and yes the media is mainly leftist. But moving right along..
Black Times
By William F. Buckley
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
Some months ago I had a communication from a member of Conrad Black's defense team. The jury had just convicted him on four of the 13 charges brought against him. Said the lawyer to however many hundred people she addressed: "Over the next few weeks, the court will be pondering the future of Conrad Black. Please write to the judge about him and stress, if you will, what may be the extenuating factors she should consider in meting out sentence."
That was a painful commission for friends of Conrad Black. It seemed to this friend, as to quite a few others, that he probably was guilty on at least some of the charges. Now, being guilty of fraud and obstruction of justice (i.e., withholding evidence) is not quite the same thing as being Lee Harvey Oswald taking aim at the profile of John F. Kennedy in Dallas at noon on Nov. 22, 1963. And in any case, there were enough complications in this case to allow Black's lawyers to assert that what he had done was something this side of point-blank crime.
From the first day, Black had said that he didn't do it and, anyway, even if he did, it wasn't illegal. This is a form of "pleading in the alternative": John didn't kill the chicken, killing chickens isn't illegal, and in any event, here is a chicken alive and well.
I cautioned myself, in writing to the judge, not to get into that act. A judge who had sat through a four-month-long trial, listened to learned arguments by the prosecution and the defense as to form and fact, and heard a dozen witnesses testify as to what actually did happen, would be in no mood to be told by a journalist that the whole thing was crapola and maybe she should try out a different profession.
Well, I abided by that counsel, and I have to imagine that other friends of the defendant did the same thing.
But Conrad Black did not. He stand was absolutely consistent from Day One. The charges were foolish; they sought to vest in judicial infamy that which is in the nature of things blameless. Moreover, the people who were contending otherwise were obtuse and vindictive, and should be put away somewhere to prevent the toxification of the common law and the resources of reason on Earth.
One came upon friend after friend of the defendant, in the months before sentencing, who, while perhaps permitting themselves a smile of furtive satisfaction over the raw impiety of it all, would agree: Conrad is out of his mind to pursue that line of defense.
On the question we were asked by the defense lawyer to address, Is Black an honorable fellow, responsible for good deeds and benevolent thought? there was among his friends what I would guess was close to unanimity of opinion that Conrad Black has nobly enhanced the human cause.
At this point, heady passions broke into the theater. What about poor people? What about Canadians? What about the common man?
It is an adage of life itself that the man who gives away a penny incurs resentment in those who ask why he didn't give away two pennies. And what about the means by which he achieved his surplus in the first place?
As for his fellow Canadians, when Conrad Black announced that he was willing to surrender his Canadian citizenship in order to abide in London with the lords of the realm, impulses of resentment were kindled, and from the tumult one could make out the guttural sound of, "What's wrong with Toronto, my lord?"
This is the moment, perhaps, for a little reflective thought, to the effect that the tragedy is now complete in the matter of Conrad Black. Only he had the courage and the sweep to throw it all away. Leaving, for his friends, just terrible sadness that it should have come to this.
William F. Buckley, Jr. is editor-at-large of National Review, the prolific author of Miles Gone By: A Literary Autobiography.
Link==================================================================
http://www.financialpost.com/conrad_black/index.html Conrad Black: A reply to a friend, William F. Buckley
Posted: December 14, 2007, 3:24 PM by John Turley-Ewart
Conrad Black
For two years I have avoided mention in this column of my legal travails, and only vary that this week, in matters already on the public record, at the request of the commissioning editor. Throughout these five challenging years, most people whom Barbara and I really considered to be friends, have behaved as friends.
My late father, who died more than 30 years ago, and was a very intelligent, if somewhat eccentric man, in his later years, admired William F. Buckley and Henry Kissinger more than any other living Americans. It was a particular honour, later, to have had those men as friends for more than 20 years now. They have both referred to our relations in those terms publicly many times, and Dr. Kissinger did so under oath early in these baneful proceedings. I am often asked about my current relations with them, in particular.
Bill Buckley sent the judge in our case an extremely generous and unjustifiably flattering letter about me. Given his great prestige and celebrity, it was surely useful. He also published a piece about me last Wednesday which I saw on the National Review Website. He confirmed that he was a friend, and that all our mutual friends were “close to unanimity of opinion that Conrad Black has nobly enhanced the human cause;” embarrassingly high praise.
However, he also wrote that he had been asked by one of my lawyers to write to the judge for me, and that this was a “painful commission… It seemed to this friend, as to quite a few others, that he (i.e. I) probably was guilty on at least one of the charges.” He helpfully advised his readers that the convictions are “not quite the same thing as” what Lee Harvey Oswald did to John F. Kennedy; that I had presented an alternative defence of innocence and even if not innocent, that what I did wasn’t illegal; and that he had had to restrain himself from writing to the judge about the law and facts of the case.
For no evident reason, he also gave his bowdlerized version of why I am not, at the moment, a Canadian citizen, and concluded that “the tragedy is now complete in the matter of Conrad Black. Only he had the courage and the sweep to throw it all away. Leaving, for his friends, just terrible sadness that it should end like this.”
One of the most professional journalists who covered the trial in Chicago wrote asking me if, since “WFB…obviously thinks the jury got it right, do you feel you are being tossed under the bus by your friend?”
No, I do not, though I am disappointed. The facts are that I asked a mutual friend to ask WFB if he would prefer not to be asked to write a character reference for me to the judge. I wanted to make it easy for him to decline. He replied that he would like to do so, and so I asked him, explaining that if, on reflection, he would rather not, I would perfectly understand. He insisted that he did wish to write the judge, and asked for guidelines, which one of my counsel sent him, asking him to avoid all discussion of the case itself. He claimed to find it a pleasing “commission.” My counsel have never hinted at an alternative defence; my defence is and always has been: Not Guilty.
More perplexing is his assertion that my “friends,” including Bill himself, thought I was probably at least partially guilty as charged. Well-disposed people who think that, are likely not to be familiar with the facts and the current state of U.S. criminal procedure. Friends don’t usually act like that.
Bill Buckley’s late, wonderful, Canadian wife, Pat, concluded our last exchange by proclaiming that it was obvious that I was innocent. Bill Buckley and I share many philosophical and religious views. He knows my admiration for the United States. And he cannot be unaware of the gradual redefinition in recent decades of the Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendment guarantees of due process, the grand jury as insurance against capricious prosecution, the prohibition against seizure of property without just compensation, speedy justice, access to counsel of choice, and reasonable bail.
He, of all people, knows, and has written countless times, that some principles transcend the convenience of those trying to defend them. He referred on Wednesday, (as have some less eminent commentators,) to my “raw impiety” for criticizing the prosecutors
To question the antics of some U.S. prosecutors is not impiety. I would not expect most observers to recognize that I am fighting not just for my life and liberty, but also for the benefit of certain constitutionally guaranteed rights, essential to the rule of law. I did expect that from Bill Buckley, a conscientious, loyal, and intellectually fearless friend.
Knowing Henry Kissinger as well as I do, I suspected that he would behave as Mr. Nixon told me he generally did when a colleague came under pressure: privately declare solidarity with both sides and separate himself, so that neither side would confuse him with the other side, until it became clear which side had won. He promised more and I hoped for more, but Henry Kissinger is an 84-year old fugitive from Nazi pogroms, and has made his way famously in the world by endlessly recalibrating the balance of power and correlation of forces in all situations.
The correlation of forces between the U.S. government and me has obviously been generally unpromising, and Henry has less natural affinity for the principles involved here than Bill Buckley does. His statements, publicly and to the FBI, that I am probably guilty of something but that he “never deserts a friend,” are not heroic or even accurate, but on past form, not altogether a surprise either.
William Buckley wrote on Wednesday that I had claimed from the start that the charges against me “sought to vest in judicial infamy that which is in the nature of things blameless.” Those “contending otherwise were obtuse and vindictive, and should be put away somewhere to prevent the toxification of the Common Law and the resources of reason on Earth.” This is an endearing exaggeration. But the underlying points of my resistance are not a suitable subject of mockery from one of America’s greatest champions of individual liberty.
They are both great men, in their different ways, and their friendship, no matter how idiosyncratic, would be a matter of pride to anyone, as it is to me. I am sure that they will eventually see that it is not necessary to dissemble about our relations and that I have not thrown “it all away.” If our appeal is unsuccessful, they can share their “terrible sadness” with their country and aspects of its justice system.
For such men and for the sake of happy days gone by, that could yet return, I offer the other cheek, but not unilateral verbal disarmament. They need only survive and retain their faculties a while longer, to see that my present embattled condition is not, as Bill wrote, “the end.” I wish that for them, and all other good things.
National Post
Photo: John Gress/Reuters
Comments (100) Send to a friend Permalink
100 Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment
Click here to post a comment
by KJOPC
Dec 14 2007
5:27 PM Even your friends think you're guilty and you're still trying to put a "freedom fighter" spin on your theft? You had a chance to explain yourself to the jury and ran away from the opportunity. You gave up your Canadian citizenship in a juvenile snit. As Buckley says, you've thrown it all away and "the tragedy is now complete".
You see, your revisionism isn't working. The best you can do now for your reputation is accept that you were caught and punished. Do like Radler; take it like a man.
by chloicle
Dec 14 2007
6:56 PM Mr. Black is alas, the tallest poppy in a field of weeds. I do not think that he did wrong he is just beset by second and third raters that were given the scent of blood. Nil carborundem Lord Black.
by Raul654
Dec 14 2007
7:00 PM "embarrassingly high praise."
But obviously not so embarassing as to prevent Conrad from quoting it extensively.
Perhaps instead of repeating the praise of others Mr. Black should consider expressing some humility and indeed analysing the degree of hubris that brought him to this point?
by bedrock48
Dec 14 2007
7:23 PM Rich man steals from poor. Rich man gets caught. Now rich man wants everyone to feel sorry for him. You did the crime, do the time. The poor ones who invested their life savings won't have the luxuries that you will have waiting for you when you get out.
by IainGFoulds
Dec 14 2007
7:29 PM ... The Post should be ashamed of publishing such a stupid letter.
... Will we be treated to such delusional displays of false humility from Mr. Mulroney?
by wardb
Dec 14 2007
9:25 PM I do not believe that Mr. Black is guilty and anyone who has followed the proceedings of the trial will be aware of the mistakes, misrepresentations and outright lies that were allowed to tilt the outcome of this case.
Conrad Black is unrepentant for one reason. He is not guilty, and he is not about to sell out his honor or integrity in trade for a lighter sentence.
Canadian media should be ashamed of promoting and amplifying the prosecutions case, while never considering that Black might not be guilty.
It is easy to see the glee behind the reports of Blacks setbacks. Niel MacDonalds report on CBC was particularly disgusting
Journalists who could not carry his water, nor match him intellectually, now take sneering potshots at him.
Despite hearing the repeated and repeated reports of how arrogant and disdainful Mr. Black is, he has acted with a grace and dignity that is uncommon in society today. And this while the jackals destroy his empire and try to destroy the man himself.
That a man of Mr. Blacks stature and means could be railroaded in the manner he was should cause a shudder in everyone.
by agnostic
Dec 14 2007
9:31 PM To bedrock48:
Rich man made good money for other rich men, and some poor ones.
Then some of the rich men felt they should get more money, so they set the rich man up and got rid of him - only to see the the money he made for them looted and frittered away by the men they put in his place.
Envious mediocrities should get their facts straight.
But then - if they could, they probably wouldn't end up envious mediocrities.
by IainGFoulds
Dec 14 2007
9:55 PM ... Mediocrity... I guess that's true.
... Envious... no.
by luctoretemergo
Dec 14 2007
11:51 PM Both Henry Kissinger and William Buckley are remarkable individuals. There is litttle to be said about that. They also are the products of the respective life experiences that shaped them. Kissinger the ultimate survivor, and Buckley the principled patrician.
Conrad Black's depiction of both men's stances following his legal travails, by way of a pen shall we say, dipped ever so lightly in vitriol, is very perceptive. Friends who, when push truly comes to shove, are "friends". Such is the "curriculum vitae".
Several legal observers have commented that Conrad Black possibbly stands more than even odds in appeal. I for one hope that this is correct. No matter what Conrad Black received by way of non-compete agreements, I find it confusing that people forget that he generated very substantial gains for his shareholders. Should Black ultimately be exonerated, it would be interesting to see who has the fortitude to sue those who wrecked the company's underlying shareholder value in pursuit of their vengeance.
by kephalos
Dec 15 2007
12:34 AM There is a presumption that Justice is just. No, Justice--and especially the American version--is weird.
Six and half for accepting bad tax advice is a bit much. And how do you defraud the shareholder when you've announced the payments in the annual financials? Weird, eh?
Meanwhile in the background, the legislators and regulators are deeply embarrassed by some massive implosions. The truth is that Black's case is an attempt at a gratuitous sacrifice of a blemished old ram.
by persecute
Dec 15 2007
9:33 AM one always finds out who are friends when the "heat is on"
by jane26
Dec 15 2007
11:32 AM When one is in trouble, real friends may express their opinions, but do not judge. There may have been many in the public who have made their voices heard, but their comments have only shown a bias ignorance. Mr. Black while I do not have your knack for words, I feel you have been unjustly tried in the court of public opinion. I wish you well in your appeal process.
by STUG
Dec 15 2007
11:34 AM Oh look, my son Conrad is the only one in step in the whole parade. It was ever thus, even in high school when he sold exam papers.
by IainGFoulds
Dec 15 2007
11:53 AM ... It's funny, we have the irrefutable video evidence of Mr. Black's utter lack of respect for the law, yet the Post cannot restrain it's adulation for the man.
... However, though we have only the testimony of a compulsive liar against Mr. Mulroney, the Post does not publish his petty, transparently vindictive letters.
by chuck80
Dec 15 2007
1:16 PM Many who criticize CB deserve little attention since many of their criticisms are laced with prejudice rather than thoughtful arguments. Fools can be transparent and hypocritical also...even as they call the kettle Black
by IainGFoulds
Dec 15 2007
1:35 PM ... A "thoughtful argument" from Chuck80
by Lokutus
Dec 15 2007
2:11 PM wardb said:
I do not believe that Mr. Black is guilty and anyone who has followed the proceedings of the trial will be aware of the mistakes, misrepresentations and outright lies that were allowed to tilt the outcome of this case.
++++++++++++++
I followed the case with an open mind. He was clearly guilty of some of the crimes he was tried for.
To claim that he wasn't guilty of anything is patent nonsense.
by wardb
Dec 15 2007
2:44 PM Back it up Lokutus, otherwise you are simply perpetrating the lies just as the media has done.
by Lokutus
Dec 15 2007
2:51 PM Come on wardb, I know your game. No matter what I offer up, you will reject it.
For anyone serious about understanding the case against Black, I recommend George Toomb's new biography which was completed after the trial ended. Toombs provides a very even-handed account of both the trial and charges against Black.
The trumped up ones were ultimately discarded by the jury. The real ones stuck.
by wardb
Dec 15 2007
3:35 PM Sorry Lokutus the prosecution simply did not meet the burden of proof.
Members of the jury demonstrated their mindset when they commented after the trial that, based on his testimony, Radler was still "trying to cover up for his old buddy Black". To get the intent of Radlers testimony that bass akwards illustrates either predetermined bias or a complete and utter lack of understanding of the case
Radler also lied on the stand (which was discovered by Greenspan post-testimony) and was inexplicably excused by Judge St. Eve from coming back to explain himself.
Had the "repentant" Radler been exposed again as lying, this time on the stand under oath, the jury would have been forced to either reject his testimony completely, or view it in an entirely different light.
I will say again that if this can happen to a man of Conrad Blacks stature, wealth and intelligence, we should all be concerned.
by wardb
Dec 15 2007
4:20 PM The non compete is a fuzzy issue. Izzy Asper himself said that it was Black that he did not want to have competing with him, not the business entity that was Hollinger.
Its is noteworth what has happened to his company with Conrad Black no longer at the helm. Share price is now less than 10% of what it was when he stepped aside.
Since it is Conrad Black that will be dissallowed from competing in various markets why should it not be he that recieves a part of the proceeds?
The non competes were vetted by law firms in both the US and Canada and approved.
Interesting point you made at the end of one of your prior posts Lokutus. You said:
"Toombs provides a very even-handed account of both the trial and charges against Black.
The trumped up ones were ultimately discarded by the jury. The real ones stuck."
Can you explain what business the government has in "trumping up" charges against an individual? Aside from the fact that it is both unethical and immoral to do so, maybe you could shed some light on the reason for the "trumping up" of charges
by Lokutus
Dec 15 2007
4:45 PM The share price has plummeted because of the damage done by Black & Radler to the company. Black racked up legal bills of $107 million which Hollinger Intl paid for. Now that's he's been convicted, he must reimburse the company for the fees. Good luck to Hollinger in squeezing blood out of a rock--especially one locked away in a jail cell.
Furthermore, what else can one expect of share prices to do when a company's senior management have been convicted of being kleptocrats? Of course the shares will plummet even with Jesus H Christ as the replacement CEO. It will be a long time before they recover--if ever.
The charges against Black were trumped up by Tweedy Brown, other shareholders, and the former SEC guy (Breed?) who ran Hollinger's Audit Committee after the problems were revealed to the company.
It wasn't the US government.
Regarding the non-competes, I can't understand how a legal firm could approve these. The sale proceeds belonged to the shareholders.
Sorry dude, you are trying to defend a scofflaw who has spent his entire life thinking that the rules only applied to his inferiors.
Black got off lightly in the end, IMHO.
by HaXoRs~
Dec 15 2007
5:13 PM Sir:
The continuous obscenity of Black's musings in the Post disgusts me.
In my entire life I cannot recall such a precedent ever occurring in a so
called National Newspaper.
Recently I forwarded an article to Black without comment. The article was
not in support of this convicted felon. His response to me: "Please ***
yourself, mutant"
The arrogance of this individual overwhelms the majority of "common folk"
however in this particular episode Black has out blacked most everyone. His
bloviating, self adulation offering in the Post today goes to the proof,
this sociopath still believes he will win on appeal. Frankly, I hope the US
attorney for the Chicago district appeals the sentence, with the District
court not only upholding the convictions, adding more time to Black's
sentence. Black will always be a threat to "the little guy' who takes a
flutter on a commonly traded stock. I should also point out the Dominion
store debacle some years ago when Black helped himself to the pension funds
of the employees.
Black has throughout his life been a common thief, not by design, by his
belief of entitlement.
The current entitlement has landed Lord Almighty into the sewer of American
prison life for a period of six and one half years, less 15% should he
happen to behave himself.
His future is bleak, with the likelihood he could die in a smelly cell
without comfort.
Well deserved.
Finally, what justification is there on the part of the Post in publishing
this felon's musings? The readers, subscribers and advertisers deserve a
straight up answer
published in the exact position Black's article appeared today.
Anything less goes to the credibility of The Post and all that are employed
there.
Including you.
Thank you
Malcolm Underhill
by wardb
Dec 15 2007
5:18 PM Tweedy Brown trumped up the charges??
Tweedy Brown can make all the noise they want, but they do not have the power to prosecute.
Patrick Fitzgerald as a representative of the US justice system trumped up the charges.
Same Patrick Fitzgerald who, on the first day of his investigation into the Valerie Plame "leak" discovered that the leaker was Richard Armitage, then went on to further "investigate" for two more years until he was able to trip up Scooter Libby on a process crime.
That was a witch hunt and so was this. Fitzgerald is doing nothing more than collecting trophy scalps to pad his resume for when he runs for Governor.
With regards to the share price, had it gone up when Black left, I'm sure that this would have been held up as a justification for his removal. Looks like share price up or down, its Blacks fault.
Whether you understand how a legal firm approved the non competes is irrelevant. They did. So did the Audit committee.
Black took great pains and spent millions to ensure that the non competes were above board.
Regardless of what you think Conrad Black may have been guilty of prior to this also does not matter. He was on trial for non competes, and the prosecution did not meet the burden of proof.
People, whether it be Conrad Black or anyone else, should not be imprisoned and destroyed on flimsy evidence and the testimony of self confesed liars who perjur themselves during the course of their testimony.
With regards to "the former SEC guy" (Richard Breeden) no one seems to bat an eye at the fact the same guy who produced the report indicting Black profited hugely from Blacks removal from the company and is still feeding at the carcas.
by Lokutus
Dec 15 2007
5:30 PM "He was on trial for non competes, and the prosecution did not meet the burden of proof."
Yet the jury found him guilty on those counts. Maybe you need to write Judge St Eve and tell her that she and the jury screwed up?
Here's my final advice to you: You can't polish a turd. No matter how hard you try.
In the end Black got off lightly.
by Lokutus
Dec 15 2007
5:33 PM Not only do you defend scofflaw and tghief Black but now you defend Scooter Libby too?
You must be some Neocon wannabe from the Great White North.
by wardb
Dec 15 2007
5:51 PM Lokutus: Please refer back to my earlier comment. Had the jury known that the "repentant" Radler had lied on the stand, they may have had a decidedly different outlook on his testimony.
I don't think I will need to write Judge St. Eve as I am sure Mr. Blacks lawyers will be basing part of his appeal on the above highly questionable ruling by St Eve, to not allow Greenspan to recall Radler to explain his perjury.
You obviously have a profound distaste for Conrad Black, like most of the media establishment in Canada. Just because you don't like him does not make him guilty.
HaXoRs: The Dominion pension fund issue is always trotted out by Black disparagers.
The fact is that the pension funds in question were a surplus beyond what was required to service the pension. Black felt that this money belonged to the company. The Ontario pension regulator agreed with him.
The union took it to court and in a precedent setting ruling, ruled that the surplus belonged to the union.
The money was returned. No pension was stolen. There was a disagreement as to who the surplus belonged to and it was settled in court. No crime was committed, no widows or orphans starved.
by Lokutus
Dec 15 2007
5:57 PM I can't find a job because I run my own company, son. Been doing it for 22 years.
Now get me some fries and cheeseburger. Chop-chop!!
by chloicle
Dec 15 2007
5:59 PM I have just reread the article by Lord Black. I see from the comments posted that there are still a whole bunch of third raters yapping at his heels. As regards Messers. Buckley and Kissinger...Et Tu Bill and Henry?
by Lokutus
Dec 15 2007
6:07 PM Looks like the Conrad Black Brown-Nosers Society has been mustered to action.
Not only do they come to his defense, but the tint tikes even parrot his speech patterns. "Third rate yappers!" That gave me a chuckle since I read Toombs' biography.
by Lokutus
Dec 15 2007
6:21 PM Not only do they come to his defense, but the tint tikes even parrot his speech patterns.
Should have read:
Not only do they come to his defense, but the tiny tykes even parrot his speech patterns.
by wardb
Dec 15 2007
6:24 PM Prairie Waif: Do you honestly feel that your comparison of Conrad Black to murderer OJ Simpson is an example of logical debate?
Forums are for debate and I am here to do so. Those with little to say quickly revert to name calling and insults.
I dont happen to think that justice was served, and provide reasons based on facts as to why.
Rather than hurl insults why not rebut with good arguement based on fact instead of empty rhetoric?
by Allan Eizinas
Dec 15 2007
9:06 PM Pride cometh before a fall.
In this case it seems that pride cometh after the fall.
What a self-serving windbag!
by IainGFoulds
Dec 15 2007
9:41 PM ... That was a good laugh in the Post today... the tiny article on the sixth page, in which a poll result was that almost 70% Canadians thought that Black should not be allowed back to Canada to serve his time.
... And, only 10% thought the sentence was too harsh.
... For certain, if the poll results had been reversed, the Post would have published it on the front page.
... Hopefully, this Post love-in will end soon.
by Lokutus
Dec 15 2007
9:53 PM Thus spake chloicle:
I have just reread the article by Lord Black. I see from the comments posted that there are still a whole bunch of third raters yapping at his heels. As regards Messers. Buckley and Kissinger...Et Tu Bill and Henry?
and
6:56 PM
Mr. Black is alas, the tallest poppy in a field of weeds. I do not think that he did wrong he is just beset by second and third raters that were given the scent of blood. Nil carborundem Lord Black.
---
Is anyone else asking themselves if chloicle is possibly Lord Black's sock-puppet? If not, it's most definitely some sort of mini-me version of him.
by Allen Stevens
Dec 16 2007
10:13 AM Dear dear Connie
We really could not give a pompous self indulgent carp.
One main ingredient in life that tends to give purchase to a modicum of sympathy for those seeking it is the realization that they are not the centre of the universe.
Please get over yourself and move on.
by chloicle
Dec 16 2007
10:44 AM Oh dear, I do seem to have upset Lokutus. Even more 'Ad Hominem' attacks. I regret that I have never met or had anything to do with Conrad Black personally, my loss; I'm just a retiree living on the west coast who has closely followed the tribulations of Lord Black with interest. At the end of it all I do not believe him to be guilty. In addition I am very disturbed by some aspects of the case. For one, He was charged with obstruction, yet the entire books of Hollinger were made available, without stint, to the prosecution, what he removed from the corporate offices were his personal papers, not one of which was used as evidence against him in court. What did happen though was that the prosecution selectivly leaked the many of them, oftentimes out of context, to denegriate the reputation of Lord Black to the general public and the jury pool. Lokutus and others may think that this is a legitimate tactic. I do not. In addition I am most perturbed by the wholesale seizure of his property before the trial. I am reminded of the red queen "First the punishment, Then the trial". In closing let me apologise to Lokutus for calling him a 'third rater'. I was a couple of points too high.
by lui ray al
Dec 16 2007
11:41 AM If Conrad Black gets six and a half years for fraud, then Mulroney and his accomplices deserve sixty years for the fraud they perpetrated on the Canadian public, Cretian and his mob deserve far more, because they cheated us out of far more than Black did.Your a stand up guy Mr Black,Mulroney and Cretian are a couple of turds in white silk stockings far more deserving of incarceration.Freedom of speech,freedom of the press,you gotta love it,thank you National post,thank you Mr. Black.
by Lokutus
Dec 16 2007
2:20 PM chloicle,
I seriously doubt that you are a "retiree". Judging by your abuse of the Queen's English, ad hominem attacks from the get-go, and general confused thinking, I estimate your real age to be about 14.
With regards to abuse of language, despite your embarrassing attempts to sound like your hero Conrad Black, there are so many grammatical and spelling errors in your posts, that I don't even know where to begin. Does your browser not have a spell-check?
Then there are the personal attacks. One only has to scroll to the top of the comments section to see your feeble attempts at mimicking your hero:
"Mr. Black is alas, the tallest poppy in a field of weeds. I do not think that he did wrong he is just beset by second and third raters that were given the scent of blood. Nil carborundem Lord Black."
Followed by:
"I have just reread the article by Lord Black. I see from the comments posted that there are still a whole bunch of third raters yapping at his heels. As regards Messers. Buckley and Kissinger...Et Tu Bill and Henry?"
Then you whine about being the victim of ad hominem attacks by others! Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.
We can all see that you are desperately trying to match the Black grandiloquence yet failing miserably. Too bad for you that you so utterly lack his skill with English.
Now to your confused thinking, old son:
"I do not think that he did wrong he is just beset by second and third raters that were given the scent of blood." Do you truly believe that what you think matters in this case? Do you think that the the product of your addled mind ever matters to anyone? It doesn't. You are clearly either grossly misinformed or, more likely, someone who simply can't handle reality and therefore refuses to acknowledge it.
One final point on your use of phony Latin in a desperate attempt to impress, my little poseur: "Nil carborundem" is not only spelled incorrectly but it's not even real Latin. Only an uneducated fool believes that dopey exhortations are made forceful by Latin.
by chloicle
Dec 16 2007
3:20 PM Thank you Lokutus. What A first class display of venomous spleen.
by Lokutus
Dec 16 2007
3:46 PM Well, you certainly brought it upon yourself, little man. If you can't stand the heat stay of of the kitchen.
by ilana3
Dec 16 2007
4:56 PM Play nicely in the sandbox Chloicle, Lokutus, and wardb. Personally I prefer to read comments made by Black as I try to make sense of corporate law and the dynamics of complex processes and personalities. American law is tough and different from ours. The response to friends, such as these, is very news worthy. The blogs are great vehicles and are proving to be a success.
by ilana3
Dec 16 2007
5:10 PM Letters in support should support. References to procedure and law may not be appropriate. Mr. Black has a right to defend his view and a right to comment and clarify issues.
by Lokutus
Dec 16 2007
5:22 PM George Toombs sums up Conrad's two biggest mistakes in life. These turned out to be fatal errors of judgment caused by extreme hubris.
1. Conrad decided to raise money from the American public with his US subsidiary Hollinger Int'l. Now there's nothing wrong with this strategy, if you're honest. However, as Toomb points out over and over in his biography, Connie in his arrogance just assumed that the American shareholders and SEC would adopt to his style of Lord of the Realm proprietorship in which it was perfectly acceptable to dip into the corporate cookie jar whenever Babs needed to go on another shopping spree.
2. Connie's disastrous decision to renounce his Canadian citizenship in order to become a Lord. The loss of his citizenship shut the door to him serving out his sentence in a Canadian prison.
Ironically, it now looks as if the House of Lords will strip him of the title as it does not wish to have itself stained by a convicted felon.
by Lokutus
Dec 16 2007
5:33 PM "Mr. Black has a right to ... clarify issues."
This made me chuckle.
by ilana3
Dec 16 2007
5:35 PM I have a dream of a country where all can be free, not just a few. I have a dream of a country where justice and rights are defended. I have a dream of a country where the slogan One for all and all for one echoes and rings true. A commonwealth of people united and standing tall for Canadians.
We hear the voices of angry young men. We hear the songs of the soldiers as they march off to war. And Now is the time to take a stand, to raise the sword high overhead and say no one can do this to a Canadian, not to anyone born on this soil and who had the courage to dream the Canadian Dream.
by Lokutus
Dec 16 2007
5:41 PM What does the above have to do with Black?
by lui ray al
Dec 16 2007
6:03 PM well said ilana3
by Lokutus
Dec 16 2007
6:13 PM What does that pap mean? Is she trying to stir up a mob of bozos to march into the USA and attempt to free a convicted felon?
I'm not following this at all.
by lui ray al
Dec 16 2007
8:08 PM The theological implications alone are staggering.
by STUG
Dec 17 2007
11:55 AM Wow! More heat than light.
Simple minded me thinks that Conrad merely met a bigger bully than himself and got his nose bloodied.
It happens.
by sharkloon
Dec 17 2007
3:17 PM The dashing and irrepressible Conrad Black has been sparsely chastised for his myriad malfactions.
The question of guilt encompasses ethical considerations to some of us but by which Mr. Black remains unencumbered to this day.
Years ago, a personal appeal to him to "come on over from the dark side" and " use his powers for good" was received as so much malarkey from the great unwashed.
Hopefully Conrad Black's future career will constitute more than just another sorry iteration of this plebian stickhandling around the financial rules of the game.
But ya gotta love him.
For good or evil, Conrad Black's scintillating style and splendid wit are a delight. He's fast becoming that historic legend in his own mind.
Canadians eagerly await the final chapter.
by Lokutus
Dec 17 2007
6:54 PM The people running this site are into heavy censorship. About half a dozen posts have been deleted since last night.
by ypres100
Dec 17 2007
7:49 PM I have followed the spat between Lokutus (who is a fool), chloicle (a gentleman), and wardb. I am thankful for the responses of wardb which have been intelligent, rightly concerned with the ominous precedent threat that this action against Conrad Black poses, and respectful in the face of many vindictive, mean-spirited responses from those with mean-spirited, dried up little souls. Conrad Black is innocent and great man. I would trade several thousand Lokutus's for a single Conrad Black and come out ahead!
by IainGFoulds
Dec 17 2007
7:51 PM ... Apparently, incarceration is only part of Mr. Black's sentence.
... Equally, his pompous arrogance has earned him a place in history- something in the nature of a dropped puck at an old-timers hockey game- to roars of delight from the stands.
by JustAnotherWesterner
Dec 18 2007
1:27 AM Lokutus,
"Regarding the non-competes, I can't understand how a legal firm could approve these. The sale proceeds belonged to the shareholders."
Your quote. Not only did the law firms approve them, so did Hollinger's Audit Board. Non-competes are pretty standard. I hit some of my Owner/Operators with them if necessary. As the owner of a company I would think you would be appalled. This is my company & I'll run it how I want. It is not public so I only have a fiduciary responsibility to myself. If I sell it I will insert a non-compete. Without it the buyers will have me recruiting my old customers & o/o's.
If CB's non-compete's are not valid I hope like hell he opens papers in every location & drives the ones he sold out of business.
by Lokutus
Dec 18 2007
3:50 AM JustAnotherWesterner,
I am baffled by your inability to grasp the essential difference between a public and private company.
It's not that hard of concept to grasp. Really.
If Lee Iacocca had sold a Chrysler plant back when he was president would he have been entitled to pocket a non-compete?
Seriously, if you don't get this key distinction then I don't see anymore point in trying to reason with you.
by Lokutus
Dec 18 2007
3:51 AM "Conrad Black is innocent and great man."
Thank you for a genuine belly laugh!.
Just goes to show that denial is not just a river in Egypt.
by apophis
Dec 18 2007
8:32 AM reminds me of the sting how could you not love the guy
by apophis
Dec 18 2007
8:34 AM what time is it
by JustAnotherWesterner
Dec 18 2007
9:37 AM Lokutus
As aready stated my only fiduciary responsibility is to myself. You allegedly own a company. Is it public? If a public company agrees to certain legal business practices, their layers agree, their auditors agree, and they proceed, then where is the crime? If they are illegal practices, how do the lawyers & auditors suddenly become Pontius Pilate? If Lee I. sells a plant & Chrysler agrees to pay a non-compete, the lawyers agree, the audit committee agrees, & the buyer agrees, signs the legal contracts, hell it happens all the time. Far, far worse slimy business practices occur every day most of them perpetrated by the gov't.
If the non- competes were illegal & the buyers didn't ask for them why doesn't that money go back to the buyers. It is not Hollinger's
by apophis
Dec 18 2007
10:58 AM sounds like a whole lot of conrad black wannabes, well i guess when you have accumulated the type of wealth black has you will be entitled to count yourself a peer of his, when you have started a few newspapers, attained a lordship,dined with kings and queens then you will be able to accuratly reflect on blacks shortcomings until then you are simply envious,armchair lawyers.
by apophis
Dec 18 2007
11:07 AM black is king of the castle the rest of us are simply dirty little rascals
by apophis
Dec 18 2007
11:32 AM If A is success in life, then A equals x plus y plus z. Work is x; y is play; and z is keeping your mouth shut.
Albert Einstein (1879 - 1955) if radler had followed this simple bit of advice
by apophis
Dec 18 2007
11:45 AM in regard to blacks appearant lack of remorse as his sentencing :A 'No' uttered from deepest conviction is better and greater than a 'Yes' merely uttered to please, or what is worse, to avoid trouble.
Mahatma Gandhi (1869 - 1948)
by Lokutus
Dec 18 2007
12:32 PM JustAnotherWesterner,
Looks like you haven't paid attention to the details.
In the trail it became evident that Black handpicked marqee names for the Hollinger board who didn't have any understanding of finance or fiduciary responsibility. All throughout the trial these board members pleaded ignorance of the paperwork they had signed off on!
They didn't bother reading or in some cases they didn't understand what they were signing.
On the other matter, the CEO or Chairman of a public company selling off its assets cannot ask to be given a personal non-compete. (See my Lee Iacocca example).
Now as far as the lawyers okaying the personal non-competes, I will have to dig into that.
Didn't Black's Toronto based law firm get slapped for giving him bad legal advice on some issue? Was it for the non-compete payments?
by Lokutus
Dec 18 2007
12:34 PM sounds like a whole lot of conrad black wannabes, well i guess when you have accumulated the type of wealth black has you will be entitled to count yourself a peer of his, when you have started a few newspapers, attained a lordship,dined with kings and queens then you will be able to accuratly reflect on blacks shortcomings until then you are simply envious,armchair lawyers.
____
Poppycock!
If anyone is a Black wannabe it's you. One does not need to have "dined with kings and queens" to understand what theft is.
by Lokutus
Dec 18 2007
12:37 PM If CB's non-compete's are not valid I hope like hell he opens papers in every location & drives the ones he sold out of business.
____________________
Regrettably, convicted felons serving out their sentences are not allowed to engage in business activity outside the prison walls.
Were you not aware of this?
by Lokutus
Dec 18 2007
12:44 PM black is king of the castle the rest of us are simply dirty little rascals
____________
This correct if by "castle" you really meant "prison".
I honestly pity the man. What a way to end one's life: at 63 you lose everything and go to prison until your 70th birthday.
by apophis
Dec 18 2007
4:13 PM *yawn*
by Lokutus
Dec 18 2007
4:28 PM The sad little person who keeps switching his moniker should understand that he's not fooling anyone.
by apophis
Dec 18 2007
4:29 PM It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err
by Lokutus
Dec 18 2007
6:44 PM It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom.
-----------
Too bad Black forgot this. In the end hubris did him in pure and simple. He had come to believe that the laws did not apply to him.
by apophis
Dec 18 2007
7:07 PM Freedom is not worth having if it does not connote freedom to err. It passes my comprehension how human beings, be they ever so experienced and able, can delight in depriving other human beings of that precious right.
by apophis
Dec 18 2007
7:09 PM Honest disagreement is often a good sign of progress
by Lokutus
Dec 18 2007
7:12 PM Freedom is not worth having if it does not connote freedom to err.
_______________________
So crime is just an error in your mind?
Does this include murder and rape?
by apophis
Dec 18 2007
7:18 PM Hate the sin, love the sinner, I am prepared to die, but there is no cause for which I am prepared to kill
by Lokutus
Dec 18 2007
7:21 PM Hate the sin, love the sinner,
------------
You are the King of Platitudes.
by JustAnotherWesterner
Dec 18 2007
7:24 PM Lokutus
"Regrettably, convicted felons serving out their sentences are not allowed to engage in business activity outside the prison walls."
Surely your're not that naive! Connie will just get his old buddy Radler to do it 29 mos ain't so long.
"the Hollinger board who didn't have any understanding of finance or fiduciary responsibility. All throughout the trial these board members pleaded ignorance of the paperwork they had signed off on!
They didn't bother reading or in some cases they didn't understand what they were signing."
Wow! You shoot yourself in the foot so often you're gonna need a wheelchair.
So ignorance under the law (wasn't one of them a judge?) absolves these board members of criminal activity but the individual they approved is guilty.
You should apply to the State of Illinois for a job.
by apophis
Dec 18 2007
7:26 PM Adaptability is not imitation. It means power of resistance and assimilation
by JustAnotherWesterner
Dec 18 2007
7:30 PM Hey Apophis,
You just haven't met the cause yet.
If somebody invades your home, rapes & murders your loved ones, you'll be ready to kill. Maybe enslavement for a whatever period of time would do it for ya.
by Lokutus
Dec 18 2007
7:32 PM JustAnotherWesterner, you really are incoherent.
by Lokutus
Dec 18 2007
7:35 PM Wow! You shoot yourself in the foot so often you're gonna need a wheelchair.
_______________________
Another non sequitur.
How am I shooting myself in the foot by pointing out the explanation used by the Hollinger board members on how Black's non-competes were "approved"??
by apophis
Dec 18 2007
7:38 PM fight fire with fire,by the way what happened to your finger,did someone punch you in the nose.
by Lokutus
Dec 18 2007
7:39 PM So ignorance under the law (wasn't one of them a judge?) absolves these board members of criminal activity but the individual they approved is guilty.
------------
Let me explain this really s-l-o-w-l-y for your benefit:
The board members weren't on trial.
Black was on trial.
Frankly, the board members should have been charged for letting these personal non-competes go through.
by apophis
Dec 18 2007
7:55 PM my appologies for the last remark, its been a pleasure exchanging post with you,Merry Christmas everyones.
by JustAnotherWesterner
Dec 18 2007
7:59 PM Frankly, the board members should have been charged for letting these personal non-competes go through.
I guess American justice, in it's wisdom (& political advancement, you do know DA's are elected?)felt there was no mileage to be gained by prosecuting high profile trough swillers. Just an ex-Canadian.
by JustAnotherWesterner
Dec 18 2007
8:01 PM Merry Christmas Apophis!
by JustAnotherWesterner
Dec 18 2007
8:04 PM Lokutus
Why is approved in quotes?
Were they approved or not?
Don't you watch Corner Gas?
You know "Free" in quotes (Everybody questioned it)
by JustAnotherWesterner
Dec 18 2007
8:05 PM Lokutus
What's a sequitur
by Lokutus
Dec 18 2007
8:09 PM en.wikipedia.org/.../Non_sequitur
by JustAnotherWesterner
Dec 18 2007
8:22 PM I could'a done that myself. I wanted your reply
I asked sequitur not non sequitur
by JustAnotherWesterner
Dec 18 2007
8:27 PM Is Wikipedia your primary resource?
You're not gonna have any feet left.
by Lokutus
Dec 18 2007
8:29 PM If you can't figure out what it means, it's your problem not mine. No one is paying me to school you.
by HaXoRs~
Dec 19 2007
1:45 PM There comes a time when a thread
should be closed. Now is the time.
Simply put, I have no idea how the subject of Conrad Black has evolved into a discussion of words and the meaning thereof.Some folks have just too much time to waste, or perhaps they didn't pay their telephone bill.
Mr.Moderator the subject is Black.
Many of the posts belong in the trash.
by apophis
Dec 19 2007
4:38 PM and you obviously had nothing better to do than read them
by Lokutus
Dec 19 2007
6:18 PM Let's start off the censorship by trashing everything from our incipient little commissar HaXoRs who is deluded enough to think that he's the sole arbiter of what belongs here.
by apophis
Dec 19 2007
6:34 PM LMFAO
by apophis
Dec 19 2007
7:49 PM I am proud to call Conrad Black a fellow Canadian, and ashamed that brian mulfoney and jean cretian are Canadian.
Mother of all links.
Forum Elite 
CKA Uber 
