The media reports, webbed overnight and today, on the Conrad Black trial have focused on the testimony of securities lawyer Christopher Paci, though not exclusively:
1. CBC News has webbed a recap of the week's trial events, by Susan Berger.
2. Ameet Sachdev of the Chicago Tribune has written a report on the testimony of Csr. Paci, who testified yesterday that James Thompson had informed him that the related-party transactions had been approved by the audit committee. It also has this highlight from the cross-examination: "'There were gaps in the sense that transactions were approved by the board but not the audit committee, even though they had related-party elements to them,' Paci said. He later testified, 'Not all of the approvals that should have been obtained were in the record.'" Those gaps are what got him meeting with the audit committee so as to complete the due diligence for a planned financing.
3. An abridged report by Mary Vallis, webbed by the Montreal Gazette, starts off by noting that the defense should rest early next week, and that Judge St. Eve "expects" closing arguments to begin on June 18. It then recaps the testimony of Csr. Paci.
4. The testimony of another of yesterday's witnesses, Margaret Bajzek, is focused upon by Rick Westhead of the Toronto Star. He asks the question, before recounting Ms. Bajzek's vouching for Mark Kipnis' character, "Will anyone vouch for Conrad Black?" (Other than Joan Maida, presumably...but she wasn't called as a character witness.)
5.Mary Wisniewski's report, webbed by the Chicago Sun-Times, also recaps Csr. Paci's testimony, and mentions that the counsellor for Mark Kipnis who questioned him under direct examination was Michael Swartz. It ends by noting that Mr. Thompson had testified earlier that he couldn't recall the details of his meeting with Csr. Paci.
6. Yesterday's Bloomberg report, witten by Andrew Harris and Joe Schneider, has made the Washington Post. Like Mr. Westhead's report, it centres on the testimony of Ms. Bajzek. It also notes, though, that the "[d]efense attorneys maintain that the noncompete agreements were legally enforceable and a critical component of each asset sale." (The prosecution went with this point in the cross-examination of Kenneth Whyte last Monday, by Julie Ruder)
7. The Observer has webbed a one-paragraph trial review, "Donald Trump, you're fired!", in its "The week" feature.
8. The Independent has a one-paragraph summary of last week's part of the trial as the last item in its "The City Diary." Mentioned are Donald Trump not showing up and the rejection of the motion to recall David Radler to the stand.
Saturday, June 9, 2007
CBC Radio's "As It Happens" Interview With John Hueston
The CBC Radio program "As It Happens" had an interview, broadcast last Wednesday, with the lead prosecutor in the Enron case, John Hueston. I was told about it by Nala in the comments section of an earlier entry in this blog, and my own responses show a certain difficulty in getting the program through a dial-up connection. On my last, successful attempt, I spent about an hour listening to the 8-or-so minute interview. There was real consolation, though; the need to reverse track (through using the horizonal scrollbar thingy) at the points where the webcast slipped into "Cell Phone in Tunnel Town" quality gave me lotsa time to make detailed notes. Below is the distillation from them:
The introduction to the interview itself brought up the strike-down of the defense motion to recall David Radler to the stand, which was the most recent event as of the time and day of the broadcast. Csr. Hueston then started off by noting that the government had trouble presenting a clear-cut case of criminal-level fraud; it has been difficult for the prosecution. They’ve tried to show "badges of fraud" to the jury, but they haven't got the message across to the jurors. (I've quoted his words; so are all of the following quotes in this entry.) The defense is trying to shoot down individual components of the prosecution’s case; they’re taking advantage of the holes in it.
The defense has been "enormously successful" in cross-examination of prosecution witnesses, such as James Thompson; defense counsel have "almost converted them into defense witnesses." The defense has done an adequate, if not necessarily sufficient, job of showing that the individual non-compete payments were disclosed. Their cross-examination has buttressed their theme of blaming “bad stewardship” at Hollinger International, a fault of the board of directors, and a hasty decision to charge on the part of the U.S. Attorney. Good cross-examination during the proscution's time at bat has shrunk the time that the defense has needed to present its case.
The prosecution has spent a lot of time on lifestyle exposure, but that tactic can boomerang on its users. It did so in the Tyco case: the jury returned a not guilty verdict with respect to the relevant charges. (Csr. Hueston hints that press hounding/'community relations' have gotten in the way of good prosecution of corporate-fraud cases.) The jury may do the same in this case, as focusing on peripherals of that sort obscures any real crime, if any. (To use academic jargon, there are too many false positives dragged up when using lifestyle indicators. To put it more folkily, the tuna net drags in too many dolphins.)
The second problem that the prosecution has is the "Scrushy problem." Six CFOs testified that they were told to defraud by Richard Scrushy in the HealthSouth case. The jury didn't believe the prosecution because those witnesses got off so lightly after plea bargaining. (The Scrushy problem basically results from an anything-for-a-plea-bargain ethos, a kind of trying too hard. It may result from bad strategizing or inherent vagueness in corporate-fraud laws. I have a hunch that this strategy has worked well when trying other kinds of alleged criminals, charged with a different set of crimes.)
The Scrushy problem may surface with respect to David Radler. The defense has done a good job in showing Mr. Radler to be a frequent liar and clearly self-interested in the plea bargain being approved. Bringing in the six-months-in-jail point was especially clever of Eddie Greenspan; it’s a “shockingly light" sentence to an American jury that remembers the Enron, WorldCom and Tyco cases.
Judge St. Eve’s refusal of the recall motion is only a minor problem for the defense. She ruled fairly. The defense needed to show that something "new and different" had arisen, or that they needed to recall Mr. Radler "to elicit testimony that was critical for an affirmative defense point." If Conrad Black’s defense team had done either of the two, then the motion would have been seriously considered. All they wanted to do, though, was to impugn him further; that's insufficient grounds for recall.
Regarding the dropping of the money-laundering charge, Csr. Hueston made two points. First of all, it’s not very unusual in a case of this kind – he himself, and the rest of his team, had dropped two insider trading charges versus Kenneth Skilling. Dropping a weak charge is "usually wise," as any weak counts in the case suggest a weak case as a whole to the jury. Secondly, though, the prosecution in the Conrad Black et. al. case did so because the defense basically got the prosecutors to back down on a charge. Dropping the charge did clash with a theme in the prosecution's opening statement (the bank robber one.) Doing so, while using that theme, suggests to the jury that the bank robbers got an okay from the government to keep some of the loot. (He didn't mention in this connection the prosecutorial acknowledgement of the legality of the CanWest non-compete payment to Mr. Black, but it is consistent with his structuring of the context of the additional burden on the prosecution that this decision has imposed.)
When asked by Carol Off what the chances of an acquittal for Conrad Black are, after she demurred on the grounds that juries are unpredictable, Csr. Hueston replied, after echoing her demur, that Mr. Black has a good chance at it. Csr. Hueston himself got Ken Lay on all counts and Jeffrey Skilling on almost all of the ones he was charged with, but Richard Scrushy got acquitted. Juries are indeed unpredictable, as it was thought to be almost a certainty that Mr. Scrushy would be convicted. That unpredictability being acknowledged, though, the defense has outperformed the prosecution to the degree that a jury could reasonably claim that the prosecution has not met its burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
----------
If you're interested in a contemporaneous analysis of Ken Lay's and Jeffrey Skilling's chances by Mr. Scrushy's counsel Donald Watkins, it's in this USA Today article, "Lawyer for Scrushy sees Skilling, Lay as 'doomed'." I need hardly say that Csr. Watkins's prediction proved to be bang-on.
The introduction to the interview itself brought up the strike-down of the defense motion to recall David Radler to the stand, which was the most recent event as of the time and day of the broadcast. Csr. Hueston then started off by noting that the government had trouble presenting a clear-cut case of criminal-level fraud; it has been difficult for the prosecution. They’ve tried to show "badges of fraud" to the jury, but they haven't got the message across to the jurors. (I've quoted his words; so are all of the following quotes in this entry.) The defense is trying to shoot down individual components of the prosecution’s case; they’re taking advantage of the holes in it.
The defense has been "enormously successful" in cross-examination of prosecution witnesses, such as James Thompson; defense counsel have "almost converted them into defense witnesses." The defense has done an adequate, if not necessarily sufficient, job of showing that the individual non-compete payments were disclosed. Their cross-examination has buttressed their theme of blaming “bad stewardship” at Hollinger International, a fault of the board of directors, and a hasty decision to charge on the part of the U.S. Attorney. Good cross-examination during the proscution's time at bat has shrunk the time that the defense has needed to present its case.
The prosecution has spent a lot of time on lifestyle exposure, but that tactic can boomerang on its users. It did so in the Tyco case: the jury returned a not guilty verdict with respect to the relevant charges. (Csr. Hueston hints that press hounding/'community relations' have gotten in the way of good prosecution of corporate-fraud cases.) The jury may do the same in this case, as focusing on peripherals of that sort obscures any real crime, if any. (To use academic jargon, there are too many false positives dragged up when using lifestyle indicators. To put it more folkily, the tuna net drags in too many dolphins.)
The second problem that the prosecution has is the "Scrushy problem." Six CFOs testified that they were told to defraud by Richard Scrushy in the HealthSouth case. The jury didn't believe the prosecution because those witnesses got off so lightly after plea bargaining. (The Scrushy problem basically results from an anything-for-a-plea-bargain ethos, a kind of trying too hard. It may result from bad strategizing or inherent vagueness in corporate-fraud laws. I have a hunch that this strategy has worked well when trying other kinds of alleged criminals, charged with a different set of crimes.)
The Scrushy problem may surface with respect to David Radler. The defense has done a good job in showing Mr. Radler to be a frequent liar and clearly self-interested in the plea bargain being approved. Bringing in the six-months-in-jail point was especially clever of Eddie Greenspan; it’s a “shockingly light" sentence to an American jury that remembers the Enron, WorldCom and Tyco cases.
Judge St. Eve’s refusal of the recall motion is only a minor problem for the defense. She ruled fairly. The defense needed to show that something "new and different" had arisen, or that they needed to recall Mr. Radler "to elicit testimony that was critical for an affirmative defense point." If Conrad Black’s defense team had done either of the two, then the motion would have been seriously considered. All they wanted to do, though, was to impugn him further; that's insufficient grounds for recall.
Regarding the dropping of the money-laundering charge, Csr. Hueston made two points. First of all, it’s not very unusual in a case of this kind – he himself, and the rest of his team, had dropped two insider trading charges versus Kenneth Skilling. Dropping a weak charge is "usually wise," as any weak counts in the case suggest a weak case as a whole to the jury. Secondly, though, the prosecution in the Conrad Black et. al. case did so because the defense basically got the prosecutors to back down on a charge. Dropping the charge did clash with a theme in the prosecution's opening statement (the bank robber one.) Doing so, while using that theme, suggests to the jury that the bank robbers got an okay from the government to keep some of the loot. (He didn't mention in this connection the prosecutorial acknowledgement of the legality of the CanWest non-compete payment to Mr. Black, but it is consistent with his structuring of the context of the additional burden on the prosecution that this decision has imposed.)
When asked by Carol Off what the chances of an acquittal for Conrad Black are, after she demurred on the grounds that juries are unpredictable, Csr. Hueston replied, after echoing her demur, that Mr. Black has a good chance at it. Csr. Hueston himself got Ken Lay on all counts and Jeffrey Skilling on almost all of the ones he was charged with, but Richard Scrushy got acquitted. Juries are indeed unpredictable, as it was thought to be almost a certainty that Mr. Scrushy would be convicted. That unpredictability being acknowledged, though, the defense has outperformed the prosecution to the degree that a jury could reasonably claim that the prosecution has not met its burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
----------
If you're interested in a contemporaneous analysis of Ken Lay's and Jeffrey Skilling's chances by Mr. Scrushy's counsel Donald Watkins, it's in this USA Today article, "Lawyer for Scrushy sees Skilling, Lay as 'doomed'." I need hardly say that Csr. Watkins's prediction proved to be bang-on.
Friday, June 8, 2007
Friday Extension
An updated report by Paul Waldie, webbed by the Globe and Mail, contains the name of the first character witness that has testified for Mark Kipnis: a paralegal, Margaret Bajzek, who used to work with him. She said under direct examination, "'I would trust him with my life,... Mark is totally law abiding.'" She did stipulate, though, that she did not know the facts of the case while being cross-examined.
Mr. Waldie was interviewed on BNN; it was aired at about 2:40 PM ET. During it, he reported that the Friday session is now over. The defense's last witness of the day was Chris Paci, a lawyer who represented a financier during a planned 2002 Hollinger financing. He had needed more disclosure, so he had gone to the audit committee. He had asked them if they had approved the individual non-compete payments; he testified, under direct examination, that he had come off with the impression that they had.
The defense is likely to call witnesses on Monday and Tuesday. The first, Alan Funk, will take most of the day. He’s a forensic accountant, formerly with the FBI. He’ll testify to lack of intent to mislead. After he’s done, the defense will call a couple of others.
To move back to written sources, the Chicago Tribune has webbed a Bloomberg report, written by Andrew Harris and Joe Schneider. In addition to having excerpts from Ms. Bajzek's testimony, it also has one from the testimony of the second character witness, Kenneth Sirota; he was Mark Kipnis' precedessor in the job of Hollinger Int'l's general counsel. He testified that "[t]hey [had] worked together at Holleb & Coff, and he considered Kipnis a good lawyer with the skills for the job." There was no mention of any cross-examination of either of the two. The report also quotes Hugh Totten as saying that Mr. Kipnis "has 'a great shot at acquittal' based on the testimony," and mentions that Judge St. Eve has not ruled on any of the acquittal motions as of yet.
The Financial Post has webbed a report that has more detail on the testimony of Mr. Paci. Under direct, he testified: "'I recall that he said that yes the related party transactions had been approved by the audit committee and the disclosure was correct,' Mr. Paci said, speaking slowly and deliberately on the witness stand." He also testified that the reason that his questions were limited was because Hollinger Int'l wanted to keep the focus on the then-present, but not to veer into the more distant past "because it could be interpreted as second-guessing, he testified." He was asked, under cross-examination, if he had seen Mr. Kipnis "had expressed a concern about him badgering the audit committee about the previous transactions." He answered that Mr. Kipnis had largely stayed out of it, letting Hollinger Inc's outside counsel Darren Sukonick answer the questions. [The same report, credited to Mary Vallis, has been webbed by Canada.com.]
----------
The First Amendment Center has posted an opinion piece which argues that, with respect to releasing jurors' names, the judges basically call it as they see it. The Conrad Black trial is contrasted with another case to make this point.
Also including a wider perspective is Steve Skurka's latest entry in his blog "The Crime Sheet." The argument he makes casts a darker light on the 95-98% conviction rate for the typical American prosecutor.
Douglas Bell, in the Toronto Life Conrad Black trial blog, has decided to focus upon the old peerage-block scandal, which has been given new life as blurbage for former Prime Minister Jean Chrétien. His memoirs are being released soon.
More focused on the trial is Mark Steyn, in his Maclean's Conrad Black trial blog, complaining about the supposed free pass granted to James Thompson. The cast that recent testimony has given Mr. Thompson's earlier testimony is, of course, brought in too.
Mr. Waldie was interviewed on BNN; it was aired at about 2:40 PM ET. During it, he reported that the Friday session is now over. The defense's last witness of the day was Chris Paci, a lawyer who represented a financier during a planned 2002 Hollinger financing. He had needed more disclosure, so he had gone to the audit committee. He had asked them if they had approved the individual non-compete payments; he testified, under direct examination, that he had come off with the impression that they had.
The defense is likely to call witnesses on Monday and Tuesday. The first, Alan Funk, will take most of the day. He’s a forensic accountant, formerly with the FBI. He’ll testify to lack of intent to mislead. After he’s done, the defense will call a couple of others.
To move back to written sources, the Chicago Tribune has webbed a Bloomberg report, written by Andrew Harris and Joe Schneider. In addition to having excerpts from Ms. Bajzek's testimony, it also has one from the testimony of the second character witness, Kenneth Sirota; he was Mark Kipnis' precedessor in the job of Hollinger Int'l's general counsel. He testified that "[t]hey [had] worked together at Holleb & Coff, and he considered Kipnis a good lawyer with the skills for the job." There was no mention of any cross-examination of either of the two. The report also quotes Hugh Totten as saying that Mr. Kipnis "has 'a great shot at acquittal' based on the testimony," and mentions that Judge St. Eve has not ruled on any of the acquittal motions as of yet.
The Financial Post has webbed a report that has more detail on the testimony of Mr. Paci. Under direct, he testified: "'I recall that he said that yes the related party transactions had been approved by the audit committee and the disclosure was correct,' Mr. Paci said, speaking slowly and deliberately on the witness stand." He also testified that the reason that his questions were limited was because Hollinger Int'l wanted to keep the focus on the then-present, but not to veer into the more distant past "because it could be interpreted as second-guessing, he testified." He was asked, under cross-examination, if he had seen Mr. Kipnis "had expressed a concern about him badgering the audit committee about the previous transactions." He answered that Mr. Kipnis had largely stayed out of it, letting Hollinger Inc's outside counsel Darren Sukonick answer the questions. [The same report, credited to Mary Vallis, has been webbed by Canada.com.]
----------
The First Amendment Center has posted an opinion piece which argues that, with respect to releasing jurors' names, the judges basically call it as they see it. The Conrad Black trial is contrasted with another case to make this point.
Also including a wider perspective is Steve Skurka's latest entry in his blog "The Crime Sheet." The argument he makes casts a darker light on the 95-98% conviction rate for the typical American prosecutor.
Douglas Bell, in the Toronto Life Conrad Black trial blog, has decided to focus upon the old peerage-block scandal, which has been given new life as blurbage for former Prime Minister Jean Chrétien. His memoirs are being released soon.
More focused on the trial is Mark Steyn, in his Maclean's Conrad Black trial blog, complaining about the supposed free pass granted to James Thompson. The cast that recent testimony has given Mr. Thompson's earlier testimony is, of course, brought in too.
Media Roundup: Landing's Ryan
The media reports, webbed overnight and today, on the Conrad Black trial are becoming less numerous and more variegated, as side issues slip through:
1. From the Edmonton Journal, a Canadian Press report that combines forecasts, that the testimony will end next week and closing arguments will start June 18th, with a brief recap of Patrick Ryan's testimony.
2. Joe Warmington's latest column, webbed by the Calgary Sun, has a profile of Eddie Greenspan, which starts off with a description of his growing reputation in Chicago as a trial lawyer.
3. Also from the Journal, a recap of Mr. Ryan's testimony, given while under direct examination, about the 2002 meeting he had had with the Hollinger International audit committee to make sure that the amounts of the non-compete payments had been approved. [An expanded version of the same report, by Mary Vallis and webbed by the National Post, says that there will be testimony today on page 2 of it.]
4. Rick Westhead of the Toronto Star also recounts Mr. Ryan's testimony, under direct examination.
5. The Chicago Sun-Times' Mary Wisniewski has written a two-paragraph write-up on the highlights of Mr. Ryan's testimony.
6. The New York Post has an excerpt from a Bloomberg report, which summarizes yesterday's testimony of an earlier witness, Ralph Neville.
7. Paul Waldie has written a report on what's left of Conrad Black's business holdings, webbed by the Globe and Mail. It notes that Ravelston isn't quite bankrupt; it's in receivership, but it could be put in bankruptcy by the end of this year. Hollinger Inc. has "announced that its 'ability to continue as a going concern is uncertain.'" Hollinger Int'l has has continual troubles of its own. [This abridged Bloomberg report explains some of them.] Mr. Black himself described his successors as "'charlatans.'"
8. The second report by Mr. Waldie today, also webbed by the Globe, says that three witness will appear today, all called by Mark Kipnis' counsel. "Lawyers for Mark Kipnis are expected to call three witnesses, two character witnesses and Christopher Paci, a lawyer who was involved in a financing by Hollinger International Inc." Peter Atkinson and Jack Boultbee are all finished. Conrad Black has reserved the right to "call a couple more." The rest of the report has a recap of Mr. Ryan's testimony; at its end, there is a couple of details on Mr. Ryan's modification of his testimony under direct. "[D]uring cross-examination by prosecutor Julie Ruder, Mr. Ryan refined his position. He said the committee did not approve the payments, but only approved the disclosure of the payments in the financial statements.
"Ms. Ruder also pointed out that Mr. Ryan had no idea what Mr. Thompson was thinking about the payments, or how much he knew about them."
1. From the Edmonton Journal, a Canadian Press report that combines forecasts, that the testimony will end next week and closing arguments will start June 18th, with a brief recap of Patrick Ryan's testimony.
2. Joe Warmington's latest column, webbed by the Calgary Sun, has a profile of Eddie Greenspan, which starts off with a description of his growing reputation in Chicago as a trial lawyer.
3. Also from the Journal, a recap of Mr. Ryan's testimony, given while under direct examination, about the 2002 meeting he had had with the Hollinger International audit committee to make sure that the amounts of the non-compete payments had been approved. [An expanded version of the same report, by Mary Vallis and webbed by the National Post, says that there will be testimony today on page 2 of it.]
4. Rick Westhead of the Toronto Star also recounts Mr. Ryan's testimony, under direct examination.
5. The Chicago Sun-Times' Mary Wisniewski has written a two-paragraph write-up on the highlights of Mr. Ryan's testimony.
6. The New York Post has an excerpt from a Bloomberg report, which summarizes yesterday's testimony of an earlier witness, Ralph Neville.
7. Paul Waldie has written a report on what's left of Conrad Black's business holdings, webbed by the Globe and Mail. It notes that Ravelston isn't quite bankrupt; it's in receivership, but it could be put in bankruptcy by the end of this year. Hollinger Inc. has "announced that its 'ability to continue as a going concern is uncertain.'" Hollinger Int'l has has continual troubles of its own. [This abridged Bloomberg report explains some of them.] Mr. Black himself described his successors as "'charlatans.'"
8. The second report by Mr. Waldie today, also webbed by the Globe, says that three witness will appear today, all called by Mark Kipnis' counsel. "Lawyers for Mark Kipnis are expected to call three witnesses, two character witnesses and Christopher Paci, a lawyer who was involved in a financing by Hollinger International Inc." Peter Atkinson and Jack Boultbee are all finished. Conrad Black has reserved the right to "call a couple more." The rest of the report has a recap of Mr. Ryan's testimony; at its end, there is a couple of details on Mr. Ryan's modification of his testimony under direct. "[D]uring cross-examination by prosecutor Julie Ruder, Mr. Ryan refined his position. He said the committee did not approve the payments, but only approved the disclosure of the payments in the financial statements.
"Ms. Ruder also pointed out that Mr. Ryan had no idea what Mr. Thompson was thinking about the payments, or how much he knew about them."
Thursday, June 7, 2007
One By One
In three recent entries in his Maclean's Conrad Black trial blog, Mark Steyn has some information on two witnesses called by Peter Atkinson's counsel. The first was Ralph Neville, an accountant who testified on the common use of non-cometition payments in Canada for tax purposes. A Home Depot analogy that he used was shot down easily by Eric Sussman on cross-examination. The second witness was Daniel Rosenthal, who "had testified that he'd received an email on May 19th 2005 but hadn't forwarded it to anyone else, either the defendant or his lawyers up in Canada." This attempt to show lack of intent with regard to the obstruction-of-justice charge was impugned by Csr. Sussman: Mr. Rosenthal had to admit that he hadn't looked at any of his E-mails "he'd received or sent that day," so his memory of what he sent that day isn't exactly flawless.
A report by Paul Waldie, webbed by the Globe and Mail, relays some testimony from lawyers who used to work for Peter Atkinson. They had testified that Mr. Atkinson had blocked a plan put forward by other executives to have Hollinger International buy back their stiock options "at a premium." He asked about the legality of the plan through E-mails with lawyers at Torys LLP, who stipulated its legality but raised conflict-of-interest concerns. "The e-mails show that Mr. Atkinson also questioned the proposal. He called it inappropriate and 'a potential investor relations fiasco.'" Mr. Waldie's report also mentions that Conrad Black's defense team does not plan to call Paul Healy back; it implies that they dropped the attempt.
Mr. Steyn also has details on two more defense witnesses. The first, Larry Sicular, testified that the government evaluator of the apartment used a methodology that wasn't quite accurate; the proper way to evaluate the swap is to see the transaction as an exchange of "'partial interests.'" When asked how to evaluate them by Edward Genson, Mr. Sicular replied that he couldn't, because "'[t]here's no market in partial interests of cooperative apartments.'" Only relative desires can be used to estimate. The next witness Mr. Steyn mentions is Pat Ryan, the first hostile witness to be called to the stand in the trial. Mr. Ryan, who was KPMG's head partner for the Hollinger Int'l account, testified: "'The Audit Committee didn't explicitly approve these payments... They approved the financial statements containing the disclosures of the approvals of these payments.'"
The Bloomberg report is out, and has excerpts from the testimony of Mr. Neville. He testified under direct examination that "[b]uyers of assets are usually 'concerned about the individuals behind the company and their expertise,' and wanted noncompete payments... 'It's rare that a company would sign a noncompete.'" Under cross-examination by Jeffrey Cramer, Mr. Neville testified that a procedure should be followed regarding non-compete agreements, that "'appropriate people'" should both know of and approve them. The report, written by Joe Schneider and Andrew Harris, also mentions that more testimony from Beth DeMerchant was heard from, in support of Peter Atkinson. She was the witness whose testimony Mr. Waldie reported on in the report exerpted above.
An AP briefing, webbed by WQAD.com, focuses in on a particular moment in Mr. Ryan's testimony: he saying that "James R. Thompson didn't react during a 2002 meeting when told about the $15 million" in individual non-compete payments, implying (or so the defense hopes) that those payments were not news to Mr. Thompson.
The Chicago Daily Southtown has webbed a fuller AP report, written by and credited to Mike Robinson, which also focuses on the testimony of Mr. Ryan. The excerpts from Ron Safer's direct examination asks closely whether or not there was any reaction showing surprise from Mr. Thompson. Mr. Ryan's answers suggested that the former chair of Hollinger Int'l's audit committee didn't.
Another Bloomberg report, also written by Joe Schneider and Andrew Harris, centers on the testimony of Mr. Sicular, the rebuttal witness to the testimony of government expert Jonathan Miller. Mr. Miller provided a valuation of the Manhattan apartment as of December 2000. Mr. Sicular, as noted above, testified that there is no market for partial interests, so there's no way to value the swap. "'No real estate expert can do this,' he said." The reason explaining why the apartment has to be considered a partial interest is, "because its ownership was divided between Black and Hollinger." The rest of the report recounts testimony from Mr. Ryan and Mr. Neville.
An expanded AP article, which includes some details of the cross-examination of Mr. Ryan by Julie Ruder, has been webbed by Forbes.com. As a prelude to the part that reports on that cross-examination, it has a reminder that "Thompson testified earlier in the trial that he didn't remember exactly what had transpired at the February 2002 audit committee meeting." The cross-examination itself built on the prosecution's interpretation of Mr. Thompson's testimony: "Assistant U.S. Attorney Julie B. Ruder sought to resuscitate the government's claim that Thompson had no inkling of what the payments were. Prompted by Ruder, Ryan testified that discussion of the payments took up five or six minutes of the meeting that lasted at least 90 minutes.... [He also testified that] he had not asked for a vote on the payments and that he just wanted the audit committee to sign off on disclosure of the amounts." (This report has also been webbed by ABC7 Chicago.)
Mary Vallis has written a report, webbed by Canada.com, which has more excerpts from Mr. Ryan's testimony. It begins with: "An external auditor for Hollinger International Inc. testified on Thursday he believed the company’s audit committee had approved $15 million US in non-compete payments now at the heart of the case against Conrad Black." It also contains testimony from Mr. Ryan saying that he had brought the individual non-compete payments to the attention of Mr. Thompson, contra to what he had testified at an August 2004 Ontario Securities Commission hearing. He also testified that the purpose of the 2002 meeting with the audit committe was: "the firm was looking for confirmation that the dollar amounts of the non-competes were also approved." On cross-examination, the statement elicited from Mr. Ryan by Csr. Ruder, that Mr. Thompson didn't say anything to Mr. Ryan after hearing about the amounts, was intended to show that the sizes of the non-compete payments weren't explicitly approved. Mr. Ryan also testified that he had spent over two hours meeting with prosecutors, but "he had refused all requests to meet Safer."
---------
In the Canadian Business Black trial blog, Matthew McClearn starts off by admitting that the issues being testified about recently are ones he finds boring, even though they seem to be enough of a luller to make Conrad Black himself yawn, and then he thoroughly plows through the evidence provided by defense witnesses as of yesterday. He concludes that they've been quite credible, including Mr. Neville (who started on the stand yesterday afternoon.) One interesting factoid he discusses is a tax precedent from a case in Britain's House of Lords, "IRC vs. Duke of Westminster."
Also, in the Toronto Life Conrad Black trial blog, Roger Martin, the dean of the University of Toronto's Rotman School of Management, puts on his professor's hat after admitting that he knows strategizing, but very little about the law. He then reveals the four criteria he'll be using to assess the prosecution, as strategists: "One is to have a clear goal, and everything you do has to be in service of that goal. Two, you need to have a sense of the individual battles and how they piece together to make a whole campaign; and building momentum in that overall campaign is really important. Three, you take the opponent deadly seriously and assume they will fight intelligently even though there is a possibility they will make grievous tactical or strategic errors. Four, if you can’t figure out a plan for winning, you don’t start the battle in the first place." He then grades the prosecution team, as strategizers: on sticking to the formulated stategy, they have "failed utterly;" on momentum-building and taking the opponent seriously, they have "failed miserably;" and, on the decision to jump into the battle, he offers no grade, just this observation: "I see what I so often see when I work with companies on strategy: a plan for giving it a whirl."
(No, dere's not much softness in biz school.)
A report by Paul Waldie, webbed by the Globe and Mail, relays some testimony from lawyers who used to work for Peter Atkinson. They had testified that Mr. Atkinson had blocked a plan put forward by other executives to have Hollinger International buy back their stiock options "at a premium." He asked about the legality of the plan through E-mails with lawyers at Torys LLP, who stipulated its legality but raised conflict-of-interest concerns. "The e-mails show that Mr. Atkinson also questioned the proposal. He called it inappropriate and 'a potential investor relations fiasco.'" Mr. Waldie's report also mentions that Conrad Black's defense team does not plan to call Paul Healy back; it implies that they dropped the attempt.
Mr. Steyn also has details on two more defense witnesses. The first, Larry Sicular, testified that the government evaluator of the apartment used a methodology that wasn't quite accurate; the proper way to evaluate the swap is to see the transaction as an exchange of "'partial interests.'" When asked how to evaluate them by Edward Genson, Mr. Sicular replied that he couldn't, because "'[t]here's no market in partial interests of cooperative apartments.'" Only relative desires can be used to estimate. The next witness Mr. Steyn mentions is Pat Ryan, the first hostile witness to be called to the stand in the trial. Mr. Ryan, who was KPMG's head partner for the Hollinger Int'l account, testified: "'The Audit Committee didn't explicitly approve these payments... They approved the financial statements containing the disclosures of the approvals of these payments.'"
The Bloomberg report is out, and has excerpts from the testimony of Mr. Neville. He testified under direct examination that "[b]uyers of assets are usually 'concerned about the individuals behind the company and their expertise,' and wanted noncompete payments... 'It's rare that a company would sign a noncompete.'" Under cross-examination by Jeffrey Cramer, Mr. Neville testified that a procedure should be followed regarding non-compete agreements, that "'appropriate people'" should both know of and approve them. The report, written by Joe Schneider and Andrew Harris, also mentions that more testimony from Beth DeMerchant was heard from, in support of Peter Atkinson. She was the witness whose testimony Mr. Waldie reported on in the report exerpted above.
An AP briefing, webbed by WQAD.com, focuses in on a particular moment in Mr. Ryan's testimony: he saying that "James R. Thompson didn't react during a 2002 meeting when told about the $15 million" in individual non-compete payments, implying (or so the defense hopes) that those payments were not news to Mr. Thompson.
The Chicago Daily Southtown has webbed a fuller AP report, written by and credited to Mike Robinson, which also focuses on the testimony of Mr. Ryan. The excerpts from Ron Safer's direct examination asks closely whether or not there was any reaction showing surprise from Mr. Thompson. Mr. Ryan's answers suggested that the former chair of Hollinger Int'l's audit committee didn't.
Another Bloomberg report, also written by Joe Schneider and Andrew Harris, centers on the testimony of Mr. Sicular, the rebuttal witness to the testimony of government expert Jonathan Miller. Mr. Miller provided a valuation of the Manhattan apartment as of December 2000. Mr. Sicular, as noted above, testified that there is no market for partial interests, so there's no way to value the swap. "'No real estate expert can do this,' he said." The reason explaining why the apartment has to be considered a partial interest is, "because its ownership was divided between Black and Hollinger." The rest of the report recounts testimony from Mr. Ryan and Mr. Neville.
An expanded AP article, which includes some details of the cross-examination of Mr. Ryan by Julie Ruder, has been webbed by Forbes.com. As a prelude to the part that reports on that cross-examination, it has a reminder that "Thompson testified earlier in the trial that he didn't remember exactly what had transpired at the February 2002 audit committee meeting." The cross-examination itself built on the prosecution's interpretation of Mr. Thompson's testimony: "Assistant U.S. Attorney Julie B. Ruder sought to resuscitate the government's claim that Thompson had no inkling of what the payments were. Prompted by Ruder, Ryan testified that discussion of the payments took up five or six minutes of the meeting that lasted at least 90 minutes.... [He also testified that] he had not asked for a vote on the payments and that he just wanted the audit committee to sign off on disclosure of the amounts." (This report has also been webbed by ABC7 Chicago.)
Mary Vallis has written a report, webbed by Canada.com, which has more excerpts from Mr. Ryan's testimony. It begins with: "An external auditor for Hollinger International Inc. testified on Thursday he believed the company’s audit committee had approved $15 million US in non-compete payments now at the heart of the case against Conrad Black." It also contains testimony from Mr. Ryan saying that he had brought the individual non-compete payments to the attention of Mr. Thompson, contra to what he had testified at an August 2004 Ontario Securities Commission hearing. He also testified that the purpose of the 2002 meeting with the audit committe was: "the firm was looking for confirmation that the dollar amounts of the non-competes were also approved." On cross-examination, the statement elicited from Mr. Ryan by Csr. Ruder, that Mr. Thompson didn't say anything to Mr. Ryan after hearing about the amounts, was intended to show that the sizes of the non-compete payments weren't explicitly approved. Mr. Ryan also testified that he had spent over two hours meeting with prosecutors, but "he had refused all requests to meet Safer."
---------
In the Canadian Business Black trial blog, Matthew McClearn starts off by admitting that the issues being testified about recently are ones he finds boring, even though they seem to be enough of a luller to make Conrad Black himself yawn, and then he thoroughly plows through the evidence provided by defense witnesses as of yesterday. He concludes that they've been quite credible, including Mr. Neville (who started on the stand yesterday afternoon.) One interesting factoid he discusses is a tax precedent from a case in Britain's House of Lords, "IRC vs. Duke of Westminster."
Also, in the Toronto Life Conrad Black trial blog, Roger Martin, the dean of the University of Toronto's Rotman School of Management, puts on his professor's hat after admitting that he knows strategizing, but very little about the law. He then reveals the four criteria he'll be using to assess the prosecution, as strategists: "One is to have a clear goal, and everything you do has to be in service of that goal. Two, you need to have a sense of the individual battles and how they piece together to make a whole campaign; and building momentum in that overall campaign is really important. Three, you take the opponent deadly seriously and assume they will fight intelligently even though there is a possibility they will make grievous tactical or strategic errors. Four, if you can’t figure out a plan for winning, you don’t start the battle in the first place." He then grades the prosecution team, as strategizers: on sticking to the formulated stategy, they have "failed utterly;" on momentum-building and taking the opponent seriously, they have "failed miserably;" and, on the decision to jump into the battle, he offers no grade, just this observation: "I see what I so often see when I work with companies on strategy: a plan for giving it a whirl."
(No, dere's not much softness in biz school.)
Media Roundup: Double Vistory, Double Defeat
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.)
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.)
Wednesday, June 6, 2007
CBC News Feature: Mark Kipnis, "The Forgotten Man."
CBC's nightly newscast, The National, had a feature report on Mark Kipnis by Havard Gould, called “The Forgotten Man.” During the trial, Mr. Kipnis has been almost anonymous; he's hardly ever approached by journalists as he “slips into a side entrance” of the court house. The basis of the indictment against him: he failed to stop the transactions mentioned in the indictment. He is the most sympathetic defendant. The only one of the four who's a native Chicagoan, he was never part of Conrad Black’s inner circle. Nowadays in America, people like Mr. Kipnis are investigated in corporate-fraud cases (unless they roll.)
David Radler was his immediate boss. Even though Mr. Radler was a very tough boss, the prosecution basically alleges that Kipnis should have stood up to him and stood in his way with regard to the transactions that form the basis of the charges. According to former prosecutor Ted Chung, Mr. Kipnis has a special responsibility because he’s a lawyer. He can’t plead pressure from the boss to get out of the charges. Csr. Chung does describe Mr. Kipnis’ role “'as a difficult one.'”
He was thought of as “likable and helpful” at the Sun-Times. He was often consulted, and was de facto acting general manager of the paper.
As to the question of why he was indicted, Csr. Chung said that cases “are built from the bottom up.” That explains why. Mr. Kipnis is now a Sign-o-Rama franchisee, and is quite a changed man. He could be disbarred if convicted.
Chung conceded that Kipnis went along with the alleged scheme, but asserts that the former general counsel showed “lapses in judgment.”
A friend of Mr. Kipnis that was interviewed for this feature said that he’s resilient enough not to fall through the cracks; he’s a survivor. Mr. Gould ended the report with a comment that Mr. Kipnis may be very glad that he was “the forgotten man” once this is over.
[This report has been broadbanded as a standalone feature by CBC News. The entire episode of The National has been broadbanded as of about 11:00 PM, and will stay up until replaced by the new one, at about 11:00 PM this Thursday.]
David Radler was his immediate boss. Even though Mr. Radler was a very tough boss, the prosecution basically alleges that Kipnis should have stood up to him and stood in his way with regard to the transactions that form the basis of the charges. According to former prosecutor Ted Chung, Mr. Kipnis has a special responsibility because he’s a lawyer. He can’t plead pressure from the boss to get out of the charges. Csr. Chung does describe Mr. Kipnis’ role “'as a difficult one.'”
He was thought of as “likable and helpful” at the Sun-Times. He was often consulted, and was de facto acting general manager of the paper.
As to the question of why he was indicted, Csr. Chung said that cases “are built from the bottom up.” That explains why. Mr. Kipnis is now a Sign-o-Rama franchisee, and is quite a changed man. He could be disbarred if convicted.
Chung conceded that Kipnis went along with the alleged scheme, but asserts that the former general counsel showed “lapses in judgment.”
A friend of Mr. Kipnis that was interviewed for this feature said that he’s resilient enough not to fall through the cracks; he’s a survivor. Mr. Gould ended the report with a comment that Mr. Kipnis may be very glad that he was “the forgotten man” once this is over.
[This report has been broadbanded as a standalone feature by CBC News. The entire episode of The National has been broadbanded as of about 11:00 PM, and will stay up until replaced by the new one, at about 11:00 PM this Thursday.]
The Verdict: Motions and Auguries
Tonight's episode of The Verdict had a short segment on the Conrad Black trial, with a single guest: Hugh Totten, a regular trial watcher. According to Csr. Totten, the rejection of the Radler-recall motion was not that significant. It does create grounds for an appeal from Conrad Black, but an appeal on that basis would not go that far, because Mr. Radler can claim that the conversation was a privileged communication. It would only be a peripheral part of an appeal, anyway, as it is not part of Mr. Black’s defense theory.
The way that the Kipnis mistrial motion was treated, though, was “very extraordinary.” There have been rumours that Mr. Kipnis was charged because he didn’t roll for the prosecution. The case against him, according to Csr. Totten, has been quite weak. His counsel has filed two motions; both of them have been taken seriously; normally, they're not. Judge St. Eve had said that the prosecution didn’t act in bad faith: what’s significant in that statement is that she made it at all. This bodes well for Mr. Kipnis' motion to acquit. Csr. Totten thinks it likely that there'll be "an empty chair" by the time the jury retires to deliberate.
Ms. Todd then asked if granting that motion would taint the prosecution’s entire case. Csr. Totten replied that the jury will be told to disregard the acquittal if Mr. Kipnis goes free, but they will notice his absence. Ms. Todd brought up the possibility that it would help the prosecution by focusing attention on the three remaining defendants. Csr. Totten responded that such a consequence isn't likely.
[This episode of The Verdict will be broadbanded as of 10:30 pm tonight, and will stay up until about 10:30 PM or so tomorrow.]
The way that the Kipnis mistrial motion was treated, though, was “very extraordinary.” There have been rumours that Mr. Kipnis was charged because he didn’t roll for the prosecution. The case against him, according to Csr. Totten, has been quite weak. His counsel has filed two motions; both of them have been taken seriously; normally, they're not. Judge St. Eve had said that the prosecution didn’t act in bad faith: what’s significant in that statement is that she made it at all. This bodes well for Mr. Kipnis' motion to acquit. Csr. Totten thinks it likely that there'll be "an empty chair" by the time the jury retires to deliberate.
Ms. Todd then asked if granting that motion would taint the prosecution’s entire case. Csr. Totten replied that the jury will be told to disregard the acquittal if Mr. Kipnis goes free, but they will notice his absence. Ms. Todd brought up the possibility that it would help the prosecution by focusing attention on the three remaining defendants. Csr. Totten responded that such a consequence isn't likely.
[This episode of The Verdict will be broadbanded as of 10:30 pm tonight, and will stay up until about 10:30 PM or so tomorrow.]
Going Through The Motions
The rulings made by Judge St. Eve that have been reported on so far, are both denials of defense motions, according to Mary Vallis of the Financial Post. First of all, Conrad Black's defense will not be allowed to recall David Radler; "the judge said that the issue the defence team wanted to question was 'somewhat of a collateral matter' and that she thought Edward Greenspan, Lord Black's Canadian lawyer, had done an 'effective' job of cross-examining Mr. Radler about what he know about serving his sentence in Canada during Mr. Radler's time on the stand in May. " The second motion denied was from Mark Kipnis' counsel; it asked for a mistrial. "In the judge's ruling on Mr. Kipnis, she said the jury has been instructed that statements that the prosecution made in opening arguments, which Mr. Kipnis's lawyers objected to, are not evidence." She did, though, admit that she was "'surprised'" by the testimony by Mr. Radler about the real reason for the bonus, but she still decided that the issue had been adequately dealt with under cross-examination.
Four other reports have been issued about the denial of the motion to recall Mr. Radler. Paul Waldie's, webbed by the Globe and Mail, discloses that Judge St. Eve justified the rejection of the recall-Radler motion by saying also that "Mr. Greenspan had plenty of time to find out the information. 'It's information you could have obtained and asked him about,' the judge said." The Chicago Tribune had webbed a Bloomberg item on it, by Joe Schneider and Andrew Harris, which reports the decision and adds a little background. The Toronto Star's webbing of the Associated Press report on Judge St. Eve's rejection mentions the ruling and the main reason for it. CBC News' report contains the ruling and a slightly different background from the Bloomberg report.
Two reports are out that deal with Mr. Kipnis' mistrial motion. The first, also a Bloomberg excerpt that's been webbed by the Chicago Tribune, explains that the successful granting of it would apply to Mr. Kipnis only, splitting his case from the three other defendants'. It also has a legal expert explaining why Mr. Kipnis' counsel would ask for one: "'The advantage to the defendant of being retried separately is that much of the evidence that would be potentially admissible in a joint trial would not come in in a retrial,' said Dean Polales of Chicago's Ungaretti & Harris and a former federal prosecutor. 'You exclude a lot of evidence that might spill over onto the defendant because of who he's being tried with.'" The Reuters report is much briefer.
A post in Mark Steyn's Maclean's Conrad Black trial blog says that Mr. Kipnis' motion to have all the charges against him dismissed has also been rejected by Judge St. Eve, through the same reasoning that she used to reject the mistrial motion. (He doesn't mention the mistrial motion.)
The version of Ms. Vallis' report that has been webbed by the Edmonton Journal has some added information, including two additional quotes from Judge St. Eve: "The judge said she was paying close attention to the jury and that the jurors were 'paying very close attention to that.'
"She concluded by saying the arguments presented by Mr. Kipnis's attorney, Ron Safer, will be 'very powerful for closing arguments.'"
In a BNN interview, aired at 1:48 PM ET, Mr. Waldie reported on the two rulings made by Judge St. Eve. He also said that the rule-29 motions for dismissal have yet to be ruled upon, but they are a long shot – except perhaps for Mr. Kipnis’, which has Judge St. Eve's official interest. Another motion has been filed, to recall Paul Healy from one of Conrad Black’s lawyers. That lawyer wants Mr. Healy to testify on how he handled Mr. Black’s expenses. Mr. Black's defense team has found an E-mail from Mr. Healy pertaining to this, which indicates that Mr. Black had more probity regarding the separation of the two than has been widely believed. (A note: Mr Waldie's report implies that the motion to dismiss that Mr. Steyn wrote about was the mistrial motion.)
A full Bloomberg report on both rejected motions, by Joe Schnieder and Andrew Harris, has been webbed. "U.S. District Judge Amy St. Eve in Chicago gave the double victory to the government today as the trial nears its end. She denied Black's request to recall Radler, a former Hollinger president, so defense lawyers could attack his earlier testimony. She [also] rejected a mistrial motion by ex-General Counsel Mark Kipnis." Regarding the Radler motion, the report quotes a former U.S. prosecutor now in private practice: "'It's highly unlikely that the defense ever expected to win that motion,' said Steven A. Miller... 'The legal system seeks finality. All attorneys are expected to get their work done during the portion of the trial that's allocated for that particular subject matter.'"
[An updated version of the same report has added a quote from Hugh Totten regarding the rejection of the mistrial motion. He said that Judge St. Eve has, in his opinion, left clear grounds for appeal of any conviction of Mr. Kipnis. It also has added another quote from Judge St. Eve's ruling: "The government's evidence 'may not be the strongest inference but I find Mr. Cramer did not act in bad faith,'' St. Eve said."]
There is also a full Reuters report on the rejected motions, by Andrew Stern. With respect to the Radler motion, the report quotes Judge St. Eve as saying "that she was rejecting 'your desire to impeach him further'" before making the already-quoted points about it being a matter that the defense could have found out about earlier, and that it was dealt with adequately under cross-examination. With regard to the mistrial motion, Mr. Stern writes: "Had she granted the request, Kipnis would have walked free immediately." The refusal to grant this motion "cast doubt on whether she would look favorably on pending requests to dismiss all the charges from Kipnis and the other three defendants that were filed after the government rested its case. Such motions to dismiss are common and usually fail, and the judge has indicated her doubts about only a few counts."
The full Associated Press report is also out, as webbed by the JournalGazette Times-Courier; it's been written by Mike Robinson. Like the Reuters report, it recounts both motions and their fate. With regard to the latter, it relates: "Safer argued that statements by the government prejudiced the jury. But St. Eve declared that whatever had been said it did not warrant a mistrial.... [T]he statements did not create enough prejudice to create a severe miscarriage of justice that would justify" granting Mr. Kipnis' motion.
A brief mention of the rejection of the recall-Radler motion has made it onto Chicago Public Radio, with Diantha Parker reporting. There was also a mention of the trial on BNN's "Squeeze Play." Today's co-host Jacquie McNish noted that the reason why Mark Kipnis was charged at all was because of the (currently fashionable) “gatekeeper” theory – he should have known what was going on. He was a “necessary accomplice.” This discussion between Ms. McNish and Amanda Lang segued into a discussion of the rise of private equity. Ms. McNish was quite firm in denying that the secondary effects of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act were accelerating this trend.
The same Bloomberg report mentioned above has been updated yet again, with an important item added: "Black's lawyer Marc Martin said the prosecutors failed to prove the case against his client and asked St. Eve, in a 26-page court document filed late today, to acquit Black or at least dismiss some of the charges against him, including obstruction of justice for having removed boxes of documents from his office in 2005." This motion is a little more than the standard Rule 29; it comprises 26 pages. A spokesperson for Patrick J. Fizgerald said that the U.S. attorney's office is preparing "'written responses'" that will be filed this evening.
----------
In an entry dealing with both of Mr. Kipnis' motions, Steve Skurka, in "The Crime Sheet," predicted that both will fail. (He's already been proven right with respect to the mistrial motion.) He did point out, though, that Judge St. Eve took them both seriously. (This will probably affect her instructions to the jury.) He ends this entry by concluding that the two witnesses heard from yesterday, James Reda and Prof. Jinyan Li, were quite effective for the defense.
Also, in the Toronto Life Conrad Black trial, the "Courtstalker" has garnered a snippet about Barbara Black's news channel preferences. In another thread, a commentator by the name of "Megan T" has, in a [five]-part comment, gone through all the charges that Conrad Black faces and has assigned a probability figure to the chances of conviction for each category of charge. Her overall conclusion: "Overall probability of conviction on at least 1 charge: 95%."
Four other reports have been issued about the denial of the motion to recall Mr. Radler. Paul Waldie's, webbed by the Globe and Mail, discloses that Judge St. Eve justified the rejection of the recall-Radler motion by saying also that "Mr. Greenspan had plenty of time to find out the information. 'It's information you could have obtained and asked him about,' the judge said." The Chicago Tribune had webbed a Bloomberg item on it, by Joe Schneider and Andrew Harris, which reports the decision and adds a little background. The Toronto Star's webbing of the Associated Press report on Judge St. Eve's rejection mentions the ruling and the main reason for it. CBC News' report contains the ruling and a slightly different background from the Bloomberg report.
Two reports are out that deal with Mr. Kipnis' mistrial motion. The first, also a Bloomberg excerpt that's been webbed by the Chicago Tribune, explains that the successful granting of it would apply to Mr. Kipnis only, splitting his case from the three other defendants'. It also has a legal expert explaining why Mr. Kipnis' counsel would ask for one: "'The advantage to the defendant of being retried separately is that much of the evidence that would be potentially admissible in a joint trial would not come in in a retrial,' said Dean Polales of Chicago's Ungaretti & Harris and a former federal prosecutor. 'You exclude a lot of evidence that might spill over onto the defendant because of who he's being tried with.'" The Reuters report is much briefer.
A post in Mark Steyn's Maclean's Conrad Black trial blog says that Mr. Kipnis' motion to have all the charges against him dismissed has also been rejected by Judge St. Eve, through the same reasoning that she used to reject the mistrial motion. (He doesn't mention the mistrial motion.)
The version of Ms. Vallis' report that has been webbed by the Edmonton Journal has some added information, including two additional quotes from Judge St. Eve: "The judge said she was paying close attention to the jury and that the jurors were 'paying very close attention to that.'
"She concluded by saying the arguments presented by Mr. Kipnis's attorney, Ron Safer, will be 'very powerful for closing arguments.'"
In a BNN interview, aired at 1:48 PM ET, Mr. Waldie reported on the two rulings made by Judge St. Eve. He also said that the rule-29 motions for dismissal have yet to be ruled upon, but they are a long shot – except perhaps for Mr. Kipnis’, which has Judge St. Eve's official interest. Another motion has been filed, to recall Paul Healy from one of Conrad Black’s lawyers. That lawyer wants Mr. Healy to testify on how he handled Mr. Black’s expenses. Mr. Black's defense team has found an E-mail from Mr. Healy pertaining to this, which indicates that Mr. Black had more probity regarding the separation of the two than has been widely believed. (A note: Mr Waldie's report implies that the motion to dismiss that Mr. Steyn wrote about was the mistrial motion.)
A full Bloomberg report on both rejected motions, by Joe Schnieder and Andrew Harris, has been webbed. "U.S. District Judge Amy St. Eve in Chicago gave the double victory to the government today as the trial nears its end. She denied Black's request to recall Radler, a former Hollinger president, so defense lawyers could attack his earlier testimony. She [also] rejected a mistrial motion by ex-General Counsel Mark Kipnis." Regarding the Radler motion, the report quotes a former U.S. prosecutor now in private practice: "'It's highly unlikely that the defense ever expected to win that motion,' said Steven A. Miller... 'The legal system seeks finality. All attorneys are expected to get their work done during the portion of the trial that's allocated for that particular subject matter.'"
[An updated version of the same report has added a quote from Hugh Totten regarding the rejection of the mistrial motion. He said that Judge St. Eve has, in his opinion, left clear grounds for appeal of any conviction of Mr. Kipnis. It also has added another quote from Judge St. Eve's ruling: "The government's evidence 'may not be the strongest inference but I find Mr. Cramer did not act in bad faith,'' St. Eve said."]
There is also a full Reuters report on the rejected motions, by Andrew Stern. With respect to the Radler motion, the report quotes Judge St. Eve as saying "that she was rejecting 'your desire to impeach him further'" before making the already-quoted points about it being a matter that the defense could have found out about earlier, and that it was dealt with adequately under cross-examination. With regard to the mistrial motion, Mr. Stern writes: "Had she granted the request, Kipnis would have walked free immediately." The refusal to grant this motion "cast doubt on whether she would look favorably on pending requests to dismiss all the charges from Kipnis and the other three defendants that were filed after the government rested its case. Such motions to dismiss are common and usually fail, and the judge has indicated her doubts about only a few counts."
The full Associated Press report is also out, as webbed by the JournalGazette Times-Courier; it's been written by Mike Robinson. Like the Reuters report, it recounts both motions and their fate. With regard to the latter, it relates: "Safer argued that statements by the government prejudiced the jury. But St. Eve declared that whatever had been said it did not warrant a mistrial.... [T]he statements did not create enough prejudice to create a severe miscarriage of justice that would justify" granting Mr. Kipnis' motion.
A brief mention of the rejection of the recall-Radler motion has made it onto Chicago Public Radio, with Diantha Parker reporting. There was also a mention of the trial on BNN's "Squeeze Play." Today's co-host Jacquie McNish noted that the reason why Mark Kipnis was charged at all was because of the (currently fashionable) “gatekeeper” theory – he should have known what was going on. He was a “necessary accomplice.” This discussion between Ms. McNish and Amanda Lang segued into a discussion of the rise of private equity. Ms. McNish was quite firm in denying that the secondary effects of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act were accelerating this trend.
The same Bloomberg report mentioned above has been updated yet again, with an important item added: "Black's lawyer Marc Martin said the prosecutors failed to prove the case against his client and asked St. Eve, in a 26-page court document filed late today, to acquit Black or at least dismiss some of the charges against him, including obstruction of justice for having removed boxes of documents from his office in 2005." This motion is a little more than the standard Rule 29; it comprises 26 pages. A spokesperson for Patrick J. Fizgerald said that the U.S. attorney's office is preparing "'written responses'" that will be filed this evening.
----------
In an entry dealing with both of Mr. Kipnis' motions, Steve Skurka, in "The Crime Sheet," predicted that both will fail. (He's already been proven right with respect to the mistrial motion.) He did point out, though, that Judge St. Eve took them both seriously. (This will probably affect her instructions to the jury.) He ends this entry by concluding that the two witnesses heard from yesterday, James Reda and Prof. Jinyan Li, were quite effective for the defense.
Also, in the Toronto Life Conrad Black trial, the "Courtstalker" has garnered a snippet about Barbara Black's news channel preferences. In another thread, a commentator by the name of "Megan T" has, in a [five]-part comment, gone through all the charges that Conrad Black faces and has assigned a probability figure to the chances of conviction for each category of charge. Her overall conclusion: "Overall probability of conviction on at least 1 charge: 95%."
Media Roundup: Radler Reprise?
The media reports, webbed overnight and this morning, focus mostly on the upcoming decision about David Radler's petitioned-for possible return to the stand:
1. The Hamilton Spectator has webbed an abridged Associated Press report that focuses in on Judge St. Eve's upcoming decision on whether or not to let the defense call Mr. Radler. So has the New York Post.
2. CBC News has webbed a brief item which also focuses in on the expected Thursday decision by Judge St. Eve, on whether or not to grant the defense's motion to call Mr. Radler for a second round of testimony.
3. The Chicago Tribune has webbed a slightly longer (though still abridged) version of the same AP report, which mostly discusses the upcoming David Radler decision and ends with an excerpt from testimony of an executive-compensation consultant from New York, James Reda.
4. An AP summary/forecast, webbed by WQAD.com, starts off with the note that the trial is near its end, but focuses most of its wordage on the defense motion to recall Mr. Radler.
5. Joe Warmington's latest column, as webbed by the Toronto Sun, portrays the trial as an unusual combination of a show trial that's also boring. He commiserates with the yawning jury, and notes that even Conrad Black himself has been seen yawning; he also adds an unusually philosophical quote from Barbara Black: "'The only way you can cope is to expect the worst,' she told me... In other words if something good happens, it's a surprise"
6. The Vancouver Province has a brief write-up that deals with Mark Kipnis' motion to dismiss, which Judge St. Eve has already said deserves special attention.
7. The Ottawa Citizen has a slightly longer one on the same subject, credited to Mary Vallis.
8. The Toronto Star's Rick Westhead's latest report discusses the planned upcoming books on the trial. First mention goes to Steve Skurka, who's already seeking a literary agent for a book that "would potentially be called Tilted and focus on differences between Canadian and U.S. justice systems." It also notes, though, that the commercial success of any such book is not quite a sure thing.
9. Also from the Star, Jennifer Wells reminds us that the trial's outcome is far from certain. She opines that the closing arguments will tip the balance in the minds of the jury; the prosecution is heard last before the judge instructs.
10. Arabian Business has a recap of the trial so far as the second item in their "Media news roundup" for today.
11. A report from Mary Wisniewski of the Chicago Sun-Times focuses upon the testimony of Mr. Reda. It relays that he admitted under cross-examination that the non-compete payment to Jack Boultbee "of $1.3 million was in the market range for the deals Reda studied... [but] was [also] higher than most." It ends with a mention of the motion to recall Mr. Radler.
12. Bloomberg has a feature on the current fate of the Sun-Times Media Group, formerly Hollinger International. It notes that, by the time-worn industry standard of ten times EBITDA, Sun-Times Media Group is already fairly valued, implying no premium if its newspaper properties are sold. Although it does note that "Sun-Times hasn't regained its footing since Black left," it also notes that $5.50 per share in special dividends were paid out when Gordon Paris was CEO, as of the first quater of 2005. (So, despite the stock price dropping more than 50% under Mr. Paris' tenure, the performance of the shares on a total-return basis is something like a much smaller loss of 16.7%. On the other hand, the huge drop in the price of the stock in Feb. 2005 may not have been caused by the circulation scandal, implying that the scandal was alread discounted. As is often the case in financial journalism, the story revealed by the background research is quite different from what's revealed by seat-of-the-pants commentary, including mine.) The feature also points out that current CEO Cyrus Feldheim is unusually tight-lipped about the sources of Sun-Times' cash flow.
13. Another story on what used to be Conrad Black's empire has been written by Paul Waldie and webbed by the Globe and Mail: Ravelston Corp. is putting mining claims, for a Northern Saskatchewan property, up for sale. "In a report filed in an Ontario court, the receiver said the value of the rights is 'speculative' and 'it may be determined that they have no value.' The receiver, RSM Richter Inc., said it has two unsolicited bids but 'neither offer is for significant value.' It's not clear how Ravelston acquired the rights." The rest of the report recounts the testimony of Canadian tax law professor Jinyan Li.
14. Mr. Waldie has written another Conrad-Black-related article for the Globe, which details a tangled pair of motions in the Sotheby Realty's lawsuit against Mr. Black for the commission on the sale of the Manhattan apartment. In addition to a motion to dismiss the suit by Mr. Black, on the grounds that the agents colluded with the government, there's now a motion from the plaintiff to dismiss the motion to dismiss.
15. The Guelph Mercury has a more complete version of the same AP report excerpted by the Spectator, Post and Sun.
16. The Guardian's media-watch blog "Greenslade" has an entry about the Conrad Black trial being "'muted and tedious.'"
----------
Mark Steyn has devoted an entry to the upcoming motion to dismiss the charges against Mark Kipnis, in which he notes that "[c]ounsel for Conrad Black's two longtime associates, Jack Boultbee and Peter Atkinson, went to work on the heart of the government's case, producing competent unexciting efficient witnesses who addressed the only reason we're here: the 'non-compete' fees to Hollinger executives." The entry previous to that one speculates that the prosecution has pinned its last hopes on the obstruction-of-justice charge against Conrad Black sticking, as in the case of "Scooter" Libby. It ends with this note: "I was in New York this afternoon and ran into a big bunch of Manhattan business types suddenly expressing great optimism that Conrad will be acquitted."
1. The Hamilton Spectator has webbed an abridged Associated Press report that focuses in on Judge St. Eve's upcoming decision on whether or not to let the defense call Mr. Radler. So has the New York Post.
2. CBC News has webbed a brief item which also focuses in on the expected Thursday decision by Judge St. Eve, on whether or not to grant the defense's motion to call Mr. Radler for a second round of testimony.
3. The Chicago Tribune has webbed a slightly longer (though still abridged) version of the same AP report, which mostly discusses the upcoming David Radler decision and ends with an excerpt from testimony of an executive-compensation consultant from New York, James Reda.
4. An AP summary/forecast, webbed by WQAD.com, starts off with the note that the trial is near its end, but focuses most of its wordage on the defense motion to recall Mr. Radler.
5. Joe Warmington's latest column, as webbed by the Toronto Sun, portrays the trial as an unusual combination of a show trial that's also boring. He commiserates with the yawning jury, and notes that even Conrad Black himself has been seen yawning; he also adds an unusually philosophical quote from Barbara Black: "'The only way you can cope is to expect the worst,' she told me... In other words if something good happens, it's a surprise"
6. The Vancouver Province has a brief write-up that deals with Mark Kipnis' motion to dismiss, which Judge St. Eve has already said deserves special attention.
7. The Ottawa Citizen has a slightly longer one on the same subject, credited to Mary Vallis.
8. The Toronto Star's Rick Westhead's latest report discusses the planned upcoming books on the trial. First mention goes to Steve Skurka, who's already seeking a literary agent for a book that "would potentially be called Tilted and focus on differences between Canadian and U.S. justice systems." It also notes, though, that the commercial success of any such book is not quite a sure thing.
9. Also from the Star, Jennifer Wells reminds us that the trial's outcome is far from certain. She opines that the closing arguments will tip the balance in the minds of the jury; the prosecution is heard last before the judge instructs.
10. Arabian Business has a recap of the trial so far as the second item in their "Media news roundup" for today.
11. A report from Mary Wisniewski of the Chicago Sun-Times focuses upon the testimony of Mr. Reda. It relays that he admitted under cross-examination that the non-compete payment to Jack Boultbee "of $1.3 million was in the market range for the deals Reda studied... [but] was [also] higher than most." It ends with a mention of the motion to recall Mr. Radler.
12. Bloomberg has a feature on the current fate of the Sun-Times Media Group, formerly Hollinger International. It notes that, by the time-worn industry standard of ten times EBITDA, Sun-Times Media Group is already fairly valued, implying no premium if its newspaper properties are sold. Although it does note that "Sun-Times hasn't regained its footing since Black left," it also notes that $5.50 per share in special dividends were paid out when Gordon Paris was CEO, as of the first quater of 2005. (So, despite the stock price dropping more than 50% under Mr. Paris' tenure, the performance of the shares on a total-return basis is something like a much smaller loss of 16.7%. On the other hand, the huge drop in the price of the stock in Feb. 2005 may not have been caused by the circulation scandal, implying that the scandal was alread discounted. As is often the case in financial journalism, the story revealed by the background research is quite different from what's revealed by seat-of-the-pants commentary, including mine.) The feature also points out that current CEO Cyrus Feldheim is unusually tight-lipped about the sources of Sun-Times' cash flow.
13. Another story on what used to be Conrad Black's empire has been written by Paul Waldie and webbed by the Globe and Mail: Ravelston Corp. is putting mining claims, for a Northern Saskatchewan property, up for sale. "In a report filed in an Ontario court, the receiver said the value of the rights is 'speculative' and 'it may be determined that they have no value.' The receiver, RSM Richter Inc., said it has two unsolicited bids but 'neither offer is for significant value.' It's not clear how Ravelston acquired the rights." The rest of the report recounts the testimony of Canadian tax law professor Jinyan Li.
14. Mr. Waldie has written another Conrad-Black-related article for the Globe, which details a tangled pair of motions in the Sotheby Realty's lawsuit against Mr. Black for the commission on the sale of the Manhattan apartment. In addition to a motion to dismiss the suit by Mr. Black, on the grounds that the agents colluded with the government, there's now a motion from the plaintiff to dismiss the motion to dismiss.
15. The Guelph Mercury has a more complete version of the same AP report excerpted by the Spectator, Post and Sun.
16. The Guardian's media-watch blog "Greenslade" has an entry about the Conrad Black trial being "'muted and tedious.'"
----------
Mark Steyn has devoted an entry to the upcoming motion to dismiss the charges against Mark Kipnis, in which he notes that "[c]ounsel for Conrad Black's two longtime associates, Jack Boultbee and Peter Atkinson, went to work on the heart of the government's case, producing competent unexciting efficient witnesses who addressed the only reason we're here: the 'non-compete' fees to Hollinger executives." The entry previous to that one speculates that the prosecution has pinned its last hopes on the obstruction-of-justice charge against Conrad Black sticking, as in the case of "Scooter" Libby. It ends with this note: "I was in New York this afternoon and ran into a big bunch of Manhattan business types suddenly expressing great optimism that Conrad will be acquitted."
Tuesday, June 5, 2007
Tuesday's motion
CTV NewsNet has aired an interview with David Akin, at 12:30 PM ET, whose report included the factoid that lead prosecutor Eric Sussman has a 95% success rate. The witness who is now on the stand was called by Jack Boultbee’s counsel. Judge St. Eve will rule later today on the defense request to put Radler on the stand. Conrad Black's butler may appear on the stand Thursday, but for now he’s on hold. The end of Conrad Black’s defense, except for closing argument, will be at the end of this week.
BNN had another interview, aired at 1:45 PM ET; this one was with Paul Waldie. In it, Mr. Waldie reported that there's more action outside than inside. Two of the defense witnesses were a professor of law from Osgoode, testifying on Canadian tax policy, and a compensation consultant there to testify on the noncompete payments. The latter witness concluded that they’re in line with industry norms, but Jeffrey Cramer on cross-examination said that the expert didn’t know all the relevant facts about how all the non-compete agreements were put together. The most interesting event to watch for is Mark Kipnis’ motion to dismiss the charges against him. Judge St. Eve has called for a special meeting regarding that motion, to make the prosecution justify the charges against Mr. Kipnis.
A Bloomberg report, by Andrew Harris and Joe Schneider, begins with: "Former Hollinger International Inc. Chairman Conrad Black and ex-finance chief John Boultbee received fair payment for an agreement not to compete with buyers of company newspapers, a witness at their fraud trial said." The executive-compensation expert, James Reda, testified that "CanWest's noncompete payments to the four Hollinger executives comprised only 2.5 percent of the total transaction value, while other comparable transactions produced a range of 0.12 percent to 24.62 percent.... [and] that Black and Boultbee received fair pay for their 2000 agreements not to compete with the Birmingham, Alabama-based Community Newspaper Holdings Inc., when it bought $90 million in Hollinger assets." As Mr. Waldie himself had indicated, though, he did concede that he was not asked to study the non-compete agreements for two other sales of newspapers. (Those would be the sale to Paxton Group and the larger one to CHNI.)
Mr. Waldie's report from this morning, webbed by the Globe and Mail, has some additional details on Mr. Reda's testimony tacked on to its end. "James Reda, a New York-based compensation consultant, showed the jury an analysis he had done of non-competition agreements in 25 transactions. He compared those with the non-compete agreements and related payments in the Hollinger case. Mr. Reda concluded that the Hollinger agreements and payments were not unusual and in some cases had more restrictive provisions.... Prosecutor Jeffrey Cramer[, though,] questioned Mr. Reda's analysis, noting that he included one deal worth $56 billion which skewered the calculations."
The same Bloomberg report, now updated, has details on the testimony of the Canadian tax expert, "Canadian corporate tax law professor Jinyan Li who said noncompete payments received by Black, Radler, Boultbee and Atkinson were tax-free because of a 1999 Canadian federal appeals court ruling." The non-compete payments would be legitimately tax-free "'as long as the contract is bona fide and legally enforceable,'" according to Professor Li.
An Associated Press report, written by Mike Robinson, starts off by noting that Judge St. Eve considers the trial to be running on schedule, which means that the defense will be finished by the end of this week and closing arguments will be through with as of next week. It also relates that the jury is being excused for tomorrow's session "because more defense witnesses won't be available until Thursday." She will announce Thursday morning whether or not Conrad Black's defense team can call David Radler to the stand. Near its end, it notes that Mr. Reda "acknowledged that he never had delved into the allegations of fraud that the government says underlie the seemingly innocent deal." Stephanie Kirchgaessner of the Financial Times has written a background report on David Radler, as webbed by MSNBC.com.
----------
Matthew McClearn, in the Canadian Business Black trial blog, has a report which notes that Kenneth Whyte had covered for Donald Trump regarding the business legitimacy of the birthday party: "Whyte also waxed about the benefits of hosting large, star-studded parties. It’s good for publicity, he said, when powerful and influential people attend. And it helps executives and journalists make contact with the shakers and movers of the day. This testimony lent credence to Black’s claim that the shin-dig at La Grenouille (for which International paid about two-thirds of the total bill) had a relevant business purpose." His more lengthy discussion of the cross-examination of Mr. Whyte, though, ends with the conclusion that the shoe was on the other foot regarding this expert witness for the defense. (Mr. McClearn also notes that the $100,000 bonus paid to Mr. Whyte was suspected of being in breach of a non-solicitation clause of the non-competition agreement that Mr. Black had signed for CanWest.)
The South African paper Mail and Guardian has a report that contains quite a few quotes from Conrad Black's statements made over the course of the trial. It also has some interestingly exotic language at the front of it. I can't think of any other report that describes Mr. Black himself as having "a broad face, as impervious as an Easter Island monolith and nearly as motionless; he expresses himself by tiny adjustments in the narrowness of his eyes. In court in Chicago, where he is facing up to 101 years in prison for fraud, he assumes a detached, sceptical air.
"Then there’s his third expression, a feline look of pleasure, eyes almost closed, which is rarely seen these days, but which will return, presumably, should he be acquitted of all charges."...
The following challenge, from the Toronto Life Conrad Black trial blog, is too good not to pass along: Douglas Bell is offering to personally deliver a "Conrad Black Will Win" T-shirt to the doorstep of the person who can explain, in the comments section of that post, what possible good re-calling Fred Creasey to the stand will do for the defense. This challenge, I will throw to the reader.
BNN had another interview, aired at 1:45 PM ET; this one was with Paul Waldie. In it, Mr. Waldie reported that there's more action outside than inside. Two of the defense witnesses were a professor of law from Osgoode, testifying on Canadian tax policy, and a compensation consultant there to testify on the noncompete payments. The latter witness concluded that they’re in line with industry norms, but Jeffrey Cramer on cross-examination said that the expert didn’t know all the relevant facts about how all the non-compete agreements were put together. The most interesting event to watch for is Mark Kipnis’ motion to dismiss the charges against him. Judge St. Eve has called for a special meeting regarding that motion, to make the prosecution justify the charges against Mr. Kipnis.
A Bloomberg report, by Andrew Harris and Joe Schneider, begins with: "Former Hollinger International Inc. Chairman Conrad Black and ex-finance chief John Boultbee received fair payment for an agreement not to compete with buyers of company newspapers, a witness at their fraud trial said." The executive-compensation expert, James Reda, testified that "CanWest's noncompete payments to the four Hollinger executives comprised only 2.5 percent of the total transaction value, while other comparable transactions produced a range of 0.12 percent to 24.62 percent.... [and] that Black and Boultbee received fair pay for their 2000 agreements not to compete with the Birmingham, Alabama-based Community Newspaper Holdings Inc., when it bought $90 million in Hollinger assets." As Mr. Waldie himself had indicated, though, he did concede that he was not asked to study the non-compete agreements for two other sales of newspapers. (Those would be the sale to Paxton Group and the larger one to CHNI.)
Mr. Waldie's report from this morning, webbed by the Globe and Mail, has some additional details on Mr. Reda's testimony tacked on to its end. "James Reda, a New York-based compensation consultant, showed the jury an analysis he had done of non-competition agreements in 25 transactions. He compared those with the non-compete agreements and related payments in the Hollinger case. Mr. Reda concluded that the Hollinger agreements and payments were not unusual and in some cases had more restrictive provisions.... Prosecutor Jeffrey Cramer[, though,] questioned Mr. Reda's analysis, noting that he included one deal worth $56 billion which skewered the calculations."
The same Bloomberg report, now updated, has details on the testimony of the Canadian tax expert, "Canadian corporate tax law professor Jinyan Li who said noncompete payments received by Black, Radler, Boultbee and Atkinson were tax-free because of a 1999 Canadian federal appeals court ruling." The non-compete payments would be legitimately tax-free "'as long as the contract is bona fide and legally enforceable,'" according to Professor Li.
An Associated Press report, written by Mike Robinson, starts off by noting that Judge St. Eve considers the trial to be running on schedule, which means that the defense will be finished by the end of this week and closing arguments will be through with as of next week. It also relates that the jury is being excused for tomorrow's session "because more defense witnesses won't be available until Thursday." She will announce Thursday morning whether or not Conrad Black's defense team can call David Radler to the stand. Near its end, it notes that Mr. Reda "acknowledged that he never had delved into the allegations of fraud that the government says underlie the seemingly innocent deal." Stephanie Kirchgaessner of the Financial Times has written a background report on David Radler, as webbed by MSNBC.com.
----------
Matthew McClearn, in the Canadian Business Black trial blog, has a report which notes that Kenneth Whyte had covered for Donald Trump regarding the business legitimacy of the birthday party: "Whyte also waxed about the benefits of hosting large, star-studded parties. It’s good for publicity, he said, when powerful and influential people attend. And it helps executives and journalists make contact with the shakers and movers of the day. This testimony lent credence to Black’s claim that the shin-dig at La Grenouille (for which International paid about two-thirds of the total bill) had a relevant business purpose." His more lengthy discussion of the cross-examination of Mr. Whyte, though, ends with the conclusion that the shoe was on the other foot regarding this expert witness for the defense. (Mr. McClearn also notes that the $100,000 bonus paid to Mr. Whyte was suspected of being in breach of a non-solicitation clause of the non-competition agreement that Mr. Black had signed for CanWest.)
The South African paper Mail and Guardian has a report that contains quite a few quotes from Conrad Black's statements made over the course of the trial. It also has some interestingly exotic language at the front of it. I can't think of any other report that describes Mr. Black himself as having "a broad face, as impervious as an Easter Island monolith and nearly as motionless; he expresses himself by tiny adjustments in the narrowness of his eyes. In court in Chicago, where he is facing up to 101 years in prison for fraud, he assumes a detached, sceptical air.
"Then there’s his third expression, a feline look of pleasure, eyes almost closed, which is rarely seen these days, but which will return, presumably, should he be acquitted of all charges."...
The following challenge, from the Toronto Life Conrad Black trial blog, is too good not to pass along: Douglas Bell is offering to personally deliver a "Conrad Black Will Win" T-shirt to the doorstep of the person who can explain, in the comments section of that post, what possible good re-calling Fred Creasey to the stand will do for the defense. This challenge, I will throw to the reader.
Media Roundup: The Importance Of Being Absent
The media reports, webbed overnight and today, about the Conrad Black trial focused on one of three developments yesterday: the absence of Donald Trump; the requested presence of David Radler; and/or Conrad Black's old renovation bills - with one exception:
1. From Crain's Chicago Business, an abridged Reuters report on the decision by Eddie Greenspan not to call Donald Trump to the stand.
2. The Vancouver Sun has webbed a report from Mary Vallis, which opens with the not-calling of Donald Trump but spends more time on the proposed calling of David Radler. After reviewing the testimony of Kenneth Whyte, it ends with the disclosure that two of the "several" prosecution witnesses that the defense plans to recall are Fred Creasey and Monique Delorme.
3. The Amherst Daily News has an abridged Associated Press report highlighting Lee Williams' testimony about the money plowed into the Manhattan apartment. So does the Calgary Sun.
4. The New York Times has webbed an in-depth report by Richard Siklos on why Donald Trump was first subpoenaed and then not called. The guess that Mr. Siklos attached most credence to is the fear that including Donald Trump would have made the trial too much of a circus. As far as Mr. Trump himself is concerned, he "declined to comment on his role in the case or what he would have testified but said he was pleased to be in New York with a clear calendar. 'I’ve caught up on all sort of stuff,' he said in a telephone interview. 'I have a free day — I haven’t had one of these days in a long time.'" (The end of the report contains a muttered remark in the hallway by you-know-who.)
5. The New Zealand Herald has webbed a report by Stephen Foley of the Independent, which deals with the help from Mr. Trump to Mr. Black, as well as those renovation expenses.
6. LawFuel.com has excerpted the Financial Times report on the testimony of Mr. Williams. The same report has been posted in FT's own "Alphaville."
7. A CP item, webbed by CBC News, also discusses the attempted substitution of David Radler for Donald Trump by the defense, and mentions tentative plans to "call several expert witnesses as well as Black's butler and former pilot."
8. Ameet Sachdev's report for today's Chicago Tribune takes up the same substitution. It ends with a recap of Mr. Williams' testimony.
9. Another report by Ms. Vallis, as webbed by the Ottawa Citizen, recounts the circumstances that have led Csr. Greenspan to recall Mr. Radler.
10. The Globe and Mail has webbed Paul Waldie's own take on the impending recall of Mr. Radler. His report also recaps the testimony of Mr. Williams, and the end of Mr. Whyte's under cross-examination - specifically, about the $100,000 bonus he had received in 2003. "Lord Black arranged the bonus even though he was bound by a five-year agreement with CanWest not to induce or recruit National Post managers, Ms. Ruder said."
11. Rick Westhead of the Toronto Star focuses upon the substitution of the renovation expenses for Donald Trump's appearance as the item of the day. Regarding those expenses, the report notes that "Hollinger had agreed to reimburse Black for 'capital improvements' that would increase the value of the property."
12. The reporter that was the original conduit of the speculation on Donald Trump testifying, the New York Post's Janet Whitman, has written a report headlined "Trump Is Fired." (CBC correspondent Mike Holbrook, on a CBC News: Morning clip aired at about 9:05 AM, confirmed that the original scoop was real at the time.)
13. The second report of the morning by Mr. Waldie, also webbed by the Globe, focuses upon a motion to dismiss all charges against Mark Kipnis: "The judge in the Conrad Black trial said she will seriously consider a legal motion that seeks to dismiss all of the charges against [Mr. Kipnis.]" The motion in question, a "rule 29," is a type that is frequently filed by the defense and rarely granted by the judge; it claims that the prosecution failed to meet its burden of proof. All four defendants have filed one, but "Judge Amy St. Eve singled out filings by Mr. Kipnis's team for special attention. She indicated that they are among those she is most interested in reviewing." The prosecution, of course, has objected to it.
14. A report by the Chicago Sun-Times' Mary Wisniewski has the second-most complete itemization of the expenses for the Manhattan apartment amongst the stories linked to in this entry. The last mentioned is "[o]ne invoice detailed accommodations for interior decorators, including a $200 lobster dinner." It's subtitled "Closing arguments could start this week."
15. Sun-Times columnist Stella Foster mentions a dinner that Conrad Black had in her latest column: "EMBATTLED LORD CONRAD BLACK, on trial in Chicago, apparently took some down time to dine with Cardinal Francis George May 21 at the Holy Name Cathedral's Rectory on North Wabash. Others in attendance at this small and private dinner: the Rev. Dan Mayall, pastor of Holy Name; Auxiliary Bishop Emeritus Timothy J. Lyne; businessman Joseph Fosco, and attorney Robert DeMeo."
16. The Daily Mail's report on the absence of Donald Trump claims that Mr. Black had made a "pledge last February that he would personally testify as a 'freedom fighter to clear my name.'" It suggests that the prosecution has asked for an "ostrich instruction" in retaliation for Mr. Black's bad attitude. As you may expect, it also reviews many of Mr. Black's expenditures revealed in the trial.
17. Yesterday's part of the trial garnered a mention on Chicago Public Radio.
18. The two-page report by Times Online reporter Jenny Booth takes the cake for the most complete itemization of the money plowed into the Manhattan apartment of all the reports linked to from this entry. The second page reviews the rest of yesterday's testimony.
19. Ms. Vallis has also wrote about the Kipnis story, in a Financial Post-webbed report entitled "Charges against Kipnis could be dropped." Like Mr. Waldie, she notes that Judge St. Eve will give the motion to dismiss the charges special consideration: "yesterday, Judge Amy St. Eve indicated she is particularly concerned about Mr. Kipnis because he is 'differently situated than the other defendants.'"
20. A two-page report in The Age of Melbourne has all three of yesterday's main events. It starts off with Donald Trump being let off the witness hook.
21. The Melbourne Herald-Sun has webbed an abridged Bloomberg report - the part that focuses upon the Radler item.
22. The blog "Media Bistro" has stripped away the surrounding wordage to distill a partial list of the items that Mr. Black bought for the apartment.
----------
The Sun-Times also has a report today on the current status of the charges against R.Kelly, which makes me wonder how long before "Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band" will be picked over for hip-hop sampling. (A related Onion-esque joke: "Yesterday, a new witness was called in the criminal trial of 'Big X' for statutory rape: his and the alleged victim's eldest son, now seven years old....")
Also, an editorial in the Canada Free Press compares Ontario premier Dalton McGuinty to David Radler, through drawing a parallel to Mr. Radler's testimony and Premier McGuinty's pledge back in 2003 not to raise Ontario taxes; the editorial claims he both broke that promise in 2004 and covered it up through dissembling. Reading that editorial after going through Premier McGuinty's "initiatives" may very well prove to be instructive.
Douglas Bell of the Toronto Life Conrad Black trial blog was quoted at the bottom of Shinan Govani's latest report, whose subject is "Will one Gore gore the other?" Mr. Bell himself has a new entry in the blog, entitled "Ken and Barbie," that continues on the Maclean's conflict-of-interest theme.
1. From Crain's Chicago Business, an abridged Reuters report on the decision by Eddie Greenspan not to call Donald Trump to the stand.
2. The Vancouver Sun has webbed a report from Mary Vallis, which opens with the not-calling of Donald Trump but spends more time on the proposed calling of David Radler. After reviewing the testimony of Kenneth Whyte, it ends with the disclosure that two of the "several" prosecution witnesses that the defense plans to recall are Fred Creasey and Monique Delorme.
3. The Amherst Daily News has an abridged Associated Press report highlighting Lee Williams' testimony about the money plowed into the Manhattan apartment. So does the Calgary Sun.
4. The New York Times has webbed an in-depth report by Richard Siklos on why Donald Trump was first subpoenaed and then not called. The guess that Mr. Siklos attached most credence to is the fear that including Donald Trump would have made the trial too much of a circus. As far as Mr. Trump himself is concerned, he "declined to comment on his role in the case or what he would have testified but said he was pleased to be in New York with a clear calendar. 'I’ve caught up on all sort of stuff,' he said in a telephone interview. 'I have a free day — I haven’t had one of these days in a long time.'" (The end of the report contains a muttered remark in the hallway by you-know-who.)
5. The New Zealand Herald has webbed a report by Stephen Foley of the Independent, which deals with the help from Mr. Trump to Mr. Black, as well as those renovation expenses.
6. LawFuel.com has excerpted the Financial Times report on the testimony of Mr. Williams. The same report has been posted in FT's own "Alphaville."
7. A CP item, webbed by CBC News, also discusses the attempted substitution of David Radler for Donald Trump by the defense, and mentions tentative plans to "call several expert witnesses as well as Black's butler and former pilot."
8. Ameet Sachdev's report for today's Chicago Tribune takes up the same substitution. It ends with a recap of Mr. Williams' testimony.
9. Another report by Ms. Vallis, as webbed by the Ottawa Citizen, recounts the circumstances that have led Csr. Greenspan to recall Mr. Radler.
10. The Globe and Mail has webbed Paul Waldie's own take on the impending recall of Mr. Radler. His report also recaps the testimony of Mr. Williams, and the end of Mr. Whyte's under cross-examination - specifically, about the $100,000 bonus he had received in 2003. "Lord Black arranged the bonus even though he was bound by a five-year agreement with CanWest not to induce or recruit National Post managers, Ms. Ruder said."
11. Rick Westhead of the Toronto Star focuses upon the substitution of the renovation expenses for Donald Trump's appearance as the item of the day. Regarding those expenses, the report notes that "Hollinger had agreed to reimburse Black for 'capital improvements' that would increase the value of the property."
12. The reporter that was the original conduit of the speculation on Donald Trump testifying, the New York Post's Janet Whitman, has written a report headlined "Trump Is Fired." (CBC correspondent Mike Holbrook, on a CBC News: Morning clip aired at about 9:05 AM, confirmed that the original scoop was real at the time.)
13. The second report of the morning by Mr. Waldie, also webbed by the Globe, focuses upon a motion to dismiss all charges against Mark Kipnis: "The judge in the Conrad Black trial said she will seriously consider a legal motion that seeks to dismiss all of the charges against [Mr. Kipnis.]" The motion in question, a "rule 29," is a type that is frequently filed by the defense and rarely granted by the judge; it claims that the prosecution failed to meet its burden of proof. All four defendants have filed one, but "Judge Amy St. Eve singled out filings by Mr. Kipnis's team for special attention. She indicated that they are among those she is most interested in reviewing." The prosecution, of course, has objected to it.
14. A report by the Chicago Sun-Times' Mary Wisniewski has the second-most complete itemization of the expenses for the Manhattan apartment amongst the stories linked to in this entry. The last mentioned is "[o]ne invoice detailed accommodations for interior decorators, including a $200 lobster dinner." It's subtitled "Closing arguments could start this week."
15. Sun-Times columnist Stella Foster mentions a dinner that Conrad Black had in her latest column: "EMBATTLED LORD CONRAD BLACK, on trial in Chicago, apparently took some down time to dine with Cardinal Francis George May 21 at the Holy Name Cathedral's Rectory on North Wabash. Others in attendance at this small and private dinner: the Rev. Dan Mayall, pastor of Holy Name; Auxiliary Bishop Emeritus Timothy J. Lyne; businessman Joseph Fosco, and attorney Robert DeMeo."
16. The Daily Mail's report on the absence of Donald Trump claims that Mr. Black had made a "pledge last February that he would personally testify as a 'freedom fighter to clear my name.'" It suggests that the prosecution has asked for an "ostrich instruction" in retaliation for Mr. Black's bad attitude. As you may expect, it also reviews many of Mr. Black's expenditures revealed in the trial.
17. Yesterday's part of the trial garnered a mention on Chicago Public Radio.
18. The two-page report by Times Online reporter Jenny Booth takes the cake for the most complete itemization of the money plowed into the Manhattan apartment of all the reports linked to from this entry. The second page reviews the rest of yesterday's testimony.
19. Ms. Vallis has also wrote about the Kipnis story, in a Financial Post-webbed report entitled "Charges against Kipnis could be dropped." Like Mr. Waldie, she notes that Judge St. Eve will give the motion to dismiss the charges special consideration: "yesterday, Judge Amy St. Eve indicated she is particularly concerned about Mr. Kipnis because he is 'differently situated than the other defendants.'"
20. A two-page report in The Age of Melbourne has all three of yesterday's main events. It starts off with Donald Trump being let off the witness hook.
21. The Melbourne Herald-Sun has webbed an abridged Bloomberg report - the part that focuses upon the Radler item.
22. The blog "Media Bistro" has stripped away the surrounding wordage to distill a partial list of the items that Mr. Black bought for the apartment.
----------
The Sun-Times also has a report today on the current status of the charges against R.Kelly, which makes me wonder how long before "Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band" will be picked over for hip-hop sampling. (A related Onion-esque joke: "Yesterday, a new witness was called in the criminal trial of 'Big X' for statutory rape: his and the alleged victim's eldest son, now seven years old....")
Also, an editorial in the Canada Free Press compares Ontario premier Dalton McGuinty to David Radler, through drawing a parallel to Mr. Radler's testimony and Premier McGuinty's pledge back in 2003 not to raise Ontario taxes; the editorial claims he both broke that promise in 2004 and covered it up through dissembling. Reading that editorial after going through Premier McGuinty's "initiatives" may very well prove to be instructive.
Douglas Bell of the Toronto Life Conrad Black trial blog was quoted at the bottom of Shinan Govani's latest report, whose subject is "Will one Gore gore the other?" Mr. Bell himself has a new entry in the blog, entitled "Ken and Barbie," that continues on the Maclean's conflict-of-interest theme.
Monday, June 4, 2007
Monday Surprises
The first item from today's coverage of the trial, as webbed by 680 News, carries a real surprise: the defense has filed a motion to have David Radler testify as a defense witness. Yes, they want "to require the government to produce F. David Radler for examination in the defence case." The reasons given: "Black's lawyers have since unearthed evidence that Radler had contacted a leading Canadian parole lawyer [John Conroy] before making his plea arrangement with U.S. prosecutors.
"'That Mr. Radler has had the leading Canadian parole lawyer on his legal team since November 2004 is probative of his bias, motive and interest in testifying for the government,' the court filing said.
"'It also impeaches his claims of ignorance about Canadian surrender and parole rules.'"
A report by Paul Waldie, webbed by the Globe and Mail, has some details of Julie Ruder's cross-examination of Kenneth Whyte. She focused in on the payment of a $100,000 bonus as an attempt on Mr. Black's part to wiggle out of the non-compete agreement that the prosecution has conceded to be legitimate. "Mr. Whyte insisted the bonus was for his past work at the paper which had been 'sold out from under him.' He said Lord Black wanted to ensure that they were remained on good terms so they could work together again in future." He added under redirect examination that he and Mr. Black "talked about positions in Chicago or New York. Mr Greenspan said the CanWest non-competition agreement only applied to Canada." Csr. Ruder also brought up bias in her cross-examination.
The second surprise of the day is that Donald Trump will not testify today. According to a Canadian Press report, webbed by the Montreal Gazette, "Conrad Black's fraud trial will have to wait to hear testimony from celebrity property developer Donald Trump, who had been expected to testify in defence of the media magnate on Monday.... Officials at Trump's office would not say why he did not appear Monday as had been expected or comment on trial, but a spokesperson did confirm Trump was still in New York. " The report, which also includes the defense's attempt to call Mr. Radler, says that no-one on the defense team is denying that Mr. Trump will testify sometime this week.
On a BNN interview with Paul Waldie, aired at 1:55 PM, Mr. Waldie disclosed an update on Donald Trump: he isn’t going to be a witness this week, and it’s not likely he’ll be called at all. [This item has been confirmed by the Chicago Tribune.]After Mr. Whyte, some tax experts and apartment experts were next. The defense presented invoices from spends on the Manhattan apartment, but the prosecution said that some of them were potential personal property, not improvements to the apartment itself – “likely that Black would have taken them with him,” in Mr. Waldie’s words.
Mr. Waldie has also updated his earlier report on this morning's trial events, as webbed by the Globe and Mail. It also includes Ms. Ruder showing E-mails to Mr. Whyte "from marketing people at the National Post around the time of the trip. The marketing people were trying to arrange a letter from Lord Black for an upcoming ad in a trade publication. However they were told that Lord Black was out of touch and 'on vacation.'" The apartment expert, Lee Williams, not only testified to what Mr. Waldie mentioned in the interview, but also acknowledged that Mr. Black did take some of the purchased items with him.
An Associated Press summary, webbed by ABC7 Chicago, starts off with this item: "Jurors at Conrad Black's racketeering trial today heard about the media mogul's lavish Park Avenue apartment, which featured a 12-thousand-dollar commode." It also mentions that Mr. Williams is a former tax agent.
The Donald Trump no-show starts off a Reuters report, written by Andrew Stern. It has a quote to that effect: "Edward Greenspan, Black's Toronto-based lawyer, told reporters outside of court 'We're not calling Mr. Trump.' He offered no explanation." The question about the true status of the Bora Bora trip is also referred to: when Csr. Ruder confronted him about it, he replied, "'I don't know about that,'... He later said he felt the issue was not urgent and that he had been able to call Black in the past wherever he was around the world." With regard to the bias issue, Mr. Whyte answered a question about whether or not he's loyal to Mr. Black with, "I no longer work for him. I suppose I'm loyal to him."
A more detailed AP report, by Mike Robinson, has been webbed by the Daily Southtown. It contains a partial itemization of the accessories for the apartment paid for by Mr. Black: "Besides a $12,000 'three-drawer' commode and the $17,000 music system, there were $4,399 towel-holder bars, $17,710 Indian white marble elephants, $9,800 Louis XVI painted stools, a 1920s Chinese carpet for $33,000 and a porcelain bottle that belonged to Napoleon Bonaparte on his campaign in Russia along with a mahogany shaving stand for $12,500.... [There was also a] diamond vault [that] cost $12,000 and Black paid $828 for sofa pillows plus two yards of silk, according to the list. It also included a Brussels carpet that cost $3,255, a mother of pearl Persian box valued at $9,600 and a $9,750 plaque depicting Amazon women." Near its end, it notes that "Williams testified the improvements cost $4.6 million -- exactly what Black and his defense attorneys are claiming. But the government has said no more than $2.3 million in such improvements are provable." A few of these items, as noted above, were taken away, and some others could have. Even more detailed is Canadian Business' version, which works in the above points with the David-Radler-for-the-defense story.
A much briefer report has been put out by UPI, and webbed by Monsters and Critics. It focuses on Donald Trump's no-show, and adds that Mr. Trump's office had no comment on his absence.
The Bloomberg report, written by Joe Schneider and Andrew Harris, begins by recounting the defense's motion to have David Radler testify for the other side. The reason why they are petitioning for it, according to Conrad Black counsel Marc Martin, is that "'Radler is under control of the government.''' It also notes that Mr. Whyte testified that the statement he had given in a 2006 deposition, that the $100,000 bonus he had received from Mr. Black in 2003 was to keep up a good business relationship, was accurate. It also relates that Eric Sussman used a capital-improvement versus removable-item standard to whittle down the $4.6 million figure to $2.3 million. Near its end, it discloses that "Williams also testified that what prosecutors say was a July 2001 journey by the Blacks to Bora Bora aboard Hollinger's corporate jet, which cost the company more than C$558,000, should have really cost as little as C$45,000. The witness said Hollinger had wrongly computed the cost of the trip."
Stephanie Kirchgaessner of the Financial Times is back on the trial beat, with an abbreviated list of the items in the apartment. Her report also notes that Csr. Sussman remembered his previous pronunciation difficulties. (See item #6.) "The posh terminology left prosecutors somewhat mystified. Eric Sussman, the chief prosecutor, did not even attempt to pronounce the word 'Guilloche' and confessed that he did not know what a barbiere was. The term is usually used to describe a shaving stand or table, which comes complete with a basin and mirror." It also has a scoop regarding the Donald Trump no-show: "the businessman’s personal assistant told the FT Mr Trump had been called over the weekend and was told he did not need to appear in court." ("Surprise" indeed.)
A report from Stephen Foley of The Independent explains why Conrad Black's defense team decided not to call Mr. Trump: they believe that they have enough to acquit without his help. Mr. Foley notes that the tesimony of Mr. Williams "appeared to do more harm than good to the Black defence, offering the prosecution an opportunity to give jurors another peek at Lord Black's lavish lifestyle."
Shifting back to the first surprise: a report by Mary Vallis, webbed by the National Post, has more details on the defense motion. It reveals that Csr. Greenspan only had a hunch that Mr. Radler had retained John Conroy, which was confirmed later. The prosecution is arguing against allowing the defense to call Mr. Radler to the stand, for two reasons: one, "the parole lawyer had not spoken directly with Radler other than to send him a bill;" two, "there is an 'insufficient factual basis'" for the recall. "'We believe it's completely collateral,' Sussman said." Judge St. Eve is expected to rule on the motion tomorrow.
Also, CTV's David Akin has a spot on The Verdict, during which he speculated that the reason Mr. Trump wasn't called was the fear that his testimony may have ticked off the jury, and that it was not worth the risk relative to the added benefit. They may also have been worried about the cross-examination. Also (probably the more significant reason,) the already-established presence of Donald Trump might be enough; other witnesses will have covered for the points he would have made. Today marks the end of the defense for Conrad Black; counsel for the other defendants are starting to call witnesses. Mr. Black's legal team will probably recall some witnesses. Other than Mr. Radler, though, those witness will just be “tying up loose ends.” The verdict in the Conrad Black trial might very well come by the end of June. At the end of this episode, Ms. Todd speculated that there must have been some hidden bomb in Mr. Trump's testimony; he would have been an unreliable witness. Donald Trump is the head of a private company; he himself said that the mindset needed to head up a public company is different.
And finally, CBC correspondent Neil Macdonald had a report on CBC's The National, in which he said that it has been assumed that Mr. Black et. al. believes that little defense is needed because the prosecution has failed to prove its case. Hugh Totten said on camera that this attitude is reckless. Mr. Black is still silent outside of court, but he was quite loquacious before Judge St. Eve's rebuke. Csr. Totten also said that Mr. Black's outside statements will come back to haunt him, if he's found guilty, during the sentencing.
----------
Mark Steyn has seen fit to respond to the publicly-raised suspicion that he harbours a conflict of interest regarding the Conrad Black trial. His latest disclosure: "By the way, all this media navel-gazing about 'conflicts of interest' ignores the obvious: as I've said before, I have no financial interest in defending Conrad and nor does Ken. He signed our paycheques, but that was long ago now."
Also, Douglas Bell has excerpted a Times of London column for the Toronto Life Conrad Black trial blog. The column itself compares Conrad Black to Paris Hilton.
If you yourself are intrigued about the recent Angus Reid poll asking (among other questions) whether or not Conrad Black will get a fair trial, Court TV Canada has an online poll that you can cast your vote in, and even supply a reason for your choice. The "No"s have a much greater frequency than in the AR poll, so the Court TV one may have been gamed. Interestingly, though, three "No" submitters said so because they thought that Mr. Black would buy his way out of a conviction through expensive legal talent. Something to consider when interpreting the result of Angus Reid's.
"'That Mr. Radler has had the leading Canadian parole lawyer on his legal team since November 2004 is probative of his bias, motive and interest in testifying for the government,' the court filing said.
"'It also impeaches his claims of ignorance about Canadian surrender and parole rules.'"
A report by Paul Waldie, webbed by the Globe and Mail, has some details of Julie Ruder's cross-examination of Kenneth Whyte. She focused in on the payment of a $100,000 bonus as an attempt on Mr. Black's part to wiggle out of the non-compete agreement that the prosecution has conceded to be legitimate. "Mr. Whyte insisted the bonus was for his past work at the paper which had been 'sold out from under him.' He said Lord Black wanted to ensure that they were remained on good terms so they could work together again in future." He added under redirect examination that he and Mr. Black "talked about positions in Chicago or New York. Mr Greenspan said the CanWest non-competition agreement only applied to Canada." Csr. Ruder also brought up bias in her cross-examination.
The second surprise of the day is that Donald Trump will not testify today. According to a Canadian Press report, webbed by the Montreal Gazette, "Conrad Black's fraud trial will have to wait to hear testimony from celebrity property developer Donald Trump, who had been expected to testify in defence of the media magnate on Monday.... Officials at Trump's office would not say why he did not appear Monday as had been expected or comment on trial, but a spokesperson did confirm Trump was still in New York. " The report, which also includes the defense's attempt to call Mr. Radler, says that no-one on the defense team is denying that Mr. Trump will testify sometime this week.
On a BNN interview with Paul Waldie, aired at 1:55 PM, Mr. Waldie disclosed an update on Donald Trump: he isn’t going to be a witness this week, and it’s not likely he’ll be called at all. [This item has been confirmed by the Chicago Tribune.]After Mr. Whyte, some tax experts and apartment experts were next. The defense presented invoices from spends on the Manhattan apartment, but the prosecution said that some of them were potential personal property, not improvements to the apartment itself – “likely that Black would have taken them with him,” in Mr. Waldie’s words.
Mr. Waldie has also updated his earlier report on this morning's trial events, as webbed by the Globe and Mail. It also includes Ms. Ruder showing E-mails to Mr. Whyte "from marketing people at the National Post around the time of the trip. The marketing people were trying to arrange a letter from Lord Black for an upcoming ad in a trade publication. However they were told that Lord Black was out of touch and 'on vacation.'" The apartment expert, Lee Williams, not only testified to what Mr. Waldie mentioned in the interview, but also acknowledged that Mr. Black did take some of the purchased items with him.
An Associated Press summary, webbed by ABC7 Chicago, starts off with this item: "Jurors at Conrad Black's racketeering trial today heard about the media mogul's lavish Park Avenue apartment, which featured a 12-thousand-dollar commode." It also mentions that Mr. Williams is a former tax agent.
The Donald Trump no-show starts off a Reuters report, written by Andrew Stern. It has a quote to that effect: "Edward Greenspan, Black's Toronto-based lawyer, told reporters outside of court 'We're not calling Mr. Trump.' He offered no explanation." The question about the true status of the Bora Bora trip is also referred to: when Csr. Ruder confronted him about it, he replied, "'I don't know about that,'... He later said he felt the issue was not urgent and that he had been able to call Black in the past wherever he was around the world." With regard to the bias issue, Mr. Whyte answered a question about whether or not he's loyal to Mr. Black with, "I no longer work for him. I suppose I'm loyal to him."
A more detailed AP report, by Mike Robinson, has been webbed by the Daily Southtown. It contains a partial itemization of the accessories for the apartment paid for by Mr. Black: "Besides a $12,000 'three-drawer' commode and the $17,000 music system, there were $4,399 towel-holder bars, $17,710 Indian white marble elephants, $9,800 Louis XVI painted stools, a 1920s Chinese carpet for $33,000 and a porcelain bottle that belonged to Napoleon Bonaparte on his campaign in Russia along with a mahogany shaving stand for $12,500.... [There was also a] diamond vault [that] cost $12,000 and Black paid $828 for sofa pillows plus two yards of silk, according to the list. It also included a Brussels carpet that cost $3,255, a mother of pearl Persian box valued at $9,600 and a $9,750 plaque depicting Amazon women." Near its end, it notes that "Williams testified the improvements cost $4.6 million -- exactly what Black and his defense attorneys are claiming. But the government has said no more than $2.3 million in such improvements are provable." A few of these items, as noted above, were taken away, and some others could have. Even more detailed is Canadian Business' version, which works in the above points with the David-Radler-for-the-defense story.
A much briefer report has been put out by UPI, and webbed by Monsters and Critics. It focuses on Donald Trump's no-show, and adds that Mr. Trump's office had no comment on his absence.
The Bloomberg report, written by Joe Schneider and Andrew Harris, begins by recounting the defense's motion to have David Radler testify for the other side. The reason why they are petitioning for it, according to Conrad Black counsel Marc Martin, is that "'Radler is under control of the government.''' It also notes that Mr. Whyte testified that the statement he had given in a 2006 deposition, that the $100,000 bonus he had received from Mr. Black in 2003 was to keep up a good business relationship, was accurate. It also relates that Eric Sussman used a capital-improvement versus removable-item standard to whittle down the $4.6 million figure to $2.3 million. Near its end, it discloses that "Williams also testified that what prosecutors say was a July 2001 journey by the Blacks to Bora Bora aboard Hollinger's corporate jet, which cost the company more than C$558,000, should have really cost as little as C$45,000. The witness said Hollinger had wrongly computed the cost of the trip."
Stephanie Kirchgaessner of the Financial Times is back on the trial beat, with an abbreviated list of the items in the apartment. Her report also notes that Csr. Sussman remembered his previous pronunciation difficulties. (See item #6.) "The posh terminology left prosecutors somewhat mystified. Eric Sussman, the chief prosecutor, did not even attempt to pronounce the word 'Guilloche' and confessed that he did not know what a barbiere was. The term is usually used to describe a shaving stand or table, which comes complete with a basin and mirror." It also has a scoop regarding the Donald Trump no-show: "the businessman’s personal assistant told the FT Mr Trump had been called over the weekend and was told he did not need to appear in court." ("Surprise" indeed.)
A report from Stephen Foley of The Independent explains why Conrad Black's defense team decided not to call Mr. Trump: they believe that they have enough to acquit without his help. Mr. Foley notes that the tesimony of Mr. Williams "appeared to do more harm than good to the Black defence, offering the prosecution an opportunity to give jurors another peek at Lord Black's lavish lifestyle."
Shifting back to the first surprise: a report by Mary Vallis, webbed by the National Post, has more details on the defense motion. It reveals that Csr. Greenspan only had a hunch that Mr. Radler had retained John Conroy, which was confirmed later. The prosecution is arguing against allowing the defense to call Mr. Radler to the stand, for two reasons: one, "the parole lawyer had not spoken directly with Radler other than to send him a bill;" two, "there is an 'insufficient factual basis'" for the recall. "'We believe it's completely collateral,' Sussman said." Judge St. Eve is expected to rule on the motion tomorrow.
Also, CTV's David Akin has a spot on The Verdict, during which he speculated that the reason Mr. Trump wasn't called was the fear that his testimony may have ticked off the jury, and that it was not worth the risk relative to the added benefit. They may also have been worried about the cross-examination. Also (probably the more significant reason,) the already-established presence of Donald Trump might be enough; other witnesses will have covered for the points he would have made. Today marks the end of the defense for Conrad Black; counsel for the other defendants are starting to call witnesses. Mr. Black's legal team will probably recall some witnesses. Other than Mr. Radler, though, those witness will just be “tying up loose ends.” The verdict in the Conrad Black trial might very well come by the end of June. At the end of this episode, Ms. Todd speculated that there must have been some hidden bomb in Mr. Trump's testimony; he would have been an unreliable witness. Donald Trump is the head of a private company; he himself said that the mindset needed to head up a public company is different.
And finally, CBC correspondent Neil Macdonald had a report on CBC's The National, in which he said that it has been assumed that Mr. Black et. al. believes that little defense is needed because the prosecution has failed to prove its case. Hugh Totten said on camera that this attitude is reckless. Mr. Black is still silent outside of court, but he was quite loquacious before Judge St. Eve's rebuke. Csr. Totten also said that Mr. Black's outside statements will come back to haunt him, if he's found guilty, during the sentencing.
----------
Mark Steyn has seen fit to respond to the publicly-raised suspicion that he harbours a conflict of interest regarding the Conrad Black trial. His latest disclosure: "By the way, all this media navel-gazing about 'conflicts of interest' ignores the obvious: as I've said before, I have no financial interest in defending Conrad and nor does Ken. He signed our paycheques, but that was long ago now."
Also, Douglas Bell has excerpted a Times of London column for the Toronto Life Conrad Black trial blog. The column itself compares Conrad Black to Paris Hilton.
If you yourself are intrigued about the recent Angus Reid poll asking (among other questions) whether or not Conrad Black will get a fair trial, Court TV Canada has an online poll that you can cast your vote in, and even supply a reason for your choice. The "No"s have a much greater frequency than in the AR poll, so the Court TV one may have been gamed. Interestingly, though, three "No" submitters said so because they thought that Mr. Black would buy his way out of a conviction through expensive legal talent. Something to consider when interpreting the result of Angus Reid's.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)