The jury has concluded deliberations and will announce a verdict in coming minutes. Open thread for discussion and related links.
See also: Conrad Black Trial blog.
Guilty on 4 of 13 counts (corrected):
After 10 days of deliberations, the jury at the fraud trial for Conrad Black has found the former media baron guilty on four of 13 counts in his fraud and racketeering trial, including the serious charge of obstruction of justice.
Black was cleared of the charge of racketeering, but legal expert Paula Todd called the obstruction charge “extraordinary.”
Zorpheous is plainly wrong. No court order is binding until notice of it is given.
According to Mark Steyn, Fitzgerald et al hammered endlessly about the violated Canadian court order. Black was unaware of the SEC order.
If this is true then it is apparent that Fitzgerald convinced the jury that they can ajudicate obstruction of justice offenses that occur in other countries. The MSM never, ever seems to mention or comment on Fitzgerald’s international reach.
The trial court judge will be aware of this and appeal judges will not be so trusting as the jurors. Predict that Black will be released on bail pending an appeal and that the obstruction charge will be reversed.
The fat lady is not even close to singing.
“Good post OMMAG. Let’s hope that A**hole Fitzgerald, Lynch Mob leader gets his day.”
Given the involvement of the SEC, would we refer to it as a “Merril Lynch mob”?
Whatever happened to the Conservative tough-on-crime stance? Black is no longer an alleged criminal; he is a convicted criminal.
Oh, I forgot, that is only for those people you consider to be low-lifes.
ET said:
“Hopefully, Black will win on appeal. But, how do we, the Canadian taxpayer, get our money back from Chretien? There’s no court that would help us with that!”
It’s like Enron investors trying to sue the shell that is left when it is bereft of assets. A moot point.
Recall the hounding that Francois Beaudoin took from the RCMP at behest of govt. prompting.
ET it is taxpayers that through hard work contribute to Her Majesty’s Treasury. Ergo this is equivalent to attempting to sue yourself. This would be a tautologous exercise. This is why the Adscam scandal was so egregious, even if one proves one’s point there is no effective redress except at the ballot box.
The last election provided some measure of “justice”.
Conrad Black however may have some legs in the event that he was not apprised of the court’s order. How does one form criminal intent, when one is unaware of the order in question as ward has suggested.
As Eddie Greenspan suggested $90 million of the alleged frauds has been ground down to $2.8 million pending appeal.
Thus Hollinger shareholders, if this sticks, would recover a total of $2.8 million which may be pennies per share in the grand scheme of things.
The lesson for voters and shareholders alike is to make sure one is vocal and give things greater scrutiny.
What goes around – comes around.
When this crook, Black, rejected his Canadian citizenship and walked away from this great country to fulfill his own self centred – self interest, he set the stage for what is happening to him now.
At the last minute, when the trial seemed inevitable, he labelled himself a ‘freedom fighter’ and said he wanted his Canadian citizenship back.
As badly as nutbars like Ezra Levant and most of the supporters of Stephen Harper WANT Black to get his citizenship back, it is too late, and I hope he rots in a federal US penitenary while Barbra Amiel spends whats left of the fortune buying shoes and …. keeping herself amused.
Good riddance to bad seed!
Let’s see – “The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission had also sent Black’s legal team a letter indicating that the SEC was interested in Hollinger documents for an investigation.
The lawyers had received the letter the day before Black had moved the documents. But those lawyers testified Thursday that they never told Black about the SEC letter.”
His lawyers get the letter. The next day, Black removes the boxes. His lawyers say they never told him anything. Right.
I don’t believe it. Quite a coincidence that he moved the boxes the next day. And the lawyers expect us to belive they never mentioned something as important as the letter. Sorry folks, too much of a stretch for me.
Unlike some others, I was cheering for Conrad Black, and hoping he was innocent. It doesn’t look that way to me, regardless of how I feel about Lord Black or Fitzgerald.
Can you imagine the headlines in Canada’s MSM if Omar Khadr is ever convicted of killing a US Medic. Successful businessmen are expendable Muslim terrorists are not.
Oh and by the way for all of you ‘Black’ lovers out there …. you are REALLY supporting our Canadian troops aren’t you when you support this scum who LEGALLY rejected his Canadian citizenship and walked away from this country. The country that our troops love so much.
It is time for you Conrad Black supporters to start supporting our troops and express the utter contempt that he so richly deserves!
Leftdog, please explain what the f**k Black trial has to do with our troops? Give it a rest.
Since when, leftdog, did you start caring about the troops anyway?
“When this crook, Black, rejected his Canadian citizenship and walked away from this great country to fulfill his own self centred – self interest, he set the stage for what is happening to him now.”
I guess you don’t recall your hero, Chretien’s interference with Black’s peerage in the House of Lord’s by referring to the Nickel Resolution of 1919. So, who’s self centred, self interest was being served. Black’s criticism of the the liberal (and Liberal) elite in Canada through the National Post is what brought that on. Incidentally, all you lefties were crying about to much media ownership by a conservative at the time, but I don’t here any crying now over the leftwing ownership of Canadian media. Of course, to the left, Liberals are “Centrist”.
When Black rejected his Canadian citizenship, he rejected:
-Canada
-Canadians
-Canadian Troops
Stop being so illogical.
Jimbo,
His lawyers get the letter. The next day, Black removes the boxes. His lawyers say they never told him anything. Right.
Black’s lawyers would perjure themselves to try to protect him? An act, that if they were outed on, could see them becoming Black’s cellmates.
That would be taking service to whole new level.
Leftdog, you own the rights to illogical. I guess he rejected Dairy Queen too.
Again, what does any of have to do with trial? You’re the one rejecting our troops, not Black. Give your lefty head a shake.
Discuss the case, not Black’s citizenship or our troops.
“So if Steyn is correct in his apprehension of the facts, Conrad Black may have some legs on which to appeal the obstruction charge.”
In other words, Black hasn’t got a hope in hell. Not one thing that Steyn said about Iraq turned out to be true.
Posted by: Cooler Head at July 13, 2007 4:02 PM
Maybe so, Cooler, a valid point. We’ll just have to see if a lefty moghul ever gets charged and convicted of anything in Canada or abroad for something that was signed-off on by two accounting firms and the oustide board of directors.
tough-on-crime stance? Black is no longer an alleged criminal; he is a convicted criminal.
Posted by: MJB at July 13, 2007 4:52 PM
Then shouldn’t you be arguing for his immediate release, MJB, as I’m sure you desire for all victims of the “man”? (Especially in those fascist, death-penalty, U.S. courts.)
Bart said “Black’s lawyers would perjure themselves to try to protect him? An act, that if they were outed on, could see them becoming Black’s cellmates.”
I considered that. Then I remembered – they’re lawyers. They have their ways of getting around the truth without actually lying, in my experience. Who’s going to “out” them anyway? Black? I don’t think so.
It just doesn’t pass the smell test for me. This was important stuff. When were they planning on telling him? Maybe someone else told him?
There’s just too much of a coincidence for me to believe the day after his lawyers receive the letter, he just arbitrarily decides to defy a court order and remove a bunch of boxes possibly containing documents pertinent to this case.
People lie all of the time, for a lot less than $60 million (or so). Even lawyers.
leftdog- you are the one who is being illogical; you are committing a logical fallacy – of ‘begging the question by assuming every instance of a generalization’.
Because Black rejected Canadian citizenship does not mean, logically, that he rejected every factual instance of ‘being Canadian’. And by the way, being a Canadian citizen has nothing to do with accepting or not accepting other Canadians or the military.
But – Did he reject the parliamentary system, the Canadian dollar, maple syrup, hockey, cold winters and so on?
my, my, anon – that’s certainly a well-grounded argument! Because Steyn was wrong on some, not all, aspects of Iraq, then, you claim that he’ll be wrong about Black. Love your (il)logic.
Well I must say that I’m a little surprised by some of the comments here, but hey…its still a free country and everyone is entitled to express his/her opinion.
As an active investor, I have for years been fed up with CEOs and other executives of publicly-traded companies being rewarded with enormous salaries and stock options with MY money.
In my opinion, Conrad Black deserves what he gets. He clearly treated Hollinger as a personal piggy bank (IMO) and diverted what should have been shareholders’ funds to line his own pockets. I personally don’t care what about his lifestyle or whast he does with his money…as long as its HIS money…
Here’s some logic for leftdog. Black started The National Post. Of our national media, the National Post is easily the most supportive of our troops. The conclusion is obvious.
BTW, Steyn is a genius. And funny, too.
John B,
Yes I know Nancy Grace is a former lawyer – so is Paula Todd.
There’s a reason why they’re both no longer in that field.
Re: the “obstruction of justice” “guilty” verdict, um, did anyone at all actually see what was in the boxes on surveillance tape?
If the Court couldn’t demonstrate that there was any corporate “records” in them, rather than simply Lord Black’s personal effects, as he indicated they contained, then the jury erred in its “guilty” verdict on that count, for there’s reasonable doubt that the boxes may well not have contained anything they shouldn’t.
Nothing was proven there. Last time I checked, it was NOT a crime to move boxes from anyplace to anyplace.
Besides, what about that Liberal MP who removed sensitive document-containing boxes from an office in Parliament? We know that the boxes contained documents he had no business messing around with, and he actually said he read them! He (so far as I know; there’s no official criminal charges I’ve heard of yet) gets away with this, but Lord Black gets up to twenty years for simply moving some boxes around? Hell, he even returned the boxes themselves, once their contents were removed! Sheesh! He wouldn’t even steal boxes! And what of Sandy Berger? He got off a lot easier for stealing classified national security documents!
I think this whole thing is a witch hunt against Lord Black because he’s conservative, not leftist. See how harshly he’s being treated without any evidence against him, and compare it to the likes of the nosey Liberal MP and Berger.
Hell, why not? Here I go and declare it: It’s a vast, left-wing conspiracy against Conrad Black just because he’s not a liberal and because he dared to fight liberals with his own media! Smells like revenge to me.
The other counts: Can’t say for sure about those specifc ones, but as long as I followed the trial, never did I once see or hear of anything that I could consider as “proof” of “fraud”.
Wonder if anyone powerful/wealthy somehow “got to” the jury members? Was the jury somehow motivated to punish, no matter what?
And the Judge, she seemed to goad the jury on, urging them to keep trying and so on…
I guess the state apparatus considers being a successful, conservative media tycoon a crime, then…
So Conrad’s lawyers didn’t tell him about the court order, eh? So why didn’t the defense present this at trial? Answer, because the lawyers would have to take the stand and testify to this, and this would wave the client attorney privlidge (in for a penny, in for a pound). If they had testified the DA could have supeniad the law office phone records and emails for that day right up to the time Conrad entered the office to retrieve the records. N lawyer in the world would do this. Next, Conrad could have testified to this at trial, but choose not to take the stand and you can’t cry do over because you waved the right.
Next _onrad had the very best legal representation money could buy, so forget any cries of poor representation.
That obstruction charge is going to stick. Don’t worry Convict Conrad fans, his lawyers will keep him out for years to come.
Given such low standards of proof, then why isn’t the entire former Liberal government in jail?
We’ve got much more evidence on these crooks than the liberal prosecution has on Lord Black!
We KNOW the Liberals cheated us. How come they get off? Simply going after LaFleur isn’t enough. Those who facilitated his frauds in any way, shape, or form, no matter how high-up, ought to be tried. And convicted based on the same standard of proof used against Lord Black. Unless this happens, then what Black got isn’t justice. Unless liberals are treated as badly as conservatives, there’ll never be justice.
Justice is NOT seen as having been done. I see the American judicial system as having been abused, hijacked, exploited by the left for its own petty purposes.
I seriously doubt that Lord Black did anything illegal at all. I see no reason, from the evidence given in court, to think he did anything wrong at all.
Now we have:
– a women convicted and sent to jail because she answered a question no incoreectly with regards to a stock sale
– a man convicted of charges relating to the non-outing of a CIA officer by another government official
– a media baron(literally) convicted because he used a foreign county’s mail service to mail documents relating to activities that while illegal in the US are legal in his home country and removed documents he was unaware (so the evidence shows, speculation aside) were under court order.Mr. Fitzgerald should be proud.
We should all be very concerned about his overeaching activities and as Canadians hope they never cross our border.
I am sad for Mr. Black. I like his books and his elan. I cannot imagine any person who is serious about protecting the rights of the individual from the tyrrany of overzealous prosecutors would be happy. And I hope none of you ever get caught in one of Mr. Fitzgerald’s snares. I don’t care if you are right, left or whatever.
I think I will go out and buy his latest book and gain some solace knowing two things: Mr. Black will fight this thing head on as he has from the outset, so it is not over and if he does end up in the hoosegow as so many of you hope, he will spend his time writing some more books.
Whatever happens to him he has contributed a great deal to our country in positive ways and will continue to do so.
Chin up Tubby!
So Lord Black goes to move out his own gear with a limo and uniformed chaufer, because of an eviction notice and all he takes are 13 cartons pertanant to an investigation.
Where’s his chair, lamp and pictures, where’s his humidoor and electric shoe buffer.
Do you think Conrad Black moves his own stuff,… in a limo, no less?
The share holders were screwed over for years, any profit the company showed was skimmed off.
That profit was the shareholders, not Blacks or Radlers.
The shareholders (owners of the company) got justice, but it took an American court to do it.
The US has prosecutors like Fitzgerald and we get stuck with useless company men like Gomery.
The US has wheels that turn, people that break the law go to jail, we’re missing hundreds of millions, our priminister admits that his party took it, and the statute of limitations ticks on….
Pity Canada.
Zorpheus:
Read more fully before you go off (middle of below paragraph). The lawyers did testify in court that they had not yet informed Black. That is why some are quite troubled by his conviction. There is so much that stands out in this case that exhonerates Black of what the prosecution accused him of that the jury seems to have ignored.
“The lawyers had received the letter the day before Black had moved the documents. But those lawyers testified Thursday that they never told Black about the SEC letter. Black’s secretary, Joan Maida, also said she knew nothing about any SEC probe.”
Hi Bruce, thanks for the polite observations even if we disagree. And I hope you don’t own U.S. H&R Block stock as billionaire Richard Breeden is back at work:
“While H&R Block is widely known for its market-leading tax preparation services, its efforts to diversify into activities including subprime mortgage lending, securities brokerage and banking have resulted in substantial lost shareholder value,” said Richard Breeden in the SEC filing.
“H&R Block’s stock has significantly underperformed the S&P 500 index for the five years ended June 15, 2007,” he added. “As shareholders, we believe that five years is long enough to wait for H&R Block to achieve attractive returns for shareholders. This board needs fresh perspectives and new energy, which we intend to supply, to tackle the company’s problems.”
http://tinyurl.com/3ytc76
(Via a commenter at JustOneMinute blog that’s been covering the Libby trial very well.)
great it was present in court and the jury didn,t buy it
Mark Steyn has access to Conrad Black.
I suspect Mark will not waste too much time before a book chronicling the Hollinger-Black saga is underway.
On another issue, seeing Peter C.Newman on TV gloating over Black’s conviction for me is barf territory.
I know of both Black and Newman only through media, if circumstances would ever exist for me (which they of course won’t), I would sooner have Black standing behind my back than Newman.
My hope is Black and the others can successfully appeal.
Ward said; “But those lawyers testified Thursday that they never told Black about the SEC letter.”
Which Thursday? Please give us a date.
MJB: The reference can be found in this CBC article (among other places) from Thursday May 31
http://www.cbc.ca/money/story/2007/05/31/blacktrialmay31.html
“The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission had also sent Black’s legal team a letter indicating that the SEC was interested in Hollinger documents for an investigation.
The lawyers had received the letter the day before Black had moved the documents. But those lawyers testified Thursday that they never told Black about the SEC letter. Black’s secretary, Joan Maida, also said she knew nothing about any SEC probe.”
Like I said, (months ago): if Conrad Black had restricted his activities to Canada, he never would have been charged in the first place. (White collar crime does not exist in Canada).
At least- he probably paid his own legal bills, (instead of expecting the taxpayers to do it).
It’s a bit of stretch to think that Black’s lawyers would perjure themselves to protect him.
But, as Jimbo above and others point out, if Blacks lawyers got a letter from the SEC requesting documents it is a bit implausible that they wouldn’t tell him right away. And then the very next day he removes the documents.
One side of the brain admires Black for his stoic attitude, his founding of NP, and his obvious intelligence. The other side realizes that the U.S. justice system is sound and it is not going to produce a complete put-up job as some people, even some I generally like such as Jonas and Steyn, have suggested.
Not to disrepect juries, but the appeals court judges are going to be much more immune to manipulation by Fitzgerald or Greenspan. And their decisions on the 4 convictions are going to carry a lot of weight.
Am I missing something here? Black is guilty of mail fraud for using FedEx to distribute payments for contractually agreed upon payments. The jury did not consider the deals nor the non-compete sums illegal yet found that FedExing the payments a fraudulent use of the US Mail service? The removal of documents from his vacated office in Toronto is also curious as I do not believe he was under any legal order not to do so, but even so there is a jurisdictional problem, can the US authorities compel activities in Canada?
The issue was nowhere to be found on American talk radio…
Bernie Ebbers got a raw deal, too. Same thing — the prosecution made the plea bargain offer to the real crook, the corrupt number two man and were able to get the famous guy with the media profile. All the better for their political careers.
No, for corporate crime, Canada has a better justice system.
For murder, I like Texas’.
And for the lefties trolling this blog, your comments are telling. Like all lefties, you suffer from jealousy — it drives your politics. Anytime you see success, especially monetary, it makes you angry. What bitter, little people you are — and not because of whatever wealth you may or may not have.
I’m not going to judge C. Black. I simply point the need for strict corporate governance rules bing in place and followed. If anyone puts money into a publicly traded company that money is to be used to make the company more successful and earn money for the investor. It is not to be used by the executive as a person source of money. If C. Black worked to undermine that trust then I hope that the legal system will deal with it appropriately. Without that strict governance much of our economy disappears and I for one would hate to see that happen.
Most of charges ended with not-guilty verdicts. Four stick, for now.
This includes three mail fraud charges but these make much less sense minus the unanimous not-guilty verdict on the racketeering charge. Of the defendants, only Black faced that charge. Due to the series of contradictions, Black will win on appeal.
The prospect of forfeitures is now finished, anyway.
What’s left?
A trumped up allegation of obstructing justice.
The guilty verdict was most likely the product of a complicated (and flimsy) case before a fractious jury of 12 — they were relieved to find *something* to simplify (and did so based on the oversimplified story that accompanied the video evidence). The SEC and prosecutors had copies of all the contents of the boxes. The obvious question of jurisdiction. The lack of an underlying crime. And so forth.
On appeal, Black will win on this as well.
So what is *really* left is the tanking of Black’s good repute and his paying huge legal fees in his defence.
Does any of you gentlemen or ladies, have any Grey Poupon?
[Juror] Ms. Prince said she also believed Mr. Radler was “covering for his buddy” and trying “to cover for Black” during his weeklong testimony in the four-month trial.
It’ll be interesting to see what other gems, like the government’s star witness actually working for Lord Black through all of the court case, come out over the following weeks.
Michael Page:
That’s just it, the colossal lynch mob tactics and arrogance of the US Prosecutors knows no boundary. They believe they can reach a long arm right across the border.
It’s up to our Government to give that long arm of prosecuting clowns the chop and a stern warning to boot. Isn’t that what they’d do to us?
This case should never have been tried by a Jury and even the Judge should have been more experienced. Too complicated, too much at stake when a man’s life would be virtually over at the mercy of the US legal show-boaters out to act tough on white collar crime.
It may well be a place to stay away from, it would be difficult to be pure and perfect in every aspect as they see it.
Innocent people can get put behind bars in such a system and murderers can walk.
I stated a while back that I thought that Black would be found guilty, he was, and I might add, wrongly so in my opinion. What he was found guilty on now makes me think he will eventually win on appeal. My reasoning is that when it goes to the Appellate Court they deal only in facts and are not influenced by Courtroom antics used to sway a jury.
The only charge that he may be guilty of is obstruction, if indeed it was obstruction, an attempt to hide or conceal evidence in the removal of those boxes.
I have noticed the lowest common denominators in our society are rejoicing at the decision, but that’s expected as a given.
Seeing that the prosecution’s case basically fell apart, the judge should rule this way at sentencing:
1 day in jail for each count of guilt and a $250,000 dollar fine each, and let them walk.
Because, you know, after months of trial I still don’t CLEARLY see what the crimes were.
And oh, excuse me, but moving boxes around is not a reason to send someone to jail. If prosecutors needs your documents to convict you, it tells you how weak their case is to begin with. So perhaps a fine at most.
Now if disaffected shareholders believed those monies should have been paid to them instead,let them state their case in CIVIL court. That’s where money disagreements are always dealt with. And that’s exactly where judge Amy should have sent this case right at the beginning.
A few thoughts as an overview.
Firstly the conduct of some of the press in hounding Conrad Black and his wife, was absolutely shabby. Faced with the greatest crisis of his life, they tried to cause him to “blow up”. They have no soul. I would surmise they live their petty little lives gloating over someone or something.
Next the Canadian telivision and their interviews of “the person in the street”. I find that many of the public catch the drift of the interviewer. They then parrot off what the interviewer wants to hear.
Some empathy with the jury here. They had a tough time of it. I think they honestly tried to somehow acquit themselves honourably. I was disapointed with the final outcome however.
As to the case, I have a sneaking feeling that it all belonged in civil court. Wrong country, wrong court.
Conrad Black does not belong in jail. Heavily fined yes.
ET: I think the gloating comments on this thread are basic socialist Canadian envy and rejection of wealth. Socialist Canadians reject the results of hard work, entrepreneurship and ‘smarts’ – all shown by Black; they prefer gov’t handouts.”
That’s right. And socialists have somehow got control of the American legal system. (I wish we had 1/1000th of the influence you think we have.)
“I’m not familiar enough with the trial or evidence, but I suspect Chretien’s gang behind it. Chretien, a total narcissist, is an arch enemy of Black and is, himself, a master thief of the Canadian taxpayer, and businesses. His connections, his vindictiveness – I suspect Chretien’s hand in this whole affair.”
Yes, almost everything is the fault of the Liberals and especially of Chretien. That’s a good heuristic. Keep applying it.
As much as I really hate to admit it, Exile’s made a point in his usual smarmy manner.
Chretien had something to do with this? Or the Liberals? Come on, give it a rest already.
And while there are more than a few posts from people (Socialists???) who obviously have it in for anyone with money, there are as many or more from those who seemingly are willing to forgive Mr Black because he’s made so much money. The guy’s guilty.
Conrad Black clearly acted as if he was above the laws the rest of us live by. At the end of the day, he’s a liar and a thief.
It isn’t “socialists” that have a problem with people who have money. Rather, it’s conservatives that have a problem with liberals who have money. That’s why there’s so much invective directed toward people like George Soros, John Edwards, Hollywood producers, etc. because it contradicts the narrow paradigm equating “liberal” with “socialist” and creates maddening confusion.
He has been found guilty in a trial which has a couple of serious question marks. Radler lied on the stand when he said he did not know he would serve as little as six months time based on Canadian sentencing/parole laws. Greenspan contacted a lawyer in Vancouver who specializes in the field to ask him some questions. He told Greenspan he would love to comment but he couldn’t because he had been retained by Radler prior to Radler cutting his deal with Fitzgerald.
When Greenspan pointed this out to Judge St Eve and asked to have Radler back for further questioning based on this new information, she declined to allow him.
I find that strange for two reasons 1) Lying under oath shows a complete disrespect toward Judge St. Eve and the court. 2) If Radler could have been shown to be lying (again) under oath in court none of his testimony would have any merit, and that makes it tought to convict.
It may have cleared up what also is a very disconcerting misconception by the Jury. They are now speaking out and saying that they felt Radler was trying to protect Black. Showing he was still lying in court may have changed the jurys skewed perception of just why Radler was lying.
How anyone could think that Radler was somehow trying to protect Black in his testimony is beyond belief and I think should raise a question or two of the jurys collective view.