# Conrad Black off to visit his Enron buddies at the crow bar hilton.



## retiredgrunt45 (15 Jul 2007)

Greed finally got the Best of Lord Conrad Black and now he'll be paying golf with his Enron buddies in his new wardrobe "stripped pajamas" at the crow bar Hilton resort. He would look good in stripes anyway and kudos to the jury, made up of average honest hard working people, who found the ******* guilty. I wonder if he'll have to give up his lordship title... As to his appeal, it may take... oh 20 years or so to see the light of day. Chalk one up for the little guys!!



> Conrad Black, a man never known for humility or bland statements, once remarked that "like all fads, corporate governance has its zealots."
> Based on the verdict of a Chicago jury – which, after 12 days of deliberations and a four-month trial, found the media tycoon guilty of three counts of mail fraud, obstruction of justice and a possible $1 million fine – he just ran into a whole gang of them.
> Obstruction of justice alone carries a maximum penalty of 20 years imprisonment, with each mail fraud charge worth five years of time.
> (His three co-defendants were also convicted of three counts of mail fraud.)
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (15 Jul 2007)

While Lord Black might not be a very charming individual, I think this is a bit overstated.

The jury threw out most of the charges; when you sign a contract saying you will pay "no compete" fees as part of the transaction, then that is what the document means. The Paris Hilton explanation of the new owners change of heart (well I didn't, like, you know, read it) obviously didn't go over very well.

"Mail Fraud" as defined in the United States isn't a criminal offence in Canada, so far as I know, and since much of the alleged wrongdoing took place in Canada, there seems to be grounds for appeal based on jurisdiction and extra territoriality. Finally, the obstruction of justice charge based on removing boxes of effects from an office he was evected from might also fall on appeal, since I don't believe the prosecution provided proof as to what was in the boxes. (As an amusing side note, I believe an FBI agent who testified on this charge said the "records" in the boxes were 33rpm recordings of the type common before CD's and MP3 downloads.......). I suspect the appeal will go forward very quickly.

Reading Mark Styne's coverage of the trial, it certainly seems the prosecution did try to play the "class warfare" card, and when you look at the various payouts to the "investigators" and lawyers from the remains of Hollinger, it is very apparent the "honest, hardworking" shareholders were the last people the owners or legal community were concerned with. The new owners ran the papers into the ground, then looked for someone to blame.


----------



## Shec (15 Jul 2007)

Black may be a pompous and arrogant SOB however no less so than the legal system with its trumped-up charges. Non-compete clauses., whether they involve cash or not, are SOP.  Obstruction of Justice?   How naive,  the guy's just defending himself from persecution;  do you really expect him to say  "Here's proof I did what you accuse me of,  lock me up and throw away key"??  The scales of justice are certainly imbalanced - in fact tyrannical comes to mind.

What surprises me is that Black didn't take his $ and set up himself up in comfort someplace beyond the reach of the law industry like mutual fund swindler Robert Vesco did in the '60s instead of being the platform for a bunch of lawyers to practice their dramatic talents. Then maybe this would have been a story worth all the attention it got.


----------



## Flip (15 Jul 2007)

The American legal system can be described as puritanical with
the whole witch hunt implication and all.

Here's a guy we don't like - we'll invent the crime.

As to the removed documents, that violated a Canadian courts' order.

I though it rather salient that no shareholder had come forward to testify
that he/she had been cheated.

Lord Black is the perfect arch-villian except he didn't do nearly what 
he was accused of.

My bet - not one day in jail.  The persecution can't appeal.
Lord Black can.


----------



## FastEddy (15 Jul 2007)

retiredgrunt45 said:
			
		

> Greed finally got the Best of Lord Conrad Black and now he'll be paying golf with his Enron buddies in his new wardrobe "stripped pajamas" at the crow bar Hilton resort. He would look good in stripes anyway and kudos to the jury, made up of average honest hard working people, who found the ******* guilty. I wonder if he'll have to give up his lordship title... As to his appeal, it may take... oh 20 years or so to see the light of day. Chalk one up for the little guys!!




It never ceases to amaze me how a large percentage of the Masses howl for the Head of White Collar Defendants, the wealthier, the greater the demand for their blood. Not withstanding the fact that if a offence has been alledged they should not be brought to account.

Yes I think that all us Little Guys have been severely traumatized and physically effected by the dastardly deeds of Lord Black, so off with his head and good riddance. 

Its a strange Society we live in which will demand that we rehabilitate Murderers, Rapists, Child Molesters and numerous other Violent Crimes under the assumption that they will make good citizens again and never re-offend. Where did the maxim of "Let the Punishment match the Crime" go, or did it really ever exist.

If Lord Black or Martha Stewart or the likes are guilty of these crimes, I think the most severest  punishment in their eyes would be that they have to give it all back and make restitution, if not then proportionant imprisonment. Like 3 years for every mil they don't.

But a system that can put them away for Life. But only Sentences a DUI with 27 priors causing the Death of a Mother walking her infant in a stroller on the side walk to 7 years, it or us IMO needs reevaluation.


----------



## PMedMoe (15 Jul 2007)

I could care less if he's guilty or not, but now that he's a convicted felon in the U.S. he's applying for Canadian citizenship after he publicly renounced it in 2001 in order to become a life peer in the British House of Lords.  
I say tough beans and Canada should turn down his application.


----------



## retiredgrunt45 (15 Jul 2007)

+1PMedMoe well said.

 Sorry, but i have no sympathy for Mr. Black, you can say what you will about how he was charged, but his history of pillage, plunder and thievery speaks for itself. I'm in no way inclined to believe that he is a victim of the big bad American justice system. Years of thumbing his nose and laughing at the very people he was stealing from is what Finally caught up to him, it just so happened this time to be the Americans. And after fiasco's such as Enron and Worldcom, they don't take lightly to some rich tycoon living the highlife of their backs.

This is no different from the lords of old, taxing the pheasants into poverty, just so they could continue living in luxury. Only difference here is instead of pheasants it was the shareholders who lost tens of millions.

As for giving him back his Canadian citizenship, to bad so sad, don't pass go, off to jail you go.

The only reason he got off with the other charges is because he had two very good lawyers, Ed Genson, and Eddie Greenspan the dream team.


----------



## FastEddy (15 Jul 2007)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> I could care less if he's guilty or not, but now that he's a convicted felon in the U.S. he's applying for Canadian citizenship after he publicly renounced it in 2001 in order to become a life peer in the British House of Lords.
> I say tough beans and Canada should turn down his application.




Why not we welcome their U.S. Military Deserters, or aren't you aware of that ?


----------



## FastEddy (15 Jul 2007)

retiredgrunt45 said:
			
		

> +1PMedMoe well said.
> 
> Sorry, but i have no sympathy for Mr. Black, you can say what you will about how he was charged, but his history of pillage, plunder and thievery speaks for itself. I'm in no way inclined to believe that he is a victim of the big bad American justice system. Years of thumbing his nose and laughing at the very people he was stealing from is what Finally caught up to him, it just so happened this time to be the Americans. And after fiasco's such as Enron and Worldcom, they don't take lightly to some rich tycoon living the highlife of their backs.
> 
> ...




Good point and well put,  SOUNDS A LOT LIKE OUR PRIMINISTERS OF THE LIBERIAL PARTY that's been doing it a lot longer.


----------



## PMedMoe (15 Jul 2007)

FastEddy said:
			
		

> Why not we welcome their U.S. Military Deserters, or aren't you aware of that ?



They did not previously relinquish Canadian citizenship when something better came along.    
Not that I condone deserting but aren't they kind of applying under amnesty rules?


----------



## FastEddy (15 Jul 2007)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> They did not previously relinquish Canadian citizenship when something better came along.
> Not that I condone deserting but aren't they kind of applying under amnesty rules?




Its amazing how we can bend the rules when it suits us.

At least there's one sure thing, our tax dollar won't have to support him.

We didn't balk at the  85 Mil for the Lebanon fiasco.


----------



## Danjanou (15 Jul 2007)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> They did not previously relinquish Canadian citizenship when something better came along.
> Not that I condone deserting but aren't they kind of applying under amnesty rules?



Not really they have come into Canada under false pretences usually as visitors and then made inland refugee claims, which incidentally have all been denied for the first few already and they will go home after all appeals are exhausted. 

There are some similarities. They were fleeing criminal persecution in the US and in theory Black could do the same, slip across the border and file a refugee claim in Canada. Technically as a felon it would be the only way he could regain his canadian Citizenship. Refugee Claimant to Convention Refugee to  Landed Immigrant/Permenant Resident to Citizen


----------



## PMedMoe (15 Jul 2007)

I'm not saying there aren't similarities but what ticks me off is that he already _was_ a Canadian citizen at one point, gave it up for something better with more prestige (as far as he was concerned) and now he wants it back only because of the situation he is in now.


----------



## George Wallace (15 Jul 2007)

Conrad Black of ?

Spelling.....Guys!  Geesssss!


----------



## LakeSup (15 Jul 2007)

Obstruction of Justice?   How naive,  the guy's just defending himself from persecution;  do you really expect him to say  "Here's proof I did what you accuse me of,  lock me up and throw away key"??  The scales of justice are certainly imbalanced - in fact tyrannical comes to mind

No, there are sercurity video tapes of him removing  boxes of evidence from his office after being charged.....this from someone who hasn't likely done a speck of physical labour for himself in his lifetime.  cut and dried.


----------



## George Wallace (15 Jul 2007)

WarmAndVertical said:
			
		

> .....this from someone who hasn't likely done a speck of physical labour for himself in his lifetime.  cut and dried.



So Conrad Black inherited all this wealth?


----------



## Shec (15 Jul 2007)

WarmAndVertical said:
			
		

> No, there are sercurity video tapes of him removing  boxes of evidence from his office after being charged.....this from someone who hasn't likely done a speck of physical labour for himself in his lifetime.  cut and dried.



So what;  did the all-seeing, all-knowing eye of a camera disclose what was in the boxes too?  Could have been shoepolish and Brasso for his Honourary Colonel's uniform for all we know.  You don't have personal stuff in your office? I must have at least 2 boxes in mine of assorted stuff that has accumulated over the years and if I want to retrieve a framed favorite photo of my wife or a bottle of medicine do you think i am going to slavishly obey some edict not to.   He may have been charged but was he barred from his office, did he break into it?  Sounds circumstancial to me.  If it  was proven to be material evidence why did he walk from the real charges at the end of the day?  It's the law being an ass as Samuel Johnson once observed, a mean-spirited  one at that.


----------



## DaveTee (16 Jul 2007)

I'm not familiar with all the details of the case, or the life and times of Conrad Black. That being said, I don't know why some here want to him "hang" more then they want people like Robert Pickton or murderers etc sent away. Funny I think, that we care more about the loss of money to people then loss of life.


----------



## FastEddy (16 Jul 2007)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Conrad Black of ?
> 
> Spelling.....Guys!  Geesssss!




Do You Mean:   Conrad Moffat Black, Baron Black of Crossharbour ?.

Cheers.


----------



## Thirstyson (16 Jul 2007)

Reading his biography, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conrad_Black (yes, I know it's Wikipedia) Conrad Black done some pretty horrible things throughout his life.

Why are so many people here sticking up for him? It can't just be because of the charges, they aren't completely warrantless.


----------



## Edward Campbell (16 Jul 2007)

Thirstyson said:
			
		

> Reading his biography, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conrad_Black (yes, I know it's Wikipedia) Conrad Black done some pretty horrible things throughout his life.
> 
> Why are so many people here sticking up for him? It can't just be because of the charges, they aren't completely warrantless.



His biographies of Roosevelt and Nixon - in two parts, make up for a lot of "horrible things."

I hold no brief for Black the businessman or Black the _Lord_ but Black the biographer is a credit to his countries.  People will be reading his books long after they've forgotten that he was locked up for some reason or another.


----------



## Thirstyson (16 Jul 2007)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> His biographies of Roosevelt and Nixon - in two parts, make up for a lot of "horrible things."
> 
> I hold no brief for Black the businessman or Black the _Lord_ but Black the biographer is a credit to his countries.  People will be reading his books long after they've forgotten that he was locked up for some reason or another.



Well there you are; first time I've seen someone other than his newspapers write something nice about him. thanks


----------



## Retired AF Guy (17 Jul 2007)

Thirstyson said:
			
		

> Reading his biography, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conrad_Black (yes, I know it's Wikipedia) Conrad Black done some *pretty horrible things* throughout his life.



Please define horrible?? As compared to people like Robert Mugabe?? Fidel Castro?? Chavez??


----------



## Yrys (20 Jul 2007)

Could anyone let me kmow if he try to enter Canada, and he's turn back?

Don't want to miss a happy dance .


----------



## Brad Sallows (20 Jul 2007)

>Conrad Black done some pretty horrible things throughout his life.

Do you mean "horrible" as in wasting billions of dollars of the public (taxpayers') trust, "horrible" as in crimes of physical violence, or "horrible" as in exploiting financial laws as written?  I don't think much of Black's personality but if living large and arrogant is a crime then much of the first tier entertainment and political communities should be locked up.


----------



## LakeSup (20 Jul 2007)

Quote from: WarmAndVertical on July 15, 2007, 16:25:06
.....this from someone who hasn't likely done a speck of physical labour for himself in his lifetime.  cut and dried.


So Conrad Black inherited all this wealth?

No, he dug ditches to make it to the top.

It's all about Scheudenfruede and if Conrad wants me to stop gloating, it'll only cost him $1000 and I'll stop.  I'll be poor and happy while he's in jail and , just maybe, I'll get a crack at Barbara!


----------



## Yrys (20 Jul 2007)

WarmAndVertical said:
			
		

> So Conrad Black inherited all this wealth?
> 
> No, he dug ditches to make it to the top.



Neither. He inherited a good pile of moolah, and contine growing it...


----------



## LakeSup (21 Jul 2007)

Neither. He inherited a good pile of moolah, and contine growing it...


I know...I was trying for dripping sarcasm but it was at the end of a good Happy Hour so......

Yes, he was a son of a wealthy owner of Canadian Brewers (never a bad trade in this country!)  and , aside from the normal wealth that that would imply, he purchased a Sherbrooke paper and started his empire from there. He had access to Argus though his family and likely  (like GW Bush) had no difficulty getting all the investment money he wanted.
But, he is not a rags to riches story and he has a patrician manner that rubs many the wrong way....not right but, it is what it is.


----------



## a_majoor (21 Jul 2007)

It does seem rather bizzare that :

a. Conrad Black faced potentially more time in prison than many violent offenders, and,
b. he is attracting far more vitrol from people who were not affected by his actions real or alleged

I didn't see Hollinger as any part of my mutual fund holdings, but I suspect that if they were part of the portfolio, I would have been very cranked in the post Black period, when the new owners proceeded to destroy the accumulated value of the company, and during the legal proceedings when the remaining value was consumed by lawyers and "investigators".

While Lord Black may or may not hav been able to stop the iitial slide in value, it is a fact that he is the person mostly responsible for creating the value of the Hollinger brand in the first place, so it is only logical the new owners would not be eager for him to set up rival mewspapers or media properties after he sold out (hence the no competes). The shareholders certainly came out second best under the new owners, and my sympathies are to them.


----------



## a_majoor (8 Mar 2008)

Lord Black finally goes to prison pending his appeal:

http://torydrroy.blogspot.com/2008/03/schadenfreude-2.html



> *Proud, stubborn, flawed, brave and unbowed*
> CHRISTIE BLATCHFORD
> From Tuesday's Globe and Mail
> E-mail Christie Blatchford | Read Bio | Latest Columns
> ...


----------



## TCBF (8 Mar 2008)

"The essence of life is imperfection."  - TCBF

 ;D

- I very much admire Mr Black.  He greatest tactical failing is that he does not suffer fools gladly, which puts him at odds with half of Canada's business establishment, most of our political players, and all of our self absorbed pseudo-intellectual elite who lack the nuts to go into business or politics.


----------



## retiredgrunt45 (9 Mar 2008)

> I very much admire Mr Black.  He greatest tactical failing is that he does not suffer fools gladly, which puts him at odds with half of Canada's business establishment, most of our political players, and all of our self absorbed pseudo-intellectual elite who lack the nuts to go into business or politics.



Tell that to the folks at Enron who lost there pensions and life savings to greedy white collar criminals, who thought they had gotten away with it. Jokes on them and who's laughing now.

He was caught red handed with his hand in the cookie jar, but he had money to hire the best defence in the US and Canada and got off relatively light.

Mr. Black thinks he's above the law, he's arrogant, self righteous and indignant. He may be business savvy and relentless when it come to this business dealings, but that doesn't put him above the law and when he breaks it, he pays the piper just like the rest of us. 

Some have said, well he never killed anyone, well sometimes stealing everything a person has worked for throughout their lives, like what happeneded at Enron, is sometimes worse than death, and with what these people now have to contend with, bankruptcy's, foreclosures on their homes etc, they may sometimes wish they had died. In Blacks case it was the shareholders he stole from, but theft is theft, no matter who you steal from. All because a few people at the top became greedy and wanted everything.

Conrad Black doesn't need our sympathy, he needs to realize that he just can't walk over people like they were discarded trash on the side of the street, just because one has money and now he's got six years to think about it.


----------



## TCBF (9 Mar 2008)

retiredgrunt45 said:
			
		

> Greed finally got the Best of Lord Conrad Black and now he'll be paying golf with his Enron buddies in his new wardrobe "stripped pajamas" at the crow bar Hilton resort. He would look good in stripes anyway and kudos to the jury, made up of average honest hard working people, who found the ******* guilty. I wonder if he'll have to give up his lordship title... As to his appeal, it may take... oh 20 years or so to see the light of day. Chalk one up for the little guys!!



- Chalk one up for a jury of semi - literate peasants unfit for the laundry room, let alone the courtroom.


----------



## Richie (9 Mar 2008)

TCBF said:
			
		

> - Chalk one up for a jury of semi - literate peasants unfit for the laundry room, let alone the courtroom.



Interesting statement. You're not related in any way to his Lordship are you? I realize that the jury members were from the wrong class (contemptible riffraff, all them!) but trial by your peers is the way things work in a democracy. 

At any rate, I suspect that even if the jury had been made up of members from the House of Lords, Black would still have been found guilty.  :crybaby:


----------



## TCBF (9 Mar 2008)

retiredgrunt45 said:
			
		

> Tell that to the folks at Enron who lost there pensions and life savings to greedy white collar criminals, who thought they had gotten away with it. Jokes on them and who's laughing now.



- Conrad Black is not ENRON.  Hollinger was MAKING money until the anti-Conrad faction took control of it and destroyed it trying to destroy Conrad Black.  He left it in better shape than his replacements did - who is jailing THEM?

- I don't mind the jailing of greedy white collar criminals, providing they do less time than greedy foreign terrorist fund raisers, greedy politicians, greedy drug pushers, etc.


----------



## a_majoor (9 Mar 2008)

I'm rather curious as to the cause of your vitrol at Lord Black RG45? Did you own Hollinger stock? If you did, you must be aware that it lost the bulk of its value after Lord Black left the company. Further investigation would show the bulk of the assets were consumed by lawyers and government "investigators" in the hunt to get Lord Black after the new management had  gutted the company and needed to look for scapegoats. Comparisons with ENRON or Worldcom are pointless, the managements of those companies burned their bridges their own ways.

What has never been demonstrated (and indeed the jury dismissed) were any criminal wrongdoings by Lord Black. If I were to make a wager, I'd even bet Lord Black will win his appeals, and the only reason to send him to prison has more to do with vengeful US authorities who have spent so much time and money justifying their bungled case.

As for Lord Black himself, I have never met the man so leave his personality to those who did work with and for him. His writing style is quite brilliant and I look forward to finishing his biography of FDR and eventually reading his work on Nixon, but this really only tells me of his skills as a historian and writer.


----------



## Richie (9 Mar 2008)

TCBF said:
			
		

> - Conrad Black is not ENRON.  Hollinger was MAKING money until the anti-Conrad faction took control of it and destroyed it trying to destroy Conrad Black.  He left it in better shape than his replacements did - who is jailing THEM?
> 
> - I don't mind the jailing of greedy white collar criminals, providing they do less time than greedy foreign terrorist fund raisers, greedy politicians, greedy drug pushers, etc.



Yes, making money, but for who? The management of company has one primary responsibility and that is to the company's shareholders. Black did not seem to grasp this, or he simply didn't care. 

In 2004, a class-action suit was launched against Black on behalf of the shareholders of Hollinger (<a href="http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1094647677239_71"> Link </a>). 
To quote from the article:

          "In the suit's 110-page statement of claim, Black is accused of pillaging company coffers to finance his lavish lifestyle.

           'Lord Black and his acolytes surreptitiously pocketed millions of dollars generated from sales of Hollinger assets -- money 
            that belonged to Hollinger -- without disclosure to the shareholders,' the court documents say."

Black had no regard for the "little people" who may have been hurt when their pension funds mysteriously shrank nor did he seem to care about the board of directors who were the ones who discovered his well, let's just call it his "misconduct".

Not bad for a guy who started his business career by getting expelled from Upper Canada College for selling exams to his fellow students (I know, I know, business is business   ) <a href="http://www.macleans.ca/article.jsp?content=20070312_103141_103141&source=srch">Link</a>


----------



## retiredgrunt45 (9 Mar 2008)

> I'm rather curious as to the cause of your vitrol at Lord Black RG45? Did you own Hollinger stock? If you did, you must be aware that it lost the bulk of its value after Lord Black left the company. Further investigation would show the bulk of the assets were consumed by lawyers and government "investigators" in the hunt to get Lord Black after the new management had  gutted the company and needed to look for scapegoats. Comparisons with ENRON or Worldcom are pointless, the managements of those companies burned their bridges their own ways.



No Black isn't Enron in name only, but he was doing the same damn thing Enron exec's were doing, syphoning of funds to support his lavish lifestyle. And no I didn't have stock in his companies, glad i didn't either. 

 My opinion of Black is the same of every other high level exec who steals from his own people for their own greedy purposes and I stick by it, Do the crime do the time. I still think he's and arrogant a**hole who thinks he can get away with anything. 

Seems some people put him on a pedestal, I'm not one of them. If you want to worship him or if you feel that he's done no wrong, that's your business.


----------



## retiredgrunt45 (9 Mar 2008)

> Chalk one up for a jury of semi - literate peasants unfit for the laundry room, let alone the courtroom.



What, you don't think that we low life pheasants can't tell the difference between right and wrong or are you in some way to high and mighty to stoop to our level.

Are you related to the Lordship? Must be because you seem to have the same arrogant attitude towards the little guy's, must run in the family.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (9 Mar 2008)

Sorry just have to reply to your post.



> ... but he had money to hire the best defence in the US and Canada and got off relatively light.


 So what, defending yourself is a crime? 



> Mr. Black thinks he's above the law,


 Again, since when was believing in your innocence and the willingness to go head-to-head with the prosecution a crime? Lets face it, when the Hollinger empire started crumbling Mr. Black had the chance to sell off all of his assets, clean out his bank accounts and hightail it to some Caribbean island and spend the rest of his life in the sunshine. Heck, he could have even moved back to Europe and enjoyed the good life because the chances that any European country would extradite him on the US criminal charges would have been pretty slim. 

But no, he decided to stick around and fight the charges because he thought he was innocent. 



> ... he's arrogant, self righteous and indignant.


 And you've known him for how long?  



> Some have said, well he never killed anyone, well sometimes stealing everything a person has worked for throughout their lives, like what happeneded at Enron, is sometimes worse than death, and with what these people now have to contend with, bankruptcy's, foreclosures on their homes etc, they may sometimes wish they had died.


 While I have followed the Conrad Black case on an on/off basis, I'm no expert on ENRON so I can't comment on comparisons between ENRON and  the Hollinger/Black cases. However, if, as you state that Black was guilty of defrauding people of their homes/life savings why wasn't he charged with the crimes? Let's face it, if the US prosecutors had evidence that Black had cheated some little old lady out of her life savings don't you thin they would have charged him with it?  [/quote]


----------



## TCBF (9 Mar 2008)

- I was alluding to the effective methods the prosecution uses to ensure a jury is chosen that will have zero chance of understanding a case's complexities, yet will covict merely because if hundreds are charges were laid, surely two or three must stick.

- A courtroom should not be revolutionary justice.


----------



## retiredgrunt45 (9 Mar 2008)

> While I have followed the Conrad Black case on an on/off basis, I'm no expert on ENRON so I can't comment on comparisons between ENRON and  the Hollinger/Black cases. However, if, as you state that Black was guilty of defrauding people of their homes/life savings why wasn't he charged with the crimes? Let's face it, if the US prosecutors had evidence that Black had cheated some little old lady out of her life savings don't you thin they would have charged him with it?


 [/quote]

I admit the case was very complex and maybe some of the jurors didn't understand some of the context, that's one of the pitfalls of being judged by your peers. But he received a fair trial and he got of lucky, I'm sure the DA's office wouldn't have brought those charges against him if there hadn't been some truth to them. 

I've followed the Enron case very closely because it was the first case of it's kind were high level exec's were held totally accountable for their actions and is was a test case for the American justice system. In the past CEO's who laundered money from their companies were usually given a slap on the hand and sent on their merry way, but Enron changed all that. The new laws gave the justice system sharper teeth, when dealing with white collar criminals. Enron was the worst case of corporate fraud in American history and left thousands of people broken and pennyless and hopefully in the future when exec's who become greedy will think twice about stealing someone Else's money.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (9 Mar 2008)

> I'm sure the DA's office wouldn't have brought those charges against him if there hadn't been some truth to them.



Oh yes.  DAs never make mistakes.  Or exaggerate a case against a juicy target like Black. Particularly DAs who run for office every four years and have political aspirations of Congress, the Senate, or higher.

Just remember that if you are ever accused of a crime in the US. 

BTW- I'm not particularly a fan of Lord Black, but I'm still finding it difficult to understand what he is supposed to have done wrong.


----------



## Richie (9 Mar 2008)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> BTW- I'm not particularly a fan of Lord Black, but I'm still finding it difficult to understand what he is supposed to have done wrong.



Three charges of mail fraud and one of obstruction of justice (for removing documents from his Toronto office while he was under investigation).  <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7137461.stm"> Link to BBC Article</a>

Quote from article: "The three fraud charges on which he was convicted involved swindling shareholders out of $6.1m..."

Justice is served.


----------



## a_majoor (10 Mar 2008)

Mail fraud as defined by US statute is not a crime in Canada, where the alleged offenses took place, hence a reasonable certainty of one acquittal.  No one, to my knowledge has ever demonstrated _what_ was in the boxes showcased by the prosecution (apparently the FBI agent questioned said the records were the 12" 33 rpm analogue kind, although it's not clear to me how he knew this). 

Mark Styen has written a very good series of articles about the case and trial, and I suppose a book will come out soon, start reading here.

As Seaking Taco said, it is very difficult to understand what he is supposed to have done wrong; the only thing clear in the chronology is the new management which took over Hollinger destroyed the value of the brand and its assets, then decided to blame Lord Black for their ineptitude. The investigation and legal fees ate the rest, so how were the shareholders helped in any way? Since the jury threw out the majority of the charges relating to the actual business dealings, no compete fees etc. (much of which relates to the so called mail fraud), the prosecutors case essentially evaporated. 

Just as a BTW, US securities regulations are incredibly convoluted, and one could be forgiven in wondering who exactly they serve; shareholders or glory hunting prosecutors. In the case of ENRON, it wasn't clear for a long time if any regulations or laws had been broken at all, since the company had become skilled in working the grey areas between overlapping jurisdictions.


----------



## Richie (10 Mar 2008)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Mail fraud as defined by US statute is not a crime in Canada, where the alleged offenses took place, hence a reasonable certainty of one acquittal.  No one, to my knowledge has ever demonstrated _what_ was in the boxes showcased by the prosecution (apparently the FBI agent questioned said the records were the 12" 33 rpm analogue kind, although it's not clear to me how he knew this).



The charges of mail and wire fraud actually involved American companies (American Publishing Company and Paxton Media) and hence fall under American jurisdiction, I would think.

As for the boxes Black removed, the man was being investigated by the SEC, yet he went _in person_ to his office late at night and removed thirteen boxes which he claims contained personal items, clearly violating an Ontario court order. Regardless of what the boxes contained, this was a very stupid move on Black's part and I think he must have been very desperate to try it.  If the boxes contained nothing of relevance to his trial, why risk the after hours cat burglar routine? Why risk getting caught on CCTV as he was? Black must have been very worried about whatever was in those boxes.

I am aware that the SEC is much more likely to go after alleged white collar crimes than say the OSC would be, however perhaps Conrad Black tried to work the grey area one too many times and it all just finally caught up with him.

At any rate, we'll see how his appeal goes, should be interesting however it turns out.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (11 Mar 2008)

> As for the boxes Black removed, the man was being investigated by the SEC, yet he went _in person_ to his office late at night and removed thirteen boxes which he claims contained personal items, clearly violating an Ontario court order. Regardless of what the boxes contained, this was a very stupid move on Black's part and I think he must have been very desperate to try it.  If the boxes contained nothing of relevance to his trial, why risk the after hours cat burglar routine? Why risk getting caught on CCTV as he was? Black must have been very worried about whatever was in those boxes.



Actually, the reason that Black removed the boxes was because he had been _evicted from his office_! If I remember correctly he actually asked one of the security guards to give him a hand taking the boxes out: not exactly the actions of someone trying to hide something. In fact, during his trail the prosecutors admitted that there was nothing in the boxes that hey didn't already have.  Plus, the fact that the act took place in Canada, which is a little outside the jurisdiction of Illinois DA's office I would think.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (11 Mar 2008)

retiredgrunt45 said:
			
		

> I admit the case was very complex and maybe some of the jurors didn't understand some of the context, that's one of the pitfalls of being judged by your peers. But he received a fair trial and he got of lucky, I'm sure the DA's office wouldn't have brought those charges against him if there hadn't been some truth to them.



We could argue back and forth all day whether or not  Black got a fair trial or not. But, one thing the trial did show is how the American justice system has become slanted in favour of the prosecution. The DA's office can "compel" witnesses to testify for the prosecution. I say compel because the prosecution can threaten them to testify for them _or else_. Radler is the best example. Another good example is the three auditors who were supposed to monitor any deals by Hollinger. In fact, all three of them OK'd the deals that Black and his co-defendants were later convicted of! But, because they made a sweet heart deal with the DA's office they got off scott free. Another example is in the closing arguments. In Canada and other Commonwealth countries, during closing arguments the prosecution makes their case, the defence rebuttals and that's it. In the US system the prosecution gets a second chance to rebuttal to any arguments made by the defence giving the prosecution a huge advantage. 

Any way, there is a new book out on the trial called "*Tilted: The Trial of Conrad Black*" which can be purchased from Amazon.ca for less then $16.00. I also think that Mark Steyn, who covered the trial on a daily basis for Macleans magazine, is writing a book on the it and I believe Conrad Black is also planning on writing a book on what happened to him and Hollinger. So, for anyone interested in the trial I'm sure we will have lots of reading to keep us occupied.


----------



## Richie (11 Mar 2008)

Okay. I'm not a lawyer, maybe someone else here is.

But not even the judge, the lawyers and the jury in the case seem 100% certain about the facts. Neither am I.

One thing I _am_ certain about is that if you come on an Internet forum and start a thread about Conrad Black, that thread will never end.  :argument:

So I'm just gonna wait for his appeal and see what happens.

Signing off on this thread for good,
Richie


----------



## DBA (11 Mar 2008)

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> . Another example is in the closing arguments. In Canada and other Commonwealth countries, during closing arguments the prosecution makes their case, the defence rebuttals and that's it. In the US system the prosecution gets a second chance to rebuttal to any arguments made by the defence giving the prosecution a huge advantage.



From my knowledge it's historical and works as a counter balance to the 5th amendment (the right against self incrimination) which when combined with the right to counsel provides a means of defence where the defendant can remain silent. As well the defence can withhold information while the prosecution can't by law but sometimes does.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (13 Mar 2008)

retiredgrunt45 said:
			
		

> I've followed the Enron case very closely because it was the first case of it's kind were high level exec's were held totally accountable for their actions and is was a test case for the American justice system. In the past CEO's who laundered money from their companies were usually given a slap on the hand and sent on their merry way, but Enron changed all that. The new laws gave the justice system sharper teeth, when dealing with white collar criminals. Enron was the worst case of corporate fraud in American history and left thousands of people broken and pennyless and hopefully in the future when exec's who become greedy will think twice about stealing someone Else's money.



Speaking of ENRON! Here is a webblog that has some interesting info on the Enron case and the fact that the prosecutors were, shall we say, a little "_overzealous_" in their duties. Lots of links to reports of abuse of power by the prosecutors ca be found at the second link. 

http://blog.kir.com/

http://blog.kir.com/archives/2008/01/the_fastow_note_1.asp

Also, this blog has some interesting info on former Governor of New York Eliot Spitzer and how he abused his powers when he was a New York state prosecutor.


----------



## a_majoor (29 Jun 2008)

The alleged reason for the trial was the loss of shareholder value........

http://torydrroy.blogspot.com/2008/06/lord-black.html

[/quote]
*Lord Black*
One of my readers asked me why I keep supporting Lord Black. I agree with Father D'Souza.

At the same time, over the past 18 months it is surely the case that, even as the American courts were grinding him up, more people who familiarized themselves with the particulars of his case became more sympathetic to Lord Black's protestations of innocence, and even to him personally. He remains now what he was before -- not a saint, nor even a man who did not make serious mistakes in this matter. At the same time, I have no trouble maintaining my judgment that he is not a fraudster, nor a felon.

Many readers have written over the past year inquiring as to why I -- and others at the Post -- defend him. It is because we believe him to have been grossly mistreated by a flawed process, and that he is entitled to a measure of loyalty from a country -- and the journalistic profession -- for which he did so much, even as the birds of prey were taking wing.

The courts have spoken, and definitively so. The legal process is over. The great man has been jailed. The sadness is deep, but not complete, for from Florida the caged bird still sings.
*And what has become of the value of Hollinger stock for the shareholders? They have lost almost all of their value. No one has gained by this reckless prosecution.*

The fate of the Hollinger shareholders was a central leitmotif in the Black trial. Judge Amy St. Eve, in sentencing Black last week, sternly told him: “Mr. Black, you have violated your duty to Hollinger International and its shareholders.” But wait a minute, if the issue is the fate of the Hollinger shareholders, shouldn’t the judge order Black back to the helm of the company? *When Black was booted, the company’s stock was trading in the $16 range. Now it hovers at about 90 cents.* How’s that for looking after shareholder interests?

Conrad Black’s lack of contrition was made much of during the course of his trial. But in his statement to the court last week when he was sentenced, Black did express sorrow over one thing. *“I have very profound regret and sadness,” he said, “about the serious damage inflicted on all the shareholders [of Hollinger International], including employees, by the $1.8 billion-dollar loss of shareholder value under my successors.”* If not looking after shareholder interests is a crime, Patrick J. Fitzgerald should be thinking about calling his lawyer.
[/quote]


----------



## DBA (29 Jun 2008)

I don't buy that line of reasoning. Corruption and incompetence at a company will hit it's stock price once it's made public. Through actions like the side deals on the sale of company assets he caused both to happen. The side deals themselves look to have taken money from shareholders (corruption) and that the side deals were allowed highlighted the incompetence of the rest of the board and it's auditors. Directors being allowed to pillage company assets doesn't inspire confidence in a stock and usually result in it tanking. 

He was good at gaining the confidence of others which helped the companies he was involved in. Once he started to do shady things like the side deals that confidence was no longer warranted. When it was exposed it hurt him and the companies he was involved in. The root of that harm was the shady dealings as without them there would have been nothing to expose.


----------



## a_majoor (30 Jun 2008)

The price of stocks is affected by public knowledge, and looking at the examples like Enron they drop almost immediately upon the discovery of wrongdoing. Hollinger was simply taken over by people who don't know the newspaper and media business, and the stock declined over a period of time as they mismanaged the company, then the remainder of the stocks value was eaten by "investigators" and lawyers.

I suggest you read Mark Styen's daily commentary on the trial (likely to become a book soon).


----------



## a_majoor (10 Jan 2009)

An appeal is in the works:

http://westernstandard.blogs.com/shotgun/2009/01/lord-black-appeals.html



> *Lord Black Appeals*
> 
> Conrad Black and his co-defendants have appealed to the United States Supreme Court.
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (20 Jul 2010)

Now Lord Black has had several of the convictions set aside:

http://news.ca.msn.com/top-stories/cbc-article.aspx?cp-documentid=24924195



> *Conrad Black gets bail*
> 
> Media baron Conrad Black has won release on bail pending a review of his conviction for fraud by an appeal court.
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (23 Jun 2011)

Conrad Black is now clearing the decks, and has settled several of his lawsuits out of court. I suspect that the remaining suits will grind on for a long time, he simply does not seem capable of letting this go:

http://business.financialpost.com/2011/06/23/black-settling-civil-lawsuits/



> *Conrad Black settling civil lawsuits*
> Theresa Tedesco  Jun 23, 2011 – 12:29 PM ET | Last Updated: Jun 23, 2011 4:53 PM ET
> 
> On the eve of resentencing for his criminal convictions, Conrad Black is attempting to resolve a bevy of civil lawsuits stemming from his high-profile ouster from the helm of Hollinger International Inc. almost eight years ago.
> ...


----------



## Monsoon (23 Jun 2011)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Conrad Black is now clearing the decks, and has settled several of his lawsuits out of court. I suspect that the remaining suits will grind on for a long time, he simply does not seem capable of letting this go:
> 
> http://business.financialpost.com/2011/06/23/black-settling-civil-lawsuits/


Hollinger settled his civil case against them for $8M; do you suppose that might mean it had some merit?


----------



## Retired AF Guy (24 Jun 2011)

CBC is live blogging the trail:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/story/2011/06/24/conrad-black-resentencing24.html


----------



## Old Sweat (24 Jun 2011)

He is going back to prison. The following story from the CBC website is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provision of the Copyright Act:

Conrad Black to return to jail for 13 months

CBC News Posted: Jun 24, 2011 2:20 AM ET Last Updated: Jun 24, 2011 2:31 PM ET   

Former media baron Conrad Black was resentenced to 42 months in prison on fraud and obstruction of justice charges Friday.

Judge Amy St. Eve also ordered him to pay a $125,000 fine.

Black served 29 months in the Coleman federal prison in Florida before the U.S. Supreme Court struck down some of his initial convictions. His original sentence was 78 months in prison.

The court will accept his time already served, which means he must serve an additional 13 months. Following that, he must submit to two years of supervised release.

When the ruling was read out, Black's wife, Barbara Amiel, collapsed. She had to be escorted from the courtroom by paramedics.

Black has two weeks to appeal the decision. His lawyer, Miguel Estrada, asked for six weeks before Black must report to prison.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (24 Jun 2011)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> He is going back to prison. The following story from the CBC website is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provision of the Copyright Act:
> 
> Conrad Black to return to jail for 13 months
> 
> ...



According to the experts he will likely serve less than 13 months due to good behaviour.


----------



## DBA (24 Jun 2011)

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> According to the experts he will likely serve less than 13 months due to good behaviour.



They eventually updated the story to be more accurate and say "up to 13 months" and added a parahraph mentioning it will be between 9 and 13 months depending on behaviour.


----------



## Nemo888 (25 Jun 2011)

The guy spent 100 million on a legal defense and was still found guilty. In America that means you are guilty as hell. OJ spent 1/100th that amount and got off.

He spent shareholder money to live like a billionaire when he was only a millionaire to support his insane lifestyle. He is arrogant and thinks he is better than everyone around him. We are talking about a guy who serves 50$ a bottle wine to guests at dinner parties while he drinks 500$ a bottle wine. 

I do like his columns and books though. But he is still a douche bag and GUILTY.


----------



## jollyjacktar (25 Jun 2011)

I'm sorry.  (No, I'm not)  I have no sympathy for Lord Black and Barbra (nice theatrics in court btw Barb).  A part of me will watch in glee when he is deported from the US back to the UK as a convicted felon.  I do hope the Feds don't cave and give him his Canadian citizenship back.  It was not good enough for him before.  So be it, it's too good for him now.  He acted like a dirt-bag with OPM and is paying the piper for it now.  Good to see him not getting away with it.


----------



## a_majoor (25 Jun 2011)

How much you spend really has little to do with guilt or innocence. Conrad Black is certainly not going down without a fight, and you can see from the article posted above there are lots of people getting on the receiving end of libel suits, so yes, this will go on for years to come.

As for the actual charges, and the so called "Gotcha" tape, well consider this:

http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerkimball/2011/06/25/conrad-black-justice-denied-again/?print=1



> *Conrad Black: justice denied (again)*
> Posted By Roger Kimball On June 25, 2011 @ 4:42 am In Uncategorized | 10 Comments
> 
> I was away from my computer yesterday when I got the news that Conrad Black, former proprietor of the London Telegraph, The Spectator, and other plum media outlets, was sentenced by Judge Amy St. Eve in Chicago to another year in jail [1] for . . . er, why was it that Conrad Black had been sent to jail?  Back in 2007, federal prosecutors complied a laundry list of charges against Lord Black and spoke of seeking a sentence of “24 to 30” years for . . . again, what was it that Lord Black had done?
> ...


----------



## DBA (25 Jun 2011)

> The obstruction of justice charge against Black provided the one Perry-Mason moment in the trial. The prosecution gleefully played a security video tape of Black and his chauffeur removing boxes from his Toronto office. How’s that for “Gotcha!”? I’ve seen the episode reported in the most lurid way. . . .
> 
> But what was described as a nighttime assault actually took place in broad daylight. Black’s secretary was packing up because Black had been evicted from the premises. Two attorneys hired to deal with a U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission investigation into Hollinger’s affairs testified that they hadn’t notified Black of the SEC’s interest in the documents he removed. When ordered to return them, he did so tout de suite and right speedily. So where, pray tell, is the obstruction?



That leaves off details of the events. Basically Black and an assistant were prevented from removing 5 boxes of material by a security guard. Latter in the day he came back and with the help of his chauffeur removed 13 boxes.  It's also kinda odd that "only personal effects" and "copies were already sent to the SEC anyway" describe the same material.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (26 Jun 2011)

DBA said:
			
		

> That leaves off details of the events. Basically Black and an assistant were prevented from removing 5 boxes of material by a security guard. Latter in the day he came back and with the help of his chauffeur removed 13 boxes.  It's also kinda odd that "only personal effects" and "copies were already sent to the SEC anyway" describe the same material.



You forget that Black had been ordered to vacate his office and that was what he was doing.


----------



## DBA (26 Jun 2011)

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> You forget that Black had been ordered to vacate his office and that was what he was doing.



That was mentioned in the part I quoted, "Black’s secretary was packing up because Black had been evicted from the premises".


----------



## Retired AF Guy (26 Jun 2011)

DBA said:
			
		

> That was mentioned in the part I quoted, "Black’s secretary was packing up because Black had been evicted from the premises".



That's what happens when you come off a 12 hour shift and had a couple of beer.  :facepalm:


----------



## Brad Sallows (26 Jun 2011)

>He spent shareholder money to live like a billionaire when he was only a millionaire to support his insane lifestyle. He is arrogant and thinks he is better than everyone around him. We are talking about a guy who serves 50$ a bottle wine to guests at dinner parties while he drinks 500$ a bottle wine. 

None of those shortcomings merits a criminal record, let alone imprisonment.  Black is not a sympathetic figure; so what?  Is the obstruction charge the sole remaining count on which he is still held to be guilty?  If so, he is basically guilty of moving materials in which the prosecution hoped to find evidence by which he would be found guilty - a meta-crime, apparently.  I would rather not see any such laws, anywhere; if the potential for abuse is not yet seen, people are not thinking seriously enough about it.

As to the nature of what was moved, at this point he is not convicted on any charge related to the material, yes?  This is starting to sound like the Martha Stewart conviction (convicted for lying about not doing something that was not a crime).


----------



## Nemo888 (26 Jun 2011)

,... and defrauding 600,000$ of shareholder money(still guilty) and basically blackmailing business competitors to the direct detriment of Hollinger Inc(got the the law changed, but still did it). He is guilty as hell.

He pointed at the broken camera when he was leaving with the evidence he was told not to remove. It had been broken for months and had only been repaired that morning. Too bad Conrad. You got caught.

If he hadn't been such a dick he never would have been charged, only disgraced and fired. If he hadn't been such a dick and admitted his guilt he could have shaved 21 months off of his sentence and saved 100 million in legal bills.  The man is a pathological narcissist and has finally paid for it.


P.S. Martha Stewart was put in prison for bragging over a cell phone about insider trading. She even said over the phone "everyone does it". But eveyone else isn't stupid enough brag about it at in line at Starbucks.


----------



## Brad Sallows (26 Jun 2011)

Yes, he is still convicted on one count of mail fraud, so the question is answered.

>The man is a pathological narcissist and has finally paid for it.

Pathological narcissism does not merit imprisonment.

If Black is "guilty as hell" (presumably of something other than your own offended sensibilities), what is to be made of the people who signed without (apparently) fully reading the contracts which granted him the non-compete payments, or the people who flew Hollinger into the ground as the cost of pursuing Black?  Does high dudgeon over the interests of the shareholders extend to the people responsible for extinguishing the shareholder value entirely?

The destruction of Hollinger and trial of Black were basically a temper tantrum and ego display - an expensive one, for Hollinger shareholders and US taxpayers - on the part of people who dislike Black.


----------



## toyotatundra (28 Jun 2011)

I'm not going to cry tears for the ultra-rich. I'll save those for the poor.

Conrad spent millions on his defense, and he still lost. Martha Stewart spent millions on her defense, and still lost. If you can't be saved by a huge team of the best lawyers in the country, then you are probably guilty as charged.

Besides, instead of defending billionaires, we should devote more time and energy to a discussion of the difficulties faced by low-income and middle-class Canadians faced with criminal charges.

Too many innocent people go to jail because they don't have the funds for a proper defense. Too many poor and middle class Canadians are intimidated into silence, because wealthy citizens or corporations threaten lawsuits.

I would also be intensely skeptical of articles from "journalists" like Mark Steyn. He is a high school drop out who owes his entire career to Conrad Black. Like so many other "journalists" at the National Post, he attained prominence by rehashing whatever propaganda points the media barons wanted to score that week.

Far too many people fawn at the feet of the rich and powerful. We need fewer sycophants. And more Canadians willing to defend the middle and working classes.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (28 Jun 2011)

toyotatundra said:
			
		

> I'm not going to cry tears for the ultra-rich. I'll save those for the poor.
> 
> Conrad spent millions on his defense, and he still lost. Martha Stewart spent millions on her defense, and still lost. If you can't be saved by a huge team of the best lawyers in the country, then you are probably guilty as charged.
> 
> ...



Keep on subject. The thread is about Conrad Black, not a crusade for the downtrodden.

Go save the world somewhere else.
Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## Brad Sallows (28 Jun 2011)

>I'm not going to cry tears for the ultra-rich. 

Neither am I.  My point is that if a multi-million dollar defence can't win against bullsh*t charges, the rest of us are more in jeopardy than the rich.


----------



## a_majoor (28 Jun 2011)

Conrad Black didn't "admit his guilt" because in his eyes he is not guilty, and to falsely plead guilt in order to get a reduced sentence would display a remarkable lack of personal integrity. Whatever else you may say, he has been true to himself. 

WRT the case raised against him, you simply have to look at the timeline to realize this was very weak. When Conrad Black sold Hollinger, the share value was relatively high (@ $40/share? can't quite remember). The new owners managed to collapse the value of Hollinger in short order since they were not media savvy, so started looking for a scapegoat before the sharehoolders came looking for them. Notice that Conrad Black was no longer at the helm of Hollinger as they bled money (and the "no compete" clause simply meant that he would not be creating a competing media empire). Using the remaining resources of Hollinger to carry out their vendetta against Black reduced the value of Hollinger to zero; I notice few people baying for Conrad BLack's head seem to have any empathy for the shareholders in the post-Black era, nor any antipathy for the new owners of Hollinger who destroyed so much shareholder value.....


----------



## toyotatundra (30 Jun 2011)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Neither am I.  My point is that if a multi-million dollar defence can't win against bullsh*t charges, the rest of us are more in jeopardy than the rich.



That is a perspective that I had not considered before.

Prominent men such as Conrad Black have more money than ordinary North Americans. However, prominent men also tend to attract more powerful enemies.

A server at Kentucky Fried Chicken is unlikely to ever face the full legal onslaught of an angry corporate board. A business leader such as Conrad Black, in contrast, faces such risks as part of his job description.


----------



## toyotatundra (1 Jul 2011)

Conrad Black to get back millions of dollars.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/07/01/conrad-black-gets-his-millions-back-from-u-s-prosecutors/



> Less than a week after a U.S. court ordered Conrad Black back to jail, the former media baron learned prosecutors will return the millions of dollars they had been withholding from him for almost six years, plus interest.
> 
> Late Thursday, the United States Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Illinois said Lord Black will receive $5.5 million, money prosecutors had taken from him in October of 2005. Those funds came directly from the sale of his New York City apartment, the FBI having taking the $8.5 million (US) earned there even before the deal closed.


----------



## toyotatundra (9 Jul 2011)

Black fights back...



> It is as a reluctant draftee that I perform the mundane public service of straightening out John Moore, a Toronto talk-radio host who strays unleashed into the columns of this newspaper, though he is not fully housetrained. Emboldened by my resentencing to what will be between seven and eight more months in prison to be clear of the persecution I have endured for the last eight years, he again jubilates at my guilt and my punishment ("Reality Check for Conrad Black," July 5, 2011). Many readers are desperately tired of this subject; none could be more tired of it than I am. I will publish a book largely about my travails in the autumn, and then will speak and write no more of it.



http://www.nationalpost.com/todays-paper/note%2Bcritics/5076499/story.html


----------



## Retired AF Guy (2 May 2012)

Reproduced under the usual caveats of the Copyright Act.



> *Conrad Black to be allowed back into Canada after prison release*
> 
> Theresa Tedesco, Chief Business Correspondent, National Post Staff  May 1, 2012 – 4:28 PM ET  | Last Updated: May 1, 2012 8:13 PM ET
> John Gress / Reuters files
> ...



 Article Link


----------



## ModlrMike (2 May 2012)

So we have two jailed expatriates who propose to return to Canada: Black and Khadr. Guess which one most of the comentariat want to exclude?


----------



## jollyjacktar (3 May 2012)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> So we have two jailed expatriates who propose to return to Canada: Black and Khadr. Guess which one most of the comentariat want to exclude?


Yeah, but Conrad is someone that most if not all Canadians can get behind hating.  Omar on the other hand will have his legions of poor baby brigade members.  Conrad, not so much.


----------



## a_majoor (24 Nov 2012)

Lord Black has published a book on his experiences with the US legal system, and here is a review:

http://www.spectator.co.uk/books/8756401/apologia-pro-vita-sua/



> *Apologia pro vita sua*
> 7 Comments Paul Johnson 17 November 2012
> Conrad-Black
> A Matter of Principle Conrad Black
> ...


----------

