guyser Posted June 28, 2007 Report Share Posted June 28, 2007 At the very least "obstruction of justice", I would think. Curious about that one gc. Why do you feel obstruction will be the conviction? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Bluth Posted June 28, 2007 Report Share Posted June 28, 2007 At the very least "obstruction of justice", I would think. Agreed. Carrying out those boxes was just plain shady. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gc1765 Posted June 28, 2007 Report Share Posted June 28, 2007 Curious about that one gc. Why do you feel obstruction will be the conviction? Like Michael said, he was caught on tape removing boxes which he was ordered not to do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted June 28, 2007 Report Share Posted June 28, 2007 Curious about that one gc. Why do you feel obstruction will be the conviction? Like Michael said, he was caught on tape removing boxes which he was ordered not to do. He got the notice to not remove boxes after he had removed boxes. Did he anticipate that, oh I imagine so, but regardless, he did not obstruct anything. I just went to look that one up, kind of confusing. The non-removal of boxes was at the SEC's request and not an official proceeding so it may not be valid as he was not charged yet. So...maybe maybe not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geoffrey Posted June 29, 2007 Report Share Posted June 29, 2007 He got the notice to not remove boxes after he had removed boxes. Did he anticipate that, oh I imagine so, but regardless, he did not obstruct anything.I just went to look that one up, kind of confusing. The non-removal of boxes was at the SEC's request and not an official proceeding so it may not be valid as he was not charged yet. So...maybe maybe not. Agreed. If it was a case of being 'reasonable sure' that he's guilty, he might be in a little bit of trouble on some of the charges (most are completely ridiculous). But beyond a reasonable doubt? None of them hold water. Like you said, he wasn't even breaking a court order or anything on the removal of boxes (which he later returned and the prosectution has no evidence that anything was tampered with). -- I think the osterich is ridiculous as well. Criminal negligence requires alot more than looking the other way on legit non-compete payments, and corporate parties. If he was negligent in operating the company, I suggest that is a civil matter between him (or his insurer) and the shareholders. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Bluth Posted June 29, 2007 Report Share Posted June 29, 2007 He got the notice to not remove boxes after he had removed boxes. Did he anticipate that, oh I imagine so, but regardless, he did not obstruct anything.I just went to look that one up, kind of confusing. The non-removal of boxes was at the SEC's request and not an official proceeding so it may not be valid as he was not charged yet. So...maybe maybe not. Something still doesn't seem right with that one. It seems like he has set up a pretty false choice with that one. Either 1. He didn't know he was supposed to remove the boxes. ---OR--- 2. He knew, but it wasn't an "official proceeding". The tape of those boxes being removed appeart to be a pretty central part of the prosecution's case. There is no way Black removes the boxes himself if he didn't think they were a big issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted June 29, 2007 Report Share Posted June 29, 2007 He got the notice to not remove boxes after he had removed boxes. Did he anticipate that, oh I imagine so, but regardless, he did not obstruct anything.I just went to look that one up, kind of confusing. The non-removal of boxes was at the SEC's request and not an official proceeding so it may not be valid as he was not charged yet. So...maybe maybe not. Something still doesn't seem right with that one. It seems like he has set up a pretty false choice with that one. Either 1. He didn't know he was supposed to remove the boxes. ---OR--- 2. He knew, but it wasn't an "official proceeding". The tape of those boxes being removed appeart to be a pretty central part of the prosecution's case. There is no way Black removes the boxes himself if he didn't think they were a big issue. All likely true but.....if a "official proceeding" has not commenced the he is in the clear legally. (from what I could understand) It is confusing no doubt , but if that is what they want to hang their hat on..... I think he gets off all charges unless the "ostrich" thing snags him Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Bluth Posted June 29, 2007 Report Share Posted June 29, 2007 All likely true but.....if a "official proceeding" has not commenced the he is in the clear legally. (from what I could understand) It is confusing no doubt , but if that is what they want to hang their hat on.....I think he gets off all charges unless the "ostrich" thing snags him The jury are laymen. Like most of us. The removal of those boxes is pretty sketchy. I think the jury will use it to avoid letting Black off scott free. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted July 11, 2007 Report Share Posted July 11, 2007 OMG. The jurors in the fraud trial of former media baron Conrad Black have been sent back for more deliberations, after they told the judge Tuesday afternoon they were unable to reach a unanimous verdict.The jurors had sent Judge Amy St. Eve a note saying they discussed all the evidence and could not reach a verdict on one or more counts. They then asked the judge for advice on how to continue. CBCIf a God exists, there will be no hung jury. If the jury cannot decide, it means that there will be another trial and we will have to see headlines once again about the arcane details of Barbara Amiel's lifestyle and clothing choices. If I were the judge, I would have sent back the message that no one really cares any more whether Black is a thief or not. No one wants to read anymore about him, his wife or their annoying stupidity. If Black or his wife were as smart as they think they are, they wouldn't be in this position. They'd be using their energies for other purposes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gc1765 Posted July 11, 2007 Report Share Posted July 11, 2007 If I were the judge, I would have sent back the message that no one really cares any more whether Black is a thief or not. No one wants to read anymore about him, his wife or their annoying stupidity. Hear, hear! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Doors Posted July 11, 2007 Report Share Posted July 11, 2007 Not guilty (or no decision) on all charges except he is convicted of obstruction of Justice. In before the bell! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geoffrey Posted July 12, 2007 Report Share Posted July 12, 2007 Not guilty (or no decision) on all charges except he is convicted of obstruction of Justice. You might be right. Jurors are unlikely to convict after saying they can't decide if they doubt enough to acquit, no? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted July 13, 2007 Report Share Posted July 13, 2007 Verdict has been reached in Conrad Black trial. CBC reports that Federal Marshals are awaiting in the court room. Not sure what that means. http://www.cbc.ca/money/story/2007/07/13/black-jury.html Verdict will be read shortly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KO2 Posted July 13, 2007 Report Share Posted July 13, 2007 Is person only a criminal if they are convicted of a crime? If a person is guilty of a crime and escapes conviction is it right that they be venerated in their social circles?? Wanna bet Conrad doesn't get the same treatment as OJ if he gets off? He'll be treated like a Lord of the Realm. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted July 13, 2007 Report Share Posted July 13, 2007 (edited) Jury finds Black found guilty on some of the charges. There are lot of charges to run through though. It looks like the big one is obstruction charges. 20 maximum in the pen for that one. He cannot be transfered to Canada because he is no longer Canadian. He can't apply for Canadian citizenship because he is a criminal. Edited July 13, 2007 by jdobbin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted July 13, 2007 Report Share Posted July 13, 2007 (edited) He cannot be transfered to Canada because he is no longer Canadian. He can't apply for Canadian citizenship because he is a criminal. You sure about that one? I was under the impression he got it back before the trial just in case he was convicted ? I am surprised about the verdict. Poor barbara , all alone and only millions to spend. Edited July 13, 2007 by guyser Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KO2 Posted July 13, 2007 Report Share Posted July 13, 2007 The american jury system works! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted July 13, 2007 Report Share Posted July 13, 2007 You sure about that one? I was under the impression he got it back before the trial just in case he was convicted ?I am surprised about the verdict. Poor barbara , all alone and only millions to spend. Nope. They just finished talking about it. He is a British citizen. His lawyers say he will apply for Canadians citizenship. I can't see how they would be able to do that because he has a felony conviction. As far as the millions go, his wife will have to earn her own money. Black's money will be tied up for years in court costs, civil lawsuits, additional charges from other U.S. government agencies. His property in Florida will be liquidated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted July 13, 2007 Report Share Posted July 13, 2007 And he has to pay Eddie's bill.....now thats going to hurt. Thanks dobbin for the info Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geoffrey Posted July 13, 2007 Report Share Posted July 13, 2007 Not yet. There will be appeals. There are actually a few points of law that were questionable in this trial, I'd be interested in seeing what Eddie comes up with. I think the jury rationalised the obstruction charge, but in my honest opinion I could never convict on the evidence given. There was no order in place preventing the movement of the boxes. The boxes were provided as soon as they were asked for. In other words, there was never any obstruction. The intention may have been there (who are we to know), but there was never any criminal act. I really struggle with the obstruction conviction. There is CLEARLY reasonable doubt. Of course, that's not part of an appeal, but the judges instructions may be. The mail fraud I'm unsure of as well. Fraud implies a deliberate intent to deceive. I don't think these guys were deceiving anyone, all the payments were approved by the Board of Directors and fully disclosed. Fraud is pushing it IMO. I think there may have been a breach of fudiciary duty, but there was never any obstruction or fraud, the charges Conrad was convicted on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geoffrey Posted July 13, 2007 Report Share Posted July 13, 2007 Here were the convictions from canada.com: COUNT ONE: Mail fraud Defendants were paid non-compete fees without justification. Relates to non-compete agreements with American Publishing Company and US$2.9-million in cheques related to the agreements. Black: GUILTY Maximum penalty: Five years and/or $250,000. COUNT 6: Mail fraud Shipping non-competition agreements. Black: GUILTY Maximum penalty: Five years and/or $250,000. COUNT 7. Mail fraud Shipping a non-compete payment in the sum of US$600,000. Black: GUILTY Maximum penalty: Five years and/or $250,000. COUNT 13: Obstruction Removal of boxes from Hollinger's Toronto offices. Black: GUILTY Maximum penalty: 20 years and/or $250,000. -- Note that Black was cleared on ALL counts involving the parties in Bora Bora, ect.. The Jury did a good job here realising that the business explaination, while maybe not the full story, did provide reasonable doubt. Was business done on these trips? Yes. Racketeering was not guilty... which I find contradictory to the jury's convictions. The racketeering charge insisted that Black led the group willfully using fraud to steal money in a scheme. If that didn't happen, then how can one convict on the basis of fraudulent payments designed by the group to steal money in a scheme? Beyond that, he was aquitted on charges saying that the non-competes were fraudulent. So really, he was convicted on sending a non-compete in the mail, even though it was ok to have the agreement? That's ugly! Juries are made up of mostly uneducated people in the matters at hand. I see this is a problem, one without remedy however. This verdict was very irrational. Perhaps it's because the judge forced them into reaching a verdict, a compromise was reached and they convicted/acquited based on some arrangement? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
runningdog Posted July 13, 2007 Report Share Posted July 13, 2007 I hope they chuck this arrogant ass in a medium pen for atleast 10 years. I have nothing against innovative, socially responsible people accumulating wealth. Good for them. Conrad is not what I consider to be a "good un'". Rot in jail and take Barb with you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharkman Posted July 13, 2007 Report Share Posted July 13, 2007 It appears that people love to see the high and mighty fall. I can't recall any such who's fall drew pity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted July 13, 2007 Report Share Posted July 13, 2007 Not yet. There will be appeals. There are actually a few points of law that were questionable in this trial, I'd be interested in seeing what Eddie comes up with.I think the jury rationalised the obstruction charge, but in my honest opinion I could never convict on the evidence given. There was no order in place preventing the movement of the boxes. The boxes were provided as soon as they were asked for. In other words, there was never any obstruction. The intention may have been there (who are we to know), but there was never any criminal act. I really struggle with the obstruction conviction. There is CLEARLY reasonable doubt. Of course, that's not part of an appeal, but the judges instructions may be. The mail fraud I'm unsure of as well. Fraud implies a deliberate intent to deceive. I don't think these guys were deceiving anyone, all the payments were approved by the Board of Directors and fully disclosed. Fraud is pushing it IMO. I think there may have been a breach of fudiciary duty, but there was never any obstruction or fraud, the charges Conrad was convicted on. There were court orders telling him not to move any documents. As soon as he moved the boxes, he was in violation of that court order and obstructing. If he was convicted of nothing else, he would have been found guilty on this account. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geoffrey Posted July 13, 2007 Report Share Posted July 13, 2007 I hope they chuck this arrogant ass in a medium pen for atleast 10 years. I have nothing against innovative, socially responsible people accumulating wealth. Good for them. Conrad is not what I consider to be a "good un'". Rot in jail and take Barb with you. Conrad paid more taxes in a year than you will your whole life. Without people like Conrad, our economy would be non-existant. Only a true fool would condemn someone to jail solely on their personality. Apparently, that's what happened with this trial. It appears that people love to see the high and mighty fall. I can't recall any such who's fall drew pity. I pitty Conrad. He's not guilty of anything. It's ridiculous to prosecute someone for success. It's a common trend south of the border. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.