Wind-Up For Healy

Mark Steyn has this report on the cross-examination of Jonathan Rosenberg, in the middle of a plaint for Mark Kipnis (but no other defendant) as a victim of prosecution abuse: "This morning Mark Kipnis' lawyers slogged doggedly through the fine print of 2003 Special Committee interviews. The witness, a blandly confident corporate lawyer called Rosenberg, testified that they didn't take notes of all interviews with Kipnis, that the notes they did have of some interviews were not verbatim, that they often just swung by his office in Chicago when his lawyers weren't present and that he was always very cooperative."

The Toronto Star has webbed a Canadian Press report, on the cross-examination of Csr. Rosenberg by Mr. Kipnis' counsel as well. It relays that "Mark Kipnis' lawyer says the former Hollinger lawyer only suggested there may be something wrong with so-called 'non-competes' when he was interviewed by a special committee in 2003 because he was confused after a long day of questioning." In addition, Csr. [Swartz] suggested that Mr. Kipnis had given hearsay answers to the Special Committee, as he had no first-hand knowledge of any payments made to any executives that were tied to the sale to CanWest. [An updated version of the same report adds, among other items, these details about the cross-examination: "'He told you he was called in for a week to help out with the paperwork,' Swartz told Rosenberg.... Swartz said that comment (from Mark Kipnis to the effect that the non-compete agreements were 'silly') did not refer to any final deal actually drafted by Kipnis, but rather to an initial purchase agreement that was later re-written."]


According to a report by Paul Waldie, webbed by the Globe and Mail, Csr. Rosenberg is finished testifying, and Mr. Healy has started. He "began testifying at the Conrad Black trial by telling jurors the company had a duty to treat all shareholders fairly." With regard to the cross-examination, the defense has filed a motion to introduce Mr. Healy's own compensation records, as his pay packet from 2003 until he left may be suspiciously high. "Prosecutor Eric Sussman rejected that assertion and said the compensation records were irrelevant to the case. Judge Amy St. Eve will rule on the issue later Monday." The plan of attack for Edward Genson's cross-examination seems to be a focus on the immunity deal that Mr. Healy reached with the prosecution. The end of the report contains another item about the testimony of Csr. Rosenberg: he "said that another defendant Jack Boultbee said he had not read a non-competition agreement. Mr. Boultbee was among those who received payments as part of that agreement."

An article by Mary Vallis, webbed by the National Post, reports that Judge St. Eve has ruled on the motion filed by the defense regarding the admissibility of the Hollinger Int'l tapes and transcripts. Her desision was, "jurors will not hear or read comments from an irate shareholder of Hollinger International Inc. who had referred to Conrad Black as a 'liar.'... 'I don't think there is any value in anything he says,' Judge St. Eve said." In addition to containing details on that irate shareholder's comments, along with Conrad Black's response to him, it also identifies the lawyer who filed the motion: Michael Schachter, counsel for Peter Atkinson.

Another update of that CP report, by Romina Maurino and webbed by 680 News, has additional details on Mr. Healy's testimony. It begins with: "Hollinger International shareholders thought Conrad Black's use of a $3-million Park Avenue apartment in New York was 'excessive,' and questioned his use of perks, the company's former head of investor relations said Monday." He also testified that he had received shareholder complaints since beginning his job there in 1995. Mr. Healy also suggested that Mr. Black overpaid for the renovations to the Manhattan apartment mentioned in the indictment, and that the latter only paid for them in the first place because of shareholder pressure. He "also said he was testifying under a court order of immunity, meaning he was being compelled to testify and that 'so long as I tell the truth, nothing can be used against me in a criminal case.'"

More information about Mr. Healy's testimony has been added by the Reuters report, written by Andrew Stern. It relates that Mr. Black decided to purchase the smaller, ground-floor apartment himself, but had the company pay $1.4 million for renovations because it was to be used for corporate purposes. Mr. Healy did stipulate that "company officers as well as Black's friends stayed there." He also claimed that later, at his "urging, Black agreed to buy the larger upstairs apartment in 2000 -- but only at its $3 million cost and not fair market value as had been agreed upon in an contract giving him the option.

"'I told him I was delighted he was buying the apartment,' Healy said, adding he expected Black would pay the prevailing price given the soaring New York real estate market.

"But Black responded, 'rather emphatically, "No, it's cost,"' Healy recounted."

A brief AP summary report, webbed by WQAD.com, touches upon the above items. It starts with: "Hollinger International insider testified today in Conrad Black's fraud trial that the media mogul lived rent free for years in a three million dollar apartment on New York's Park Avenue."

(CORRECTION NOTICE: An earlier version of this post had the wrong lawyer's name as the cross-examiner, for Mark Kipnis, of Jonathan Rosenberg. Apologies to anyone who was misled.)

----------

Speaking of Mr. Steyn, he makes an important point in an entry posted Sunday in his Maclean's trial blog, about Paul Healy. Mr. Healy arranged all of those 'corporate party' expenditures of Hollinger International that are now under a cloud, and also this one where Mr. Steyn himself was present: "Mr Healy is a curious chap to find donning the garb of corporate governance crusader. The first time I met him was at a dinner for The New Criterion, a fine publication but not exactly awash in the folding stuff. Paul was a supporter of the magazine and for this event had arranged for Hollinger International to provide the car service. Very nice of him, but hard to see what benefit it was to Hollinger shareholders." The rest of the entry pegs Mr. Healy as a best friend of the fellow who's helping him. [A more recent post of his mentions "a 60th birthday bash (for the Kenyon Review, out of Mr. Healey's old alma mater), paid for by both his patrons - Richard Breeden and what's left of Hollinger. No doubt, unlike Barbara's 60th, the Kenyon do was excellent value for Hollinger shareholders."]

(I go out of my way to highlight these items because I agree with Mr. Steyn that Paul Healy is an "interesting witness," but not perhaps for the reason that Mr. Steyn thinks so. Mr. Healy was knee-deep in this dubious disbursement, and he was also a Hollinger Int'l executive at the time. His own dual-use dispensement of corporate money, mentioned above, hints that too wide a swath has been cut for corporate crime in general. Overloading a horse makes it walk and act like an ass.

(More to the point: too broad a swath not only amounts to requiring prosecutors to pick spots while enforcing a law, which is easy to interpret as "playing favorites," but also inculcates a taint even in the good guys' records, which leads to the law itself being disrespected.)


Finally, Steve Skurka of "The Crime Sheet" has a real vignette from his clerking days: the judge he clerked for was none other than the same judge who sentenced Keith Richards of the Rolling Stones to give a benefit concert in exchange for pleading guilty to heroin possession. Like Mr. Worthington (and Mark Steyn), Csr. Skurka is of the opinion that Conrad Black is taking a real risk with his interviews to the media; the end of the post has a synthetic cross-examination of Mr. Black, which ends with him commencing to write "'Musings from the inside: my life in prison with Skilling and Ebbers.'”