Barbara_in_BC June 6, 2008 at 11:03 a.m.

That judge is Solomon-like in his wisdom.

dr June 6, 2008 at 12:27 p.m.

Except that it was not demonstrated that the firm owed Black any money.

dr June 6, 2008 at 12:28 p.m.

and at the same hearing the judges were reminded that the transformed non-compete payments were not noted against any owed management fees.

kjopc June 6, 2008 at 12:55 p.m.

With words like "sham" and "bizarre" to describe the non-competes and the timing of the box removal, Black should settle in for a long stay in jail.

Black's BS (and that of his lawyer) is no match for an appeal court judge who knows how to cut through such crap.

Fintan June 6, 2008 at 1:40 p.m.

Karma be praised! His Lardship is learning that society regards him not only as a crook, but also as a tiresome querulant.

Why did Morticia attend the hearing? The sight of an old hag like her is more likely to sway the judges towards upping His Lardship's sentence so that he won't have to leave Bubba any time soon and go back to her. LOL

On another matter, daddy's little girl who always gets so vicious when I make fun of Morticia:

leaf May 23, 2008 at 3:16 a.m.
" good riddance!
this will be a good time for my friend from Surka to check out your pad. thanks for the info ☺ "

Interesting that Toronto Life has still not deleted a post in which the stalker boasts of colluding with a Finnish neo-nazi group to stalk and possibly harm me or my family.

But it was a favour to me as well. nuisance calls are one thing, but when I went to the appropriate law enforcement agency with this one, the connection with a group that is regarded as a terrorist one prompted immediate interest. Both the stalker and Surka are now the object of increased attention by both the Finnish security police and the equivalent agencies with which they have quite effective cooperation. LOL

***

Leaf May 23, 2008 at 7:24 p.m.
" So when will I be arrested casey? Months ago, when you were calling yourself sandy, you had “the group” working on my case. more recently, as casey, you have discovered, thanks to your riches (and your contacts in the big league… that would be TL?... lol…), euh so you have my IP address. Big deal! What cha gonna do with it?
Answer: not a thing. "
Leaf controls when it will be arrested and it also knows how to make this happen. Idiots who break the law never win - the law does, eventually. Since it so confident, maybe it is time to test this confidence. And yes, we have its IP address(s), location, identity."

The ravings of a very confused person, probably destroyed as a result of severe abuse within the family. Just one mistake in it: it is not leaf who will decide when it is arrested - or when retribution comes in some other way.

ROFLMAO @ daddy's little rag doll.

Casey June 6, 2008 at 5:52 p.m.

Welcome back, Fintan. it appears that CB and the 2 Eddies and his overhyped Appeals layers, specifically Frey, look more and more like the pontificating, arrogant and rather dimwitted " knowitalls " they really turned out to be and thus sadly outmatched by the 7th's 3 Appeals layers, especially Posner. How embarrassing is Frey - no better than Greenspan. Wonderful that there still are ethical, honest and highly moral and principled, not to neglect honest and forthright and smart lawyers around. Confirms my faith in the legal field and in corporate finance.

Casey June 6, 2008 at 6:53 p.m.

layers = lawyers..... sorry for typos

kjopc June 6, 2008 at 7:08 p.m.

Casey, you're right that Frey came off more amateurish than an articling student. I wouldn't pay him minimum wage for the job he did.

What's more, it sounds like Posner can't wait to write a judgement that not only dismisses Black's appeal, but trashes his lardship's oft-floated myths as well.

Oh well, let's add another level of the U.S. establishment and judiciary to Black's imagined list of conspirators!

I hope Bush-the-Younger-Moron is paying attention to the facts when asked to sign Black's pardon.

GravityLevity2 June 6, 2008 at 7:16 p.m.

Posner, however, also seemed cool (but not outright derisive) to the prosecutor's responses on fiduciary duty.

The session made very interesting listening. It seems that Kipnis may get off (40% chance); what his lawyer had to say was challenged/ questioned least by the judges.
Given the tenor of the judges' comments and questions, the most Black, Boultbee, and Atkinson can hope for is a retrial on one of the non-competes. The judges seemed to believe with respect to that non-compete that there was probably enough evidence to convict on the fraud as theft from Hollinger position. Therefore, if at least two of the judges find the fiduciary-duty position 1. was improperly presented and explained to the jury and as a result 2. likely caused improperly arrived-at convictions, the other convictions would stand and a retrial would be granted for a jury to weigh the fraud as theft position on its own.

Based on what I heard, I think it's just possible, but not at all likely, that at least two of the judges might send all the fraud convictions back to retrial due to the ostrich instruction.

I think Frey would have more to be embarrassed than Conrad over Frey's performance in the appeals court. I certainly was laughing at him through much of what he had to say and the panel's responses.
I was also laughing at the court's response to attempts to appeal St. Eve's ruling to omit a defense-desired instruction that should have contained the word "solely", and which would have been incorrect and misleading to the jury if it had been submitted as the defense had worded it. That one had me laughing at the Two Eddies again.

GravityLevity2 June 6, 2008 at 7:41 p.m.

Another thing that the defense lawyers got all tangled up in amongst themselves was the equivocating strategy of defending the fraudulent payments as not really non-competes, but disguised management fees, when that defense seemed most effective; but at other times defending them as legitimate non-competes, when that defense seemed most effective.

At the judges' request, the defense lawyers tried, but failed, to convince the judges that the payments could be both managment fees (paid by a company to its managers for past and present services to that company), and non-competes (paid by an outside company in exchange for guarantees of individuals' future behaviour with regard to the outside company).

Casey June 7, 2008 at 5:14 p.m.

Re my comments above, I inadvertently referred to the 7th's Judges as lawyers ( which in fact they are ) but this depiction is incorrect because they have been appointed ( or elected? ) as Judges to the the Seventh Court of Appeals. I did not mean to denigrate or diminish these 3 wise men by referring to them simply as lawyers.
I am convinced that all 4 scammers / fraudsters/ crooks will lose their appeals and furthermore that CB will NOT be allowed bail while the Judges are deliberating, as Frey requested - he must have a screw loose somewhere. Ditto for CB.

Barbara_in_BC June 8, 2008 at 1:08 p.m.

And now I finally understand why Catholic Bishops cultivated Black as a friend, he owns a Catholic newspaper:

Black may sell the final part of his media empire:

“It is a little reported fact that Conrad Black has managed to retain one part of his media empire while the rest of it crumbled around him. The former Telegraph proprietor, 63, who began serving a six-year sentence for fraud and obstructing justice in a Florida prison at the start of the year, still owns 45 per cent of the Catholic Herald, a publication that has always punched above its weight, exerting an influence that belies its relatively modest weekly circulation of 20,000.”

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/jun...

GravityLevity2 June 9, 2008 at 1:32 p.m.

When have all Black's defenders gone? Where are the columns in newspapers and magazines, where are the posters on this blog, telling us how the oral part of the appeal was either a) a triumph for the defense; or b) a travesty of justice, typical of the corrupt American justice system. Or, since Conrad's defenders show themselves adept at holding two contradictory positions at the same times (e.g.legitimate non-competes are one and the same as legitimate management fees), telling us that the oral part of the appeal was both a & b above.

kjopc June 10, 2008 at 9:58 a.m.

Black has totally lost it!

http://www.globeinvestor.com/servlet/sto...

GravityLevity2 June 10, 2008 at 1:47 p.m.

thanks, kjopc. Yep, he's lost it. A demure silence on the subject would have been more dignified. Now, it seems, the expert judges hearing his appeal are about as venal as the prosecution that prosecuted him and about as dumb as the jury that convicted him.

Interesting that after Black was deposed in the Sotheby's case, he settled.

As with the case heard earlier in Delaware, when Conrad (or his lawyers) are subject to intensive questioning, they and their positions don't come out looking so good.

Jeanne June 15, 2008 at 7:59 p.m.

What's interesting to me is how Toronto Life has sucked all the air out of the room that used to host a lively (if somewhat fraught) discussion about Conrad Black.