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

[TCBF]

- 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

. 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

First, they must convince the court to hear the case, so they have filed a petition for the writ of certiori. Their lawyer is the very capable and able Miguel Estrada who had been nominated to the DC Circuit by Bush but was blocked by the Democrats before he withdrew his name. (h/t Bashman)

The brief is immaculately written, so there is nothing more than can be done other than waiting.

 

[a_majoor]

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.

The U.S. Court of Appeals has issued an order granting bail, but it's not clear yet when Black will be released.

Terms of his bail will be set by Judge Amy St. Eve, who presided over Black's criminal trial in Chicago. This will happen as soon as Black and his lawyer can get in front of her.

"We are extremely pleased the court of appeals rejected the government's argument that our unanimous supreme court victory meant nothing," Black's appeal lawyer Miguel Estrada wrote in an email.

"According to the court of appeals, the trial judge must now set the bail terms," Estrada wrote. "I am trying to get on the judge's calendar so we can finalize the details and get Lord Black out as soon as possible."

Several U.S. legal experts said Black is likely to be released before the end of this week.

Lawyers for the Montreal-born Black argued July 6 that he should be released immediately in the wake of a U.S. Supreme Court ruling in late June that set aside his fraud convictions.

"Mr. Black has been in custody for over two years," Estrada said at the time in a 26-page filing with the court.

"The additional time he spends in prison between now and a favourable ruling can never be returned to him. Mr. Black should be granted release pending appeal," Estrada argued.

Obstruction verdict remains

The U.S. top court set aside Black's three fraud convictions in June, but his one conviction for obstruction of justice remains in place.

However, Black's lawyers are arguing the obstruction conviction should also be thrown out.

The 7th Circuit Court is the same one that first denied Black's request for bail in 2007 after he was convicted, along with three other Hollinger executives. Black was sentenced December 10, 2007, to serve 6½ years in prison.

But on June 24, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously set aside his three fraud convictions under the honest services fraud law.

The nine justices agreed the statute had been too broadly applied by prosecutors and limited its application to cases involving bribes or kickbacks.

The court remanded the case to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeal in Illinois to determine whether his convictions should be overturned. That is expected to happen by the fall.

The lower court must now review how its earlier ruling based on the application of the honest services fraud law affects the rest of Black's convictions.

Sentenced to 6½ years

Wall Street securities lawyer Bill Singer told CBC News the decision came as no surprise.

"It was very clear that the Supreme Court of the United States was troubled and concerned about the basis upon which portions of the criminal cases against both [Black and former Enron executive Jeff Skilling] proceeded and as a result there is a ticklish question as to whether or not … [the other charges are now void because] of the violation concerning honest services."

"It's not a suggestion that they're innocent. It's not a finding that they're not guilty," Singer said. "It's just a sense that the criminal prosecution was flawed and that in fairness it is better for them to remain free until the case is re-tried and concluded."

Black and his co-defendants argued they intended no economic harm to Hollinger when, as managers, they received $6.1 million in fees. Prosecutors argued at the original trial that the money was stolen from the company and its shareholders.

Black, 65, has served more than two years of his sentence at the minimum-security Coleman Federal Correctional Complex in Florida, since entering prison in March 3, 2008.

 

[a_majoor]

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.

Sources confirmed for the National Post that lawyers retained by Lord Black are on the verge of finalizing a series of out-of-court settlements that will effectively end years of legal bickering in civil actions brought against him by his former Chicago-based publishing company and several defamation lawsuits launched by the former media baron against his accusers.

According to sources on both sides, the settlement talks are being stickhandled by Hollinger International (now Sun Media Corp.) and that although an “understanding” for an accord has been hammered out between the parties, a final deal has not been signed.

Sources familiar with events who spoke on the condition of anonymity, say Lord Black is expected to receive “a substantial payment” in the range of about $8-million as part of the settlement agreements.
In return, he has agreed to withdraw multi-million-dollar libel suits against Richard Breeden, a former chairman of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, and a number of former Hollinger International officers and directors.

Related
Terence Corcoran: Black’s tormentors to settle libel suit: More to come?

Archive: Black beats RICO: What’s next?

Archive: Black meets RICO

A spokesman for Lord Black refused to comment about the proposed settlements. Adam Daifallah told the Post in an email that “Lord Black is satisfied that the Breeden Report, which he attacked and litigated over as soon as it was released, is being debunked. We won’t discuss further details at this time.”

David A. Jenkins, an attorney for Lord Black, confirmed the settlements in a statement to the Post saying  “details of the settlements will be made public when the judicial approval process in Delaware and Illinois has been completed.”

Mr. Jenkins also noted that “Hollinger International’s successor company, Sun Times Media Group, attached a substantial value to the libel action in the settlement figure that will be paid to Mr. Black.”

According to sources familiar with the negotiations, the lawsuits involved in the settlement discussions include a series of civil lawsuits involving former Hollinger International officers and directors after Lord Black was forced to resign from the company in late 2003.

These include the US$425-million lawsuit filed by Holliinger International against Lord Black in October, 2004, after  a special committee of the board released a 500-page report on Aug. 31, 2004 accusing the Canadian-born businessman and David Radler, his long-time business associate, of operating a “corporate kleptocracy” while looting the publishing company of about US$400-million. The report was widely distributed with the help of the SEC and became the basis of a criminal indictment on 13 counts of fraud and conspiracy against Lord Black and some of his former business associates by the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois.

Most of the criminal charges were eventually set aside and Lord Black was convicted of one count of fraud and one count of obstruction of justice.

Also included in the settlement talks is a $1.1-billion libel suit Lord Black filed against members of the special committee, including Mr. Breeden, Gordon Paris, Richard Seitz and Graham Savage, in response to the “kleptocracy” report. As is an $850-million defamation lawsuit filed in February, 2004 by Lord Black against a number of Hollinger International directors.

Furthermore, a number of outstanding issues involving indemnification for legal costs and the so-called interpleader action for the last slice of the directors and officers insurance are part of the settlement negotiations.

However, Hollinger Inc., the Toronto-based holding company through which Lord Black once controlled the world’s third largest English-language newspaper empire, is not at the settlement  table. The company, which filed a $700-million lawsuit against Lord Black and his associates in July, 2006, also filed for court protection from creditors in Canada and has since emerged as a litigation trust.

Also not part of the tentative omnibus deal is the civil fraud lawsuit filed in November, 2004 by the SEC against Lord Black and Radler. Nor is the administrative proceeding launched against Lord Black by the Ontario Securities Commission in 2007.

The former press baron still faces a US$71-million lawsuit by the U.S. internal Revenue Service for alleged unpaid taxes, which he is challenging.

Earlier this year, the Supreme Court of Canada heard arguments about whether Lord Black’s defamation lawsuit against Mr. Breeden and Hollinger’s special committee should be tried in Ontario, where Lord Black built his business and reputation, or be allowed to move to the United States where the alleged activity took place.

The high court reserved judgment and a decision is still months away.

Lord Black and three former Hollinger International executives were convicted of mail and wire fraud by a Chicago jury in 2007 after a four-month trial. The former newspaper baron, who was also convicted on one count of obstruction of justice, was sentenced to 78-months in a Florida prison. After completing 29 months of his jail term, the Supreme Court cast doubt on his fraud convictions and he was released on bail last July.

He is scheduled to be resentenced on Friday by the trial judge who presided over his criminal trial.

With files from Barbara Shecter

 

[Monsoon]

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]

CBC is live blogging the trail:

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

 

[Old Sweat]

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.