minimum security partition wish to stay there. Accordingly, they are on their best behavior. Those are the blokes which whom Conrad will be mixing. In that population, there will be hundreds of redeemable souls who may be interested in learning literacy and history in either English or French. Conrad has much to teach and his presence will be a godsend to a lot of young future gentlemen who otherwise would not have a chance to cross rough with a man of Conrad's stature. Yes, if I was an inmate, I would love to associate with Conrad Black. It would be a unique opportunity as Conrad has the ability to make the best out of a bad situation.

A guy in a cool place February 23, 2008 at 3:54 p.m.

Roger, I fnacy myself as a writer of some talent, and others have acknowledged my gifts as well, but when I saw this comment by you: "Naipaul is an English redneck racist in the skin of an Indian..", I had to acknowledge that you are worthy to be my guru.

You have been accused of plagiarising, using Wikipedia, and so on, but let your detractors know that I would give an inch off my dick if I could come up with a succint and brilliant original insight like that even once a year.

Kiitos!

Jade_lee February 23, 2008 at 4:11 p.m.

From what I have read by Naipaul I would have to disagree with you Roger. Reality sometimes bites.

BTW I never left but it's fun to type without the attack!

ROGER February 23, 2008 at 4:26 p.m.

JAB3, YOUR USUAL HIGH QUALITY, DETACHED POSTINGS ARE WORTH SLOW, LEISURELY REFLECTION. However, in the last post above, you appear to have become exasperated and lashed out emotionally. How am I likes my subjects "big, strutting and male" when I lambaste the MALE Naipaul? Because I do not find Munro up to snuff for a Nobel literature prize, I must be all that you say I am? All that from one opinion about one writer? If you include my previous criticism of Atwood, then, at best, you have 2 female writers who I have expressed some measure of lack of praise for--I did not say anything specifically negative about either writers skills, which I acknowledge to be good in both instances, just not good enough for Nobel class consideration.

Rather than address my salient point about Naipaul, a point I specifically draw attention to as being of overriding critical importance, you divert to a trivial point. Specifically, I accuse Naipaul of being an apologist for genocidal fascism, not theoretical, cartoons, not mere obnoxious writings, but active murder of civilians in the most hideous manners imaginable, and your come-back is to talk of "big, strutting male" egos? Are you incapable of understanding that the sensitivity that westerners expect in discussing genocides with which you are familiar can be expected by people from the non-western world? Apparently not.

In the nearly 30 years that I have been reading Naipaul's books, I have been entertained and infuriated and learnt from him truths about many things. But when I travelled the path he had described in his travelogues and discovered the ugly reality and truth he had distorted, I found that things are not as they appear to be. The gay, white Englishman EM Forster is a kinder and non-racist author of a work more sympathetic and fair to peoples of the Subcontinent than Naipaul, the self-loathing lost person ever could be. But it is moot until one deals in life and death of genocidal fascism, and one glosses over it. Naipaul was unfit to be awarded the Nobel prize, as much as awarding it to David Irving would be an affront!

Roger34 February 23, 2008 at 4:55 p.m.

"In the nearly 30 years that I have been reading Naipaul's books"

Roger, get educated! Read Conrad's books instead. They are much better written by a superior mind with outstanding pedigree and credentials. If truth, intelligence, gusto, humour, generosity, creativity and excellence are still virtues, Contad's legacy will benefit us all with enduring profit.

You sure haven't heard the last from The Gentleman Usher from Crossharbour. The best is yet to come.

ROGER February 23, 2008 at 5:05 p.m.

But I have read Heart of Darkness! Naipaul is supposedly compared to Conrad (Joseph), and both are good writers, but Conrad is the better for ideas.

Roger34 February 23, 2008 at 5:36 p.m.

"Naipaul is supposedly compared to Conrad (Joseph)"

Forget the erstwhile groundlings, Roger. This blog reflects our fascination with Conrad Black, not forgotten near-do-wells who few have ever heard of.

Signfelt February 23, 2008 at 5:43 p.m.

...so I looked up Skurka's book on Amazon.ca and what do you get? They've paired it up with... season six of Curb Your Enthusiasm!

http://www.amazon.ca/Tilted-Trial-Conrad...

Somebody sure does have a sense of humour over at Amazon.

ROGER February 23, 2008 at 5:45 p.m.

IT IS OF NOTE THAT THE LAW THAT GOT BLACK WAS ENACTED BY FDRin 1934, who also created the SEC. In a sense, FDR was the architect who built the legal trap to snare thieves like Black. Black paid homage to his executioner.

Jacinta February 23, 2008 at 6:51 p.m.

2008, a year when J Chretien got his Order of Canada and it is also the year when C Black is going to lose his Order of Canada. Truly life is cruel. Fate targets the high and the low, the problem is that the higher they are, the harder they fall. Frankly, I never figured it out why Conrad selected FDR, in fact his claim that FDR speeded the process to get America out of the depression is totally false. Without FDR the process would have been way faster.

Ollamp February 23, 2008 at 7:08 p.m.

Surka's book is not selling well. The price has been reduced to $15, but this price includes delivery. Delivery is about $10, so the book is going for $5. On the Amazon web, no purchaser has commented on the book, meaning that nobody has purchased the surka book yet. I fear that surka's book is not going to do better than Conrad's nixon. The nixon book success was so low that it did not pay for the printing, the lord had to chip-in to cover loses. In the case of surka, him being a non-person who allegedly never won a case, whoes predicitons on TV turn out to be false, and who comes accross as an insignificant bookish character who likes himself a lot. Although the TV station promoted him sky-high, his clientelle allegedly did not increase, hence he wrote the book.

March billy holiday bluez February 23, 2008 at 7:25 p.m.

I HOPE MCGUINTY MAKES THE DAY CONRAD GOES TO DAY A FAMILY HOLIDAY. We need more holidays in winter. Every year around March we can spare a thought for poor Black sitting in jail. With time, no one will remember who Black was, only that there is a Black holiday. Stupid rednecks will then demand a White holiday. So it goes.

FDR Saved America February 23, 2008 at 7:26 p.m.

Fact.

oh really? February 23, 2008 at 9:22 p.m.

Roger34 wrote "Forget the erstwhile groundlings, Roger. This blog reflects our fascination with Conrad Black, not forgotten near-do-wells who few have ever heard of."

well, Heart of Darkness has sold a lot more copies than any of CB's books. so if only a "few" people know who joseph conrad is, then by your own words, less than a few people known that CB writes big fat books.

actually, i think i will agree with roger 34 -- it's definitely true that less than a few people are familiar with CB's writing.

Alicia February 23, 2008 at 10:19 p.m.

Oh Oh, the hero McCoin hired a big time lawyer to explain why he lied on Thursday saying that he never met the lobbist and the client of the lobbist. In fact he did meet them both. A liar is caught quicker than a lame dog. The hero should get togther with the our lord and explore the ramification of being careless with the truth.I fear that expecting a pardon from the hero is as far away as galaxy 1813-434

McCANDIDATE February 23, 2008 at 10:32 p.m.

McCain had her! The poor, elegant wife has to suffer public humiliation, smiling and being polite and supportive, when what she would like to do is neuter her wayward spouse with garden shears. For an old guy, McCain sure does get around! At least with McCain the women look dignified--no bimbo eruptions, nor Ted Haggard male escorts, no crack McCaine, just old fashioned carnal knowledge without any cigars! Of course it is always possible the wife approved? One can never know what goes on in a marriage.

Manuela February 23, 2008 at 10:37 p.m.

The Guardian reports that allegedly the billionaire TV Cable man said that he did meet with the hero in his office and ask him to write a letter to the federal commission. On thursday the hero standing behind the his cash-cow wife said that he did not write a letter and did not meet with the billionaire nor his pretty lobbist. Yet his staff asked him to stop seeing the lobbist so much. The hero's main plank as presidential candidate is to abhold the highest ethics. All he is abholding are his own lies. As a teacher our lord could teach ethics to the hero.

McNut February 23, 2008 at 10:46 p.m.

He did not see much of her---he is old, and looking down is very hard for old people. While she polished the knob and gave lip service, and the billionaire wrote the cheque, policy zigged and zagged with each zipper zing. And hey presto, it all ended well in the end in a menagerie of three--spouse and all. You got to hand it to McNut--imagine, he could one day have his finger on the hot button! Pres McNut.

Do senators get free viagra? February 23, 2008 at 10:47 p.m.

It would explain a lot.

Happy Birthday Mr President... February 23, 2008 at 10:51 p.m.

Happy birthday to you... the sultry iconic voice of Marilyn.... performed by Lindsay Lohan, in a moment of flashback and surrealism.... as President Obama, blushes, and American babes swoon, in the new Camelot, the nightmare of the KKK come to life.

The grassy knoll is being readied February 23, 2008 at 11 p.m.

History repeats itself.

Oswald and Ruby are rehearsing their lines. The Kenedys are there--Ted is fat enought to play all three boys--himself, JFK and Robert. Sirhan Sirhan is still in jail--he will need to be released to complete the rehearsal.

Dallas, Texas. Johnson. A drunk babe in a white dress on a hot air vent in the street. Napalm on a foreign battlefield. Where's the Beatles and the Rolling Stones? Has Elvis arrived yet? Has he been sighted? How innocent we were back then!

Extra bonus February 24, 2008 at 3:33 a.m.

Only eight day to go before Black ends up where he belongs. Then his cockiness will evaporate as the grim reality sinks in. An added bonus is that his comeuppance is causing so much annoyance to far-right nutters like these:

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/art...

Mirella February 24, 2008 at 4:57 a.m.

The Lord's only hope for a pardon is a victory of his war-hero candidate. The hero claims to stop lobbists, yet his campaign manager is a lobbist for the telecomunications industry and his senior adviser is a lobbist for the drug industry. Last thursday the hero-candidate on national television told us that he has not written a letter on behalf of a lobbist and her client to the FCC. It turns out that as the powerful chairman of the Telecomunication Committee of the senate, he wrote several letters alledgedly threateing to close down the commission if they closed the loophole preventing his billionaire client to purchase a pensilvania TV station. The crooked-hero also told the nation that he did not meet with the blond female lobbist. Yet the billionaire told the Washington Post that he and the blond lobbist met in the hero's office. The billionaire characterized his blond lobbist as being exceptional good at arranging a meeting with the hero. The same day the crooked-hero travelled to arizona on board of the billionaire's private jet and acepted a $20,000 contribution to his campaign. The straight-talk-express, is turning out to be the crooked-talk-express. The hero insists that he is the embodiment of the highest ethics. The lord and the hero are friends," by their friends you shall know them."

Col. Phuc Yiu (Retd.) February 24, 2008 at 5:07 a.m.

I often wonder what would have happened to a Vietnamese pilot who was shot down after bombing a civilian area with schools and hospitals in Los Angeles, fell badly wounded into a duckpond and was captured by heavily armed civilians. That is what happened to the so-called hero who is now trying to become the President of the United States. Rather than put a bullet in his head, as they certainly felt tempted to do, the civilians called the authorities and the "hero" was given the best medical treatment we could afford. I found him to be a sniveling little coward, and the tales of torture that he spins are sheer lies. Now he threatens to launch another long war against Iran. Sometimes I feel we made a mistake in not executing him as the war criminal that he is. Sorry, Iran!

JONES February 24, 2008 at 8:16 a.m.

Extra Bonus:
I read the article in your link. Who is this Yomin Postelnik who wrote the article? Yomin sees Black as an innocent victim. Yomin makes no mention of papers (assets) Black et al sold to themself for very little or nothing and the fact they paid themself not to compete with themself, which is to put it mildly "theft". Of course Black et al only did it a few times so does that make him innocent?

Lit 200 February 24, 2008 at 8:45 a.m.

Roger's every single reference to Naipaul, [except for that curious expression when applied to Naipaul, 'genocidal fascism'] can be found in Wikipedia. The writer's a genius and the transvestite's criticism is less than that of a flea. The real reason for tranny's criticism of Naipaul is the great writer's enormous disdain for Islamic funamentalism, the excesses of which Roger finds a way to defend at every turn.

I am surprised at Roger's praise of Joseph Conrad, a man who also distained eastern religions. Could it be that the tranny is really able to look past a man's ugly foibles to see the underlying greatness? What next? Roger will soon be praising Conrad Black's undeniable business acumen.

Roger is much saddened by the Saudi king's recent pardon of a woman who was to have been lashed 200 times and sent to jail because she was alone with a man, not her husband or a relative, in his car. The seven thugs who pulled her out of the car and raped her are doing just fine, thanks. But then, the king is only a US puppet, so letting the woman go, as disgraceful as that is, is quite understandable.

The religious police in Saudi have recently arrested 57 men for "flirting" and dancing provocatively to pop music at a mall. I wonder what their punishment will be? Emasculation? Let's ask Roger.

Lit 200 February 24, 2008 at 8:50 a.m.

Jones

"Paid himself not to compete with himself" is prosecution-speak. Black was NOT the proprietor of both entities referenced in that charge. Look it up.

Lit 200 February 24, 2008 at 9:02 a.m.

In fact, read Postilnik again, he does deal with the issue you raised.

Hilda February 24, 2008 at 10:31 a.m.

The rat to enter jail tomorrow. Conrad happy and cheering.

Naipaul is a dangerous and malicious person February 24, 2008 at 10:35 a.m.

It is indeed a pity that V.S. Naipaul has failed to use his great gifts as a storyteller and wordsmith for good rather than evil and likewise failed to cultivate wisdom in himself.

I think Roger got it exactly right when he described Naipaul as a redneck racist in Indian skin. He is also a truly dangerous islamophobe and would be better employed not to comment on events in India in the slanted way he does. Especially given the still-tense situation in Gujarat and the recent re-election of the thuggish Muslim-hating Chief Minister Modi.

http://www.islamawareness.net/AntiMusWri...

Naipaul has always been a great one for the really sweeping statement. During the Falklands/Malvinas conflict, for example, he blamed the whole thing not on the military thugs, who enjoyed the blessing of right-wingers like Naipaul everywhere, but on the Argentinean people as a whole, which he dismissed as having no culture whatsoever.

Similarly his comments on India and its alleged smelliness. I have spent a lot more time in India than Naipaul and my memories of the place are full of fragrances, incense, spices. It is a wonderland for all of the senses, and people - even slum dwellers - keep themselves clean. I wonder did Naipaul expect to be given the red carpet treatment everywhere he went and was disappointed when he didn't get it. After all, excellent writers are a dime a dozen in India.

Maybe Naipaul just has a hypersensitive nose. It would also be interesting to know what if anything he is FOR. He has no time for the UK as we know it today, nor for Europe in general, and there are parts of the USA - called ghettos - where his olfactory sensitivities might be irritated as well.

He seem to want to live in some kind of fantasy world, ca. 1911, when Britain ran the show in most places and the wogs knew their place. He, of course, imagines himself to be one of the sahibs, whom a cruel irony of fate placed in a permanently suntanned skin. Just like the criminal Black, really, who sees himself as a paragon of virtue, wisdom and vision and will soon be in an orange jumpsuit that he never did anything to deserve.

Observer February 24, 2008 at 12:15 p.m.

Lit200: Your attacks on Roger only make YOU look bad. Ditto your support of the crook.

Lit 200 February 24, 2008 at 12:15 p.m.

Fintan! You're back!

But why post under so many different aliases?

Why would I think you would enjoy Naipaul? Do you remember what the Swedish academy said of him?

'for having united perceptive narrative and incorruptible scrutiny in works that compel us to see the presence of suppressed histories' and described him as a 'literary circumnavigator' and called him "Conrad's heir as the annalist of the destinies of empires in the moral sense: what they do to human beings. His authority as a narrator is grounded in his memory of what others have forgotten, the history of the vanquished."

A little high-falutin' perhaps, but still quite an accurate accolade... Of course, you would object to any criticism of India and the girls thereoff. Still....

Lit 200 February 24, 2008 at 12:31 p.m.

I think you and Roger would like V S a little better were he more politically correct. But he is not at all that, he - like Conrad Black - is unique, far, far from the cookie-cutter mentalities that you seem to feel are superior.

I remember reading Naipaul's acceptance speech, or lecture, at the academy, about "trusting to intuition" but I had to look up his actual words because my memory fails me at times... he said:

"... And you can tell from what I have quoted [from Proust] that he was a man trusting to his intuition and waiting for luck. ... I have trusted to intuition. I did it at the beginning. I do it even now. I have no idea how things might turn out, where in my writing I might go next. I have trusted to my intuition to find the subjects, and I have written intuitively... I am the sum of my books."

Like him or not, this is pretty good stuff and one reason why he nabbed the Nobel.

Observer February 24, 2008 at 12:32 p.m.

Not Fintan Lit 200. But you never miss a chance to denigrate and lie do you? Roger never said most of the things you accuse him of, your fabrications are just more of the same Conrad Blackery that got him charged with fraud.

leaf February 24, 2008 at 12:38 p.m.

well done lit! you've got fickton's number. indian girls ...

JObserver February 24, 2008 at 12:40 p.m.

Enter leaf the stalker. How predictable is that?

Lit 200 February 24, 2008 at 12:42 p.m.

Observer,

Roger needs to be taken down a notch for his insufferable and paper-thin intellectual snobbery, for self-aggrandizement, for bragging about his supposed educational attainments, for his hard left ideology that would, if it gains way, wreck the Canadian experiment, and for defending an ancient and outmoded religious law that says the circumcision of female babies for social and marital reasons, is acceptable.

Lit 200 February 24, 2008 at 12:49 p.m.

And au contraire Observer, it is Roger who misrepresents what I say... for intance, saying I believe Paul Bernardo should go free... Outright lies like this would never be allowed in a proper debate and Roger proves his incompetence in debate by trotting out "Lit believes..." and by referring to me as a female as a means of insult.
Myogyny thy name is Roger.

Observer February 24, 2008 at 1:06 p.m.

You misrepresent Roger Lit200. End of story. The words here are clear for anyone to read.

Lit 200 is always wrong February 24, 2008 at 1:50 p.m.

Lit 200 February 24, 2008 at 12:42 p.m.

Observer,

Roger needs to be taken down a notch for his insufferable and paper-thin intellectual snobbery, for self-aggrandizement, for bragging about his supposed educational attainments, for his hard left ideology that would, if it gains way, wreck the Canadian experiment, and for defending an ancient and outmoded religious law that says the circumcision of female babies for social and marital reasons, is acceptable.

The only insufferablly obnoxious and consistently incorrect poster here is you, lit 200. It is about time that someone here took YOU down a few notches - you continually misrepresent the facts of this trial, Black'e eventual long term legacy and his wayward so called " accomplishments " and " achievements ". It would be so refreshing to see you for once get your information right. Observer has you figured out perfectly and it is Roger who clearly emerges as the winner here, certainly not you.

Vicky P. Dias February 24, 2008 at 2:13 p.m.

Lit 200 missed this in her Wikipedia piece about Naipaul:

"His fiction and especially his travel writing have been criticised for their allegedly unsympathetic portrayal of the Third World. Edward Said, for example, has argued that he "allowed himself quite consciously to be turned into a witness for the Western prosecution", promoting "colonial mythologies about wogs and darkies".This perspective is most salient in The Middle Passage, which Naipaul composed after returning to the Caribbean after ten years of self-exile in England, and An Area of Darkness, an arguably stark condemnation on his ancestral homeland of India."

The Swedish Academy mainly bases its judgments on literary excellence, not on candidates' involvement in controversies.

Besides, Naipaul was chosen BEFORE what I see as highly irresponsible encouragement of the extreme Hindu nationalists, islamophobes and xenophobes who destroyed a mosque in Ayodhya (see Wikipedia): "Ayodhya is also the centre of the Ayodhya Debate concerning the Ram Janmabhoomi temple and the Babri Mosque. The Muslim mosque was destroyed in 1992 by Kar Sevaks and rioters due to the belief that the Ram Janmabhoomi existed prior to the mosque's construction and that the temple was the birthplace of Rama. The title suit on the disputed site is currently pending in the Lucknow Bench of Allahabad High Court and its judgment is expected shortly."

Naipaul agrees with the Hindu nationalists - some elements of which make the Nazis look like altar boys - that it was acceptable for a mob to demolish a centuries-old mosque just because of unfounded (and probably uncheckable) claims that a Hindu temple had been there earlier.

In that he is on the same lines as the late P.N. Oak http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purushottam...

who likewise wanted another famous mosque pulled down, arguing that it was really a Hindu structure that the Mughal Muslems had simply taken over. That structure is the Taj Mahal.

Naipaul should know that his inflammatory comments will be used by very dark forces who, if they were to succeed in their endeavours, would plunge India and perhaps the world into a tragedy that does not bear thinking about.

And, come to think of it, in his support for dark forces, he is very similar to Lord North of Mudchute. Maybe that's why Lit is such a big fan.

Peter Griffiths February 24, 2008 at 2:29 p.m.

Just found some bandwidth ...

Savia February 24, 2008 at 3:11 p.m.

Say what you will. Conrad Black remains an inspiration for young people.

Sid Snot February 24, 2008 at 3:21 p.m.

Savia February 24, 2008 at 3:11 p.m.

Say what you will. Conrad Black remains an inspiration for young people.

Right on! Look how he screwed that school management over the exam papers and put the squeeze on the rich dunces to buy copies! Brilliant! I'd never have become the biggest dope dealer in the area without his inspiring example of applied capitalism.

And look how he's inspired Lit and leaf --- two people who know leader material when they see it.

ROGER February 24, 2008 at 3:22 p.m.

GUJRAT CHIEF MINISTER MODI WAS PREVIOUSLY ALLOWED INTO CANADA AND VISITED TORONTO. Today he is denied entry to Canada, which has finally followed the lead of the UK and the USA. Modi is recognized internationally as a criminal guilty of genocide. Within India, he has been blamed for creating a Rwanda style genocide. If this is what Lit 200 defends, then there is no ground for further discussion. It would be like having a debate with Ernst Zundel. Whole families were murdered, thousands raped and burned to death and battered to death by frenzied mobs in a Reichskristallnacht like orgy of religiouslly targeted violence. This is what Lit 200 defends. She knows no better. Naipaul is hard to defend, because he is on record, just like David Irving. What Naipaul defends are RSSS politicians, complete with their swastikas and paramilitary training for children in preparation for religious war. This is the Naipaul Lit200 thinks it appropriate to defend. Why Lit 200 defends terrorism is hard to fathom, except that her weak ego will not and cannot admit defeat in debate.

Lit 200 February 24, 2008 at 3:22 p.m.

Somebody... "would plunge India and perhaps the world into a tragedy that does not bear thinking about."

Those "dark forces" have already done that, NYC 9/11.

Lit 200 February 24, 2008 at 3:32 p.m.

Talk about manufacturing false charges: here is roger at the best he can muster, this is his level:

"This (Modi) is what Lit 200 defends. She knows no better."

This would be akin to me saying Roger believes that 9/11 was fully justified... to me allegding that Roger has a tape of the attack and plays it over and over in his home with the doors locked, cheering as the bodies turn and twist and fall through the air.

I know this is not true, he knows it is not true, but he says it anyway... any insult will take the place of reasoned debate... any false charge will do.

Welcome to Roger's world.

Lit 200 February 24, 2008 at 3:37 p.m.

Oh yes, I forgot to include the insult that Roger is a transvestite... why not descend all the way to the muck level that he likes to use in place of "debate." LOL

ROGER February 24, 2008 at 3:40 p.m.

MODI'S CONDUCT WAS THE SUBJECT OF INQUIRIES IN INDIA. Modi has been banned from entering Canada again, banned from the UK and the USA, and in the midst of this, Lit200 now tries to claim ignorance. But Naipaul's flirtation with fascism long pre-dates Modi and the Gujrat genocide. It even pre-dates Ayodhya, although my experience with the distortion of Naipaul was when I found myself caught up in the violent fall-out of Ayodhya as I was travelling in India at the time. In Gujrat, a BBC journalist recounted how his wife's credit car