dr March 14, 2008 at 5:16 p.m.

The appeal grounds pretty pathetic: EVERYBODY GOT ALL OF THIS WRONG! THE JUDGE, THE JURY, THE USDJ!

I am not impressed.

Fintan March 14, 2008 at 5:52 p.m.

What a waste of money, effort and time! The crook is where he belongs, leave him there and get on with the civil suits and tracking down the funds that he has stashed. With a bit of luck they can pin something on Morticia, too, and chuck her in the Hoosegow for Ladies. With His Lardship getting used to being Bubba's bitch and Morticia in the tender care of Diesel Daisy the Dyke, this planet will be well on the way to coming right. ROFLMAO

Casey March 14, 2008 at 8:12 p.m.

" In Black’s case, the appeal also addresses the obstruction charge: “removing from his longtime office personal papers and effects, on the eve of his eviction from the space by new management, and in full view of others, including his assistant and security cameras…There was no evidence whatsoever of any intent to obstruct justice.” - Douglas Bell

For Lit - HOW does anyone know WHAT the blowhard did or did not do with the contents of the 13 boxes after they entered his possession. To claim that this was accomplished in full view of cameras and others thereby " proving " his innocent intentions no less ( HOW DO WE KNOW THIS? BECAUSE THE JERK SAYS SO?? ) is a crock of defense sh-t, and you know it, Lit but refuse to admit same. Recall the tricky Dickie puzzle during the Senate Watergate Hearings re " What did he know and when did he know it? " This applies to CB as well. Furthermore, CB's desperation must have been overwhelming to cause him to try to surrepticiously abscond with possible evidentiary material. What CB knew was that criminal charges were about to be levelled against him and if he didn't know, he is lying - everyone and his uncle knew that CB was in deep sh-t re imminent felony filings against him by USJD. To claim that these papers ONLY contained personal items is baloney because, as I stated above, no one can know for certain what or if he destroyed - the ' beyond reasonable doubt " of his guilt rests in the fact that he knew ' something ' was going down shortly re criminal charges against him and that if he took possible evidence home with him or wherever they ended up, he would immediately be obstructing future legal proceedings. Either CB wants to appear dumb which he isn't or he thinks, by virtue of his exalted image of himself and his already proved belief ( his disgusting emails ) that he believed himself to be above the law. There is simply no other explanation for him to mosey on down to Hollinger himself ( not have a gofer do it ) and stupidly get caught stealing. Maybe he thought he was Howard Hunt or one of the Cubans involved in Watergate - untouchable...lol. Amazing how neither he nor Trickie Dickie for one second believed they were breaking any laws..,

ROGER1 March 14, 2008 at 8:40 p.m.

BLACK'S SON UNDER INVESTIGATION FOR HIT AND RUN.

http://news.sympatico.msn.ctv.ca/TopStor...

Casey March 14, 2008 at 10:02 p.m.

Looks like CB's chances of winning any of his appeals is virtually nil, according to link below. His lawyer, Andrew Frey, must keep up appearances, I guess. ( and continue to log fees at CB's expense, although this couldn't be more richly deserved by Black. )

" Andrew Stoltmann, a Chicago lawyer specialising in white-collar cases who followed Black's trial closely, said: "The odds of Conrad Black being successful on any of the issues he's raised on appeal are extremely unlikely. Appeals are made in virtually every criminal case – and virtually all of them are rejected." - http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/...

JONES March 14, 2008 at 11:43 p.m.

Black is where he belongs. Appeals are all he has left to keep him going. I read were appeals are like "digging tunnels to escape". I have been doing some thinking lately. At first I thought he deserved everything he got. Now being Canadian I am a compassionate. 5 years is too much even for Black. Two years would be more appropriate. 5 years will break him. Maybe Black needs this. I dunno. Maybe I am a sucker. I dunno. 5 years seems very harsh I know I could not do 5 years. I am the same age as Black. I could not do 5 years in prison.

Casey March 15, 2008 at 12:12 a.m.

Another opinion by a legal expert re CB's chances for successful appeals -
" ``The appellate court in all likelihood, unless there's a significant constitutional deprivation, will not overturn this verdict,'' said Chicago white-collar criminal defense lawyer Mark Flessner, a former federal prosecutor. "

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=2...

Wasn't it you, Jones, awhile back, who stated categorically several times on numerous threads on this blog that CB would never see the inside of a jail? And now you think his sentence was too harsh. Must be nice to flip flop ad nauseum, re your err expert opinions, huh? In fact, do you HAVE any semblance of a viewpoint that you manage to stand for for more than the time it takes you to form one? Try a little Solitaire as you get some kind of life...

GravityLevity2 March 15, 2008 at 12:28 a.m.

and then, Casey, there were those who were predicting a sentence for Black in the double digits (of year count).
"Must be nice to flip flop ad nauseum, re your err expert opinions,"--casey: "ad nauseum"?--really? Jones changed his mind once, or twice at most: you must get sea-sick very easily. Like Cory you are given to overstatement. A saving grace is that, unlike Cory, you "get" Black.

Casey March 15, 2008 at 12:58 a.m.

GravityLevity2 March 15, 2008 at 12:28 a.m.
" A saving grace is that, unlike Cory, you "get" Black. "

Well thanks at least for that small mercy from you. It is annoying that some regular posters to this blog, like Jones, opine according to which way the wind blows or else they straddle the legal fence, play it safe and never say very much that's convincing. As for predicting a double digit sentence for CB - you are patently wrong in your comment - I predicted substantial jail time and that is precisely what he received. For someone like Black a 6 year sentence is no different from a 10 year sentence or higher - I cannot even begin to imagine how terrible it must be for him to face his jail term - I would probably cave and ultimately wind up broken and in the loony bin....

ROGER1 March 15, 2008 at 1:21 a.m.

BLACK does not need to think about what tomorrow and tomorrow and the day after and the day after that will be like, because into infinity, it will be the same old run run run routine for him, fighting for a shower, to get the the toilets, to get breakfast--continental breakfast (apparently people on some continent don't eat much breakfast)-- struggle to get his share of the meals. Rationed clothes, rationed soap. Communal tv. Black might as well be in Siberia in the Stalinist era. And to think, 12 ordinary people put him there! Anyone read the Caldwell letter to the editor in the National Post rag today? That guy sounded exactly like Lit!

There is no heroism in US mainland jails. It is nasty, destructive and designed to reduce a person to a souless shell. 2 years of that and Black will be done--might as well have a lobotomy. Well, at least Black is surrounded by esquires and many with knighthoods. Everyone Black addresses them as "Yes Sir!" Black will be thinking, "and I am a lord." At least for the first few weeks. Then he will remember he is just a prisoner with a number. After a while, people won't be able to remember whether Black is still in jail or whether he was released or whether he is even dead or alive, and no one will care. Black is a footnote to history, if he even gets that. Who in Canada remembers Lord Beaverbrooke?

ROGER1 March 15, 2008 at 1:31 a.m.

ANYONE WHO THOUGHT THE APPEAL WOULD BE SUBSTANTIVE is now shown just how much hot air there was behind that expectation. If those lawyers annoy the appellate judges too much, Black might even get some more time! After a lifetime of shafting people, Black is getting a royal shaft himself! People compare Spitzer to Black, and appalling as such a comparison might be (Spitzer afterall devoted himself to public service, while Black merely manipulated from the sidelines, never having ran for office or held public office), the better comparison would have been to compare the wives of the two men. By comparison, Amiel looks really bad, while the other wife looks like the only hero(ine) in a sad affair. If Canada had justice, Mulroney would be in jail already and Steve Harper would be on his way!

Casey March 15, 2008 at 1:48 a.m.

ROGER1 March 15, 2008 at 1:21 a.m.

LOL - no doubt within 6 months CB will become irrelevant and yesterday's news. If I were CB, I would be pretty damn scared at simply getting lost in the system / US Penal bureaucracy and Mrs. deathwarmedover Amiel will have stopped visiting having returned to the UK. My biggest fear would be abandonment - 6 years is a pretty long time to be in prison. If he starts now, maybe, like Frank forget his last name played by Clint Eastwood in Escape From Alcatraz CB can start scraping away a tunnel through which to escape....lol

Fintan March 15, 2008 at 3:44 a.m.

Interesting article, and the reader comments are as well. Is Lit a split personality? Her comment here seems at variance with her usual drooling at the very thought of His Lardship.

http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/ne...

The appeal is a waste of time and money. The lawyers should be ashamed of themselves for not spelling it out to His Lardship that he is in the crowbar hotel for the long haul. Suck it up!

How interesting that Black jnr. may be in trouble as well. I can just imagine Morticia breaking the news to His Lardship when and if she visits him. "Conrad, I'm afraid Jonathan is in a spot of bother with the Toronto police." "What kind of trouble, sugar?" "It seems he rear-ended someone". "Oh sh*t! Let's not talk about rear-ending. I've had quite enough of it since I came here."

ROFLMAO

leaf must have had someone's pudgy fingers stroking her pudgy whatever last night - only 7 calls. She's wasting her time just as much as His Lardship's lawyers. LOL

http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section...

Lit_200 March 15, 2008 at 9:40 a.m.

Fintan would say this is also a waste of the court's time and money. Sometimes an appeal IS successful, and it is proved that the court, the authorities and the "system" made another horrible mistake.

http://news.sympatico.msn.ctv.ca/TopStor...

Casey March 15, 2008 at 9:54 a.m.

Lit_200 March 14, 2008 at 4:54 p.m.

" Casey's whines are getting more and more shrill the clearer it becomes that Conrad Black and others at Hollinger did nothing wrong... that they are the victims of an out-of-control prosecutor's office in the USDJ. "

To add to my comments about your post on previous thread, Lit 200, it is beyond belief that at this late date and after CB has officially been jailed, you still cling to the notion that he " did nothing wrong ". As such, it is becoming more obvious with each consecutive post of yours, that you must indeed have a screw loose in your brain. When he emerges from prison in approximately 6 years and after all his appeals have been denied, including request for a new trial, will you THEN be convinced of his overwhelming guilt? I have to wonder what's in it for you to cause or motivate you to continue to post your twaddle about CB's innocence. You have been proved wrong in every instance yet you still accuse the USJD of being out of control. I am willing to bet that you have not read one book out there re CB and have little idea how extensive and far back CB's guilt vis a vis corporate crime reaches - sa far back as the incidence of the stolen exam papers and including his involvement in the Hanna Mining fiasco and the Dominion Stores Employees' Pension Fund.
Your crdibility is shot to ratsh-t and you are clearly a bonifide loony tunes and I am not being fascetious or joking. I think you have flipped your noodle.

Lit_200 March 15, 2008 at 9:58 a.m.

When the appeal court reverses all the convictions, Casey, will you finally accept that Conrad Black is not a criminal?

Marilyn2 March 15, 2008 at 10:09 a.m.

Casey/Donna concludes her most recent post critisizing Lit_200 with this comment: "Your crdibility is shot to ratsh-t and you are clearly a bonifide loony tunes and I am not being fascetious or joking. I think you have flipped your noodle."

Once again, in nausiatingly predictable fashion, the all-knowing grandmother uses insults to argue against anyone who differs with her view. On what basis can she so boldly state that someone is "loony tunes" (ie mentally ill) just because they are on the other side of the argument here?

Billy March 15, 2008 at 10:12 a.m.

THIS IS BLACK NEWS!! FOR BLACK!!

Fintan March 15, 2008 at 10:32 a.m.

"Fintan would say this is also a waste of the court's time and money. Sometimes an appeal IS successful, and it is proved that the court, the authorities and the "system" made another horrible mistake." - Lit, first citizen of denial land.

I'm glad for Mr. Walsh that he was able to clear his name, especially in view of his present circumstances. However, the miscarriage of justice in his case happened because of a failure to present evidence that might have cleared him at his original trial. There was no such failure in His Lardship's case. In fact, it's astonishing that he was cleared on so many counts.

Mr. Walsh was also one of the "little people" that His lardship and Morticia so despise. He did not have the benefit of a small army of lawyers and tens of millions of dollars of (mostly other people's) money to defend him. His Lardship had.

Mr. Walsh served ten years and his appeal succeeded 32 years after his conviction. If that happens in His Lardship's case as well, I'll have no problem with it - if I'm still around to witness it. Main thing he spends a good long time in the slammer and is no longer at liberty to wreak his vile neocon mischief. And his hag crone of a wife is likewise hobbled. Karma be praised.

"When the appeal court reverses all the convictions, Casey, will you finally accept that Conrad Black is not a criminal?" - another Litism.

I'll let Casey answer for herself, but the dogs in the street have known for decades that His Lardship is a criminal. That won't change even if he is acquitted on all charges, against which the odds must be at least 1,000 to 1.

I concur with Casey that you are "loony tunes", indeed bordering on the psychopatic. Your spurious reports to the police, accusing me of being a paedophile and dozens of nuisance calls in the middle of the night - even if you switch to your leaf handle - surely prove that! Get help!

Fintan March 15, 2008 at 10:52 a.m.

Don't they say the apple doesn't fall far from the tree? And haven't both His Lardship and Morticia both frequently written snide comments and insinuations about Senator Ted Kennedy and the incident at Chappa(whateverwayyouspellit)?

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/s...

LOL

hamster March 15, 2008 at 10:58 a.m.

It's nausea, folks (a feeling I often get when reading about Freedom Fighter Black) and the latin term is ad nauseam -- which is the accusative of a feminine noun. I point this out not to be pedantic but because I know that this kind of grammatical sloppiness would upset Conrad who, while ethically challenged, is a literate man.

JONES March 15, 2008 at 11:21 a.m.

Casey:
Yes it was me who said Black would not see a day in jail. I was wrong I will admit that. Black came close as the other two are not in jail. The obstruction charge is a very serious charge. I didn't calculate that into my opinion. I am not flip flopping as you say.I think Black is a horrid individual and deserves jail. I am not a judge and don't decide what a convicted felon gets for a sentence. I never predicted what Black would get in terms of years. I do think 5 years is severe when we have a man charged with manslaughter in Toronto out on bail. Don't you dare tell me to get a life. By the number of posts you make on here you need a life! I will stand on that opinion.

JONES March 15, 2008 at 11:34 a.m.

If Black serves the full 5 years and is not pardoned by Bush, Black will die or come out of prison a babbling idiot. Even for the likes of Black that is too severe. I do not know how appeals work but I suspect Black's lawyers will appeal and appeal all the way to the Supreme Court if that is possible. Oh Casey I am a Gentleman or I would tell you what you could do with yourself. You can stick your posts where they won't rust nor see sunshine.

leaf March 15, 2008 at 11:47 a.m.

did you really get 7 calls last nite, fickton?

YEAH!!!!!

i want to thank from the bottom of my heart whoever made those calls coz it sure wasn't me.

hurray for cybersolidarity!!!

leaf March 15, 2008 at 12:09 p.m.

[This comment has been removed.]

Casey March 15, 2008 at 12:23 p.m.

Curious March 15, 2008 at 10:09 a.m.

Which bandwaggon did YOU jump on, curious? You may accuse me of every alias under the sun but fact is, I am and have been Casey. I happen to love the name Casey and your dumb accusations slide off my back like water off a duck's. What the hell kind of name is " curious " anyway? And try posting to topic instead of typing basic lame twaddle......

Casey March 15, 2008 at 12:28 p.m.

Lit_200 March 15, 2008 at 9:58 a.m.

" When the appeal court reverses all the convictions, Casey, will you finally accept that Conrad Black is not a criminal? "

Yeah - when hell freezes over - no convictions will be reversed all the way up to the US Supreme Court. Use the brain God gave you instead of posting your usual mind numbing twiddle / twaddle. Here's a suggestion - why not offer to sub for CB - he will go free and you can take his place - you have nothing better going on in your non life........

leaf March 15, 2008 at 12:33 p.m.

"...your dumb accusations slide off my back like water off a duck's."

if it quacks like a duck, bitches like donna, typoes like sandy....

Casey March 15, 2008 at 12:34 p.m.

" if calling from canada, dial 011 first. " - leaf

Hmmmm - so THAT'S where you're from...lol - didn't you state yesterday on the previous thread ( or maybe on this one - I'm too lazy to scroll back to check ) that you have never revealed personal info?

leaf March 15, 2008 at 12:44 p.m.

did i say i was from canada, donna?

knowing that most posters here are from canada, what i wrote is: " if calling from canada, dial 011 first. "

you'd be overruled constantly as a lawyer...

Casey March 15, 2008 at 12:47 p.m.

" if it quacks like a duck, bitches like donna, typoes like sandy...." - leaf

Ya think? Just because you say this is so does not make it true, punk....and try posting to topic once in awhile - it's good for the stomach....

Casey March 15, 2008 at 12:52 p.m.

" knowing that most posters here are from canada " - leaf

Nice try, punk, but you're being kind of presumptious, aren't you? Lemme repeat - have you anything worth reading that is on topic or do you simply get off calling Fintan a pedophile?

ValC March 15, 2008 at 12:52 p.m.

Fintan

Here's another way you can annoy CB et al, from hamster's post:

hamster March 15, 2008 at 10:58 a.m.

It's nausea, folks (a feeling I often get when reading about Freedom Fighter Black) and the latin term is ad nauseam -- which is the accusative of a feminine noun. I point this out not to be pedantic but because I know that this kind of grammatical sloppiness would upset Conrad who, while ethically challenged, is a literate man.

To make CB all queasy, all you have to do is just use bad grammar! Bad spelling might also work...

leaf March 15, 2008 at 12:54 p.m.

it ain't because i say so, granny, it's because it is obvious.
YOU, in all your incarnations, are obvious.

when are you going to finland?

leaf March 15, 2008 at 12:58 p.m.

presumptuous?

blondie, roger, wave, peter griffiths, you...all in canada!

Fintan March 15, 2008 at 1:01 p.m.

leaf/twit can write what she likes, and make all the calls she likes. One thing won't change. His Lardship has been in the slammer for 13 days now and will remain there for at least 5½ years. When he comes out, he may well be a babbling idiot rather than the pompous idiot he was when he went in. Morticia is unlikely to be around.

Karma has a great way of getting things right in the end.

leaf/lit: "at no cost to you, if you hang up after 6 rings, and with an absolute guarantee of anonymity (fickton STILL doesn't have my phone # after countless calls) you too can show the creep your particular brand of appreciation."

Is lit/leaf sure? His Lardship thought he was getting away with it, too. But was he? And where us he now, and what is he getting up his arse every night? Enjoy your fun while you can lit/leaf. ROFLMAO

leaf March 15, 2008 at 1:13 p.m.

you can leave Black out of this, creep, because make no mistake: this is between you and me.

and by the looks of it, a slowly growing band of creep haters.

still rolling your slack ass on the floor, fickton?

Casey March 15, 2008 at 1:16 p.m.

" blondie, roger, wave, peter griffiths, you...all in canada! " - leaf

Man, are you naive....lol - you believe everything you read online? Your brain must be filled with as much twiddle twaddle as Lit's - c'mon, punk, at least say something intelligent - your presumptive post is laughable - maybe they're all from, let's see, Antarctica, punk.ever think they may all be errr pulling the old wool over your 3 eyes?

Marilyn2 March 15, 2008 at 1:17 p.m.

Casey it's time YOU posted only to topic and stop with the insults and crap as in most of your posts on this blog since day one. I'm as stick to death of you as I always was of Donna and all your other aliases. As for me, I use one ID and my real name is registered with the site administrators.

Casey March 15, 2008 at 1:25 p.m.

leaf's joy in life is to call Fintan a pedophile - this begs the question and I invite everyone here to respond with their opinions re same - what do you suppose motivates leaf to call Fintan a pedophile?...lol..... All suggestions are hereby welcome and let's find out what forces ummm causes leaf to obssess with Fintan....

Casey March 15, 2008 at 1:27 p.m.

Curious March 15, 2008 at 1:17 p.m.

Go away, kid, you're a pest and again, what the hell kinda name is " curious "? it's obvious you aren't....

leaf March 15, 2008 at 1:27 p.m.

see donna, i'm not the only one who sees right through you... all perceptive people of the blog do, wether you accept it or not.

Casey March 15, 2008 at 1:42 p.m.

leaf March 15, 2008 at 1:27 p.m.

Final post for now ( lots to do elsewhere ) so enjoy - please tell us why you obssess about Fintan? Does the term ' fatal attraction ' mean anything to you? Is calling Fintan a pedophile a way for your errr idle fingers / hands to be occupied?.....lol We await your answers with baited breath....

leaf March 15, 2008 at 1:46 p.m.

donna, i produced a whole report, 10,000 words, on this blog, about my reasons to believe that fickton is a pedophile.

did you miss it?
would you like me to repost it?

Lit_200 March 15, 2008 at 2 p.m.

I don't often correct people but the poster who is now using the Casey ID, I am almost certain she also uses the Roger and Fintan IDs ... the proper term, please, is

"bated breath."

Bated, if you would care to look it up, means "in suspense" - in other words, one holds one's breath... oh I am sure you will get it.

To use "baited" in this connection is meaningless, as well as silly and uneducated.

leaf March 15, 2008 at 2 p.m.

right!

then stop polluting this blog with your stinky breath, donna!

Barbara_in_BC March 15, 2008 at 2 p.m.

Wikipedia has an entry for the activity of leaf towards Fintan:

Internet Baiting

On the Internet, baiting is similar to trolling, in that baiters, like trolls, try to elicit a response from other users. The difference is that the response is supposed to be embarrassing to the user in question, and humorous to others. Baiters frequently concentrate on unpopular groups (in that forum), such as pedophiles, fraudsters (often 419 fraudsters), religious fundamentalists, or homosexuals. What the baiter says does not need to make sense, it is often simply written to baffle the baitee, and to produce an interesting result. In that respect, baiting is similar to telephone prank calls, but often much more elaborate.

On Internet forums, baiting is sometimes used in attempts to empty forums or reduce a forum's usage. This type of baiting is usually done to make the atmosphere of a forum appear unpleasant or to make forum owners, moderators and long-time users look foolish. A person using this kind of baiting may post comments to elicit rude responses from prominent members of a forum, thus making the responding member or members appear as trolls or flamers to bystanders. As a result, forum users in general may become disgusted and leave the forum.

Like prank calls, baiting is illegal in most jurisdictions as it is a form of targeted abuse or harassment.

Casey March 15, 2008 at 2:02 p.m.

leaf March 15, 2008 at 1:46 p.m.
" would you like me to repost it? "

Whoa! You really DO have a fatal attraction for Fintan. You can post ( I am literally almost cryiing in laughter at you and your numbnuts for brains or is that sh-t for brains? ...lol ? at what makes you get off ) your 10,000 word report ( I can't stop laughing so apologies for any typos ).....whatever wets your whistle, leaf - type errr post away.....I am sure all of here will go about our day / night as usual and at some point, we will poke our heads in to check on you and the progress you are making with the posting of that report here........

Casey March 15, 2008 at 2:04 p.m.

sure all of here = all of US here - see? i told you I was laughing too hard....LOL

Barbara_in_BC March 15, 2008 at 2:06 p.m.

"did i say i was from canada, donna?"

I know, you live in Florida! You make prank calls to Black's enemies. Hmmmm.... now who would DO that?.

leaf March 15, 2008 at 2:07 p.m.

blondie, this is the 2nd time you post this.

the 1st time, i replied something like: blondie, on the one hand you note that this blog is still alive because of posters like Lit and leaf and, on the other hand, you accuse me now of trying to empty the blog.
which is it?

of course, you did not reply.

would you kindly explain your contradiction this 2nd time around?

Barbara_in_BC March 15, 2008 at 2:11 p.m.

My goodness leaf, is Lit200 aware that she's defending a creep like you? She is so good at spelling and stuff that you'd think she'd distance herself from an internet baiter such as yourself.

Lit_200 March 15, 2008 at 2:19 p.m.

Well she's still calling me a woman (please do keep up the misogyny, I love it) , but she, unlike others in the Anti-Black Brigade, is at least distinguishing between leaf and Lit. Progress, ain't it grand?

Barbara_in_BC March 15, 2008 at 2:21 p.m.

How is a woman calling another person a woman misogyny Lit200? Ah, that is the question.

Casey March 15, 2008 at 2:23 p.m.

ERRRR leaf? We KNOW you live in Canada and Barbara in BC is now bating you - you are no more from Florida than Jimmy Crack Corn is....lol - where's that report, punk? Fingers too busy ummmm elsewhere rather than on your kb?

leaf March 15, 2008 at 2:26 p.m.

progress maybe but she's still torn between Lit and leaf: who's the real Barbara Amiel???

blondie, answer my 2:07 or shut your trash trap!

leaf March 15, 2008 at 2:32 p.m.

just like she thinks that drunk driving causing death is an accident, blondie thinks that misogyny applies only to men.

blondie flashing her blondness in all its glory!!!

leaf March 15, 2008 at 2:36 p.m.

donna, i'll repost my report with pleasure at my convenience.
i'm not at your beck and call!

Lit_200 March 15, 2008 at 2:37 p.m.

Barb... it works this way. When you have a man in front of you and you want to REALLY insult him... why, like Roger and Fintan you CALL HIM A WOMAN... get it?

Let me try again: To insult someone, you have to call him an insulting name, like "creep" or "jerk".

Stay with me now, if you REALLY want to insult the man, you have to refer to him as something REALLY useless.

are you starting to get it babe?

woman = something ignoble and useless. To insult a man by calling him a woman MEANS... stay with me, you almost have it, I am sure... it means you are calling him something really stupid and useless.. That means you think women are...

Keep mulling it, I am sure you'll eventually get it.

Barbara_in_BC March 15, 2008 at 2:43 p.m.

Lit200 said:

"woman = something ignoble and useless."

Not to me.

Casey March 15, 2008 at 2:44 p.m.

" are you starting to get it babe? " - Lit 200

OOOOOOOOOO Lit is trying to sound cool.....lol a regular BMOC, huh? BMOC = big man on campus, just in case that twaddle in your brain has you scratching your head......we are start calling " joe cool " or " jo mama "......lol

Casey March 15, 2008 at 2:46 p.m.

we are start calling " joe cool " or " jo mama "......lol
= we are gonna start calling you.....correction...

Lit_200 March 15, 2008 at 2:48 p.m.

Barb, tell me why then you refer to me as a woman? Are you giving me a big compliment? Is that your intention?

leaf March 15, 2008 at 2:49 p.m.

i don't favor fickton. i like trashing all 3 or 4 of you.

didn't i make my entrance on this blog exposing donna's lies and contradictions?

didn't i follow up exposing roger's lies, contradictions and plagiarism?

didn't i, over and over again, expose the blond for her stupidity, dishonesty and all around uselessness?

last and least came fickton. a work in progress which obviously doesn't stop me from calling you for the still contradictory dumb liars that you are.

eat your heart out!

Lit_200 March 15, 2008 at 2:50 p.m.

Casey, why don't you mind your own business? Do you have to stick your crone nose into every discussion? It's none of your beeswax.

Casey March 15, 2008 at 2:54 p.m.

Barbara in BC is wasting her time trying to figure out jo mama ( Lit for those just tuning in ) and leaf because they're loony tunes - it's impossible to understand what motivates these wasted individuals or where they are coming from - for example, leaf asked if I wanted to read that report he / she created and is now backing off....LOL - typical of CB wannabes or CB himself - a total coward

Casey March 15, 2008 at 2:59 p.m.

" It's none of your beeswax. " - Lit

ROFFLMFAO - I haven't heard that since kindergarten....Lit? If I were you, I would quit while I'm ahead - the rest is all downhill for you now - try some leggo or basket weaving - clearly you are not ' all there '...LMAO

Fintan March 15, 2008 at 2:59 p.m.

Interesting posts while I was watching a good British murder series (Midsommer Murders) on the box. Thanks to Casey and Barbara for your efforts to figure out leaf. Leaf and lit are one and the same aspect of a multi-headed hydra, and we all know who is lurking there in the background.

Naturally, I can only expect to be the target of such hate, because I really enjoy writing satirically at the discomfiture and comeuppance of those two hateful and yet pathetic, irritating and yet amusing people His Lardship the Clown and Morticia the Crone. Unlike leaf, I have actually raised aspects of this case that no one else did and often introduced new material even before Mr. Bell (I claim no credit for that, because I have a 7-hour time advantage).

I never mentioned male rape for the first several months, not in fact until after His Lardship had been convicted by the jury and some other poster made the brilliant crack "He'll still have enough money let to pay someone to pick up the soap if he drops it." That prompted a hysterical response from Lit. To be honest, I hadn't even thought of that aspect of American prison life before, but I'll never forget it now. And brace youselves for more cracks about the Blacks, father and son, and their rear-ending and being rear-ended. ROFLMAO

Leaf and lit really have a thing about anal rape and paedophilia. I can only guess at the reason, but my guess is informed nevertheless. I think what we are dealing with is a person who has very low self-esteem and tries to compensate for it by seeking to bully, to instill fear in others, to create mischief. Why is there no or very little self-esteem? Probably because it was shagged out of her a long time ago - by someone who should have protected, was looked up to, but only used and abused.

Lit's terminal Besserwisserei is further evidence of low self-esteem. If the subject were to be rural chicken pox eradication schemes in Ecuador, she would seek to be an expert in that field and prove everyone else wrong. It won't change the fact that you were shafted by someone you loved, baby, I'm genuinely sorry, but you shouldn't be taking it out on me.

The worst part of it is that this behaviour is often passed on to a new generation of victims.

Lit/leaf is projecting onto me. But there is also something more sinister at play here. They should both remember that every word leaf writes is preserved, even if the posts are deleted. It may be pure speculation to suggest that Morticia is behind it, but I did send His Lardship an e-mail with my correct name and address. What if I now write a long letter to Patrick Fitzgerald and suggest they start looking into Morticia's e-mails and His lardship's own (cblettwers@gmail.com) in the light of leaf's clearly illegal actions? It might be complete speculation, but what if they decide to look anyway? After all, the Lit aspect of the personality is convinced they are out to persecute His Lardship. And what have I to lose?

W101 March 15, 2008 at 3:01 p.m.

JONES: "If Black serves the full 5 years and is not pardoned by Bush, Black will die or come out of prison a babbling idiot."

-----

Jones, you are truly tiresome. Gimme a break, 5 years in low security?
A little perspective, puleeze. You haven't travelled much have you...
a good portion of the world's population lead entire lives under worse conditions, both physical and psychological.

Anyway, Black always been a braindead babbling idiot, so what's the diff?

Hey, Fintan, BBC.

Yippee, ding dong the wicked witch is dead!

The appeal is laughable, it's got Black written all over it, just more titanic self delusion, and we all know what happened to the titanic.

Lit_200 March 15, 2008 at 3:09 p.m.

And what have I to lose?

Nothing old boy, you have nothing left. You have already given up your cool, your self-respect, your pretension to intelligence, your good manners and your presumption of gentlemanly discourse.

Despite your years, you think and talk like a troubled adolescent. You laugh and bray like a donkey over sexual innuendo. "HAW HAW HAW."

And I love it that you think so little of me that you refer to me as a woman. THAT says a lot about you and your attitudes towards women.

and at the same time you have revealed for all to see, your

leaf March 15, 2008 at 3:09 p.m.

a few people here, not least Mr. Itse, are lucky that ridicule does not kill.

go ahead fickton. write about your suspicions to Patrick Fitzgerald. Please!!!

poor dumb fokc...

Casey March 15, 2008 at 3:11 p.m.

The appeal is laughable, it's got Black written all over it, just more - W101

CB actually DID help write up his appeal - I read this somewhere online earlier - forget which media outlet mentioned it - and yeah, don't believe everything you read online as I laughingly admonished leaf but this particular reporting was posted by a reputable link.....I have to leave but if anyone can locate link, please post it....

Lit_200 March 15, 2008 at 3:11 p.m.

W101 - Welcome back. :-o)

Bet a keyboard dollar Black slips the Obst charge.

W101 March 15, 2008 at 3:12 p.m.

Roger: BLACK'S SON UNDER INVESTIGATION FOR HIT AND RUN.

-----

Roger!

Will wonders never cease.

Like father, like son.

W101 March 15, 2008 at 3:18 p.m.

Thanks Lit ... so far not so good from your perspective, but what is life without hope?

If Black doesn't get into any worse trouble, it's now less than five years already, and untold millions to look forward to stashed away offshore.

Even as it stands, a lot of people struggling into dead end, numbing jobs would trade places with Black in a heartbeat.

Casey March 15, 2008 at 3:28 p.m.

" Even as it stands, a lot of people struggling into dead end, numbing jobs would trade places with Black in a heartbeat. " - W101

Please tell me you're joking - I suggest then, if you are not kidding, that you do what I suggested Lit do , earlier on this thread or wherever - trade places with CB and go sit in prison for him - individuals like you really piss me off with your self righteous and misguided crap.......ciao..no more time

Fintan March 15, 2008 at 3:33 p.m.

Sorry, His Lardship's email is cbletters@gmail.com

I suppose Morticia is accessing it now. So she knows exactly who and where I am. As I told His Lardship before he went to Bubbaland: bring it on!

Fintan March 15, 2008 at 3:48 p.m.

[This comment has been removed.]

Barbara_in_BC March 15, 2008 at 4:08 p.m.

W101 said:

"Even as it stands, a lot of people struggling into dead end, numbing jobs would trade places with Black in a heartbeat."

Now that I've put some time into imagining how it must feel for Black to be imprisoned, especially in sweltering hot Florida with no air-conditioning, I wonder if ANYONE would want to trade places with him. I wonder if he might be regretting choosing Florida for his incarceration now...

Fintan March 15, 2008 at 4:14 p.m.

W101 makes a very valid point about millions of people in this world having to live their whole lives under conditions that are even grimmer than what His Lardship is having to endure. At least in the prison you can count on getting fed every day, having a roof over your head, basic clothing and medical treatment. That would be a quantum leap improvement in the lives of countless millions in the Third World (and quite a few in the First World, for that matter).

The difference is that most of the unfortunates who languish in squalor and poverty (due in part to the policies that His Lardship and Morticia so fervently champion) have never known anything better, and may not even imagine that they could have a better life. His Lardship, by contrast, was born into and enjoyed privilege all his life.

He was used to controlling and bullying people. His whim was their command. Now, if Bubba says: "suck it up", he's going to have to do it. And you can guess what he'll be sucking. LOL In his state of denial, he'll probably call it a "blow for freedom" - for a while. Maybe he will learn deference, but it's far too late in life now.

Once his appeal fails, I'd assess the odds that he will top himself at about six to one. In Morticia's case, I'd offer odds of two to one.

A karma avalanche can be a terrible thing.

GravityLevity2 March 15, 2008 at 4:33 p.m.

the globe and mail link does not mention that the elder Black boy's modelling career was long ago.

Frey is quoted in news reports saying that Black spent much of his first period of time in jail working on/ working over the text of the appeal. So, he had something to keep himself mentally occupied.

Frey is also quoted as saying Amiel and Alannah have each visited Black several times (but evidently not the sons).

leaf March 15, 2008 at 4:54 p.m.

“Gee, I hope leaf sends me a copy of the 10,000-word report as well.”

Oh I remember now. Fickton wanted the report. He kept asking for it, sending me emails under an assumed name.
I guess I won’t be reposting the report after all. Sorry donna. I just can’t give fickton what he wants.

“I wonder how many nuisance calls some other unfortunate and completely baffled stranger has been getting”

answer: none
unlike you, I recognize a bait when I see one.
The only one who’ll be getting nuisance calls is you.

For those wanting to join in the fun, I posted fickton’s phone # a little up thread, at 12:09pm, and the # is still there, 4 hours later ☺

leaf March 15, 2008 at 4:55 p.m.

sorry, that's nearly 5 hours later.

Fintan March 15, 2008 at 5:01 p.m.

"Frey is quoted in news reports saying that Black spent much of his first period of time in jail working on/ working over the text of the appeal. So, he had something to keep himself mentally occupied." - GravityLevity2

I can just imagine him pencilling in polysyllabic words to replace ordinary simple ones like "I only wanted to get my nude polaroid pics of Babs before anyone else saw them" and "one of those boxes contained some crotchless knickers I'd bought for her as a surprise birthday present", and so on. LOL

If he was allowed the facilities to work on those papers in jail, let's hope other prisoners have the same privileges.

His Lardship's real comeuppance will begin when his appeal has failed and all hope is gone.

Then, at last, like leaf/lit, he will be the ultimate loser and his arse will belong to people he would once (wrongly) have seen as his betters.

Good night all. What a lovely evening this has been: Schadenfreude, a nice Slovenian Merlot and knowing His Lardship is probably sobbing on Bubba's shoulder right now.

ROFLMAO

leaf March 15, 2008 at 5:10 p.m.

[This comment has been removed.]

Fintan March 15, 2008 at 5:11 p.m.

"and his arse will belong to people he would once (wrongly) have seen as his betters"

That should be "his inferiors", of course.

Leaf, please tell us, was it your daddy, your brother, an uncle or - awful thought - your mother that did all those terrible things to you? Pest that you are, I still feel sorry for someone who has been turned into the kind of thing you are by those you instinctively trusted. You are a victim, a sad case - but I am not the one who did it to you.

By the way, do you think that other famous daddy who topped himself when his daughter was around 15 had been up to something dodgy with her some years earlier in life? Just a question. Nice if you could answer for once.

leaf March 15, 2008 at 5:17 p.m.

i think he did something you've done to other men's daughters, as you have none yourself.

sleep tight, if you can

GravityLevity2 March 15, 2008 at 5:18 p.m.

I haven't read the text of the appeal, and it's hard to judge based on the eight or ten news reports I've read. However, it appears that the appeal does not emphasize, perhaps does not even mention, any of the following points raised by Black's defenders on this or the predecessor blog, some of which it was earnestly predicted would be featured in the appeal:

1. the non-competes were really bonuses.
2. prosecutorial malfeasance that should lead to a quashing of the very charges
3. a violation of the civil rights of one or more of the defendants
4. the tainting/ confusing effect on the jury of the knowledge of the Canadain order about the contents of Conrad's office
5. the wickedness of Breeden.

The news reports seem to indicate that the basic defense on the non-competes is a reiteration of part of the fraud: We the defendants knew nothing about any fraud with respect to the non-compete payments we received. We signed off on them and accepted them in good faith. The judge's ostrich instruction to the jury was therefore improperly given.
(An apparently imporant part of the appeal on the non-competes, as reported in the news, that I didn't understand, involved SEC papers allegedly improperly allowed into evidence--can anyone on this blog explain that?)

The appeal on obstruction boils down to motive:
Conrad Black had no motive to obstruct justice when he removed those boxes. His motive was to remove personal effects under a deadline. He had no reason to believe he was removing anything of interest to the U.S. investigators, as all relevant papers in the boxes had been photocopied and made available. (Implicit in this defense is that he had no knowledge of the US order about the contents of those boxes.)

Both the appeals seem weak to me, in that they both go to the jury's judgement of the credibility of the defendants.

But especially the obstruction appeal. It seems to rehash only what the jury was told by the defense, and unwittingly implies that the defense did not make its position forcefully enough or clearly enough or credibly enough to raise reasonable doubt in the jury's mind. Unlike the grounds for the appeal of the non-compete convictions, there is no apparent argument that the judge or the prosecutors improperly instructed or improperly informed the jury and thus misled them into convicting Black of obstruction.

My understanding is that appeal courts in the US are very reluctant to overturn the verdicts of properly informed and properly instructed juries.

Barbara_in_BC March 15, 2008 at 5:27 p.m.

Gravity Levity2 said of the appeal:

"It seems to rehash only what the jury was told by the defense"

The word rehash is right. The appeal is just a grasping at straws, with no further evidence from the defense. This appeals process is just a "make work" project for lawyers.

W101 March 15, 2008 at 5:42 p.m.

"individuals like you really piss me off with your self righteous and misguided crap.......ciao..no more time"

LOL! Has to be Donna, who else could be so lacking in class. Twit is all wet on the Black case, but so what, at least it's done with class and style.

Clearly BasketCasey is someone who lives in a deluded state on a par with Black. What a perfect match they would make. His and her a55holes.

If Black were to starve to death in poverty as he shrivels from AIDS and malaria, then he'd know true hell on earth as experienced by millions around the globe.

But of course, as ever, Fintan is right, it's all relative, and hopefully Black isn't having too much fun teaching French and writing books in the library.

Casey March 15, 2008 at 5:47 p.m.

leaf March 15, 2008 at 4:54 p.m.

Re your " report " if one can call a piece of trash that you created a report - don't bother - I wouldn't have wasted my valuable time reading your junk and I didn't and do not believe you are telling the truth in any case - you are in dire need of friends, leaf, but not on this blog - seek them out in that soup kitchen you visit every day - if you're not typing crud on your computer or calling Fintan a pedaphile, then you are one of those transients who stand on corners and beg for handouts......go sell your computer and you won't have to beg for food, booze or drugs....in fact, just go away and stop annoying the good people on this blog....

Casey March 15, 2008 at 5:54 p.m.

W101 March 15, 2008 at 5:42 p.m.

Say something intelligent for a change and you won't piss me off - I cannot stand dumb knowitalls who think they have something useful to contribute to a blog and end up talking gibberish - go join leaf and the two of you can get a freebie at some soup kitchen and all the booze you crave......in fact, go away, kid, and stop pestering me and others here....it is YOU who is a classless boor....next time I won't be so kind to you..lol - take it while it lasts....

leaf March 15, 2008 at 6:02 p.m.

casey & W101 = donna arguing with herself.

gotta admit, it is a psychiatric thriller.
or comedy?

ROGER1 March 15, 2008 at 6:13 p.m.

THE CORE FOCUS OF THE APPEAL APPEARS TO BE JUDGE ERROR, specifically with the instructions to the jury. As is appropriate, they are trying to make an argument about errors in law. An appeal on errors of fact would be laughed out of court and would enrage the appelate judges and make the lawyers look completely incompetent.

The problem with an error in law argument and judge error, is that there is none that anyone is going to overturn. The main reason being that courts of first instance have great lattitude and appellate courts are reluctant to overturn a decision except in clear and compelling cases. It is doubtful the US Supreme Court will waste any time and scarce resources on Black's appeal--I predict they won't hear it, if he even tries filing an appeal with them.

Out of the millions of people in the world who have even heard of Conrad Black, there is virtual unanimity that Black is a lying crooked thief who deserves to be where he is. So Lit and Leaf and the other die-hards suffer a lonely existence, desperately trying to get their voices heard above the storm of voices of derision.

Black is like a bee trapped in honey. The more he struggles, the deeper he becomes ensnared, covering himself completely in sticky goo, furiously stinging away in vain, until he succumbs.

That prison routine sure sounds like hell on earth. And that is when everything is going smoothely! Imagine Amiel, after complaining about the riff raff smells in cinemas and the waiting times in commercial air travel, lining up waiting to see her man, along with the other wives and girlfriends and having to deal with all that assaults on her delicate olfactory senses! I hope she wore rose coloured glasses and carried a handkerchief with suitable eau d'Cologne or other Victorian perfume mask for the unpleasant smells of the riff raff.

ROGER1 March 15, 2008 at 6:25 p.m.

LOL! I SEE LIT200 IS STILL STRUGGLING WITH HER SEXUAL IDENTITY AND GENDER ISSUES!

Who would have thought that poor Lit could so easily be taunted? She must be one of those old fashioned types who are very sensitive about these things. Typical Lord Black supporter--probably chortled at the idea of Black and Steyn turning the dials on waitresses! Lit200 was never weaned from the teat of sex role dichotomy. Lit200 is a 1950s woman, probably a member of REAL Women of Canada!

Leaf is reduced a babbling psychopathic stalker and Lit200 is whining about her sexual identity not being respected! All this while their poor leader languishes in a living hell where he gets a small inadequate ration of soap, no shower sandals to protect him from athlete's foot fungi or even enough time in a lavatory to maintain proper functioning of his prostate--the indignity to Black seems to take a backseat to the banal concerns of his sycophants, who have become aloof to the suffering of their noble lord! How Black must fume at the incompetent indifference of Lit and Leaf to his plight! He wants them to fight for him, not waste time on their own ego trips! LOL! Got to luv't!

Anyone remember Sillitoe's Borstal boy dancing on the grave in Loneliness of the Long Distance Runner? Poor Black is now no better than a Borstal boy!

ROGER1 March 15, 2008 at 6:37 p.m.

IF BLACK DID ALL THAT WORK ON THE APPEAL, what did all the expensive lawyers do? Black ought to have just handled all his own legal work himself and saved the Chicago Sun Media folks $200 million in legal expenses.

I like the gist of his obstruction conviction appeal--he claims because he commited his crime in public, it cannot be a crime. According to Black, a crime is only a crime when commited in private! LOL! By that logic, a bank robber is just taking money and not stealing, because they make no effort to conceal the taking of the money! What an idiot Black is--that Frey would put his name to such gobbledego.ok is testimony to the power of money to buy personal services. Black thought he was like the Emperor Napoleon, but in the end, Black is merely a parochial provincial bumpkin trying to hob nob with the super rich and stealing to keep up with the Kravises.

JONES March 15, 2008 at 6:49 p.m.

W101 said
Jones, you are truly tiresome. Gimme a break, 5 years in low security?
A little perspective, puleeze. You haven't travelled much have you...
a good portion of the world's population lead entire lives under worse conditions, both physical and psychological.

W101 are you prepared to give up your freedom for 5 years? I don't know your age. I am in my 60's and I have travelled extensively in my life time. I have only one person I am responsible to (my wife). You insult me and my intelligence. You are a bore. I bet you are a riot at any social events.

leaf March 15, 2008 at 7:02 p.m.

yeah, her and roger...

GravityLevity2 March 15, 2008 at 7:40 p.m.

good 6:37 post, Roger.

Casey March 15, 2008 at 8:19 p.m.

" like the gist of his obstruction conviction appeal--he claims because he commited his crime in public, it cannot be a crime. According to Black, a crime is only a crime when commited in private! LOL! By that logic, a bank robber is just taking money and not stealing, because they make no effort to conceal the taking of the money! What an idiot Black is--that Frey would put his name to such gobbledego.ok is testimony to the power of money to buy personal services. Black thought he was like the Emperor Napoleon, but in the end, Black is merely a parochial provincial bumpkin trying to hob nob with the super rich and stealing to keep up with the Kravises. " - Roger1

Excellent observation and on previous thread I posted something similar - because CB took the boxes in full view of cameras and, more to the point, that he KNEW the cameras were activated, is Black's so called " proof " that he is innocent. Your bank robber analogy is perfect. Black thinks this way because he believes that since he is a Lord, a self described member of the upperclass and that it would be beneath such a man and his worthless dignity to break the law, he therefore had every right to abscond with the boxes. He actually is convinced that he was ENTITLED to those boxes - a man of his position would never break the law - and that in any case just because these papers MIGHT be required as evidence and the USJD had already photocopied them ( horesh-t ) anyway, he saw no valid reason why he could take them home. This is probably THE best example yet of the mentality of this warped liar.
And because he claims he neither removed nor destroyed anything, we must believe him - because, " HEY, I am Lord Black....". What a crock of garbage. And claiming that he was unaware of obstructing justice by removing personal papers and ignoring instructions NOT to remove anything, he proved definitively that he broke the law. I don't know who is dumber - Frey or Greenspan for accepting at face value Black's crap and for even taking on the case and appeal in the first place - must be the fame and fortune to be had.

Casey March 15, 2008 at 8:21 p.m.

why he could take them home = why he could NOT take them home - sorry

Casey March 15, 2008 at 8:26 p.m.

" Leaf is reduced a babbling psychopathic stalker and Lit200 is whining about her sexual identity not being respected! All this while their poor leader languishes in a living hell where he gets a small inadequate ration of soap, no shower sandals to protect him from athlete's foot fungi or even enough time in a lavatory to maintain proper functioning of his prostate--the indignity to Black seems to take a backseat to the banal concerns of his sycophants, who have become aloof to the suffering of their noble lord! How Black must fume at the incompetent indifference of Lit and Leaf to his plight! He wants them to fight for him, not waste time on their own ego trips! LOL! Got to luv't! " - Roger1

LMAO - I am roaring here - my sides hurt...lol

Lit_200 March 15, 2008 at 9:02 p.m.

God but the ABB can be so dense sometimes. If you are trying to obstruct justice, you are trying to thwart the authorities from finding out something. That is pretty straightforward, people. It's like Roger and Fintan when they cheat on their wives. They don't broadcast their actions. They sneak around because they don't want anybody to find out about squalid little affairs.

Contrast this with Conrad Black's actions. If you want get something from your office and hide it from the authorities, do you march right up under the gaze of security cameras that you, yourself had installed? C'mon. Don't allow your hatred of the man make fools of yourselves, because you surely do look foolish aruging that one.

Somebody with one flickering neuron in his vacant head suggested that Black's actions were like those of a bank robber, who pulls of his heist in broad daylight. First of all, a robber would much prefer you don't see his face. That's why they frequently wear masks dontcha know?

Then there is the one who keeps repeating, like a bobblehead, "he took the boxes and he wasn't sposta. Guilty!" And that may be the same defective who says "Let him prove he wasn't trying to hide something," forgetting yet again that Black didn't have to prove anything - My God after all this time, you should know about a little thing called the presumption of innocence.

No. The jury got it wrong. Several members made that clear in their comments to the media after the verdicts had been made.

Actually, the ABB has it fairly straight. Breaking a criminal conviction on appeal is tough. But it has been done and if there is any true justice in the US of A, Conrad Black will be absolved of the crime of trying to hide something from the authorities.

He just didn't do that.

Lit_200 March 15, 2008 at 9:11 p.m.

I missed a good idea just now. I should have referred to Donna's attempt to hide her ID by assuming one name after another, Sandy, Casey and so on. She does this secretly, doesn't tell anybody... it's obstruction, even though it doesn't work.

Only Donna/Sandy/Casey makes a career out of insulting the intelligence and comments of people who disagree with her. And that trait shows through again and again, with every post she makes, even against other members of the ABB. Sometimes she takes after an anti-Black guy because she just does not understand what he is saying.

Some of her favourite phrase are "get a life" "stalker" "psychopath" "say something intelligent for a change" "dumb knowitall" "nothing to contribute" "talk gibberish" and, of course, the ubiquitous "loser" which can refer to anyone.

So very, very transparent Donna and it doesn't matter how many aliases you assume, we can spot you in a New York minute.

Lit_200 March 15, 2008 at 9:27 p.m.

This is really funny, Roger accusing me of worrying about my gender identity. Is that the best the guest in my house can come up with? It is awfully lame and, as I have said before

It is one more arrow pointing directly at Roger's undeniable and ongoing misogyny.

Dislike of women (He is about to leave his wife, along with all his belongings and take up another quest - although that may be another fiction, along with his six degrees and five languages) usually emanates from a traumatic experience as a child and I wonder what that experience was.

I will have to examine his bombastic posts more carefully and see if I cannot, like an archeologist, piece together, from the fragments of his psychosis, the outlines of his deep and abiding disaffection of women.

I may be able to help him with this.

Barbara_in_BC March 15, 2008 at 9:31 p.m.

Lit200 said:

"If you want get something from your office and hide it from the authorities, do you march right up under the gaze of security cameras that you, yourself had installed?"

He had no idea they were working. They had only been repaired one day before Conrad picked up those boxes.

Barbara_in_BC March 15, 2008 at 9:40 p.m.

link to article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/30/busine...

"The tape came from cameras that were turned on only the day before Lord Black and his posse carried out the boxes, company officials have said. "

Lit_200 March 15, 2008 at 9:49 p.m.

BBC

"He had no idea they were working."

How do you know that? Can you prove it?

charley March 15, 2008 at 10:11 p.m.

The appeal states Black was only removing" personal documents and effects". I imagine when the prosecution gets its opportunity to rebut this they may mentiom that in a newspaper column the defendant himself wrote a week or two ago he maintained he was totally ignorant of what was in the boxes....

GravityLevity2 March 15, 2008 at 10:12 p.m.

Lit: "Contrast this with Conrad Black's actions. If you want get something from your office and hide it from the authorities, do you march right up under the gaze of security cameras that you, yourself had installed?"

Did Black know the camera, which had earlier been broken, was working--until he got there and was photographed in the act? On the video he looked bemused to see the camera move. What proof do you have of his knowledge that, after he was exiled from the building, the broken camera had been fixed? When and how did he learn of this secuirty maintainance fact?

Besides, if you are doing something wrong that you believe you can convince people wasn't a crime, it doesn't matter much whether or not you are photographed doing it.

For, don't you know, when he took those boxes, his mind was pure (as far as the US investigation goes), based on the following assertions:

ASSEERTION a) he thought that the documents' having been photocopied made it okay for them to be moved.

ASSERTION b) he didn't add or cause to be added (or know of) anything anything else relevant to the investigation as part the boxes' contents and then remove any such thing(s) from the boxes later;

ASSERTION c) he had no clue that a US order implicitly disagreeing with assertion a) had been or was about to be or likely would be launched, forbidding removal of those boxes;

and ASSERTION d) he only moved those boxes to retrieve personal effects because he had been told he had to.

The jury heard versions of assertions a) b) c) and d), not from Conrad himself, but from his legal representatives, and from witnesses who testified that, as far as they knew (but without being able to read Conrad's mind) assertions c) and d) were true.

The jury didn't buy the defense's presentation of a, b, c, and d. Any one of assertions a) b) or c) not being believed, undermines (disbelieving a) OR nullifies (disbelieving c or b) assertion d)--and leads to the conclusion of obstruction.

Lit_200 March 15, 2008 at 10:12 p.m.

As a first step in understanding roger and his attitude to women, and I mean no disrespect to his culture, a little history is apropos. When Palestinian fedayeen began to take over Jordan in 1970, King Hussein, while he did not welcome them with open arms, was conciliatory.

However, Hussein's Bedouin army officers were shamed and angered by this slow but increasingly strident takeover. It caused the Jordanian officers to feel that they were being insulted. Some armored units then tied women's panties and brassieres to their vehicle antennas to express their feeling that Hussein had made them into women.

Perhaps this deep-seated attitude is what is partly behind roger's wish to insult me, as the Palestinians insulted the Jordanians, by referring to me as a woman. It's possible.

As to why Fintan falls into line with this and adds his voice, that's much easier to understand. He is just a great arse.

And as to why Barb in BC goes along with the misogyny, well... that is the subject of a deeper and more rigorous study.

Good night all.

Lit_200 March 15, 2008 at 10:17 p.m.

GravityLevity2

The jury did not consider any of your assertions. They SAW him taking boxes in the video and that was it. No further discussion was necessary. More than one juror said after the trial that he was obviously guilty because a Canadian court had forbidden him to take documents, and he did. Ipso facto, he was guilty of obstruction. Case closed.

GravityLevity2 March 15, 2008 at 10:18 p.m.

. . . and leaf's misogyny? huh, Lit?--or do you too have a taste for dumb blonde jokes/ insults, and find the very idea of grandmother derisory?

Casey March 15, 2008 at 10:23 p.m.

To Lit200 - I have decided to ignore your ridiculous, laughable, unproved and ignorant accusations vis a vis my name ( which is Casey ) and continually guessed at aliases ad nauseum ( no point to refuting your assumptions as this simply rachets up your crap ) as well as your foolish hogwash and dribble drabble re CB ( you no longer merit my valuable time and besides, you are a loony tunes ) so consider this post my last to you, jo mama or is it joe cool?....lol. Most posters to this blog seem to have reached the same conlusion as mine about you - a rather childish wo-man who some here believe to be leaf too. ( you probably ARE leaf in disguise - most here have grasped your modus operandi anyway ).
You may stand on your head, scream and throw one tantrum after another and tell me to " mind my own beeswax " ( verrry mature....LOL ) to your ever luvin' heart's content, I am throwing in the towel with you and your pointless, meaningless twaddle. I suggest you ignore me too....lmao... and maybe go bother some poor schmuck on another blog who will give you the time of day and maybe even understand a notallthere sad sack like you....lol.
Or better yet - try emailing CB and annoying him - needs your friendship....

Barbara_in_BC March 15, 2008 at 10:34 p.m.

Lit 200 asked me a question. How do I know that Conrad Black was unaware that the cameras were working?:

link to article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/30/busine......

"The tape came from cameras that were turned on only the day before Lord Black and his posse carried out the boxes, company officials have said."

GravityLevity2 March 15, 2008 at 10:39 p.m.

Lit: "The jury did not consider any of your [Black's, not mine] assertions"--but you don't deny that they did hear versions of them presented in court. Why didn't they consider the assertions--if indeed they didn't? Because the defense did not not present them credibly--perhaps because they are not credible. Perhaps the jurors heard them and each juror dismissed them as not credible immediately and as beneath discussion.

Source for your "more than one juror said"?

Why didn't the great appeals lawyer Frey play up the Canada angle, which seems to important to you? (I ask this question with the proviso that the news reports may have missed some things about the appeal.)

BTW in the link posted by one of leaf's pashes (she admires the supposed colour of this female poster's hair) in 2005 Conrad Black had no comment on the fact that the repaired camera had recorded the removal of the boxes. One would have expected a "yes indeed, I knew it was working when I went in there" sort of comment, if indeed he had known.

After all, Conrad Black is not known as a reticent person, particularly when he has a statement that he thinks will vindicate him or discomfit his enemies.

ROGER1 March 15, 2008 at 10:40 p.m.

POOR LORD BLACK TAKES A BACKSEAT TO PANTIES AND BRASSIERES IN LIT200'S LIST OF PRIORITIES!

BUT I SHALL PUT BLACK BACK AT THE TOP OF THE PRIORITY LIST:

>>Lit_200 March 15, 2008 at 9:49 p.m.

BBC

"He had no idea they were working."

How do you know that? Can you prove it?<<

Prove it? Which law school did you attend? The People's representatives don't have to prove anything. Onus has shifted to Lord Black to prove that the court was wrong to convict him as a common thief! Onus, onus, onus! Lit is of course ignorant of his own tradition, let alone the traditions of others.

As GravityLevity iterated, the hole that Black dug for himself in that Chicago trial is pretty deep. Nothing can get him out of the obstruction charge conviction hole because he did not testify. And if he had testified, he would have been convicted of racketeering! LOL! Poor Black, they have him coming and going.

As for the cameras, bank robbers love to taunt cameras which capture their escapes. Like other robber barons, Black was jocular and gestured to the cameras. On the witness stand, his blindly faithful
secretary lied through her teeth about Black pointing at her instead of the cameras! At what cost does such public humiliation come? The jury weighed the versions of the prosecution and the defense and they ruled in favour of the prosecution. This is not an insignificant point. There is no matter of law involved. It is a determination of fact! COURTS DEFER TO JURIES ON DETERMINATIONS OF FACT! End of story. As long as Black loses the appeal of the obstruction conviction, his is going nowhere! Black was done in by his own wilful ego and petulance!

ROGER1 March 15, 2008 at 10:57 p.m.

NOW WITH RESPECT TO KING HUSSEIN OF THE HASHEMITE KINGDOM OF JORDAN, descended from the line of King Faisel of the Hejira, heir and grandson of the assassinated King Abdullah, son of the aforementioned King Faisel, he was a competent leader, but a despotic tyrant, as is every leader in the Arab world, with one or two exceptions.

JORDAN IS AN ILLEGITIMATE COUNTRY THAT CAN NEVER BE MADE LEGITIMATE. The Hashemites are usurpers from the Hejira. Jordan was created by the stroke of a British pen--they cannot be more humiliated than they were at the inception of their statehood! In 1948, TransJordan had the largest army in the Arab world, the Arab Legion---and amongst the officer corps of the entire length and breadth of the Arab Legion there was precisely one Arab officer, with the rest all British officers and the head of the Legion was Glubb Pasha, a Briton! And you talk of panties and bras on tanks in 1970? What exactly do you know about anything in the world, here in Canada or anywhere else?

But why would Jordan be of any direct concern to myself? I am not from that pathetic land of tyranny and despotism. But as a citizen of the world, the bell tolls for all of us when tyrants rule anywhere in the world. And remember, our Canadian government, along with other western governments, have sent Canadian and other western citizens to countries like Jordan to be tortured. Maher Arrar was first tortured in Jordan before being sent on to Syria. So, if it is an insult to be female, why did tens of millions of Muslims elect women to lead the governments of their countries in Pakistan, Bangladesh & Indonesia? Why were there women leaders of governments around the non-western world, long before any western country had a woman leader? Lo, Canada has never elected a woman to lead the Government of Canada! As for psychologizing, what is your obsession with your sexual identity confusion and lingerie? LOL! Please spare us your pathological fetishes--we have had enough salacious news recently!

ROGER1 March 15, 2008 at 11:04 p.m.

>>Lit_200 March 15, 2008 at 10:17 p.m.

GravityLevity2

The jury did not consider any of your assertions. They SAW him taking boxes in the video and that was it. No further discussion was necessary. More than one juror said after the trial that he was obviously guilty because a Canadian court had forbidden him to take documents, and he did. Ipso facto, he was guilty of obstruction. Case closed.<<

LOL! Has Frey made an argument over jurisdiction? I predicted last year that the appeal would NOT make a jurisdictional dispute claim and I continue to believe that Frey would not be so dumb as to try. It all comes down to onus. Black has to prove his case in his appeal. Merely repeating drivel won't turn it into a winning argument.

Black now knows how high the stakes are. Hell on earth continues if the appeal fails, as it surely will. Notice that poor Leaf and Lit are not predicting success. They know the grim truth, but hope springs eternal. Of course the delusional also have hopes, which become their reality!

Casey March 15, 2008 at 11:12 p.m.

" As GravityLevity iterated, the hole that Black dug for himself in that Chicago trial is pretty deep. Nothing can get him out of the obstruction charge conviction hole because he did not testify. And if he had testified, he would have been convicted of racketeering! LOL! Poor Black, they have him coming and going. " - ROGER1

You have me roaring again...LMAO. You have Lit completely figured out - a mindless numbnuts half man / half woman....lol I LUV IT....Poor ole Lit is missing all these testimonials to him / her - he errr went to bed - hope he remembered to say his / her prayers...errr can you picture Lit kneeling beside the bed....?

Casey March 15, 2008 at 11:14 p.m.

And your comments re Black, I neglected to mention, are absolutely priceless and spot on...ROGER1...good one..lol

Fintan March 16, 2008 at 3:21 a.m.

As I enjoy my second cup of coffee, it's about 3.20 a.m. in Coleman and I hope Bubba is, as always, snoring and farting loudly, while His Lardship lies sleepless, his stomach churning from the same gases that the starchy prison diet has generated in Bubba and all of the prisoners there.

Only one nuisance call last night. Lit/leaf must have been busy at something else. Maybe too upset to go out to the coin box after all those things I write that reminded her of daddy/brother/uncle/mom, who screwed her up good. Or lying in a drunken/drug-induced stupor. Or perhaps having her favourite fantasy about His Lardship's pudgy fingers ... LOL

Has anyone noticed that the cory head of that hydra has "fled from the scene"? Who knows, it might be back when the alcohol has had time to work its way out of the system and won't show up in lab results. Hint, hint! LOL

I wonder why the multiple-headed hydra, despite being so utterly fascinated with me, is in denial about the fact that I have a daughter? I do indeed - and a son as well, and I get on great with both. In fact, it was my daughter, now a 35-year-old judge, who gave me a puppy for my 60th birthday. She loves animals and would hardly have entrusted a puppy to a father who is the kind of monster that lit/leaf's projection of itself makes me. I bet the closest lit/leaf ever came to owning a pet was pulling wings off butterflies.

On reflection, I think the present I got was a lot more valuable and good for me long-term than what Morticia got for her 60th some years earlier.

Roger makes some excellent points about the reality of His Lardship's present existence and prospects, ditto Casey, and Barbara in BC makes the best - and most obvious - point of them all: His Lardship, in his tantrum and arrogance and under the baleful eye of karma, did not know that the cameras were working; they had been activated a day or two earlier.

On such tiny banana skins do big men slip and fall on their big fat prats. ROFLMAO

Fintan March 16, 2008 at 4:45 a.m.

Good laugh! This is a column in the Nazional Post (which still lists "Conrad Black" as one of its columnists, despite his recent difficulty in meeting deadlines. LOL

http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/colu...

Lord Archer, a convicted perjurer, needs to be read with a grain of salt, of course. I doubt whether his survival tips, based as they are on his own experience of British nicks with relatively sympathetic governors, will be of much use in a Federal Pound Your Ass Institution. But who knows? With his penchant for kinky sex, as revealed at his trial, old Jeffrey might even enjoy some aspects of an American pen. I'm sure he's another lord that lit/leaf would also enjoy meeting, although his fingers don't look pudgy. LOL

One thing that His Lardship Black could learn from His Lordship Archer is the value of getting out of denial. Jeffrey admitted his guilt once the jury had convicted him and did his porridge like a man. His other great asset, of course, is his wife Mary. A real lady of genuine breeding and just about as diametrically opposed to the harridan, beggar-on-horseback, ordinaire slag Morticia as it is possible to be.

Down memory lane: Here's a link to a great piece by Linda McQuaig in the Guardian last July. I especially loved some of the reader comments and this from His Lardship: ""Citizenship of Canada is not now for me competitive with that of the United Kingdom."

I'll bet he's slowly coming round to revising his view on that one. LOL

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

Lit_200 March 16, 2008 at 8:15 a.m.

Two points worth noting in the Great Arse's latest blather. Lord Archer emerged from prison with his writing skill, his sense of humour and his ability to function in society fully intact.

It's not strange that the Great Arse did not notice these points because he has none of these attributes himself, and has to get on by praying fervently for Conrad Black's rape in prison. Unfortunately for the Arse, Black is bearing up beautifully. By all accounts he is well liked by his temporary mates in prison and is handling the injustice of his imprisonment very well indeed.

No bullying, no rape, and everybody trying help him as best they can.

Family members, including his charming wife, are visiting him with all the regularity that the rules permit.

This is very difficult for the Great Arse to accept, but accept it he must, grinding his teeth and repeatedly slapping his forhead with his hand.

Lit_200 March 16, 2008 at 8:41 a.m.

Looking over the night's offerings I see that Donna is continuing to laugh herself silly with the Blowhard's noxious comments. I see her flopping around uncontrollably on the floor, laughing hysterically. Don't break a leg, dear.

Little did I expect to score such an impressive bullseye on my first sally into penetrating the dark and tortuous twists of the Blowhard's personality. His frantic and offkey, might I say WIKIPEDIAN response to my recollection of the panties and brassiers, flying shamefully from the radio antennas of the Blowhard's friends in the Jordanian army, point strongly to the low esteem in which he holds the fairer sex. It begins to explain why he fails at every chance I give him to decry the practice of the circumcision of female babies in his culture and why, on unguarded occasions, he advocates the severing of Conrad Black's limbs.

Yes. The first glimmerings of the Blowhard's misogyny are shining through the murk. As a better writer than I has said, his ineffectual response "shines and stinks in turns, like moonlight on a rotting mackerel."

Off to the links on an absolutely gorgeous day. As my pal Browning has written:

The year's at the spring,
And day's at the morn;
Morning's at seven;
The hill-side's dew-pearled;
The lark's on the wing;
The snail's on the thorn;
God's in his Heaven -
All's right with the world!

And I might add: The Great Arse of the World is severely distressed at how well Conrad Black is handling adversity, and the Blowhard is moaning under the onslaught of my revelations concerning the reptilian nether regions of his persona!

I hope everybody has a lovely, lovely day.

Marilyn2 March 16, 2008 at 9:22 a.m.

Regarding obstruction of justice, the judges hearing Conrad Black's appeal are being told this by the felon's lawyers, as reported in the National Post earlier this week:

"Prosecutors said Lord Black was concealing evidence from U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission investigators. The appeals brief, however, says that Lord Black had been 'removing from his long-time office personal papers and effects, on the eve of his eviction from the space by new management, and in full view of others, including his assistant and security cameras.
'The documents at issue in this case had been copied by lawyers long before the boxes were moved, and had already been produced to the SEC,' Lord Black's attorneys continued."

In Black's final column in the National Post before entering prison, he wrote re obstruction of justice: "I had . . . nothing to do with selecting the contents of the boxes and knew nothing about their contents, and did not look at the boxes on the weekend they were in my home."

Surely the judges will ask, if Black had nothing to do with selecting the contents of the boxes, knew nothing about their contents and didn't look at the boxes while they were in his home.....how in hell can he argue in appeal that the boxes only contained "personal papers and effects"?

Looks to me like Black has been caught in a trap of his own making: his final column in The Post puts a lie to his own appeal.

ValC March 16, 2008 at 9:34 a.m.

I wish that the posters who say CB is doing well in prison would post a link. I am curious about how he is getting along. It has to have been a big shock for him because the conditions in jail are so different from what he is used to. No doubt a mentally and emotionally strong person would be able to adapt, but I doubt it would be easy.

My opinion is that anyone who claims that it is easy to do time in jail is lying. I have only visited, never done time, so I dont know for sure. There are a few people who emerge from prison better, stronger individuals than when they went in. For CB's sake, I hope he is one of those people.

Casey March 16, 2008 at 9:41 a.m.

Looks to me like Black has been caught in a trap of his own making: his final column in The Post puts a lie to his own appeal. - Marilyn2

When people tell lies, this is exactly what happens - these are the consequences. Thanks, Marilyn, for posting this new info. And I am absolutely certain that these latest revealations are the tip of the icenerg. Be ready, in the coming weeks, months and years, for more of the same - more concealed, desrtoyed and removed evidence - essentially? you name it. CB is where he belongs and it is shameful that he was only charged and convicted on 4 felonies - you will ultimately discover that the true amounts of stolen funds by Black, et. al, is as Breeden first revealed in his senational Report - as per corporate kleptocracy. CB and the other henchmen pocketed more than 92.5% or 400 million dollars from Hollinger, etc., from 1997 - 2003 of Hollinger's net income. This is one of the most lurid chapters in Canadian corporate crime and it is shameful that CB only received 6 and half years. He should have had the book thrown at him and almost did as per the jurors after verdict comments to the press - CB came within moments of being convicted on all counts!

W101 March 16, 2008 at 9:56 a.m.

JONES: "You insult me and my intelligence."
-----

Well, I do apologize. You tend to get carried away emotionally, first it's "oh no! Black is going to get away with it ... the rich and powerful will never pay."

And now, when finally, finally, the neocon jerk gets his comeuppance, and you go all teary eyed.

Sure, Black is around your age, and wouldn't it be terrible -- but we're talking about a guy who argued for tougher law and order in the U.S., the virtues of bombing Iraq, and spent half a million bucks on one jet airplane joyride?

I drove by Coleman just a few weeks ago, compared to most African refugee camps, it's Club Med.

Casey March 16, 2008 at 10:14 a.m.

correcton of facts above - CB charged on 13 counts / felonies, not just the 4 I incorrectly stated above. My apologies.

Fintan March 16, 2008 at 10:38 a.m.

I must have riled Lit/leaf good with those probing speculative comments about who did what to her to make her the perverted, spiteful and mischievous thing she is. And I thought she kept to genteel Victorian language and only flipped over to leaf when she wanted to be abusive. LOL Still haven't told us, dearie, whether it was daddy/brother/uncle/cousin or maybe mummy that did those terrible things to you, and made you a potential threat as well.

As always, the wannabee Besserwisser, but actually quite ignorant Lit makes a totally syllogistic comparison. Jeffrey Archer did indeed emerge from prison with his spirit and writing skill intact. His skill was debatable even before he went in, but there's no accounting for taste. If people enjoy swill, I say give them swill - and Jeffrey does that so well. But he was in a much cushier nick for a third of the time that His Lardship will spend in an American one, had the support of his wonderful wife Mary - no Morticia she! - and, most importantly, was still very wealthy. There were no significant civil suits pending against him and he could easily earn more by writing more books.

Then, of course, he was jailed for lying about his dalliances with prostitutes, but never called a thief. His Lardship is a convicted thief. The difference matters a great deal in Britain.

Marilyn2 states the obvious. Anyway, the court could only have His Lardship's word for it that he never looked in the boxes, and we all know the value of that word. Besides, the court order said "Do not remove"PEERIOD That means "Do not remove or you go to jail" FULL STOP LOL

Here's a bit from the Guardian:

"Black's appeal lawyer, Andrew Frey, has suggested that his client could be released in early summer if the appeal is heard swiftly."

That's Frei the optimistic lawyer, who is hardly going to say "leave it, Your Lordship you're done" and lose a big fee. His name is German for "free", which he is not in the financial sense and His Lardship will not be in the liberty sense until October 2013. Karma be praised.

The article goes on: "Others are less optimistic. Andrew Stoltmann, a Chicago lawyer specialising in white-collar cases who followed Black's trial closely, said: 'The odds of Conrad Black being successful on any of the issues he's raised on appeal are extremely unlikely. Appeals are made in virtually every criminal case – and virtually all of them are rejected'."

Yep, 13 days down, about 1,787 to go - and poor Lit still doesn't believe he's not going to be rear-ended (in the Coleman, not the Toronto way) at some point during that time. ROFLMAO

P.s. Lit/leaf, I have quite an athletic figure and, according to the doctor, am exactly the right weight for my height and age. Eat you heart out, blob!

Marilyn2 March 16, 2008 at 11:03 a.m.

Well, it's official: Conrad's son has been charged in that hit and run accident we heard about yesterday. Here's the link: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/s...
The charge indicates that Jonathan Black was driving with a suspended licence and without insurance -- should we be surprised?

Barbara_in_BC March 16, 2008 at 11:34 a.m.

Well THAT's sad Marilyn. I guess we won't be seeing Cory Privatera here anytime soon.

Casey March 16, 2008 at 11:39 a.m.

Here's a bit from the Guardian:

"Black's appeal lawyer, Andrew Frey, has suggested that his client could be released in early summer if the appeal is heard swiftly." - Fintan

Last evening, I commented here that I didn't nor still do not know which of the 2 yes men / brownosers, Frey or Greenspan, is the dumber of the two - for taking CB's words at face value and for entertaining even a glimmer ( or maybe simply keeping up appearances on behalf of old pudgy / blimp himself ) of a chance that he might be acquitted or win on appeal. It's a no brainer that both took on the case to bleed CB dry re fees and to extract maximum publicity at beer belly's expense.
Love your links and posts - keep 'em coming and please do not let Lit off the hook ever - this poster is a complete loony tunes......