The media reports on the Conrad Black trial, webbed overnight and today, centre on yesterday's rejection of the motions for a recall of David Radler to the stand and for a mistrial:
1. The New York Times has webbed an abridged Bloomberg report that recounts the dismissal of both motions. So has the Edmonton Journal.
2. Mary Valllis' report on the double rejection, as webbed by the Vancouver Sun, also mentions a still-to-be-ruled-on 26-page motion to acquit from a lawyer for Mr. Black, Marc Martin. In part, it "argues the press baron did not personally benefit from millions of dollars in non-compete payments that were sent to Hollinger Inc., Hollinger International's parent company.... [It] also argues Black's videotaped removal of 13 now-famous boxes from Hollinger Inc.'s Toronto headquarters was not an obstruction of justice because the act was not 'temporally, causally, or logically related to an official proceeding.'"
3. The Hamilton Spectator has webbed an abridged version of the Associated Press report on yesterday's sitting, recapping the rejection of both motions.
4. A brief Canadian Press write-up, webbed by CBC News, mentions the rejection of both motions after noting that testimony and the jury's presence resume today.
5. The Boston Globe's "Business Notebook" has a one-sentence item on the denial of the recall-Radler motion, starting with the word "Denied."
6. Joe Warmington's latest column, as webbed by the Edmonton Sun, explains by implication why the consensus forecast of the jury's deliberation time is for about a week: the trial observers in the courtroom are divided on the outcome of the trial, which is unusual in his experience. Near the end, he has this to say about the jury: "It's a cross-section of Chicagoans of different races and economic backgrounds who may not know about flying in a corporate jet or hanging out with royalty, but know about right and wrong."
7. The Ottawa Citizen has webbed a side report about an earlier scandal that Conrad Black was embroiled in: the block of his life peerage by the Canadian government, at the time when Jean Chretien was Prime Minister. It details a parley offered by Mr. Black in the midst of the controversy: "According to the publisher of Jean Chretien's forthcoming memoirs, the book will state that Lord Black 'offered' to become a Liberal senator, if he would be allowed to simultaneously be a member of the British House of Lords." (It's not as strange an offer as you may think. Mr. Black was a Canadian Liberal back in his youth, and there already is an American-European split in political philosophy by parties carrying the same name. Myself, I'm solidly ensconced in North American conservative ranks, and yet I'd have little trouble passing myself off as a liberal in Europe, especially in France or Austria. A European Tory would have little difficulty passing him- or herself off as a Liberal in North America, provided that [s]he was enough of, to use a Canadianism, a "red Tory.")
8. Janet Whitman's latest, in the New York Post, focuses on the rejected motion to recall Mr. Radler; as she puts it, "the judge presiding over the case shot down the request yesterday."
9. The Toronto Star's Rick Westhead's latest report is also about the rejection of the two motions. It contains a quote from Judge St. Eve's decision for the latter one: "St. Eve told the lawyers she had been 'watching the jury at that point because, frankly, I was surprised at the evidence.'"
10. Also from Mr. Westhead and also webbed by the Star: a report saying that prosecutors won't have a chance to bring up the $8 million spent on Franklin D. Roosevelt's personal papers back in 2002.
11. A report by James Bone of the Times Online concentrates upon the rejection of the motion to recall Mr. Radler to the stand. It notes that "Lord Black now has only four hours of closing arguments remaining, due the week of June 18, to challenge the US Government’s charges..."
12. Paul Waldie's first report of the day, webbed by the Globe and Mail, focuses on Mark Kipnis. It mentions that Mr. Kipnis was the only defendant of the four not to be a shareholder in Ravelston "or work out of the company's swank offices in Toronto or New York.... [He's] the only American on trial and the only defendant who worked in Chicago." After mentioning that Judge St. Eve is expected to rule on the motion to acquit this week, it explains how an acquittal might detract from Mr. Black's, Mr. Boultbee's and Mr. Atkinson's case: two witnesses slated to be called by Mr. Kipnis' counsel on Friday won't be testifying. Those two are: a former chair of the SEC, Roderick Hills; and, a former FBI agent, Alan Funk, whose specialty was white-collar crime. "Mr. Funk has written a 22-page report analyzing much of the prosecution's evidence.... [he] concluded [in that report] that Hollinger's auditors were well aware of the non-competition payments and there was no evidence of any 'intent to deceive.'" (Irony point: the defense is the only side slated to call up a former police officer in this criminal trial.)
13. A brief write-up by Mary Wisniewski, webbed by the Chicago Sun-Times, outlines the rejection of both motions.
14. An even briefer report, webbed by the London Free Press, recaps the rejection of the recall-Radler motion.
15. Mr. Waldie's second report of the day, also webbed by the Globe and Mail, centres on the upcoming decision to recall Paul Healy. "Edward Genson, one of Lord Black's lawyers, wants former Hollinger International Inc. executive Paul Healy to testify once again. Mr. Healy was the investor relations officer at Hollinger and he testified for the prosecution under indemnity.... Mr. Genson said the e-mail backs up Lord Black's contention that he properly accounted for a surprise birthday party he held for his wife, Barbara Amiel-Black, on Dec. 4, 2000." It also reports that Eric Sussman has opposed, on the grounds that an E-mail is insufficient to justify recalling Mr. Healy, and that he has threatened to bring up the $8+ million spent on the FDR papers on cross-examination if Mr. Healy is recalled, an item that he was barred from entering into the record before the trial began.
----------
Mark Steyn, in his Maclean's Conrad Black trial blog, writes about the formerly different tax status of the non-compete payments in Canada and America, noting the melting of the jurisdictional walls that seem to accompany this part of the indictment. He makes an observation, significant as a general point, that tax-on-cash-payments-caused distortions of the marketplace call forth entrepreneurial effort that does result in a lot of dual- or multiple-purpose deals, as barter jobbos are inherently more complex than cash payments and thus offer more opportunity to get more than one benefit out of a transaction. Conservatives, whether Canadian or not, will love this punchline howler: "This characterization of Canada as the northernmost Cayman Island has always been the silliest feature of this case." (Canada as a rogue tax haven? That's one to send to the Bahamas. The only more ridiculous categorization of the land long disparaged as 'Soviet Canuckistan' and/or 'Mexico of the North' would be Canada as Objectivist Land.)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment