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

[Retired AF Guy]

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.

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

 

[DBA]

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]

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]

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]

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?

The federal vendetta against Lord Black has to be one of the most bizarre instances of prosecutorial abuse in the annals of American criminal justice. “I still scratch my head as to why you engaged in this conduct,”  Judge St. Eve said yesterday. But what, exactly, was the felonious conduct in question?

Well might you ask.  It is one of the perversions of modern justice that prosecutors assembled a long arsenal of charges, many of which are of dubious relevance.  The idea is that juries, though they will see that most of the charges are absurd or unproven, will nevertheless throw the prosecutors a bone and convict on one or two charges.  And of course it takes only one to assure a stint in jail.

When it came down to it, Lord Black was convicted on 3 counts of fraud and 1 count of obstruction of justice and sentenced to 6 and a half years in prison. Lord Black’s appeal went all the way to the Supreme Court and, mirabile dictu, the Court decided [2] that the (note the irony) “honest services law” that was used to convict Lord Black of fraud was too vague and ordered a federal Court to review the decision.  Thus it was that, after more than two years in a federal penitentiary, Conrad Black was freed on bail last July.

After the slap on the wrist from the Supreme Court, the lower Court could not very well uphold the fraud charges. So it stuck with terrier-like  tenacity to the obstruction of justice charge.  But what, exactly, was that all about?

When the case was unfolding, I wrote a column in the space comparing the federal prosecutors to the French revolutionary Louis St. Just and suggested that Patrick J. Fitzgerald be considered for the Louis St. Just Award for Perverting Justice. [3] He certainly deserves it. As I noted at the time,

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?

Where indeed? A year or so ago, Encounter Books published Three Felonies a Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent by the criminal lawyer Harvey Silverglate.  We’ve just published an expanded paperback edition [4] of the book.  Lord Black will appeal yesterday’s decision. I wish him luck with that.  But the panoply of prosecutorial abuse that Harvey Silverglate has assembled makes me gloomy about the chances that justice will prevail.  Our litigious, over-regulated society has created a prosecutorial leviathan than threatens us all.

Article printed from Roger’s Rules: http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerkimball

URL to article: http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerkimball/2011/06/25/conrad-black-justice-denied-again/

URLs in this post:

[1] another year in jail: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/conrad-black-going-back-to-prison/article2074182/
[2] the Court decided: http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerkimball/2010/07/21/conrad-black-justice-finally-prevails/
[3] Patrick J. Fitzgerald be considered for the Louis St. Just Award for Perverting Justice.: http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerkimball/2007/12/18/conrad_black_and_saintjust/
[4] paperback edition: http://www.encounterbooks.com/books/three-felonies-a-day-how-the-feds-target-the-innocent-paperback/

 

[DBA]

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]

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]

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]

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]

>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]

,... 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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

>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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

The authorization of a temporary permit is the first step in Conrad Black’s quest to return to Canada long-term — but he will have to pass through a series of immigration hurdles to become a Canadian citizen again Conrad Black will be returning to Canada upon his release from a Florida prison this week, sources confirmed Tuesday.

The Montreal-born former press baron, who has been serving time in a U.S. federal penitentiary on one count of fraud and obstruction of justice, has secured a temporary resident permit from Canada’s Citizenship and Immigration department allowing him to remain in the country for a year.

“He was granted the permit,” confirmed a source familiar with events who asked not to be named. “He’s not getting any special treatment whatsoever.”

Sources say the 67-year-old former businessman will be required to renew his temporary residence permit after it expires in a year if he wishes to remain in his native land. However, associates in Lord Black’s camp refused to confirm details of when he will return to Canada, or how, after he is released from Miami’s Federal Correction Institution on Friday.

When Citizenship and Immigration Minister Jason Kenney was asked about Lord Black in Parliament Tuesday, he declined to comment, citing privacy laws. Even so, Mr. Kenney said he played no role and gave instructions in February that public servants would “deal with any such application on their own, without any input from myself or my office to ensure that it was handled in a completely independent fashion.”

Opposition leader Thomas Mulcair said the government was operating under a double standard in allowing “the British criminal Conrad Black” into the country while keeping other people out.

The former chairman and chief executive of Hollinger Inc. famously relinquished his Canadian citizenship to accept a peerage in the British House of Lords in 2001.

Prior to his indictment in 2005 in Chicago and his subsequent incarceration in 2008, Lord Black had resided in Toronto at his Bridle Path mansion on a temporary resident permit. The last time he was in this country was late May 2007 for a long weekend break during his criminal trial in Chicago.

At one time, Toronto-based Hollinger controlled the third-largest English language media empire in the world, with a stable of international publications including the Chicago Sun-Times, the Jerusalem Post, London’s Daily Telegraph and dozens of other newspapers across North America, including the National Post.

Upon his return, Lord Black will join the thousands — namely professional athletes, rock stars, businessmen and politicians — who gain admission into Canada each year through a temporary resident permit.

Every year, the Citizenship and Immigration department approves more than 10,000 temporary resident permits for foreign nationals, and according to Mr. Kenney, “a very large number” of those permits help to overcome inadmissibility for those with criminal records if officials determine it’s a non-violent offence, the individual poses a low risk to reoffend and does not pose a risk to Canadian society.

Generally, foreigners with criminal records are inadmissible to visit or stay in this country.

The factors weighed in deciding whether to approve or reject an application include whether a person poses any danger to Canadians, if the person is making a beneficial contribution to Canadian society, has strong humanitarian or compassionate reasons, or simply has family in Canada.

Lord Black’s wife Barbara Amiel is Canadian, as are his three children.

A temporary resident permit can expire after one day or to a maximum of three years. It is discretionary and the Canadian government can cancel it at any time.

However, Lord Black will be required to wait at least five years before he can attempt to reclaim his Canadian citizenship, which he has publicly stated he intends to do.

Under Canadian immigration law, Lord Black can seek permanent residency status after five years of living in this country on a temporary permit, but only after he has secured the designation of “criminal rehabilitation” from the Immigration Minister. Once that request is approved, he could apply for permanent residency status and ultimately Canadian citizenship.

Three factors influence whether someone is deemed criminally rehabilitated: the type of crime, the passage of time and a clean record subsequent to completing the sentence. Offences committed abroad are evaluated in the context of Canadian criminal laws and are divided into three categories – indictable, summary and hybrid.

Lord Black’s fraud and obstruction of justice convictions were assessed to be in the hybrid category — more serious than summary misdemeanours but less than serious indictable crimes.

Last year, the former media baron was resentenced to 42 months in prison on fraud and obstruction of justice charges, reduced from the original sentence of 78 months on three counts of fraud and one count of obstruction meted out by a Chicago judge in 2007.

Lord Black had already served 29 months at a federal prison in central Florida before the U.S. Supreme Court struck down two of his fraud convictions in June 2010, citing a misuse of the “honest services” provision. He was granted bail until a lower appeals court in Illinois upheld one of the fraud convictions and obstruction of justice.

Last September, Lord Black entered the Miami prison to complete his term.

National Post
ttedesco@nationalpost.com

Article Link