Tuesday's trial action

A new article, by the Globe and Mail's Paul Waldie, starts off with prosecutor Julie Ruder asking Fred Creasey to clarify his cost calculations of the Bora Bora trip, and got him to disclose that Conrad Black didn't object to the original costing at the time that he agreed to pay half of the calculated cost. Mr. Creasey also said that there was no corporate policy that required Mr. Black to use the corporate plane.

The article also mentions a motion made by Edward Genson for a mistrial early today, which was "quickly denied" by Judge St. Eve. The 12 PM BNN headline report noted that the question which triggered that mistrial motion referred to a report that Judge St. Eve earlier ruled to be inadmissible.

Another article from Reuters covers the motion for a mistrial, including the subject of the question Csr. Ruder asked that triggered it, but doesn't refer to any inadmissible report.

A more recent article, by Romina Maurino and webbed by 680 News, elaborates upon the line of questioning that Csr. Ruder used in her redirect examination of Mr. Creasey about the Bora Bora trip. Csr. Ruder tried to debunk the basis of the 50/50 split of the cost by mentioning a trip to Disneyland. She also asked if there "'[w]as...anything that prevented him (Black) from looking online for a better' price or calling United Airlines to ask if that was the right price,...[which drew] laughter from the court before St. Eve" sustained an objection to the question.

Mr. Waldie appeared on a later interview with BNN, aired at about 1:50 PM ET, in which both he and co-host Lisa Oake mentioned lawyers' "gamesmanship" in the trial. He disclosed that the Breeden Report was the inadmissible one that prompted the mistrial motion. (A copy of it, courtesy of the Chicago Tribune.) When asked by Pat Bolland when the taped testimony by Torys LLP partner Darren Sukonick was to be played, Mr. Waldie answered "this afternoon." He added that Torys has already settled with Hollinger Int'l for $30 million. Csr. Sukonick should disclose details on what happened to prompt the Hollinger Int'l lawsuit against his law firm.

[Immediately after the interview ended, Mr. Bolland announced that the directors-and-insiders trading ban on Hollinger Inc. stock has now been lifted; a report on this lifting has been webbed by Bloomberg. Those Hollinger worthies, found at the bottom of the original ban order, can now buy and sell shares in Inc.]

The Associated Press has its report out now, webbed by the Belleville News-Democrat. It also mentions Csr. Genson's mistrial motion and Csr. Ruder's Disneyland-and-United-Airlines pair of questions, and has a reminder that only two of the defendants, John Boultbee and Conrad Black, are indicted for the charge relating to the Bora Bora trip. (This charge is count 10 of the indictment; thanks to the Financial Post for the name correction.) The same report has also been webbed by the Chicago Sun-Times, and WQAD.com of Moline, Illinois has an abridged summary of it.

Bloomberg has one out also, written by Andrew Harris and Thom Weidlich. From its opener: "Peter Atkinson, a codefendant at the fraud trial of ex-Hollinger International...Chairman Conrad Black, knew fees he received were under investigation when he sought to have them publicly disclosed, a witness said." That witness was Mr. Creasey, and he presumably disclosed it on redirect.

An unusual item from the re-cross examination opens the Telegraph's webbed report, written by David Litterick. "Conrad Black was urged by the board of his newspaper empire to use the company plane at all times because he was considered at risk from terrorist attacks, his fraud trial has heard." The defense justified this claim by bringing up Mr. Black's long-time support for Israel.

[This claim is also covered in the latest report from Romina Maurino, as webbed by 680 News, along with an identification of who deployed it. "As far as the Bora Bora trip to the South Pacific island was concerned, Hollinger International's policy did not differentiate between personal and business travel and the company decided in 2003 to pay for its executives' trips, Eddie Greenspan, Black's Canadian lawyer, told a Chicago court." Her report also quotes a long-time observer of the trial, Steve Skurka, who offered the assessment that Csr. Greenspan's cross-examination technique really clicked in today.

[There's also an update from Reuter's James B. Kelleher, which adds details on the Bora Bora matter, including an E-mail by Mr. Atkinson expressing concern about it. Also, "[o]n Black's U.S. customs declaration, which was introduced as evidence, he reported the purpose of the trip as 'personal.' Three friends who accompanied him declared the trip was for 'business'...Whatever its purpose, the trip was later described by Black as a 'shambles' in a note to friend Seth Lipsky, a journalist." A quote from Conrad Black himself ends it.

[In addition, the updated AP report has other details on the re-cross, which relays the emphasis Csr. Greenspan had put on the audit committee taking seriously "'security and terrorism concerns.'"]

An even more unusual development has been picked up by the Toronto Star's Rick Westhead: a juror has been excused. "The female juror was dismissed after citing extenuating personal reasons, said several people familiar with the matter." There are now twelve jurors and five alternates; the latter have not been identified.



----------

There are two media blog entries, posted today, that discuss aspects of courtroom procedure: Mark Steyn complains about the number of permissible objections in the trial, which he claims gives the prosecution a relative advantage, and Peter Brieger, on the "Black Board," comments upon Judge St. Eve's Blackberry and cellphone policies; the latter policy got Dominick Dunne landed on.

Finally, here's a trivia item, also courtesy of BNN's Paul Bagnell, mentioned while reporting on an unrelated item: the difference between the well-known Form 13-D and the lesser-known Form 13-G. The latter form is sent to the Securities and Exchange Commission when the filler-outer has no intention of influencing the management of the company. In an earlier legal tussle, which aborted a takeover of Hanna Inc., Conrad Black sent the SEC a 13-D, but not a 13-G, on behalf of Norcen, a company he controlled. That 13-D disclosed Norcen's 8.8% interest in Hanna "for investment purposes," and it became pivotal to Mr. Black losing an injunction case, in Delaware Chancery Court, where Hanna management received a block of the takeover. Lesson administered: if you intend to "ultimately" take over a company, but not as of yet, you refraining from filing a 13-G while putting "investment purposes" in a 13-D won't suffice as disclosure. (For details on the "Hanna Brawl," see Shades of Black, Chapter Seven, pp. 73-98.)