Lax sentencing for criminals

[Scotty]

I think you'd be surprised at how many "small c conservatives" smoke pot. More importantly, there is a far larger number of small c conservatives who may not smoke it but feel it is harmless enough that it doesn't deserve the Prohibition treatment.

And I am one of them. However, given Harper's rather notorious 'pragmatism' if he really thought much of his base was in favour he'd be going for it. I did a quick scan for polls and the latest I find is last year, where Angus Reid says just over half of Canadians are okay with legalizing it. But the trick is to read the fine print.

Those who believe that possession of small amounts of marijuana for personal use should not be a crime tend to be men (54 per cent), under the age of 25 (58 per cent), as well as supporters of the NDP (63 per cent), Green Party (59 per cent) and the Bloc Québécois (58 per cent)

So most of those who believe pot should be legalized are of an age group which doesn't vote, and which largely supports the left wing parties anyway. Numbers like that are not going to convince Harper to legalize anything.

[Wild Bill]

And I am one of them. However, given Harper's rather notorious 'pragmatism' if he really thought much of his base was in favour he'd be going for it. I did a quick scan for polls and the latest I find is last year, where Angus Reid says just over half of Canadians are okay with legalizing it. But the trick is to read the fine print.

Those who believe that possession of small amounts of marijuana for personal use should not be a crime tend to be men (54 per cent), under the age of 25 (58 per cent), as well as supporters of the NDP (63 per cent), Green Party (59 per cent) and the Bloc Québécois (58 per cent)

So most of those who believe pot should be legalized are of an age group which doesn't vote, and which largely supports the left wing parties anyway. Numbers like that are not going to convince Harper to legalize anything.

No one is expecting him to legalize anything! It's the fact that he's introducing legislation that will more aggressively target petty users that has so many of us upset! The sensible thing for a man in his position to do would be nothing!

I still can't understand why he's even bothering. There's no upside for him that I can see and certainly a lot of downside. The only explanation that would make sense is that someone high up in the cabinet is driving it from some sort of personal agenda. That would be against the very root of the Reform spirit, where members were not supposed to push their own agenda or even the caucus' agenda but rather the views of their constituents. Where are the constituents demanding that we stiffen marijuana laws and increase prison terms for trivial offences?

I would hate to see Harper's plan get derailed by a "Reefer Madness" diversion. The opposition would jump for joy and the Tories would only be weakened. For no good reason at all, at least that I can see.

[eyeball]

So most of those who believe pot should be legalized are of an age group which doesn't vote, and which largely supports the left wing parties anyway. Numbers like that are not going to convince Harper to legalize anything.

So what happened to the notion that elected representatives represent everyone in their constituencies?

I wonder, does Harper imagine that the Beatles were singing about Christian fellowship or something when they sang "Mm I get high with a little help with my friends"?

What a freakin' putz. No doubt he was a rat-fink in school.

Edited July 9, 2011 by eyeball

[Oleg Bach]

He stole from a publicly traded company. That's stealing from stockholders, not from himself.

In the end the stock holders did not do the work that created the original wealth - he did - an investor is usually a person who expects to have maximum gain for the least amount of actual material input. What about those that manipulate the markets and crash stocks or who do a little undetected inside trading? What about those that bottomed out the market in the states and walked away with billions while the homes of hundrends of thousands of people were forclosed? They steal..but if the theft is grand enough no one seems to notice.

Stock markets are totally artifical as is the wealth held by those who expect huge returns for their money simply because they have the intitial money belive they are entitled to more money?

Find one person who suffered when Conrad may have dipped into the corporate purse to please his wife? You will not find a one..not one stockholder who is in the actual poor house - the supposed theft was technical in nature - where as others and there are thousands of them through out America and Canada who through their weasily greed have actually harmed people yet they do not pay as Conrad pays..

Mr. Black was and is a figure head that was taken down to appease the general pubic that hate what they consider rich people...a common scape goat that took the heat off of the asses of thousands of institutional legal crooks.

I have always said regarding this manner - the only reason that they hit Black so hard was in the fact that the courts and the public percieved him as arrogant and intelligent - that he KNEW better - where all the others who committed more serious offences did not suffer legal consequence because they did not KNOW better - I really don't believe that Black knew he was stealing if that is the case on a technical and not moral level.

If you look at an old documetary of Black when he was a young guy crusing in a car through the streets of London - you can clearly see a big overly privledged kid who had his head in the clounds and never gave heed to much other than himself...Black is typical of the old school anglo elite...They were brought up and trained in a very Darwinian way...much the same as the kids in the ghetto at Jane and Finch were trained in a very Darwinian manner.

[bush_cheney2004]

...Mr. Black was and is a figure head that was taken down to appease the general pubic that hate what they consider rich people...a common scape goat that took the heat off of the asses of thousands of institutional legal crooks.

No, Mr. Black is just another arrogant white collar criminal who doesn't even have the balls to do his time without whining about it. Even Martha Stewart did better than that.

What a scumbag

[Oleg Bach]

No, Mr. Black is just another arrogant white collar criminal who doesn't even have the balls to do his time without whining about it. Even Martha Stewart did better than that.

What a scumbag

Martha was one of your own so you were sweet to her. Here is the crux BC --- I have always said IF you are going to convict and jail a white collar offender - round up as many as you can and jail them all or let them all go - Martha was also a figure head that was used to divert public attention from institutional corruption. Here is how the rich operate - once in a while they will toss one of their own under the bus - It is just a symblolic gesture. The public then assume that if the rich can do that to their fellow rich then there must be real justice in the world...what it shows is that if the super established have no quams about cruxifying others of their own class - then utterly destroying the poor is no problem _ The whole concept is a type of domestic terrorism.

[bush_cheney2004]

...I have always said IF you are going to convict and jail a white collar offender - round up as many as you can and jail them all or let them all go - Martha was also a figure head that was used to divert public attention from institutional corruption.

Why? All criminals are not indicted and convicted, but there is a pecking order for those who are. You takes the rap and serve your time. Have some self respect for krisakes!

Here is how the rich operate - once in a while they will toss one of their own under the bus - It is just a symblolic gesture. The public then assume that if the rich can do that to their fellow rich then there must be real justice in the world...what it shows is that if the super established have no quams about cruxifying others of their own class - then utterly destroying the poor is no problem _ The whole concept is a type of domestic terrorism.

The criminal "poor" are far more likely to be done in by a fellow cockroach!

[Oleg Bach]

Why? All criminals are not indicted and convicted, but there is a pecking order for those who are. You takes the rap and serve your time. Have some self respect for krisakes!

The criminal "poor" are far more likely to be done in by a fellow cockroach!

Your high end roaches know one thing - that their fellow roach Conrad...is old and time is of great value - and they will pick at his real wealth - his moral life.

[Oleg Bach]

The kid woke me up when he came in ....it's pushing 5 in the morning here ------------better go back to bed - always a pleasure BC - you are smart and good fellow _ always enjoy your rebutals... I just feel sorry for the down trodden poor - and I also feel sorry for the down trodden rich - in the end it does not matter much - just don't like to see a dog suffer..be it an expensive pure bred or a mutt...This mutt is going back to bed - take care of the family - and continue to be you - It is Americans like you that keep things afloat.....good nite Captain.

[cybercoma]

So most of those who believe pot should be legalized are of an age group which doesn't vote, and which largely supports the left wing parties anyway. Numbers like that are not going to convince Harper to legalize anything.

And it's that kind of partisanship that's the problem with Canadian politics in general.

[Tilter]

No, Mr. Black is just another arrogant white collar criminal who doesn't even have the balls to do his time without whining about it. Even Martha Stewart did better than that.

What a scumbag

Shouldn't the word "thief" have been used somewhere in that description?

[William Ashley]

No, Mr. Black is just another arrogant white collar criminal who doesn't even have the balls to do his time without whining about it. Even Martha Stewart did better than that.

What a scumbag

There are definate issues. First he definately IS NOT just another anything. Lord Black is a very notable individual. Second off, he has only been tried in the US. It just so happens that even what he was jailed for, was later thrown out as not being the law.

He was also "caught" doing 'illegal' *well not actually illegal* things since he clearly wasn't obstructing the US justice system while in Canada, Canada "is not" a US jurisdiction. So moving files in Toronto is absolutely not breaking the law in the US.

The whole thing was a wonky seeming political side show.

What he got in trouble for was giving himself non competition bonuses. There is nothing inately illegal about that. The issue at hand was that he had strong relations with other companies.

Look into what you are talking about before you make such petty defamations against someone who did business the way it was done for years before without "illegal" consequences. The only thing that caused this was a different approach to old laws, which the US supreme court later agreed was "not the intent of the law".

The judge that convicted him was said to be "wrong" by the US supreme court. The laws applied to his case unlawful. I suggest you retract your statements.

My gosh some of the charges are for not doing what you said you would do in terms of how you operate your business. That is absurd the level of control the courts and government are exterting over businesses - telling them how they are allowed to do business even though there is inately nothing wrong - what is wrong is that the SEC guidelines are trying to prevent free business operation. My gosh going to jail for not following a script in how you run your business. Isn't it suppose to be a free world? Why should anyone have to tell the government how they plan on using their money, and worse go to jail if they use their money differently a year down the road, it is absurd.

What he's not allowed to have majority control of an iron company because he's not Jewish? US always attacking the Catholics when they try to operate in Jewish monopolies.

It just shows how the US government is trying to prevent free business, you have to disclose this stuff so they can interfere in your business operations.

Then you have

The overturn of two of the three remaining mail fraud counts.

Hmm funny how the things just disapeared, sorta a shakey court ruling if most of the charges later disapear no?

His sole remaining charge in the US is "mail fraud" where is the fraud charge associated with it?

And the obstruciton happened in Canada, how is he obstructing the US police in Canada? Also without knowing what was in the boxes how can you call it obstruction.. there is no information indicating what was in the boxes related to that one charge of mail fraud. If it even occured.

Where is the criminal offences?

" unlawfully obtain money or valuables in which the postal system is used at any point in the commission of a criminal offense"

How did moving money via postal mail, effect him personally removing boxes in toronto.

It is absurd.

the jury convicted him of a count of obstruction, for obeying an eviction notice by Hollinger to remove from his former office in Toronto boxes of papers and personal effects that he hadn't been informed were under seal.

Note that .... I still don't see how the US justice system and an obstruction charge should be extended into Canada and without informing the person under a court order not to do the action that he did. It is not obstruction if it is lawful conduct.

He was instructed to remove the boxes by his employer. It was his employer that was the source the action.

If your employer says "clear your stuff out of the office". Either it goes in the trash or you take it.

Then you get hit for removing boxes that you wern't told by the cops in another country not to remove?

It is totally bs.

Also the document that held the charge was a document already turned over to police?

It is absurd.

The US supreme court also said that the trail judge st eves was in error of process.

The whole thing is just stupid and show the US justice system to be seriously flawed and just plain inane.

Also the standing "mail fraud" held a illegal taking of $285,000, yet 32 million dollars was paid by black for that $285,000.This is one of them uneven restitution orders. His personal liabilities from what occured is in excess of 1/4 of billion dollars.

I really don't see how non compete ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-compete_clause ) is applicable to

§ 1348. Securities and commodities fraud

How Current is This? Whoever knowingly executes, or attempts to execute, a scheme or artifice—

(1) to defraud any person in connection with any commodity for future delivery, or any option on a commodity for future delivery, or any security of an issuer with a class of securities registered under section 12 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78l) or that is required to file reports under section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78o (d)); or

(2) to obtain, by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, any money or property in connection with the purchase or sale of any commodity for future delivery, or any option on a commodity for future delivery, or any security of an issuer with a class of securities registered under section 12 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78l) or that is required to file reports under section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78o (d));

shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned not more than 25 years, or both.

"The majority of U.S. states recognize and enforce various forms of non-compete agreements"

-----

There was nothing illegal about the contracts. If lawful contracts arn't illegal by are they mail fraud?

The board didn't need to accept the contract, and the shareholders didn't need to accept the board. However there was nothing illegal about entering into a contract,even if people didn't like it. It was lawful. The board had the right to act within its own perogative if it was acting within the law. There is nothing illegal about non compete contracts.

The shareholders are the ones who decide who they want to run their company. The US courts shouldn't be invalidating legal company activities. There is nothing illegal about what was done. It didn't violate any rules.

What they did was say non compete is illegal because... .. his non compete agreements effect commodity prices?

Huh? Makes no sense.

Also you have the other party saying "the request for a non-compete with Black and Radler was reasonable, because the two men formed a competitive threat through their control of Horizon"

The whole thing is being drawn out over whether businesses were right in having non compete contracts.. totally private legal business. There is absolutely nothing illegal about it.

It is up to the shareholders to hold their board to acount, unless the law is broken.

Its a little funny an american Gordon Paris took over a great Canadian Company (business publishing empire)

and ruined it? Pi Gamma Mu

Edited July 9, 2011 by William Ashley

[bush_cheney2004]

...Look into what you are talking about before you make such petty defamations against someone who did business the way it was done for years before without "illegal" consequences. The only thing that caused this was a different approach to old laws, which the US supreme court later agreed was "not the intent of the law".

Lord Black is/was exactly the kind of royal scumbag we love to see imprisoned with other criminals. His fall from such lofty grace is the stuff of Hollywood comedies. Even the judge laughed at his arrogant stupidity. And then Lord (Candy Ass) Black whines about it.

Note that .... I still don't see how the US justice system and an obstruction charge should be extended into Canada and without informing the person under a court order not to do the action that he did. It is not obstruction if it is lawful conduct.

Yeah, that's what Marc Emery thought too...he is now serving his prison sentence in Yazoo City, Mississippi.

http://www.cannabisculture.com/v2/node/27311

I thoroughly enjoy these kind of stories....an ex-Canadian locked up abroad in evil America and his/her supporters moaning about injustice and/or why their actions wouldn't be a crime in Canada. We even have a rebadged British TV show called "Locked Up Abroad" that certainly could tell Conrad Black sad tale.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3snyXTNmFm8&feature=player_embedded

[Wild Bill]

Lord Black is/was exactly the kind of royal scumbag we love to see imprisoned with other criminals. His fall from such lofty grace is the stuff of Hollywood comedies. Even the judge laughed at his arrogant stupidity. And then Lord (Candy Ass) Black whines about it.

Yeah, that's what Marc Emery thought too...he is now serving his prison sentence in Yazoo City, Mississippi.

I thoroughly enjoy these kind of stories....an ex-Canadian locked up abroad in evil America and his/her supporters moaning about injustice and/or why their actions wouldn't be a crime in Canada. We even have a rebadged British TV show called "Locked Up Abroad" that certainly could tell Conrad Black sad tale.

I can understand why you hold a negative opinion about Lord Black. We are all entitled to our opinion, after all. The same with Marc Emery, for that matter.

What I don't understand is that you apparently have no problem with applying American law on Canadian soil. Do you really not give a hoot for another country's sovreignty?

If some other country did it to Uncle Sam, would that bother you? Is it simply a case of the "big kid" getting away with whatever he wants?

[bush_cheney2004]

....What I don't understand is that you apparently have no problem with applying American law on Canadian soil. Do you really not give a hoot for another country's sovreignty?

That's what Saddam asked too....how did that work out for him?

If some other country did it to Uncle Sam, would that bother you? Is it simply a case of the "big kid" getting away with whatever he wants?

Nope...several have already tried that. We already know of your self-admitted axe grinding for Uncle Sam and the border guards, so clearly you are not very objective on such matters.

[Scotty]

No, Mr. Black is just another arrogant white collar criminal who doesn't even have the balls to do his time without whining about it. Even Martha Stewart did better than that.

What a scumbag

Black makes very coherent arguments about the unreasonableness and self-serving incompetence of America's judicial system.

The total amount of 'fraud' he eventually wound up being convicted of, even by odd American rules, was something like $600k, I believe.

[Scotty]

And it's that kind of partisanship that's the problem with Canadian politics in general.

You honestly think we're any different in that regard than the rest of the world?

[Scotty]

Lord Black is/was exactly the kind of royal scumbag we love to see imprisoned with other criminals.

Ie, a foreigner who doesn't pay the proper degree of respect to America's institutional legal mob. Meanwhile, Americans who defraud millions of their life's savings, bankrupt companies and bribe politicians are regarded as capitalist heroes. The mob is willing to go to the barricade to defend their right to make billions while paying no taxes. The mob has the bizarre idea that the rich got there through hard work and brains when most of them just inherited their money or cheated someone out of theirs. The mob also buys into that hoary old myth about class mobility which no longer really exists in the United States, and thinks that just because they're living hand to mouth now that's no reason to believe they won't be millionaires someday too.

[Scotty]

What I don't understand is that you apparently have no problem with applying American law on Canadian soil. Do you really not give a hoot for another country's sovreignty?

Hell, they don't even apply American law in America, if you're rich. How many of the thousands and thousands of bankers and investment types responsible for sending the world into recession and virtually bankrupting America went to prison for it?

It's just like the savings and loan scandal. A few people wind up getting pushed over the side of the boat, and the rest go merrily on their way robbing people blind because there's so much back-scratching going on between the corrupt politicians and the wealthy elites.

[bush_cheney2004]

Black makes very coherent arguments about the unreasonableness and self-serving incompetence of America's judicial system.

The total amount of 'fraud' he eventually wound up being convicted of, even by odd American rules, was something like $600k, I believe.

Well, it was Hollinger Inc....not General Electric. Some things are smaller in Canada!

[bush_cheney2004]

.... The mob also buys into that hoary old myth about class mobility which no longer really exists in the United States, and thinks that just because they're living hand to mouth now that's no reason to believe they won't be millionaires someday too.

Works for me...but even when the mob is convicted and sent to prison, it is unseemly to whine like a punk bitch!

[bush_cheney2004]

Hell, they don't even apply American law in America, if you're rich. How many of the thousands and thousands of bankers and investment types responsible for sending the world into recession and virtually bankrupting America went to prison for it?

It's not illegal to go broke...but mail and wire fraud is frowned upon.

It's just like the savings and loan scandal. A few people wind up getting pushed over the side of the boat, and the rest go merrily on their way robbing people blind because there's so much back-scratching going on between the corrupt politicians and the wealthy elites.

Sure it is...so why couldn't one fat cat Lord figure it out?

[Wild Bill]

Nope...several have already tried that. We already know of your self-admitted axe grinding for Uncle Sam and the border guards, so clearly you are not very objective on such matters.

Uh...what the hell are you talking about?

I crossed the border a few times in my life for business training. Once in a while to take the wife cross-border shopping. That's about it. Never had any problem with guards from either country.

Perhaps you have me confused with someone else.

Meanwhile, you've made yourself quite clear as to how Uncle Same should respect others. Dale Carnegie must be spinning in his grave.

[bush_cheney2004]

Uh...what the hell are you talking about?

I crossed the border a few times in my life for business training. Once in a while to take the wife cross-border shopping. That's about it. Never had any problem with guards from either country.

My apologies.....I did confuse you with another one of our esteemed members. Happy shopping in the USA.

Meanwhile, you've made yourself quite clear as to how Uncle Same should respect others. Dale Carnegie must be spinning in his grave.

Yes...I believe that nation states are about interests and leverage in such matters, as evidenced by extradition treaties or the waiving of same. We can do it the easy way or send in the US Army a la Poncho Villa.

[Wild Bill]

Yes...I believe that nation states are about interests and leverage in such matters, as evidenced by extradition treaties or the waiving of same. We can do it the easy way or send in the US Army a la Poncho Villa.

Actually, I have some sympathy for that kind of "Pax Americana" approach. I've often felt that Canada has squandered its birthrite with so many leftwing ideas that annexation by Uncle Sam might be a positive solution. I'm not sure if Uncle Sam would want the bills for all the welfare cases but he could also benefit from access to northern resources, including fresh water.

The only fly in the ointment is Obama. If he is indicative of the direction American is heading then what would be the point of merging the countries? Canada would be taking only a few reverse steps but keeping the same heading she's on anyways!