This evening, there have been three webbed article from British newspapers that focus in part on the Conrad Black trial. One of them is a quote collection, the second is a digest, and the third posits the fate of Alfred Taubman as a cautionary tale for Conrad Black:
1. From the Observer, a quote from Eddie Greenspan, "'In America, you do not convict people for being rich.'" Right under it, there's a rejoinder.
2. "The City Diary" in The Independent has a recap of both Julie Ruder's and Edward Greenspan's closing addresses, after mentioning that the trial itself is almost over.
3. From the Times Online, the above-mentioned cautionary tale, entitled "To the slammer, by Gulfstream jet." It's about the former proprietor of Sotheby's, bought with the wealth he had earned by inventing the shopping mall. It presents Mr. Taubman as a poor kid who found his métier as a retailer, through concentrating on the shopping experience. The last part of the article does reveal his colourful side. (Of interest is his insistence that his then-CEO, Diana 'DeDe' Brooks, was the person responsible for agreeing to and implementing the price-fixing arrangement, despite the fact that he went to jail and she didn't. He also insists that he was singled out for jail because he was too rich for too long.)
Saturday, June 23, 2007
Instead Of A Media Roundup
Since there have been no stories webbed about the Conrad Black trial since last night, I've gotten some links from various Websites:
1. The most recent is from Matthew McClearn, in the Canadian Business Black trial blog. With refreshing detachment, he describes Julie Ruder's closing address for the prosecution as "a punchy, well-organized summary of the government’s case." Edward Genson's part of the closing address for Conrad Black is described as "a spirited but disorganized presentation." Gus Newman's part of the closing address for Jack Boultbee was given in a "voice [that] was emphatic throughout, but his argument seemed ad hoc, meandering and loosely structured." The only closing address that rated a compliment from Mr. McClearn was Patrick Tuite's, "whose deft use of analogies seemed to resonate with the audience." This entry was written early Thursday morning, so there are no capsule reviews of Csr. Schachter's closing address for Peter Atkinson. The overall topic is the jury's upcoming task to dissect motive, or lack of, in the case once the jurors are sequestered.
2. From the blog "SOX First," an entry mulling over the possibility that Conrad Black will be acquitted, posted June 13. It ends with: "If Black walks, all the corporate fat cats who have used company money as their own will breathe a sigh of relief."
3. A more recent entry from the same blog calls attention to a speech, by Russell Mokhiber, entitled "Twenty Things You Should Know About Corporate Crime."
4. The aggregation Website "Plugger" has a listing of Conrad Black trial reports from Australian news sources.
5. From the blog "Houston's Clear Thinkers," an entry that criticizes Rudolph Giuliani for shrinking away from the effects of the criminalization push, which he himself started, now that it's engulfed "Scooter" Libby. It mentions a name from the Michael Milken case that's long been forgotten.
6. A posting made about four weeks ago on the Free Republic shows a real diversity of opinion about the case amongst "Freepers."
1. The most recent is from Matthew McClearn, in the Canadian Business Black trial blog. With refreshing detachment, he describes Julie Ruder's closing address for the prosecution as "a punchy, well-organized summary of the government’s case." Edward Genson's part of the closing address for Conrad Black is described as "a spirited but disorganized presentation." Gus Newman's part of the closing address for Jack Boultbee was given in a "voice [that] was emphatic throughout, but his argument seemed ad hoc, meandering and loosely structured." The only closing address that rated a compliment from Mr. McClearn was Patrick Tuite's, "whose deft use of analogies seemed to resonate with the audience." This entry was written early Thursday morning, so there are no capsule reviews of Csr. Schachter's closing address for Peter Atkinson. The overall topic is the jury's upcoming task to dissect motive, or lack of, in the case once the jurors are sequestered.
2. From the blog "SOX First," an entry mulling over the possibility that Conrad Black will be acquitted, posted June 13. It ends with: "If Black walks, all the corporate fat cats who have used company money as their own will breathe a sigh of relief."
3. A more recent entry from the same blog calls attention to a speech, by Russell Mokhiber, entitled "Twenty Things You Should Know About Corporate Crime."
4. The aggregation Website "Plugger" has a listing of Conrad Black trial reports from Australian news sources.
5. From the blog "Houston's Clear Thinkers," an entry that criticizes Rudolph Giuliani for shrinking away from the effects of the criminalization push, which he himself started, now that it's engulfed "Scooter" Libby. It mentions a name from the Michael Milken case that's long been forgotten.
6. A posting made about four weeks ago on the Free Republic shows a real diversity of opinion about the case amongst "Freepers."
Friday, June 22, 2007
Media Roundup: Theatrics and Ethics
The media reports, webbed overnight and today, on the Conrad Black trial have gone into weekend mode once again, both dwinding in number and broadening in focus:
1. Peter Worthington's latest column, as webbed by the Ottawa Sun, begins with an anecdote about a juror who (briefly) took ill, and then turns to a summation of Michael Schachter's closing argument for Peter Atkinson's defense. His main tactic, according to Mr. Worthington, was the pointing out of discrepancies in the prosecution's case: "Like his colleagues, Schecter attacked the prosecution's summation and, aided by graphics, showed how the prosecution was selecting evidence, misleading and even misrepresenting previous testimony in order to bolster their cause." Also focused upon is the main theme of Csr. Schacter's closing argument: there is no evidence presented by the prosecution that implicates Mr. Atkinson. In addition, Mr. Worthington notes the point, also brought up during the closing argument for Jack Boultbee, that "CanWest insisted that Atkinson and Boultbee be included in non-competes, because they didn't want these two top newspaper executives being employed by the rival Globe and Mail or Toronto Star."
2. From Business Week, an article entitled "The Trouble With Business Ethics." The "trouble" that the article focuses upon is found in the narrower area of whistleblowing, and how the protections guaranteed by new laws are clashing with the more traditional right of the accused to face his/her [according to the article, it is sometimes "her"] accuser. This clash surfaces when the whistleblower is found to have made a mistaken accusation, indicating that there's a little more than outraged guilt behind a consequent tendency for a whistleblower's life to become harder after blowing the whistle. (One of the unintended consequences of whistleblowing, and being right, is simply becoming the centre of attention, a role that some employees find too stifling for them.)
3. Ameet Sachdev's latest report from the Chicago Tribune highlights the more theatrical moments of Csr. Schachter's closing address, including the point made that Mr. Radler's testimony hadn't implicated Mr. Atkinson in any criminal activity, nor had any other witnesses. (The article hints [or I discerned] that, had Csr. Schachter not made the last point, he would have left himself wide open to the prosecution saying that he's depending on the testimony of a "'proven liar'" [his own words describing Mr. Radler] to de-implicate his client.)
4. Andrew Clark of the Guardian has a feature that begins with a brief description of Jeffrey Skilling's first six months in jail. After doing so, he reviews the case as it stands, noting that the outcome is still uncertain. He also makes a point long known by public-choice theorists: that it's possible to victimize a large group of people a little, so as to not severally cause them enough pain to complain vociferiously but to bilk them by a large amount jointly. (Trivia note: how many people know that this economist is the grandaddy of public-choice theory?) Mr. Clark does note that there is a difference between Enron and Hollinger Int'l: the former went bust, while the latter hasn't. That difference in outcome, though, is likely to be reflected in the length of the sentence should any of the four be found guilty. America is going through a phase of severity towards white-collar crime.
5. A CP item, webbed by 1130 News, notes that the proceedings are over with for the week. The closing argument for Mr. Atkinson isn't done yet, and the one for Mr. Kipnis has yet to begin. In order to fit in with Judge St. Eve's schedule, those two plus the prosecutorial rebuttal have to be finished by Tuesday.
6. The Toronto Star has webbed a report by Rosie DiManno that compares the Conrad Black trial to the Frank Calabrese, Sr. trial. (Mr. Clark, in the report linked to above, was scrupulous enough to note that the two cases are different.)
7. Rick Salutin suggests in the first part of his latest column, as webbed by Rabble.ca, that the fortunes and misfortunes of Eddie Greenspan have overshadowed those of his client.
8. Chicago Public Radio has an interview with Diantha Parker, the reporter who has been watching the Conrad Black trial for that station. In it, she gave her assessment on how the closing arguments have gone. In the introduction, before starting the interview with Ms. Parker, the interviewer described Conrad Black as "eccentric," and Edward Genson as "ubiquitous." Once Ms. Parker began, she averred that the closing argument had salvaged the government’s case, and described the delivery of it as “compelling.” Julie Ruder’s strength was in tying the prosecution’s case together in the address. Ms. Parker highlighted this phrase from it: “he paid himself not to compete with himself” and said that “there was something about it.” Ms. Parker also noted that the other defendants have tried to “distance” themselves from Conrad Black, and speculated that it’s making the Black defense team “uncomfortable.” She also mentioned the David Radler factor, and brought up the prosecution's statement that the defense's claim that Mr. Radler acted alone is ridiculous. Csr. Genson added the comments on Black’s less-than-pleasing personality, according to Ms. Parker, because it may be a factor in the jury’s reasoning. She ended by opining that there would be something “fishy” if the verdict is returned before July 4th.
9. One of Eddie Greenspan's lines has made a Bloomberg list of quotable quotes from the past week from the world of business: "'The government doesn't have a smoking gun, because there isn't one. David Radler is all they've got.'"
10. A feature piece from Reuters looks at why Canadian shareholders tend to be less assertive complainers than American shareholders do. The perspective showcased in it - that people who hold their tongues are "wimps" - is an interesting one, as it comes from a worldview that respects complainers instead of holding them in contempt. (It did miss an important reason behind such a Canadian custom: lawyers are more respected up here than in the States, so there is a general self-expectation that any complaint you make had better be solid enough to stand up in court, if need be. In my own home city of Toronto, the 911 operator yells at people who make an unserious 911 call, and this raises no hackles. There's a subsidiary, but not universal, custom up here as well: the tendancy to expect people who complain to do something about it themselves.)
11. A third piece comparing the Conrad Black trial to the "Joey the Clown" trial has been written by David Litterick and webbed by the Telegraph. Mr. Litterick, in contrasting the two trials, says that Conrad Black is no Joey the Clown - as the buzz does show.
----------
Steve Skurka' latest entry in the blog "The Crime Sheet" contains a few items suggesting that the American justice system isn't as stellar as it was presented as this past week.
In his summation of the top reports for the Toronto Life Conrad Black trial blog, Douglas Bell relates that any observer in the courtroom yesterday would have seen "a lot of giddy school’s-out behaviour among journos, lawyers and defendants alike." He also takes Mr. Clark to task for being sophistic in the feature report linked to above (item #4.)
1. Peter Worthington's latest column, as webbed by the Ottawa Sun, begins with an anecdote about a juror who (briefly) took ill, and then turns to a summation of Michael Schachter's closing argument for Peter Atkinson's defense. His main tactic, according to Mr. Worthington, was the pointing out of discrepancies in the prosecution's case: "Like his colleagues, Schecter attacked the prosecution's summation and, aided by graphics, showed how the prosecution was selecting evidence, misleading and even misrepresenting previous testimony in order to bolster their cause." Also focused upon is the main theme of Csr. Schacter's closing argument: there is no evidence presented by the prosecution that implicates Mr. Atkinson. In addition, Mr. Worthington notes the point, also brought up during the closing argument for Jack Boultbee, that "CanWest insisted that Atkinson and Boultbee be included in non-competes, because they didn't want these two top newspaper executives being employed by the rival Globe and Mail or Toronto Star."
2. From Business Week, an article entitled "The Trouble With Business Ethics." The "trouble" that the article focuses upon is found in the narrower area of whistleblowing, and how the protections guaranteed by new laws are clashing with the more traditional right of the accused to face his/her [according to the article, it is sometimes "her"] accuser. This clash surfaces when the whistleblower is found to have made a mistaken accusation, indicating that there's a little more than outraged guilt behind a consequent tendency for a whistleblower's life to become harder after blowing the whistle. (One of the unintended consequences of whistleblowing, and being right, is simply becoming the centre of attention, a role that some employees find too stifling for them.)
3. Ameet Sachdev's latest report from the Chicago Tribune highlights the more theatrical moments of Csr. Schachter's closing address, including the point made that Mr. Radler's testimony hadn't implicated Mr. Atkinson in any criminal activity, nor had any other witnesses. (The article hints [or I discerned] that, had Csr. Schachter not made the last point, he would have left himself wide open to the prosecution saying that he's depending on the testimony of a "'proven liar'" [his own words describing Mr. Radler] to de-implicate his client.)
4. Andrew Clark of the Guardian has a feature that begins with a brief description of Jeffrey Skilling's first six months in jail. After doing so, he reviews the case as it stands, noting that the outcome is still uncertain. He also makes a point long known by public-choice theorists: that it's possible to victimize a large group of people a little, so as to not severally cause them enough pain to complain vociferiously but to bilk them by a large amount jointly. (Trivia note: how many people know that this economist is the grandaddy of public-choice theory?) Mr. Clark does note that there is a difference between Enron and Hollinger Int'l: the former went bust, while the latter hasn't. That difference in outcome, though, is likely to be reflected in the length of the sentence should any of the four be found guilty. America is going through a phase of severity towards white-collar crime.
5. A CP item, webbed by 1130 News, notes that the proceedings are over with for the week. The closing argument for Mr. Atkinson isn't done yet, and the one for Mr. Kipnis has yet to begin. In order to fit in with Judge St. Eve's schedule, those two plus the prosecutorial rebuttal have to be finished by Tuesday.
6. The Toronto Star has webbed a report by Rosie DiManno that compares the Conrad Black trial to the Frank Calabrese, Sr. trial. (Mr. Clark, in the report linked to above, was scrupulous enough to note that the two cases are different.)
7. Rick Salutin suggests in the first part of his latest column, as webbed by Rabble.ca, that the fortunes and misfortunes of Eddie Greenspan have overshadowed those of his client.
8. Chicago Public Radio has an interview with Diantha Parker, the reporter who has been watching the Conrad Black trial for that station. In it, she gave her assessment on how the closing arguments have gone. In the introduction, before starting the interview with Ms. Parker, the interviewer described Conrad Black as "eccentric," and Edward Genson as "ubiquitous." Once Ms. Parker began, she averred that the closing argument had salvaged the government’s case, and described the delivery of it as “compelling.” Julie Ruder’s strength was in tying the prosecution’s case together in the address. Ms. Parker highlighted this phrase from it: “he paid himself not to compete with himself” and said that “there was something about it.” Ms. Parker also noted that the other defendants have tried to “distance” themselves from Conrad Black, and speculated that it’s making the Black defense team “uncomfortable.” She also mentioned the David Radler factor, and brought up the prosecution's statement that the defense's claim that Mr. Radler acted alone is ridiculous. Csr. Genson added the comments on Black’s less-than-pleasing personality, according to Ms. Parker, because it may be a factor in the jury’s reasoning. She ended by opining that there would be something “fishy” if the verdict is returned before July 4th.
9. One of Eddie Greenspan's lines has made a Bloomberg list of quotable quotes from the past week from the world of business: "'The government doesn't have a smoking gun, because there isn't one. David Radler is all they've got.'"
10. A feature piece from Reuters looks at why Canadian shareholders tend to be less assertive complainers than American shareholders do. The perspective showcased in it - that people who hold their tongues are "wimps" - is an interesting one, as it comes from a worldview that respects complainers instead of holding them in contempt. (It did miss an important reason behind such a Canadian custom: lawyers are more respected up here than in the States, so there is a general self-expectation that any complaint you make had better be solid enough to stand up in court, if need be. In my own home city of Toronto, the 911 operator yells at people who make an unserious 911 call, and this raises no hackles. There's a subsidiary, but not universal, custom up here as well: the tendancy to expect people who complain to do something about it themselves.)
11. A third piece comparing the Conrad Black trial to the "Joey the Clown" trial has been written by David Litterick and webbed by the Telegraph. Mr. Litterick, in contrasting the two trials, says that Conrad Black is no Joey the Clown - as the buzz does show.
----------
Steve Skurka' latest entry in the blog "The Crime Sheet" contains a few items suggesting that the American justice system isn't as stellar as it was presented as this past week.
In his summation of the top reports for the Toronto Life Conrad Black trial blog, Douglas Bell relates that any observer in the courtroom yesterday would have seen "a lot of giddy school’s-out behaviour among journos, lawyers and defendants alike." He also takes Mr. Clark to task for being sophistic in the feature report linked to above (item #4.)
Thursday, June 21, 2007
The Verdict: Excerpt From Roundtable
Tonight's episode of The Verdict had a brief sounding-out on the Conrad Black trial as part of a "legal roundtable" featuring Clayton Ruby, James Morton and Crown attorney Paul McDermott. Each guest had one comment on the trial.
Csr. Morton thinks that Conrad Black won’t be convicted, nor will the other three. The prosecution hasn’t done enough to meet their onus. If there will be any conviction, it will be on the obstruction of justice charge. Csr. McDermott mentioned the U.S. Attorney's 96% conviction rate, but he also noted that this case may not be typical; the outcome will depend on the facts of the case. Csr. Ruby said that the defense presented the better case, prior to closing arguments; the prosecution has saved their emphasis for the closing argument. Juries in America tend to be sympathetic to the prosecution, though, so the defense may not be as successful as some think.
Csr. Morton thinks that Conrad Black won’t be convicted, nor will the other three. The prosecution hasn’t done enough to meet their onus. If there will be any conviction, it will be on the obstruction of justice charge. Csr. McDermott mentioned the U.S. Attorney's 96% conviction rate, but he also noted that this case may not be typical; the outcome will depend on the facts of the case. Csr. Ruby said that the defense presented the better case, prior to closing arguments; the prosecution has saved their emphasis for the closing argument. Juries in America tend to be sympathetic to the prosecution, though, so the defense may not be as successful as some think.
Defense Closing Arguments, Day 3
According to a Canadian Press report from 680 News, the closing statement for Peter Atkinson has started. Mr. Atkinson's counsel, Michael Schachter "says Atkinson never deceived or defrauded anyone - and the prosecution's own witnesses prove it." Instead, Csr. Schacter argued, the evidence showed that Mr. Atkinson was the guy who tried to put a stop to any irregularities. In addition to the above, an Associated Press report, webbed by WANDTV.com, contains one of Gus Newman's pithy comments, made earlier today: he called David Radler " a 'charade.'" The rest of this report also touches upon the content of the above CP report.
The Bloomberg report, written by Joe Schneider and Bob Van Voris, concentrates upon Csr. Schachter's words. It quotes Csr Schachter as saying, "'This is a criminal case, this isn't a game...' The prosecutors' objective 'is to win regardless of the facts,' he said.... Reaching down to the floor, Schachter twice picked up an armful of binders containing transcripts of Radler's eight days of testimony and slammed them down on a table between him and the jury." The rest of the report recounts a moment from Csr. Newman's closing argument, in which he said that James Thompson's "'silence was deafening'" when the chair of the Audit Committee.
[An update of the same report adds this excerpt from Csr. Schachter: "Atkinson was paid as a bonus for 'quarterbacking the biggest deal in Hollinger history' and the biggest in Canada that year, he told jurors." He also said that Mr. Atkinson had signed a non-compete agreement at Mr. Radler's request, and "only after the company's outside lawyers approved it."]
Reuters' report, written by Andrew Stern, also concentrates upon the closing address for Peter Atkinson. It begins with: "A lawyer for one of Conrad Black's three co-defendants urged jurors on Thursday not to lump the men together when they decide if the four stole millions of dollars from the former media baron's company." It discloses that the reference to the witnesses above was nestled in that context. "'You need to think about this as four separate trials.'"
Further details came from a BNN interview with Amanda Lang, aired at 1:54 PM ET. According to Ms. Lang, Csr. Schachter delivered a “spirited” argument. He said that the prosecution has to show intent, whcih they have not. Ms. Lang described his delivery as quite “stirring” when he said that there was no evidence against his client at all. He had yelled the “game” remark quoted above, including the part that the prosecution will do anything to win.
Csr. Schachter isn't concentrating on the testimony of Mr. Radler; he confined himself to saying that nothing Mr. Radler had testified to implicated his client. He did attack prosecution witnesses Darren Sukonick and the Audit Committee members, claiming that all of them had lied on the stand. Mr. Atkinson, according to Csr. Schacter, did exactly what an innocent man would have done back in '02 and '03. Ms. Lang described the prosecution as looking a little “green around the gills” during his address.
An updated version of the above report, as webbed by CBC News, contains a more complete version of the "game" excerpt mentioned above: "'[Prosecutor Jeff] Cramer stood before you [during opening arguments] and told you something there was no evidence of,' he said." Csr. Scachter then gave this reason for that accuation: "It's to confuse you. It's to make you think Peter was involved in something he had nothing to do with... It's to win regardless of the facts.'" The report also describes this reaction from the jury: "The increasingly weary jury perked up when Schachter began his closing arguments, appeared captivated by the intense former New York prosecutor who famously landed a conviction against home fashion diva Martha Stewart...."
Mary Vallis has some additional details in her report, webbed by the National Post. Noting that " Mr. Atkinson... faces charges of mail and wire fraud and filing false tax returns," it relates that Csr. Schachter said that Mr. Atkinson characterized the non-compete payment as a kind of bonus because none of the proceeds had come from what was due Hollinger International; all of the $2 million had come from the $80 million allocated for the overall non-compete payment from CanWest. (The prosecutors have already acknowledged that Mr. Black's share was legitimate.) More specifically, the funds had come from Mr. Radler's allocation: "'It's [money] coming out of Radler's pocket ...never a dime from Hollinger International,' Mr. Schacter said." He also said that the non-compete agreement with Mr. Atkinson was requested by CanWest. "Mr. Schachter suggested it was odd the government did not call any CanWest executives as witnesses to support the allegation when they had called several buyers in other transactions to testify they did not request non-compete agreements with the men on trial."
WQAD.com has webbed an AP summary report on today's closing arguments. A more detailed version has been webbed by the Houston Chronicle, starts with a recounting of Csr. Newman's testimony, including his exhortation to the jury asking them to question the motives of Mr. Radler. The latter half has highlights from Csr. Schachter's closing argument.
----------
Ms. Vallis has a side report from the trial, posted in the Financial Post's "Black Board," which shows that Eddie Greenspan's Canadianisms have proven to be contagious. Another written scene-shot from Ms. Vallis describes Csr. Newman getting a bit bogged down at the end of his own closing address.
Mark Steyn has piggybacked a comment upon Csr. Schachter's closing address by casting doubt on the ostensibly excellent conviction rate of Patrick J. Fitzgerald's office.
(Lest you think that this is a mere complaint, you may be interested to know that a retired professor of sociology, Jack D. Douglas, has made a career out of looking beyond supposedly hard statistics on human behaviour for the ambiguity within. One of the themes in his work has been the "problematic" element in social-science statistics. If you're interested, he was a young sociologist at the time of the Vietnam War, and he did cut his teeth on body-count-related figures.)
An interesting factoid is in Douglas Bell's latest entry in the Toronto Life Conrad Black trial blog, which explains why there's an otherwise surprising amount of favourable coverage for Conrad Black: Counselor and United States Attorney Patrick J. Fitzgerald sent a former reporter to jail some time ago, for keeping her mouth shut about a source. The entry itself focuses upon the recent prosecutorial hostility to a few Canadian reporters.
The Bloomberg report, written by Joe Schneider and Bob Van Voris, concentrates upon Csr. Schachter's words. It quotes Csr Schachter as saying, "'This is a criminal case, this isn't a game...' The prosecutors' objective 'is to win regardless of the facts,' he said.... Reaching down to the floor, Schachter twice picked up an armful of binders containing transcripts of Radler's eight days of testimony and slammed them down on a table between him and the jury." The rest of the report recounts a moment from Csr. Newman's closing argument, in which he said that James Thompson's "'silence was deafening'" when the chair of the Audit Committee.
[An update of the same report adds this excerpt from Csr. Schachter: "Atkinson was paid as a bonus for 'quarterbacking the biggest deal in Hollinger history' and the biggest in Canada that year, he told jurors." He also said that Mr. Atkinson had signed a non-compete agreement at Mr. Radler's request, and "only after the company's outside lawyers approved it."]
Reuters' report, written by Andrew Stern, also concentrates upon the closing address for Peter Atkinson. It begins with: "A lawyer for one of Conrad Black's three co-defendants urged jurors on Thursday not to lump the men together when they decide if the four stole millions of dollars from the former media baron's company." It discloses that the reference to the witnesses above was nestled in that context. "'You need to think about this as four separate trials.'"
Further details came from a BNN interview with Amanda Lang, aired at 1:54 PM ET. According to Ms. Lang, Csr. Schachter delivered a “spirited” argument. He said that the prosecution has to show intent, whcih they have not. Ms. Lang described his delivery as quite “stirring” when he said that there was no evidence against his client at all. He had yelled the “game” remark quoted above, including the part that the prosecution will do anything to win.
Csr. Schachter isn't concentrating on the testimony of Mr. Radler; he confined himself to saying that nothing Mr. Radler had testified to implicated his client. He did attack prosecution witnesses Darren Sukonick and the Audit Committee members, claiming that all of them had lied on the stand. Mr. Atkinson, according to Csr. Schacter, did exactly what an innocent man would have done back in '02 and '03. Ms. Lang described the prosecution as looking a little “green around the gills” during his address.
An updated version of the above report, as webbed by CBC News, contains a more complete version of the "game" excerpt mentioned above: "'[Prosecutor Jeff] Cramer stood before you [during opening arguments] and told you something there was no evidence of,' he said." Csr. Scachter then gave this reason for that accuation: "It's to confuse you. It's to make you think Peter was involved in something he had nothing to do with... It's to win regardless of the facts.'" The report also describes this reaction from the jury: "The increasingly weary jury perked up when Schachter began his closing arguments, appeared captivated by the intense former New York prosecutor who famously landed a conviction against home fashion diva Martha Stewart...."
Mary Vallis has some additional details in her report, webbed by the National Post. Noting that " Mr. Atkinson... faces charges of mail and wire fraud and filing false tax returns," it relates that Csr. Schachter said that Mr. Atkinson characterized the non-compete payment as a kind of bonus because none of the proceeds had come from what was due Hollinger International; all of the $2 million had come from the $80 million allocated for the overall non-compete payment from CanWest. (The prosecutors have already acknowledged that Mr. Black's share was legitimate.) More specifically, the funds had come from Mr. Radler's allocation: "'It's [money] coming out of Radler's pocket ...never a dime from Hollinger International,' Mr. Schacter said." He also said that the non-compete agreement with Mr. Atkinson was requested by CanWest. "Mr. Schachter suggested it was odd the government did not call any CanWest executives as witnesses to support the allegation when they had called several buyers in other transactions to testify they did not request non-compete agreements with the men on trial."
WQAD.com has webbed an AP summary report on today's closing arguments. A more detailed version has been webbed by the Houston Chronicle, starts with a recounting of Csr. Newman's testimony, including his exhortation to the jury asking them to question the motives of Mr. Radler. The latter half has highlights from Csr. Schachter's closing argument.
----------
Ms. Vallis has a side report from the trial, posted in the Financial Post's "Black Board," which shows that Eddie Greenspan's Canadianisms have proven to be contagious. Another written scene-shot from Ms. Vallis describes Csr. Newman getting a bit bogged down at the end of his own closing address.
Mark Steyn has piggybacked a comment upon Csr. Schachter's closing address by casting doubt on the ostensibly excellent conviction rate of Patrick J. Fitzgerald's office.
(Lest you think that this is a mere complaint, you may be interested to know that a retired professor of sociology, Jack D. Douglas, has made a career out of looking beyond supposedly hard statistics on human behaviour for the ambiguity within. One of the themes in his work has been the "problematic" element in social-science statistics. If you're interested, he was a young sociologist at the time of the Vietnam War, and he did cut his teeth on body-count-related figures.)
An interesting factoid is in Douglas Bell's latest entry in the Toronto Life Conrad Black trial blog, which explains why there's an otherwise surprising amount of favourable coverage for Conrad Black: Counselor and United States Attorney Patrick J. Fitzgerald sent a former reporter to jail some time ago, for keeping her mouth shut about a source. The entry itself focuses upon the recent prosecutorial hostility to a few Canadian reporters.
Media Roundup: Strange It Should Change?
The media reports, webbed overnight and this morning, on the Conrad Black trial focused on the end of the closing argument for Mr. Black's defense, with some adding details about the one for Jack Boultbee:
1. Romina Maurino has written a report, webbed by the Hamilton Spectator, which summarizes the final part of the closing argument for Conrad Black's defense as given by Edward Genson.
2. A CP forecast report, webbed by the Brandon Sun, says that the closing argument for Mr. Boultbee's defense will wind up today, and will be followed by the closing argument for Peter Atkinson. [Ms. Maurino is credited for it in the version webbed by the Montreal Gazette.]
3. The report from Ameet Sachdev of the Chicago Tribune covers the parts of both closing arguments that were made yesterday. Edward Genson "blasted the government for making a contract dispute into a crime" with regard to the Manhattan apartment. "'The allegation suggesting that there was criminal intent is absurd,' Genson said." It also contains three points made by Gus Newman for Jack Boultbee: first of all, he stated that the documents don't change the story they convey; secondly, he "showed the jurors a 2002 memo sent to Hollinger's audit committee outlining non-compete payments to the executives that contradicted the testimony of the three audit committee members who said they were unaware of the transfer;" thirdly, he showed a memo sent to David Radler in 2000 that outlined "the tax-free status of non-compete payments in Canada..." which was inconsistent with Mr. Radler's claim on the stand that he had no knowledge of that status. Mr. Newman also noted that Mr. Boultbee, the alleged defrauder of Hollinger Int'l, was asked to testify on its behalf "in a civil lawsuit just a month before the fraud trial started."
4. The last hour of Csr. Genson's closing argument is mentioned in item #7, "Perks," in the Boston Globe's "Business Notebook."
5. The Ottawa Sun has webbed a Peter Worthington column "From The Trial," which starts off with: " As defence summations continue, the prosecution's case in the Conrad Black trial seems to get increasingly frail and, judging from its outline of evidence on the very first day, it was never very robust." He includes a couple of anecdotes about prosecutors complaining about the press coverage they got, concluding: "Clearly the prosecutors are touchy these days."
6. Toronto Star columnist "Slinger" has devoted part of his colmn to a faux-lament about the closure that the verdict in the trial will bring.
7. Also from the Star, Rosie DiManno has penned a polite piece about Barbara Black's ex-husband, George Jonas, showing up to watch the trial.
8. Thirdly, a report from the Star's Rick Westhead notes that Csr. Genson's last hour actually lasted about 75 minutes. His report also includes one of Csr. Newman's gags, as well as the introduction of a letter asking Mr. Radler to account for all of the non-compete payments except for the CanWest ones. Not asking for "any details regarding the CanWest deal... indicates there was nothing wrong with the transaction, Newman said."
9. Another Sun columnist, Lorrie Goldstein, has written about the trial. This latest column, as webbed by the Edmonton Sun, muses about the divergence in coverage, between Peter Worthington and Rosie DiManno, of Eddie Greenspan's part of the closing argument. [They're both linked to here: items #7 and #19, respectively.]
10. BNN aired an interview with Amanda Lang, at 8:24 AM. She began by reviewing Csr. Genson’s finish, and then mentioned the closing argument for Jack Boultbee. The other defendants are more focused on the credibility of David Radler because his testimony’s more central to the charges they face.
The prosecution depends in part on the jury lumping the four defendants together. There is a possibility that one defendant will be convicted while another, or others, will walk. (The former may not be Conrad Black either; Peter Atkinson's chances may not be that good.) There are no proceedings tomorrow. The defense will probably finish with all four closing arguments on Monday, followed by the prosecutorial rebuttal on Tuesday.
11. Mary Wisniewski of the Chicago Sun-Times has focused on both closing arguments in her latest report. It contains a one-liner from Csr. Newman about the documents in the case: "'Just because you don't like the contents doesn't mean you can suddenly erase them.'"
12. The Elgin Courier News' "News Tracker" has an item, distilled from Associated Press reports, on the end of Csr. Genson's closing argument.
13. The Montreal Gazette has webbed Mary Vallis' report, entitled "Not Black's fault that he is rich: defence." It sums up the entire closing argument for Conrad Black.
14. The latest report by Paul Waldie, webbed by the Globe and Mail, goes into two other legal disputes that Conrad Black is facing. The first part details the Sotheby Realty lawsuit against Mr. Black. The second part details another lawsuit that was launched by Hollinger Inc. against Sun-Times Media Group, which has been in progress for some time but was stayed for the length of the criminal trial. The latter suit is "over a decision Lord Black made 10 years ago to transfer newspapers from the Canadian parent to the Chicago-based company. Hollinger Inc. alleges the move deprived it of valuable assets, but Sun-Times recently filed motions to dismiss the claim."
(Evidently, Hollinger Inc. has already decided that it has good reason to sue STMG for actions done when the latter was still Hollinger Int'l. The new CEO of Hollinger Inc., Wesley Voorheis, has been the 'chief litigating officer' for the company.)
15. A mention of both the trial and Conrad Black's latest book, Invincible Quest, appears in the "Strewth" column in the Australian.
----------
Mark Steyn, in his Maclean's Conrad Black trial blog, has passed along Patrick Tuite's attempted impugnment of Jonathan Rosenberg's testimony at the trial, after displaying his own suspicions about pecuniary (careerist) motives for Csr. Rosenberg to shade the truth a little.
680 News has webbed a broadly related news item: a Supreme Court decision (8-1) that imposes a rigorous standard for the courts to hold plaintiffs to for securities lawsuits. Judges that are presented with such suits "must weigh possible innocent explanations for defendants' conduct at the very start of a securities fraud case. Doing so can lead to early dismissal of investors' lawsuits."
1. Romina Maurino has written a report, webbed by the Hamilton Spectator, which summarizes the final part of the closing argument for Conrad Black's defense as given by Edward Genson.
2. A CP forecast report, webbed by the Brandon Sun, says that the closing argument for Mr. Boultbee's defense will wind up today, and will be followed by the closing argument for Peter Atkinson. [Ms. Maurino is credited for it in the version webbed by the Montreal Gazette.]
3. The report from Ameet Sachdev of the Chicago Tribune covers the parts of both closing arguments that were made yesterday. Edward Genson "blasted the government for making a contract dispute into a crime" with regard to the Manhattan apartment. "'The allegation suggesting that there was criminal intent is absurd,' Genson said." It also contains three points made by Gus Newman for Jack Boultbee: first of all, he stated that the documents don't change the story they convey; secondly, he "showed the jurors a 2002 memo sent to Hollinger's audit committee outlining non-compete payments to the executives that contradicted the testimony of the three audit committee members who said they were unaware of the transfer;" thirdly, he showed a memo sent to David Radler in 2000 that outlined "the tax-free status of non-compete payments in Canada..." which was inconsistent with Mr. Radler's claim on the stand that he had no knowledge of that status. Mr. Newman also noted that Mr. Boultbee, the alleged defrauder of Hollinger Int'l, was asked to testify on its behalf "in a civil lawsuit just a month before the fraud trial started."
4. The last hour of Csr. Genson's closing argument is mentioned in item #7, "Perks," in the Boston Globe's "Business Notebook."
5. The Ottawa Sun has webbed a Peter Worthington column "From The Trial," which starts off with: " As defence summations continue, the prosecution's case in the Conrad Black trial seems to get increasingly frail and, judging from its outline of evidence on the very first day, it was never very robust." He includes a couple of anecdotes about prosecutors complaining about the press coverage they got, concluding: "Clearly the prosecutors are touchy these days."
6. Toronto Star columnist "Slinger" has devoted part of his colmn to a faux-lament about the closure that the verdict in the trial will bring.
7. Also from the Star, Rosie DiManno has penned a polite piece about Barbara Black's ex-husband, George Jonas, showing up to watch the trial.
8. Thirdly, a report from the Star's Rick Westhead notes that Csr. Genson's last hour actually lasted about 75 minutes. His report also includes one of Csr. Newman's gags, as well as the introduction of a letter asking Mr. Radler to account for all of the non-compete payments except for the CanWest ones. Not asking for "any details regarding the CanWest deal... indicates there was nothing wrong with the transaction, Newman said."
9. Another Sun columnist, Lorrie Goldstein, has written about the trial. This latest column, as webbed by the Edmonton Sun, muses about the divergence in coverage, between Peter Worthington and Rosie DiManno, of Eddie Greenspan's part of the closing argument. [They're both linked to here: items #7 and #19, respectively.]
10. BNN aired an interview with Amanda Lang, at 8:24 AM. She began by reviewing Csr. Genson’s finish, and then mentioned the closing argument for Jack Boultbee. The other defendants are more focused on the credibility of David Radler because his testimony’s more central to the charges they face.
The prosecution depends in part on the jury lumping the four defendants together. There is a possibility that one defendant will be convicted while another, or others, will walk. (The former may not be Conrad Black either; Peter Atkinson's chances may not be that good.) There are no proceedings tomorrow. The defense will probably finish with all four closing arguments on Monday, followed by the prosecutorial rebuttal on Tuesday.
11. Mary Wisniewski of the Chicago Sun-Times has focused on both closing arguments in her latest report. It contains a one-liner from Csr. Newman about the documents in the case: "'Just because you don't like the contents doesn't mean you can suddenly erase them.'"
12. The Elgin Courier News' "News Tracker" has an item, distilled from Associated Press reports, on the end of Csr. Genson's closing argument.
13. The Montreal Gazette has webbed Mary Vallis' report, entitled "Not Black's fault that he is rich: defence." It sums up the entire closing argument for Conrad Black.
14. The latest report by Paul Waldie, webbed by the Globe and Mail, goes into two other legal disputes that Conrad Black is facing. The first part details the Sotheby Realty lawsuit against Mr. Black. The second part details another lawsuit that was launched by Hollinger Inc. against Sun-Times Media Group, which has been in progress for some time but was stayed for the length of the criminal trial. The latter suit is "over a decision Lord Black made 10 years ago to transfer newspapers from the Canadian parent to the Chicago-based company. Hollinger Inc. alleges the move deprived it of valuable assets, but Sun-Times recently filed motions to dismiss the claim."
(Evidently, Hollinger Inc. has already decided that it has good reason to sue STMG for actions done when the latter was still Hollinger Int'l. The new CEO of Hollinger Inc., Wesley Voorheis, has been the 'chief litigating officer' for the company.)
15. A mention of both the trial and Conrad Black's latest book, Invincible Quest, appears in the "Strewth" column in the Australian.
----------
Mark Steyn, in his Maclean's Conrad Black trial blog, has passed along Patrick Tuite's attempted impugnment of Jonathan Rosenberg's testimony at the trial, after displaying his own suspicions about pecuniary (careerist) motives for Csr. Rosenberg to shade the truth a little.
680 News has webbed a broadly related news item: a Supreme Court decision (8-1) that imposes a rigorous standard for the courts to hold plaintiffs to for securities lawsuits. Judges that are presented with such suits "must weigh possible innocent explanations for defendants' conduct at the very start of a securities fraud case. Doing so can lead to early dismissal of investors' lawsuits."
Wednesday, June 20, 2007
The Verdict: How'd He Do?
Tonight's episode of The Verdict had a short segment assessing the state of Conrad Black's defense. There were two guests, former prosecutor Pat Woodward and regular Steve Skurka.
Csr. Woodward said that the closing argument was fairly effective for the defense. Both counsels concentrated on the crucial witness. Csr. Skurka added that jurors were offered a break, but they refused it. They want to get the trial over with, and they are still engaged.
The two weakest counts are the perk count and the obstruction of justice charge, according to Csr. Skurka. As far as the others are concerned, Csr. Woodward observed, the money trail is significant. There's the self-dealing and the buyers testifying that they didn't ask for the non-compete agreements. If their testimony is found to be credible by the jury, then there will be a conviction on the associated counts. Csr. Skurka brought up the expert counter-testimony about requests not being obligatory, and the performance of the Audit Committee. Csr. Woodward asked him about any intent to deceive on the committee members' part: the jurors may find it difficult to believe that their former governor, James Thompson, had lied to save his skin. Csr. Skurka replied that five witnesses contradicted him while they were on the stand.
Csr. Skurka then gave a forecast. The prosecution has 2 hours’ worth of rebuttal, after which the instructions to the jury will be given: there could be a verdict by the end of next week.
Csr. Woodward said that the closing argument was fairly effective for the defense. Both counsels concentrated on the crucial witness. Csr. Skurka added that jurors were offered a break, but they refused it. They want to get the trial over with, and they are still engaged.
The two weakest counts are the perk count and the obstruction of justice charge, according to Csr. Skurka. As far as the others are concerned, Csr. Woodward observed, the money trail is significant. There's the self-dealing and the buyers testifying that they didn't ask for the non-compete agreements. If their testimony is found to be credible by the jury, then there will be a conviction on the associated counts. Csr. Skurka brought up the expert counter-testimony about requests not being obligatory, and the performance of the Audit Committee. Csr. Woodward asked him about any intent to deceive on the committee members' part: the jurors may find it difficult to believe that their former governor, James Thompson, had lied to save his skin. Csr. Skurka replied that five witnesses contradicted him while they were on the stand.
Csr. Skurka then gave a forecast. The prosecution has 2 hours’ worth of rebuttal, after which the instructions to the jury will be given: there could be a verdict by the end of next week.
Defense Closing Arguments, Day 2
Again, Mark Steyn has the first details of the second defense closing argument, made by Gus Newman for Jack Boultbee. Csr. Newman has continued with a tactic that Edward Genson had used yesterday afternoon and earlier this morning: showing that the prosecution's closing argument was merely glib. In addition to reviewing the documents that the Audit Committee had seen, he also brought up the testimony of Pat Ryan, the only defense witness deemed hostile.
The last part of a report by Romina Maurino, as webbed by Canada East, has other details on Csr. Newman's closing argument. The bulk of it has excerpts from the end of the closing argument for Conrad Black. One that covers the entire case is Csr. Genson saying that "the government 'overreached' in going after Black." He "accused prosecutors of manipulating the facts to produce their case." Csr. Newman himself has insisted, "'The documents are the documents and they speak volumes.'" He also said that witnesses can't go up on the stand and deny responsibility for their previous actions in the way the Audit Committee members had.
The Chicago Tribune has webbed an Associated Press report that concentrates almost exclusively on Csr. Genson's final hour - particularly, his attempt to humanize Mr. Black. At its end, it mentions that "U.S. District Judge Amy J. St. Eve said Tuesday it appeared likely that closing arguments will spill over into next week. "
Mr. Steyn is back in running-commentary mode today, with four entries subsequent to the one linked to at the top of this entry (as of 1:50 PM ET.) The most recent one features a clever argument from Csr. Newman: it is reasonable for a newspaper proprietor to ask for a non-compete agreement from a comptroller of a competing media company as a take-out maneuver, or as a disguised 'yellow-dog' contract, to prevent him from skipping off to a less distant competitor. (For example, Mr. Boultbee would have to tell a head-hunter that he couldn't work for any media company that CanWest directly competes with, else he's in breach of his agreement, for as long as it's in force.)
Speaking of other media companies, BNN aired an interview with Amanda Lang, aired at 1:53 PM ET. She reported that Csr. Newman is also focusing on attacking David Radler; he also said that the Audit Committee had approved Mr. Boultbee’s non-compete agreement four times. At the end of the interview, Ms. Lang noted that this case is very complex - not necessarily boring, just complex.
Andrew Stern of Reuters confines his report to the final hour of Csr. Genson's part of the closing argument. The report starts off with an encapsulation of Edward Genson's final argument: "Conrad Black is a stubborn but innocent man, the victim of manipulative, over-reaching government prosecutors and shareholders who wanted to break up his publishing company..." It also notes that Csr. Genson had explained the "intemperate-sounding" E-mails introduced by the prosecution as written by a man dogged by institutional investors, and was fighting back. With regard to the obstruction-of-justice charge, "Genson told jurors [it] amounted to piling on[, as well as a deflection maneuver]... the charge was just an excuse for prosecutors to present jurors with a video tape showing Black removing the boxes."
A report webbed by CBC News contains an explanation of the term "piling on" by Chicago Tribune reporter Ameet Sachdev: "[Mr.] Sachdev told CBC News that Genson said some the multiple charges amounted to 'piling on by the government — that there was no criminal intent in those activities and were … issues for contract law and civil court.'" The bulk of the report deals with Csr. Genson's final hour. So does the Telegraph report by David Litterick.
The first half of Mary Vallis' report, webbed by the Financial Post, does so too. Near its end, though, it relays this part of Csr. Newman's closing argument: he "reminded the jury of testimony from experts who said non-compete agreements can not only be requested by buyers, but also by sellers and advisors helping to negotiate a transaction." This testimony showed that non-competes requested by sellers can be legitimate too. The report also contains a one-liner from Csr. Newman, which capped a gag between he and Eric Sussman.
CBC Newsworld aired an interview with John Hueston, as of 3:19 PM ET, about the performance of the defense during their closing arguments. Mr. Hueston offered this advice: the defense needs to keep “hammering” away at David Radler’s credibility. If Radler's testimony is impugned, then the government has no case. “He himself defines ‘reasonable doubt’.” Questioning the prosecutors’ motives for laying the charges is also a good strategy.
Eddie Greenspan’s apology might help Conrad Black's defense because jurors tend to be suspicious of “hired guns.” But, the apology has to be followed through upon in order to make it effective.
The prosecution has the last word, so the defense has to watch it during their closing arguments. One useful tactic is to drop some baits in the arguments, ones that would encourage the prosecutors to use up their reply right on case peripherals. It’s reasonable to expect the jurors to deliberate on the case for at least a week.
CTV NewsNet has an interview with Steve Skurka, about both closing arguments in today's proceedings. Csr. Genson was much more effective today than he was yesterday afternoon. With respect to the obstruction of justice charge, he emphasized that there was no evidence presented that Black knew about the SEC order. Csr. Skurka described the class-bias issue, used by the defesne, as the “class card.” Gus Newman's strategy of asking the jury to rely upon the documents is a powerful one. Documents can’t be altered, nor can they change their story.
With respect to Csr. Genson's final hour, Paul Waldie has written a detailed recounting of it. Part of his write-up reports on how Csr. Genson dealt with the Manhattan apartment: "Lord Black's purchase followed the letter of a deal he struck with the company years earlier. That deal may be faulty, [Csr. Genson] told the jury, but that doesn't make the transaction illegal. 'This is what they agreed to,' he said. In fact, Mr. Genson argued, Hollinger did not live up to the terms of the deal." The latter half reviews Csr. Greenspan's part of the closing argument, and ends with how Csr. Genson accounted for the Bora Bora trip.
A report by Michael Sean Comerford, webbed by the Illinois Daily Herald, has the same focus. It quotes Mark Steyn's description of Edward Genson, and notes that the unloading Hollinger Int'l's assets was decided upon to reduce its outstanding debt.
According to the Bloomberg report, written by Joe Schneider and Andrew Harris, Csr. Genson said that "[f]ormer Hollinger International Inc. Chairman Conrad Black deserved a free New York apartment and a partially paid birthday party for his wife because he was the 'face' of the company." With regard to the apartment, Csr. Genson "reminded jurors that Hollinger had agreed to pay for furnishings and upgrades to the apartment.... Hollinger breached its agreement with Black by not paying for the furnishings... Black ended up paying $4.5 million for improvements over the six years and was reimbursed for only $2,181 by the company..." Near its end, it relates that Csr. Newman, as part of his closing address, showed taped testimony from Beth DeMerchant, in which she said that it was likely that Mr. Boultbee would be receiving a non-compete payment for the CanWest deal. He also said that the $80 million was already set aside from the proceeds anyway, adding that Mr.Boultbee didn't take a nickel from Hollinger Int'l at the point that a payment was journalled to him.
There was another interview with Amanda Lang aired on BNN, at 5:33 PM, in which she reported that the defense continued with some points they established yesterday. They’re having some success “undermining the government’s credibility.” Not only Csr. Genson but Csr. Newman are doing this. The still-stuck-to Radler theme is: he’s a liar, and he masterminded any scheme that was hatched.
Both Csr. Newman and Patrick Tuite spoke for Mr. Boultbee today. Csr. Newman said he didn’t want to speak for very long so the jury could sequester and end the nightmare for his client. He also said that the CanWest non-compete payment for Mr. Boultbee was legitimate, so why would Mr. Boultbee question the others he had received?
Co-host Kevin O’Leary asked, if the CanWest non-compete payments were okay, then what’s wrong with the others? Ms. Lang replied that a certain answer to this question is at the heart of the prosecution's theory: in order to be legitimate, the buyer has to request the attached non-compete agreements. The trouble for the prosecution, though, is that the buyers did voluntarily sign the purchase contracts with the non-compete agreements, and payments, in them.
The interpretation of the ostrich instruction is really up to the jury. Regarding the jurors' attentiveness, Ms. Lang said that there were enough note-takers to get all the evidence into the jury room, and that the bulk of the jurors are attentive. The attention level becomes crucial when Judge St. Eve's instructions are given.
----------
Roger Martin, in the Toronto Life Conrad Black trial blog, explains why he's skeptical about the predictions of conviction: in a name, Allan Funk. He makes the point that "the prosecution [uses the theme that] greedy, wily, and arrogant equates to fraudulent, and I suspect the defence will counter with greedy, wily and arrogant equates only to unseemly."
Also, from the same blog, Douglas Bell has written a recounting of the closing argument for Conrad Black's defense. He points out some of Eddie Greenspan's foibles in it, but concludes that he did a credible job. The last paragraph deals with Csr. Genson's end-of-day slump yesterday and this morning's recovery.
The last part of a report by Romina Maurino, as webbed by Canada East, has other details on Csr. Newman's closing argument. The bulk of it has excerpts from the end of the closing argument for Conrad Black. One that covers the entire case is Csr. Genson saying that "the government 'overreached' in going after Black." He "accused prosecutors of manipulating the facts to produce their case." Csr. Newman himself has insisted, "'The documents are the documents and they speak volumes.'" He also said that witnesses can't go up on the stand and deny responsibility for their previous actions in the way the Audit Committee members had.
The Chicago Tribune has webbed an Associated Press report that concentrates almost exclusively on Csr. Genson's final hour - particularly, his attempt to humanize Mr. Black. At its end, it mentions that "U.S. District Judge Amy J. St. Eve said Tuesday it appeared likely that closing arguments will spill over into next week. "
Mr. Steyn is back in running-commentary mode today, with four entries subsequent to the one linked to at the top of this entry (as of 1:50 PM ET.) The most recent one features a clever argument from Csr. Newman: it is reasonable for a newspaper proprietor to ask for a non-compete agreement from a comptroller of a competing media company as a take-out maneuver, or as a disguised 'yellow-dog' contract, to prevent him from skipping off to a less distant competitor. (For example, Mr. Boultbee would have to tell a head-hunter that he couldn't work for any media company that CanWest directly competes with, else he's in breach of his agreement, for as long as it's in force.)
Speaking of other media companies, BNN aired an interview with Amanda Lang, aired at 1:53 PM ET. She reported that Csr. Newman is also focusing on attacking David Radler; he also said that the Audit Committee had approved Mr. Boultbee’s non-compete agreement four times. At the end of the interview, Ms. Lang noted that this case is very complex - not necessarily boring, just complex.
Andrew Stern of Reuters confines his report to the final hour of Csr. Genson's part of the closing argument. The report starts off with an encapsulation of Edward Genson's final argument: "Conrad Black is a stubborn but innocent man, the victim of manipulative, over-reaching government prosecutors and shareholders who wanted to break up his publishing company..." It also notes that Csr. Genson had explained the "intemperate-sounding" E-mails introduced by the prosecution as written by a man dogged by institutional investors, and was fighting back. With regard to the obstruction-of-justice charge, "Genson told jurors [it] amounted to piling on[, as well as a deflection maneuver]... the charge was just an excuse for prosecutors to present jurors with a video tape showing Black removing the boxes."
A report webbed by CBC News contains an explanation of the term "piling on" by Chicago Tribune reporter Ameet Sachdev: "[Mr.] Sachdev told CBC News that Genson said some the multiple charges amounted to 'piling on by the government — that there was no criminal intent in those activities and were … issues for contract law and civil court.'" The bulk of the report deals with Csr. Genson's final hour. So does the Telegraph report by David Litterick.
The first half of Mary Vallis' report, webbed by the Financial Post, does so too. Near its end, though, it relays this part of Csr. Newman's closing argument: he "reminded the jury of testimony from experts who said non-compete agreements can not only be requested by buyers, but also by sellers and advisors helping to negotiate a transaction." This testimony showed that non-competes requested by sellers can be legitimate too. The report also contains a one-liner from Csr. Newman, which capped a gag between he and Eric Sussman.
CBC Newsworld aired an interview with John Hueston, as of 3:19 PM ET, about the performance of the defense during their closing arguments. Mr. Hueston offered this advice: the defense needs to keep “hammering” away at David Radler’s credibility. If Radler's testimony is impugned, then the government has no case. “He himself defines ‘reasonable doubt’.” Questioning the prosecutors’ motives for laying the charges is also a good strategy.
Eddie Greenspan’s apology might help Conrad Black's defense because jurors tend to be suspicious of “hired guns.” But, the apology has to be followed through upon in order to make it effective.
The prosecution has the last word, so the defense has to watch it during their closing arguments. One useful tactic is to drop some baits in the arguments, ones that would encourage the prosecutors to use up their reply right on case peripherals. It’s reasonable to expect the jurors to deliberate on the case for at least a week.
CTV NewsNet has an interview with Steve Skurka, about both closing arguments in today's proceedings. Csr. Genson was much more effective today than he was yesterday afternoon. With respect to the obstruction of justice charge, he emphasized that there was no evidence presented that Black knew about the SEC order. Csr. Skurka described the class-bias issue, used by the defesne, as the “class card.” Gus Newman's strategy of asking the jury to rely upon the documents is a powerful one. Documents can’t be altered, nor can they change their story.
With respect to Csr. Genson's final hour, Paul Waldie has written a detailed recounting of it. Part of his write-up reports on how Csr. Genson dealt with the Manhattan apartment: "Lord Black's purchase followed the letter of a deal he struck with the company years earlier. That deal may be faulty, [Csr. Genson] told the jury, but that doesn't make the transaction illegal. 'This is what they agreed to,' he said. In fact, Mr. Genson argued, Hollinger did not live up to the terms of the deal." The latter half reviews Csr. Greenspan's part of the closing argument, and ends with how Csr. Genson accounted for the Bora Bora trip.
A report by Michael Sean Comerford, webbed by the Illinois Daily Herald, has the same focus. It quotes Mark Steyn's description of Edward Genson, and notes that the unloading Hollinger Int'l's assets was decided upon to reduce its outstanding debt.
According to the Bloomberg report, written by Joe Schneider and Andrew Harris, Csr. Genson said that "[f]ormer Hollinger International Inc. Chairman Conrad Black deserved a free New York apartment and a partially paid birthday party for his wife because he was the 'face' of the company." With regard to the apartment, Csr. Genson "reminded jurors that Hollinger had agreed to pay for furnishings and upgrades to the apartment.... Hollinger breached its agreement with Black by not paying for the furnishings... Black ended up paying $4.5 million for improvements over the six years and was reimbursed for only $2,181 by the company..." Near its end, it relates that Csr. Newman, as part of his closing address, showed taped testimony from Beth DeMerchant, in which she said that it was likely that Mr. Boultbee would be receiving a non-compete payment for the CanWest deal. He also said that the $80 million was already set aside from the proceeds anyway, adding that Mr.Boultbee didn't take a nickel from Hollinger Int'l at the point that a payment was journalled to him.
There was another interview with Amanda Lang aired on BNN, at 5:33 PM, in which she reported that the defense continued with some points they established yesterday. They’re having some success “undermining the government’s credibility.” Not only Csr. Genson but Csr. Newman are doing this. The still-stuck-to Radler theme is: he’s a liar, and he masterminded any scheme that was hatched.
Both Csr. Newman and Patrick Tuite spoke for Mr. Boultbee today. Csr. Newman said he didn’t want to speak for very long so the jury could sequester and end the nightmare for his client. He also said that the CanWest non-compete payment for Mr. Boultbee was legitimate, so why would Mr. Boultbee question the others he had received?
Co-host Kevin O’Leary asked, if the CanWest non-compete payments were okay, then what’s wrong with the others? Ms. Lang replied that a certain answer to this question is at the heart of the prosecution's theory: in order to be legitimate, the buyer has to request the attached non-compete agreements. The trouble for the prosecution, though, is that the buyers did voluntarily sign the purchase contracts with the non-compete agreements, and payments, in them.
The interpretation of the ostrich instruction is really up to the jury. Regarding the jurors' attentiveness, Ms. Lang said that there were enough note-takers to get all the evidence into the jury room, and that the bulk of the jurors are attentive. The attention level becomes crucial when Judge St. Eve's instructions are given.
----------
Roger Martin, in the Toronto Life Conrad Black trial blog, explains why he's skeptical about the predictions of conviction: in a name, Allan Funk. He makes the point that "the prosecution [uses the theme that] greedy, wily, and arrogant equates to fraudulent, and I suspect the defence will counter with greedy, wily and arrogant equates only to unseemly."
Also, from the same blog, Douglas Bell has written a recounting of the closing argument for Conrad Black's defense. He points out some of Eddie Greenspan's foibles in it, but concludes that he did a credible job. The last paragraph deals with Csr. Genson's end-of-day slump yesterday and this morning's recovery.
The Close of Genson
As was the case yesterday, Mark Steyn has the first details on today's part of the defense's closing arguments. He reported that Edward Genson has returned to defending the legality of the perks in count 10 of the indictment, and that Csr. Genson has gotten his momentum back.
Mr. Steyn has further details, about how Csr. Genson is debunking the prosecution's allegation that Conrad Black had obstructed justice on that Friday in May, 2005. As with the evidence board, Csr. Genson is using a fact-based approach. Example: "Jeff Cramer telling the jury that Black showed up at the office 'after hours...' Er, Black arrived at 3.41pm. That's not 'after hours', even at US government offices.... Mr Genson put up the security shot of the Toronto St parking lot when Conrad pulled in: it was seven-eighths full."
According to a Canadian Press report, as webbed by 680 News, Csr. Genson has returned to the mind-reader theme to argue that "it should be easy for jurors... to dismiss a charge of racketeering against the former press baron" because the racketeering charge is often used against organized-crime figures that have conspired together to explicitly plot a scheme.
To get back to Mr. Steyn, he's reported that the closing argument for Conrad Black's defense is now over. He quotes Csr. Genson's final words in the trial: "'Conrad Black is a good man. Conrad Black did a lot of good things for Hollinger.... He isn't American but he lived the Dream until this nightmare visited him... The government has over-reached. The government has manipulated the facts. Whatever you do, do him justice.'"
----------
With respect to Eddie Greenspan, Steve Skurka in "The Crime Sheet" has composed a "Top Ten" list explaining why Csr. Greenspan managed to keep the defense case afloat. He ends with a recommendation of a closing argument to watch for: Ron Safer's.
Mr. Steyn has further details, about how Csr. Genson is debunking the prosecution's allegation that Conrad Black had obstructed justice on that Friday in May, 2005. As with the evidence board, Csr. Genson is using a fact-based approach. Example: "Jeff Cramer telling the jury that Black showed up at the office 'after hours...' Er, Black arrived at 3.41pm. That's not 'after hours', even at US government offices.... Mr Genson put up the security shot of the Toronto St parking lot when Conrad pulled in: it was seven-eighths full."
According to a Canadian Press report, as webbed by 680 News, Csr. Genson has returned to the mind-reader theme to argue that "it should be easy for jurors... to dismiss a charge of racketeering against the former press baron" because the racketeering charge is often used against organized-crime figures that have conspired together to explicitly plot a scheme.
To get back to Mr. Steyn, he's reported that the closing argument for Conrad Black's defense is now over. He quotes Csr. Genson's final words in the trial: "'Conrad Black is a good man. Conrad Black did a lot of good things for Hollinger.... He isn't American but he lived the Dream until this nightmare visited him... The government has over-reached. The government has manipulated the facts. Whatever you do, do him justice.'"
----------
With respect to Eddie Greenspan, Steve Skurka in "The Crime Sheet" has composed a "Top Ten" list explaining why Csr. Greenspan managed to keep the defense case afloat. He ends with a recommendation of a closing argument to watch for: Ron Safer's.
Media Roundup: Unsupported?
The media reports, webbed overnight and this morning, on the Conrad Black trial have concentrated on the closing argument for Conrad Black, scheduled to finish up this morning, by Mr. Black's lead co-counsels Eddie Greenspan and Edward Genson:
1. From CNNMoney.com, a report that describes the trial as "the last great corporate fraud trial of the last great stock market bubble" before describing both the prosecution's closing argument address as well as yesterday's tag-team one for Conrad Black.
2. A mention of yesterday's closing argument is item #5 in the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review's "Business Briefs"
3. A brief United Press write-up has been webbed by Monsters and Critics, which begins by mentioning the attack on David Radler before counterpointing the attack on Mr. Black made Monday.
4. Richard Siklos' latest, webbed by the New York Times, starts off with: "It was an enormous betrayal by his former associates — and not any act of criminal fraud — that led Conrad M. Black to the Chicago courtroom where, if convicted, he could face the rest of his days in prison, lawyers for the media baron said in their closing arguments." It mentions the same overall theme that Mr. Siklos brought up in a CBC interview last night - that the prosecution has not delivered on its promises - and contains an important tid-bit about Mr. Radler's plea bargain that was mentioned by Csr. Greenspan yesterday: "if the judge does not approve a reduced sentence (which could be as little as six months), Mr. Radler retains the right to vacate his guilty plea and demand a trial instead."
5. From JournalNow.com, a report that focuses on the attempted impungnment of Mr. Radler's testimony, as unsupported by any documents.
6. The BBC News report starts off with the attack on Mr. Radler, but also mentions Csr. Greenspan's argument that Mr. Black "was being persecuted for his successful career and wealthy lifestyle." The rest of the report contrasts the highlights of the prosecution's closing argument with Csr. Greenspan's argument that the prosecution has failed to meet its burden of proof.
7. Peter Worthington's latest, as webbed by the Ottawa Sun, claims that Conrad Black's defense "not only regained ground lost to the prosecution's summation, but even gained yards." He then reviews the main points made yesterday: the lack of credibility of Mr. Radler; the lack of diligence shown by the Hollinger International audit committee, whom "the SEC considered filing charges against... until prosecutors intervened to clear them if they testified at Conrad's trial;" that all of the non-compete payments fell in a fair range as percentages of the sale prices and were "all open and approved by the audit committee;" and, the bobble made in the prosecution's closing argument that hinged upon a missing set of deposit and withdrawal dates in Mr. Black's bank account - a point made by Csr. Genson, who also put the defense case for the alleged abuse of corporate perks. In the rest of the closing argument for Conrad Black's defesne, Csr. Genson will deal with the obstruction-of-justice charge.
8. The Washington Post has abridged an Associated Press report by Mike Robinson, which notes that Csr. Greenspan spent so much time attacking Mr. Radler because the latter is all the case the government has. The report also notes that "[h]e urged jurors to 'treat and judge Conrad Black the way you treat any of your neighbors.'"
9. In a BNN interview with Amanda Lang, aired at 8:25 AM, she said that the best job done by the lawyers yesterday was pointing out that the paper trail is the defense, not evidence of a supposedly hidden crime. She also brought up the point, made by Csr. Greenspan, that Mr. Black’s character is not on trial. The prosecution had tried to conjure up images of small-shareholder victims in their opening address, but no real victims were ever produced. This is the underlying point behind the "no victims" claim by Conrad Black's defense. There's about an hour left for Edward Genson, and then it’s on to the next closing argument.
10. The Illinois Daily Herald's report mentions that Csr. Greenspan suggested to the jury that the audit committee "approved ([the] non-compete agreements) because there was nothing wrong with them," and that Hollinger Int'l was not exactly a small business that a CEO could successfully micromanage. "While the prosecution spent Monday linking Radler to Black, Greenspan and co-defense attorney Edward Genson said the Hollinger International empire was so vast and complicated that there were 'fiefdoms' within the company and it would have been easy for Radler to deceive his boss and longtime business partner, as he did auditors and others along the way."
11. The latest report by Ameet Sachdev of the Chicago Tribune begins with: "Saying Conrad Black's liberty is at stake, the former media mogul's lawyers in their closing argument Tuesday assailed the government's case as riddled with speculation and hinging on witnesses who cannot be trusted." It highlights the main points made by both co-counsels yesterday.
12. Andrew Clark's latest report for the Guardian is entitled "Black trial based on envy and prejudice, says defence lawyer." It relays Csr. Greenspan's argument that class prejudice may make irrelevant details seem relevant. "He told the court prosecutors had unearthed scores of Lord Black's elaborately worded emails and invoices for jewellery, furniture and rare books 'for no other reason but to inflame you'." It ends with Csr. Greenspan's ending: "'I ask you to return a verdict of not guilty for Conrad Black in the name of justice, in the name of fairness, in the name of equality and in the name of equal treatment under the law.'"
13. A similar theme is the start-off for Mary Vallis' report, as webbed by the Montreal Gazette. Most of it focuses upon Csr. Genson's part of the closing argument. One excerpt: "'You know what's unusual about [the Bora Bora trip, the birthday party and the Manhattan apartment]? [Mr. Black] paid for them,' Genson said. 'They're saying it wasn't enough.'"
14. CBC News: Morning had a brief report by CBC correspondent Mike Hornbrook, as aired at 9:03 AM ET. Mr. Hornbrook related that proceedings ended at about 4:00 – 4:15 PM (CT) yesterday after Genson asked for another rest break, and subsequent to it, said he couldn’t continue. His muscular condition was acting up, which explains why he was “off his game” and “lost it a bit.” (Mr. Hornbrook's words.)
15. Theresa Tedesco of the National Post has written a report entitled "Greenspan finally finds his footing," and it begins with this ironic note: "Back in the days before Conrad Black became an accused felon, his lawyer Edward Greenspan worried he wouldn't be aggressive enough for a U.S. court." The rest of it laces some background, including Monday's prosecution closing address, into a recounting of Csr. Greenspan's part of the closing address for Conrad Black. It ends with: "Julie Ruder's father was asked what he thought of Mr. Greenspan's jury address. 'There really are two sides to a story,' came the reply."
16. Paul Waldie's latest, as webbed by the Globe and Mail, works in all of the main points made yesterday by Csr. Greenspan in court. "He called their evidence absurd, insulting and illogical."
17. Mr. Waldie's second report focuses upon the points made by Csr. Genson yesterday.
18. Jennifer Wells is back on the trial beat with an article, webbed by the Toronto Star, asking: "What did Conrad Black know?" She discusses the non-compete agreement Conrad Black had signed with American Publishing company, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Hollinger Int'l, making it a non-compete agreement between Conrad Black and the company he was the CEO of. It is this agreement that the prosecution has described as Conrad Black signing an agreement 'not to compete with himself.' The theme of Ms. Wells' piece is that the defense's argument that it was above-board isn't that pat, given the related-party nature of the transaction.
19. Another Star feature, by Rosie DiManno, describes Csr. Greenspan's part of the closing argument as less than stellar. "On this occasion... he was pedantic and tedious... the outcome was weirdly flat and unengaging." She ends her latest column by claiming that the class-bias part of the argument was a little over the top.
20. A Canadian Press forecast report, webbed by CBC News, says that lawyers for Jack Boultbee will start once Csr. Genson's hour is up.
21. The Chicago Sun-Times' Mark Brown is still commenting on the closing arguments. This time, he says that what Csr. Greenspan said about Mr. Radler is old news to Sun-Times employees. He also defends his hope for Mr. Black being found guilty.
22. Also from the Sun-Times, a report from Mary Wisniewski entitled "Black's defense says case is based on lies." It contains this quote from Csr. Genson: "Genson said there was no evidence of a plan between the defendants. 'It was like a conspiracy for mind readers.'"
23. From HULIQ.com, two posts on yesterday's proceedings. The first is a review of Monday's closing address for the prosecution by Julie Ruder; the second concentrates upon Csr. Greenspan's class-bias theme.
24. EarthTimes.org has a report that laces a summary of Mr. Radler's testimony into a report entitled "Black's lawyers counter prosecution claims."
25. A report from the Guelph Mercury is the second-last of several that focuses upon the wealth-is-not-a-crime theme. It ends with this quote from Csr. Greenspan: "'(Prosecutor Julie Ruder) said "Make it matter to the victims",' he said. 'Where are the victims? Did we hear from any of these people?'"
26. The Daily Mail report takes up the same theme as the one above.
----------
Two entries in Mark Steyn's Maclean's Conrad Black trial blog discuss the 75%/25% split of non-compete payments between Hollinger Int'l and Hollinger Inc. - the notorious "template." One notes that the two companies were different companies in the same industry, despite them both having the same top executives. The other makes the point that any buyer who neglected to secure a separate non-compete agreement with Hollinger Inc. would run a risk of being called on the carpet for laxity, if not negligence (in the colloquial sense of the term.)
(Mr. Steyn is a journalist and commentator, not a corporate lawyer, but he raises an interesting point that someone in the latter field might want to mull over - as well as this question: does Hollinger Inc. have grounds for suing Hollinger Int'l?)
1. From CNNMoney.com, a report that describes the trial as "the last great corporate fraud trial of the last great stock market bubble" before describing both the prosecution's closing argument address as well as yesterday's tag-team one for Conrad Black.
2. A mention of yesterday's closing argument is item #5 in the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review's "Business Briefs"
3. A brief United Press write-up has been webbed by Monsters and Critics, which begins by mentioning the attack on David Radler before counterpointing the attack on Mr. Black made Monday.
4. Richard Siklos' latest, webbed by the New York Times, starts off with: "It was an enormous betrayal by his former associates — and not any act of criminal fraud — that led Conrad M. Black to the Chicago courtroom where, if convicted, he could face the rest of his days in prison, lawyers for the media baron said in their closing arguments." It mentions the same overall theme that Mr. Siklos brought up in a CBC interview last night - that the prosecution has not delivered on its promises - and contains an important tid-bit about Mr. Radler's plea bargain that was mentioned by Csr. Greenspan yesterday: "if the judge does not approve a reduced sentence (which could be as little as six months), Mr. Radler retains the right to vacate his guilty plea and demand a trial instead."
5. From JournalNow.com, a report that focuses on the attempted impungnment of Mr. Radler's testimony, as unsupported by any documents.
6. The BBC News report starts off with the attack on Mr. Radler, but also mentions Csr. Greenspan's argument that Mr. Black "was being persecuted for his successful career and wealthy lifestyle." The rest of the report contrasts the highlights of the prosecution's closing argument with Csr. Greenspan's argument that the prosecution has failed to meet its burden of proof.
7. Peter Worthington's latest, as webbed by the Ottawa Sun, claims that Conrad Black's defense "not only regained ground lost to the prosecution's summation, but even gained yards." He then reviews the main points made yesterday: the lack of credibility of Mr. Radler; the lack of diligence shown by the Hollinger International audit committee, whom "the SEC considered filing charges against... until prosecutors intervened to clear them if they testified at Conrad's trial;" that all of the non-compete payments fell in a fair range as percentages of the sale prices and were "all open and approved by the audit committee;" and, the bobble made in the prosecution's closing argument that hinged upon a missing set of deposit and withdrawal dates in Mr. Black's bank account - a point made by Csr. Genson, who also put the defense case for the alleged abuse of corporate perks. In the rest of the closing argument for Conrad Black's defesne, Csr. Genson will deal with the obstruction-of-justice charge.
8. The Washington Post has abridged an Associated Press report by Mike Robinson, which notes that Csr. Greenspan spent so much time attacking Mr. Radler because the latter is all the case the government has. The report also notes that "[h]e urged jurors to 'treat and judge Conrad Black the way you treat any of your neighbors.'"
9. In a BNN interview with Amanda Lang, aired at 8:25 AM, she said that the best job done by the lawyers yesterday was pointing out that the paper trail is the defense, not evidence of a supposedly hidden crime. She also brought up the point, made by Csr. Greenspan, that Mr. Black’s character is not on trial. The prosecution had tried to conjure up images of small-shareholder victims in their opening address, but no real victims were ever produced. This is the underlying point behind the "no victims" claim by Conrad Black's defense. There's about an hour left for Edward Genson, and then it’s on to the next closing argument.
10. The Illinois Daily Herald's report mentions that Csr. Greenspan suggested to the jury that the audit committee "approved ([the] non-compete agreements) because there was nothing wrong with them," and that Hollinger Int'l was not exactly a small business that a CEO could successfully micromanage. "While the prosecution spent Monday linking Radler to Black, Greenspan and co-defense attorney Edward Genson said the Hollinger International empire was so vast and complicated that there were 'fiefdoms' within the company and it would have been easy for Radler to deceive his boss and longtime business partner, as he did auditors and others along the way."
11. The latest report by Ameet Sachdev of the Chicago Tribune begins with: "Saying Conrad Black's liberty is at stake, the former media mogul's lawyers in their closing argument Tuesday assailed the government's case as riddled with speculation and hinging on witnesses who cannot be trusted." It highlights the main points made by both co-counsels yesterday.
12. Andrew Clark's latest report for the Guardian is entitled "Black trial based on envy and prejudice, says defence lawyer." It relays Csr. Greenspan's argument that class prejudice may make irrelevant details seem relevant. "He told the court prosecutors had unearthed scores of Lord Black's elaborately worded emails and invoices for jewellery, furniture and rare books 'for no other reason but to inflame you'." It ends with Csr. Greenspan's ending: "'I ask you to return a verdict of not guilty for Conrad Black in the name of justice, in the name of fairness, in the name of equality and in the name of equal treatment under the law.'"
13. A similar theme is the start-off for Mary Vallis' report, as webbed by the Montreal Gazette. Most of it focuses upon Csr. Genson's part of the closing argument. One excerpt: "'You know what's unusual about [the Bora Bora trip, the birthday party and the Manhattan apartment]? [Mr. Black] paid for them,' Genson said. 'They're saying it wasn't enough.'"
14. CBC News: Morning had a brief report by CBC correspondent Mike Hornbrook, as aired at 9:03 AM ET. Mr. Hornbrook related that proceedings ended at about 4:00 – 4:15 PM (CT) yesterday after Genson asked for another rest break, and subsequent to it, said he couldn’t continue. His muscular condition was acting up, which explains why he was “off his game” and “lost it a bit.” (Mr. Hornbrook's words.)
15. Theresa Tedesco of the National Post has written a report entitled "Greenspan finally finds his footing," and it begins with this ironic note: "Back in the days before Conrad Black became an accused felon, his lawyer Edward Greenspan worried he wouldn't be aggressive enough for a U.S. court." The rest of it laces some background, including Monday's prosecution closing address, into a recounting of Csr. Greenspan's part of the closing address for Conrad Black. It ends with: "Julie Ruder's father was asked what he thought of Mr. Greenspan's jury address. 'There really are two sides to a story,' came the reply."
16. Paul Waldie's latest, as webbed by the Globe and Mail, works in all of the main points made yesterday by Csr. Greenspan in court. "He called their evidence absurd, insulting and illogical."
17. Mr. Waldie's second report focuses upon the points made by Csr. Genson yesterday.
18. Jennifer Wells is back on the trial beat with an article, webbed by the Toronto Star, asking: "What did Conrad Black know?" She discusses the non-compete agreement Conrad Black had signed with American Publishing company, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Hollinger Int'l, making it a non-compete agreement between Conrad Black and the company he was the CEO of. It is this agreement that the prosecution has described as Conrad Black signing an agreement 'not to compete with himself.' The theme of Ms. Wells' piece is that the defense's argument that it was above-board isn't that pat, given the related-party nature of the transaction.
19. Another Star feature, by Rosie DiManno, describes Csr. Greenspan's part of the closing argument as less than stellar. "On this occasion... he was pedantic and tedious... the outcome was weirdly flat and unengaging." She ends her latest column by claiming that the class-bias part of the argument was a little over the top.
20. A Canadian Press forecast report, webbed by CBC News, says that lawyers for Jack Boultbee will start once Csr. Genson's hour is up.
21. The Chicago Sun-Times' Mark Brown is still commenting on the closing arguments. This time, he says that what Csr. Greenspan said about Mr. Radler is old news to Sun-Times employees. He also defends his hope for Mr. Black being found guilty.
22. Also from the Sun-Times, a report from Mary Wisniewski entitled "Black's defense says case is based on lies." It contains this quote from Csr. Genson: "Genson said there was no evidence of a plan between the defendants. 'It was like a conspiracy for mind readers.'"
23. From HULIQ.com, two posts on yesterday's proceedings. The first is a review of Monday's closing address for the prosecution by Julie Ruder; the second concentrates upon Csr. Greenspan's class-bias theme.
24. EarthTimes.org has a report that laces a summary of Mr. Radler's testimony into a report entitled "Black's lawyers counter prosecution claims."
25. A report from the Guelph Mercury is the second-last of several that focuses upon the wealth-is-not-a-crime theme. It ends with this quote from Csr. Greenspan: "'(Prosecutor Julie Ruder) said "Make it matter to the victims",' he said. 'Where are the victims? Did we hear from any of these people?'"
26. The Daily Mail report takes up the same theme as the one above.
----------
Two entries in Mark Steyn's Maclean's Conrad Black trial blog discuss the 75%/25% split of non-compete payments between Hollinger Int'l and Hollinger Inc. - the notorious "template." One notes that the two companies were different companies in the same industry, despite them both having the same top executives. The other makes the point that any buyer who neglected to secure a separate non-compete agreement with Hollinger Inc. would run a risk of being called on the carpet for laxity, if not negligence (in the colloquial sense of the term.)
(Mr. Steyn is a journalist and commentator, not a corporate lawyer, but he raises an interesting point that someone in the latter field might want to mull over - as well as this question: does Hollinger Inc. have grounds for suing Hollinger Int'l?)
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
Second "National" Report On The Second Day Of Closing Arguments
The lead story of the CBC News flagship show, The National, was on today's closing argument for Conrad Black, with correspondent Neil Macdonald covering it.
His report touched on the highlights of the closing argument so far, including the emphasis on tearing down David Radler. A brief interview with former prosecutor Terry Sullivan was part of it; he said that Eddie Greenspan “hit the right note of humility” today, although his part of today's closing argument was scripted. This practise is unusual in the United States. Also mentioned in the report was Csr. Greenspan saying that there's no way of knowing why Mr. Radler had pled guilty, but it could be fear of jail (perhaps of an American jail.)
After Mr. Macdonald was finished, there followed a brief interview with Richard Siklos, author of Shades of Black. According to Mr. Siklos, Edward Genson was “smooth,” but he wasn't as good as Csr. Greenspan. Both counsellors flattered the jurors, and the jurors responded accordingly through paying more attention. The contrast between today's closing argument and yesterday's, given by prosecutor Judy Ruder, was like "day and night." The overall theme of Conrad Black's defense team is that the prosecution has failed to deliver on its promises.
His report touched on the highlights of the closing argument so far, including the emphasis on tearing down David Radler. A brief interview with former prosecutor Terry Sullivan was part of it; he said that Eddie Greenspan “hit the right note of humility” today, although his part of today's closing argument was scripted. This practise is unusual in the United States. Also mentioned in the report was Csr. Greenspan saying that there's no way of knowing why Mr. Radler had pled guilty, but it could be fear of jail (perhaps of an American jail.)
After Mr. Macdonald was finished, there followed a brief interview with Richard Siklos, author of Shades of Black. According to Mr. Siklos, Edward Genson was “smooth,” but he wasn't as good as Csr. Greenspan. Both counsellors flattered the jurors, and the jurors responded accordingly through paying more attention. The contrast between today's closing argument and yesterday's, given by prosecutor Judy Ruder, was like "day and night." The overall theme of Conrad Black's defense team is that the prosecution has failed to deliver on its promises.
The Verdict: Beginning Of Defense's Phase
Tonight's episode of The Verdict had a short segment of commentary on today's part of the closing argument for Conrad Black's defense. The only guest was Steve Skurka.
Csr. Skurka noted that there were two unprecedented (in his experience) events during those closing statements: Eddie Greenspan apologizing to the jury, and Eric Sussman objecting at least ten times. Ms. Todd opined that the latter could be a sign that the prosecution is worried, and the former was prompted by the recent ex-juror interview. Csr. Skurka added that Csr. Greenspan was less aggressive today, and that he won respect from the jurors. He also believes that today’s closing argument basically negated yesterday’s.
In Csr. Greenspan's focus/seminar on reasonable doubt, he stressed that the jurors must acquit even if they believe that Mr. Black is probably guilty. Csr. Skurka also brought up the mentions of Mr. Black’s personal foibles, and the potentiality for discrimation because of them.
Near the end of this segment, Ms. Todd asked if Judge St. Eve was relieved to finish early. Csr. Skurka replied that she was. Edward Genson's part of the closing argument did drag at the end, even though he did have a strong start. Tomorrow, he must deal with the 13 boxes as they pertain to the obstruction-of-justice charge.
[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.]
----------
Speaking of Csr. Skurka, his latest entry in his blog "The Crime Sheet" states that he's sticking by his prediction for an acquittal.
Csr. Skurka noted that there were two unprecedented (in his experience) events during those closing statements: Eddie Greenspan apologizing to the jury, and Eric Sussman objecting at least ten times. Ms. Todd opined that the latter could be a sign that the prosecution is worried, and the former was prompted by the recent ex-juror interview. Csr. Skurka added that Csr. Greenspan was less aggressive today, and that he won respect from the jurors. He also believes that today’s closing argument basically negated yesterday’s.
In Csr. Greenspan's focus/seminar on reasonable doubt, he stressed that the jurors must acquit even if they believe that Mr. Black is probably guilty. Csr. Skurka also brought up the mentions of Mr. Black’s personal foibles, and the potentiality for discrimation because of them.
Near the end of this segment, Ms. Todd asked if Judge St. Eve was relieved to finish early. Csr. Skurka replied that she was. Edward Genson's part of the closing argument did drag at the end, even though he did have a strong start. Tomorrow, he must deal with the 13 boxes as they pertain to the obstruction-of-justice charge.
[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.]
----------
Speaking of Csr. Skurka, his latest entry in his blog "The Crime Sheet" states that he's sticking by his prediction for an acquittal.
The Close For Conrad Black
Mark Steyn has the first details from the closing argument for Conrad Black. The first part is being given by Eddie Greenspan, and he started off by mentioning the dearth of shareholders amongst the prosecution witnesses. "'"Where are those shareholders [who allegedly were swindled by the defendants]? Where are those victims?'"
A report webbed by CTV News has additional details on the start of the first defense closing argument. "Toronto lawyer Edward Greenspan asked jurors to listen to both sides of the story before they formed their decision. He said they have a serious obligation that could affect the lives of four people." It also said, before recounting Judy Ruder's earlier closing argument, that Csr. Greenspan is exoected to spend "several hours" on his part of Conrad Black's closing argument.
Mr. Steyn, in a subsequent entry, disclosed that Csr. Greenspan is picking apart the prosecution's opening statement, and is also playing excerpts from the Hollinger International annual meeting held in 2003. (Ersatz redirect?)
A report on the same part of the closing argument, written by Rick Westhead and webbed by the Toronto Star, quotes an excerpt from one of those tape snippets. "The jurors listened to an audio clip from Hollinger's 2003 annual shareholders' meeting. Lee Hawkins, head of Hollinger shareholder Southeastern Asset Management suggested Black had built a 'very capable management team.'"
"[Csr. Greenspan concluded:]'What does this show you? That there are two sides to every story." The report also notes that Csr. Greenspan included an apologia for his earlier aggressiveness as part of his contention that lifestyle details, as well as unappealing personality characteristics, are irrelevant to the trial.
A brief Canadian Press report, webbed by 680 News, summarizes the closing argument so far as: "Conrad Black is not a thief, his lawyer says, and the jury in his fraud trial should consider the possibility that prosecutors are wrong about the former press baron...."
This point has been expanded on in a report by Mary Vallis, as webbed by the Edmonton Journal. It also elaborates upon the lifestyle issue: "Greenspan lashed out at the prosecution for mentioning Black's purchase of heated towel racks, elephant statues and antiques during the trial as attempts to prejudice the jury against his client and convict him because of 'his wealth, his lifestyle or his vocabulary' instead of the facts." He added that it was irregular in America to convict someone merely of being rich.
In his next two entries, Mr. Steyn noted that the "bubblegum blonde," who has already captured the attention of several reporters and commenters, is still in the jury box (so she wasn't the one who was excused earlier), but she's "looking very bored." The jurors are not taking notes during Csr. Greesspan's part of the closing address. Also, Csr. Greenspan has emphasized that "'[t]he government wanted to go after Conrad Black... 'They had no documents or other evidence against him;'" he also spelled out a theory on why David Radler plea-bargained: simple risk-aversion.
A later CP report, credited to Romina Maurino and webbed by 570 News, concentrates upon the Radler theme after quoting one of Csr. Greenspan's lines dealing with the smoking-gun consideration: "'The government doesn't have a smoking gun because there isn't one... As Conrad sits here today, he is an innocent man,' he said, arguing the government turned to Black's former partner David Radler to get 'the big fish.'..."
Paul Waldie's report, webbed by the Globe and Mail, also concentrates on the impugnment of Mr. Radler, after recounting the part of Csr. Greenspan's closing argument which deals with the solemn trust the jurors have in their hands. "There were no documents to back up Mr. Radler's key testimony, Mr. Greenspan said. He added that Mr. Radler changed his story on the witness stand several and lied to save himself. Mr. Radler 'is devoid of morals,' he told the jury."
Mr. Steyn has added this detail on the closing argument: "Eddie Greenspan just... pulled up the September 1st 2000 memo sent to each of the three Audit Committee members whose first item is headlined "NON-COMPETITION AGREEMENTS" and details the percentages allocated to non-competes in the relevant US transactions." (There's also a bit of kibitzing.)
The Prince George Citizen has webbed another updated CP report, which has quotes from the more recent part of Csr. Greenspan's closing argument as well as the earlier. He argued that the Audit Committee members were no fools, implying that they knew of the non-compete payments (and other suspicious payments) and approved them because they were above-board.
Moving to televised sources, BNN's Amanda Lang reported on the closing argument, as aired at 1:42 PM ET: Csr. Greenspan is now finished his part, and Edward Genson has begun. The former was "direct” and “down-to-earth.” He focused on Mr. Radler, as mentioned above, itemizing the lies of Radler’s lies that were exposed in the trial. He also emphasized all the relevant paperwork disclosing the non-competes, and said that the Audit Committee members lied on the stand to save their skins. They had approved the payments because those payments were okay but later changed their story under government pressure. According to Ms. Lang, Green, “did a stand-up job.”
She also reported on one "knock-out punch," courtesy of Csr. Genson, through using an evidence chart, one used by the prosecution yesterday to show where those suspicious payments supposedly went. With regard to [a CHNI] non-compete payment, and the surrounding expensive expenditures, he added dates showing that the expensive items were paid for before the suspicious payment had arrived in the bank account. This knocked a prop out of Csr. Ruder's closing address.
The details in the above report regarding Eddie Greenspan's part of the closing address have been filled in by an updated report by Ms. Vallis, as webbed by Canada.com. He implied that any scheme that was afoot had only one member, Mr. Radler himself. As far as the Audit Committee is concerned, "[w]hether the audit committee members were 'Olympic-level synchronized' skimmers or 'Olympic liars,' Black should not be convicted for them, Greenspan argued."
As far as jurors' reactions to Csr. Greenspan's part of the argument are concerned, a further updated report by Ms. Maurino, webbed by CBC News, discloses that "[they] appeared mixed, with several listening attentively and taking notes, while others yawned or rested their eyes."
Other words of Csr. Greenspan are in a report webbed by the Turkish Press. The counselor made a clever point: Conrad Black is very free with his pen when given half the chance, so why are there no implicating E-mails to back up Mr. Radler's word? Why no explicit (as opposed to suggestive) brags about them? (This point may have been prompted by the difficulty that Mr. Black's lawyers have had in restraining him from talking to the press, up to and including the point of formal rebuke.) Csr. Greenspan also said that Mr. Black had thought the buyers had requested the non-compete agreements: "'Of course Conrad thought they were conditions of sale requested by the buyer -- they were written into the contracts... It would be, for him, a logical thing for them to request... Conrad Black was the CEO of one of the world's largest media empires... he had just received 11.9 million for a non-compete requested by the buyer Izzy Asper in the CanWest deal.'"
(The second point reveals something about Conrad Black's business style: letting people make assumptions and then quietly letting them run with them until he pulls the curtain down at a decisive moment. The conclusion that Mr. Black must have known about all of the details of the negotiations for the sales covered by the indictment is based upon the assumption that he was a hands-on negotiator as CEO. Csr. Greenspan implied that he wasn't at the time when the sales were made.)
The Bloomberg report, by Andrew Harris and Bob Van Voris, contains this excerpt from Csr. Greenspan's apology for grilling Mr. Radler so incessantly: "'When someone is falsely accused of a crime, the only way to deal with it is to ask questions,' he told the jurors. 'Do not hold that against Mr. Black.'"
Another subsequent post from Mark Steyn reports that Csr. Genson is moving in on his closing statement. The meat of it, though, describes Genson's delivery, which makes the impact of his arguments in person far different from reading a transcript of them. Mr. Steyn mentions the point that Ms. Lang had reported on earlier (written about above,) noting that the non-compete payment in question had come from a sale to Community Newspapers Holdings, Inc.; he concludes that Csr. Genson's delivery was what "made a small point a big win."
As mentioned previously, the same Bloomberg report has been updated to include the same moment in the closing argument that Mr. Steyn and Ms. Lang mentioned. "Genson produced a list of Black's expenses showing that prosecutors had chosen some and skipped others to add up to the same amount and that many were paid before he received his check.
"'It's not right,' Genson said. 'It's not fair.'' Earlier, Csr. Greenspan had pointed to the 11 instances of disclosure to the Audit Committee, stating that "'[i]f this does not raise reasonable doubt, I don't know what does.'" He also claimed that the committee members had a lot to lose, career-wise, by refraining from telling a simple lie.
[More quotes from Csr. Genson are in the next update to the same report. "Genson said the noncompete deals were put together by Radler and men who worked with him.... 'There is no scheme and he's a liar.' Gensen [also] told jurors that Radler and Black had little in common, ran different parts of the company and were rarely in contact. He contrasted Radler, who cursed in business meetings, according to trial testimony, with Black, 'who writes like a Victorian author... These are not people who hang out,' Gensen said. 'These guys were not pals.'"
[A further update details Csr. Genson's argument that the 60th birthday party for Barbara Black was indeed a business event, and that the cost split was fair.]
BNN aired an on-the-fly analysis from Jacquie McNish, aired at about 4:05 PM, who claimed that Csr. Greenspan's assertion that there was no smoking gun isn't true. David Radler is a living smoking gun, according to Ms. McNish. She wondered why Csr. Greenspan did not engage the prosecution's closing address more directly. Ms. McNish also speculated that the apologia was included because Csr. Greenspan was worried about previously alienating the jury.
Stephanie Kirchgaessner's report, webbed by MSNBC.com, contains these quotes from the more rhetorical part of Csr. Greenspan's part of the closing argument: "The prosecution had 'bargained for and bought' Mr Radler's testimony to go after Lord Black... and, in return, Mr Radler was heading to 'some country club farm' – in other words, a prison in his native Canada – 'where he will work on the tan he sported' during the trial.... The government wants you to rely on David Radler to convict Conrad Black for relying on David Radler. This is not a quip. It's not a joke. This is the government's case.'" Near its end, it also contains a bit of cleverness from Csr. Genson, relating to that CHNI payment which the prosecution tried to use to show motive: "Lord Black's expenses exceeded $4.3m but the government had 'cherry-picked' items off Lord Black's accounts – which were shown in full – that totalled $4.3m to make it appear as if Lord Black needed the money."
A third interview with Ms. Lang on BNN, aired at approx. 5:45 PM ET, started with her reviewing the highlights of the closing argument so far. Once again, she went out of her way to emphasize Csr. Genson's (metaphorical) ripping apart of part of the prosecution’s evidence-board exhibit. She also noted that Csr. Greenspan had begun unimpressively, in terms of delivery, but he gave a “solid” performance through sticking to two themes: the government’s case resting on Mr. Radler’s unsubstantiated word and reasonable doubt. The strong point of his part of the argument was his emphasis on the latter.
His tackling of the non-compete agreements issue had an argument that was, according to Ms. Lang, "sublime." After saying that the CanWest non-compete was the first one Conrad Black had signed as an individual, Csr. Greenspan claimed that the rest were presented to Mr. Black by Mr. Radler. The prosecution expects the jury to believe David Radler, while also expecting the jury to expect Mr. Black to have disbelieved the same man. He also made the general suggestion that Ms. Ruder's presentation implies that any defense should be interpreted as further justification of the crime.
The lifestyle issues have been emphasized more by the defense than by the prosecution, because the defense wants to bring up the possibility of class demagogy on the part of the prosecution. Csr. Genson is not finished yet; the afternoon stretch of his part of the closing argument has been workmanlike, with few quotable moments.
Another reporter, James Bone, has written an article for the Times Online on Csr. Greenspan's part of the closing argument, which notes that Greenspan neatly tied in the customary jurors' flattery with a reminder that the job of juror is too important to decide cases through using personal animosities. Mr. Bone also observes that "Mr Greenspan did not appear to connect with the predominantly female jury in the way that Julie Ruder, the prosecutor, did in her impassioned summing up of the Government’s case the previous day."
There's yet another update to Ms. Maurino's report, which has been webbed by the Vancouver Sun. Among other items, she's added this quote from Csr. Genson: "Ed Genson, [while reinforcing the defense's argument that Mr. Radler acted alone,] said that if Black and Radler were really like 'siamese twins' acting as one, they'd be 'schizophrenic.' As a married couple, he added, they would bicker constantly.
"'Can you imagine?', he asked, prompting laughter from the court as well as Black."
There's more Genson excerpts in Mike Robinson's AP report, as webbed by the JournalGazette Times-Courier, such as: Csr. "Genson said the sales closed in Paducah, Ky., and Fargo, N.D., and that Black wasn't anywhere near those cities when the papers were signed.
"'How is he supposed to know?' Genson said. 'Is Conrad supposed to go down there and look?'"
With regard to the Bora Bora trip, "Genson said Black paid half the cost... and had the estimated $565,000 price tag added to his income for tax purposes as well. He said Black was justified in billing the company for the rest of the trip because he did considerable work while on his vacation.
"'He works all the time,' Genson said."
Two British newspapers, The Independent and the Telegraph, both have articles that focus on Csr. Greenspan's part of the closing address for Conrad Black. The former is written by Stephen Foley; the latter, David Litterick; both are regular trial-watchers.
----------
The National Post blog, "Posted," has a media round-up of its own, which includes a link to a post in the Wall Street Journal's Law Blog about the ostrich instruction.
Another blog's "Media Blitz" has mentioned the trial: Jossip's. Beside the link, to a New York Times report, is this wisecrack: "Black’s attorneys expected to describe an acquittal as 'a sound investment—I mean, "verdict"' and then wink knowingly at the jury."
Douglas Bell has posted his latest commentary on the previous day's media reports for the Toronto Life Conrad Black trial, noting that the Britons are back now that "voyeuristic fodder" has been made available once again.
He's also posted a write-up on Judy Ruder's closing address from yesterday, which may be worth reading for balance's sake. Although he conceded the possibility that she may have been 'singing to the kids', he nevertheless adds to the plethora of fulsome praise for her performance yesterday.
In the Maclean's Conrad Black trial blog, Mark Steyn brought up the possibility that Csr. Genson tailed off in the afternoon because of ill health; his heath was bad enough to induce Judge St. Eve to end the day's proceedings a little early. (This item might prove to be a scoop.)
A report webbed by CTV News has additional details on the start of the first defense closing argument. "Toronto lawyer Edward Greenspan asked jurors to listen to both sides of the story before they formed their decision. He said they have a serious obligation that could affect the lives of four people." It also said, before recounting Judy Ruder's earlier closing argument, that Csr. Greenspan is exoected to spend "several hours" on his part of Conrad Black's closing argument.
Mr. Steyn, in a subsequent entry, disclosed that Csr. Greenspan is picking apart the prosecution's opening statement, and is also playing excerpts from the Hollinger International annual meeting held in 2003. (Ersatz redirect?)
A report on the same part of the closing argument, written by Rick Westhead and webbed by the Toronto Star, quotes an excerpt from one of those tape snippets. "The jurors listened to an audio clip from Hollinger's 2003 annual shareholders' meeting. Lee Hawkins, head of Hollinger shareholder Southeastern Asset Management suggested Black had built a 'very capable management team.'"
"[Csr. Greenspan concluded:]'What does this show you? That there are two sides to every story." The report also notes that Csr. Greenspan included an apologia for his earlier aggressiveness as part of his contention that lifestyle details, as well as unappealing personality characteristics, are irrelevant to the trial.
A brief Canadian Press report, webbed by 680 News, summarizes the closing argument so far as: "Conrad Black is not a thief, his lawyer says, and the jury in his fraud trial should consider the possibility that prosecutors are wrong about the former press baron...."
This point has been expanded on in a report by Mary Vallis, as webbed by the Edmonton Journal. It also elaborates upon the lifestyle issue: "Greenspan lashed out at the prosecution for mentioning Black's purchase of heated towel racks, elephant statues and antiques during the trial as attempts to prejudice the jury against his client and convict him because of 'his wealth, his lifestyle or his vocabulary' instead of the facts." He added that it was irregular in America to convict someone merely of being rich.
In his next two entries, Mr. Steyn noted that the "bubblegum blonde," who has already captured the attention of several reporters and commenters, is still in the jury box (so she wasn't the one who was excused earlier), but she's "looking very bored." The jurors are not taking notes during Csr. Greesspan's part of the closing address. Also, Csr. Greenspan has emphasized that "'[t]he government wanted to go after Conrad Black... 'They had no documents or other evidence against him;'" he also spelled out a theory on why David Radler plea-bargained: simple risk-aversion.
A later CP report, credited to Romina Maurino and webbed by 570 News, concentrates upon the Radler theme after quoting one of Csr. Greenspan's lines dealing with the smoking-gun consideration: "'The government doesn't have a smoking gun because there isn't one... As Conrad sits here today, he is an innocent man,' he said, arguing the government turned to Black's former partner David Radler to get 'the big fish.'..."
Paul Waldie's report, webbed by the Globe and Mail, also concentrates on the impugnment of Mr. Radler, after recounting the part of Csr. Greenspan's closing argument which deals with the solemn trust the jurors have in their hands. "There were no documents to back up Mr. Radler's key testimony, Mr. Greenspan said. He added that Mr. Radler changed his story on the witness stand several and lied to save himself. Mr. Radler 'is devoid of morals,' he told the jury."
Mr. Steyn has added this detail on the closing argument: "Eddie Greenspan just... pulled up the September 1st 2000 memo sent to each of the three Audit Committee members whose first item is headlined "NON-COMPETITION AGREEMENTS" and details the percentages allocated to non-competes in the relevant US transactions." (There's also a bit of kibitzing.)
The Prince George Citizen has webbed another updated CP report, which has quotes from the more recent part of Csr. Greenspan's closing argument as well as the earlier. He argued that the Audit Committee members were no fools, implying that they knew of the non-compete payments (and other suspicious payments) and approved them because they were above-board.
Moving to televised sources, BNN's Amanda Lang reported on the closing argument, as aired at 1:42 PM ET: Csr. Greenspan is now finished his part, and Edward Genson has begun. The former was "direct” and “down-to-earth.” He focused on Mr. Radler, as mentioned above, itemizing the lies of Radler’s lies that were exposed in the trial. He also emphasized all the relevant paperwork disclosing the non-competes, and said that the Audit Committee members lied on the stand to save their skins. They had approved the payments because those payments were okay but later changed their story under government pressure. According to Ms. Lang, Green, “did a stand-up job.”
She also reported on one "knock-out punch," courtesy of Csr. Genson, through using an evidence chart, one used by the prosecution yesterday to show where those suspicious payments supposedly went. With regard to [a CHNI] non-compete payment, and the surrounding expensive expenditures, he added dates showing that the expensive items were paid for before the suspicious payment had arrived in the bank account. This knocked a prop out of Csr. Ruder's closing address.
The details in the above report regarding Eddie Greenspan's part of the closing address have been filled in by an updated report by Ms. Vallis, as webbed by Canada.com. He implied that any scheme that was afoot had only one member, Mr. Radler himself. As far as the Audit Committee is concerned, "[w]hether the audit committee members were 'Olympic-level synchronized' skimmers or 'Olympic liars,' Black should not be convicted for them, Greenspan argued."
As far as jurors' reactions to Csr. Greenspan's part of the argument are concerned, a further updated report by Ms. Maurino, webbed by CBC News, discloses that "[they] appeared mixed, with several listening attentively and taking notes, while others yawned or rested their eyes."
Other words of Csr. Greenspan are in a report webbed by the Turkish Press. The counselor made a clever point: Conrad Black is very free with his pen when given half the chance, so why are there no implicating E-mails to back up Mr. Radler's word? Why no explicit (as opposed to suggestive) brags about them? (This point may have been prompted by the difficulty that Mr. Black's lawyers have had in restraining him from talking to the press, up to and including the point of formal rebuke.) Csr. Greenspan also said that Mr. Black had thought the buyers had requested the non-compete agreements: "'Of course Conrad thought they were conditions of sale requested by the buyer -- they were written into the contracts... It would be, for him, a logical thing for them to request... Conrad Black was the CEO of one of the world's largest media empires... he had just received 11.9 million for a non-compete requested by the buyer Izzy Asper in the CanWest deal.'"
(The second point reveals something about Conrad Black's business style: letting people make assumptions and then quietly letting them run with them until he pulls the curtain down at a decisive moment. The conclusion that Mr. Black must have known about all of the details of the negotiations for the sales covered by the indictment is based upon the assumption that he was a hands-on negotiator as CEO. Csr. Greenspan implied that he wasn't at the time when the sales were made.)
The Bloomberg report, by Andrew Harris and Bob Van Voris, contains this excerpt from Csr. Greenspan's apology for grilling Mr. Radler so incessantly: "'When someone is falsely accused of a crime, the only way to deal with it is to ask questions,' he told the jurors. 'Do not hold that against Mr. Black.'"
Another subsequent post from Mark Steyn reports that Csr. Genson is moving in on his closing statement. The meat of it, though, describes Genson's delivery, which makes the impact of his arguments in person far different from reading a transcript of them. Mr. Steyn mentions the point that Ms. Lang had reported on earlier (written about above,) noting that the non-compete payment in question had come from a sale to Community Newspapers Holdings, Inc.; he concludes that Csr. Genson's delivery was what "made a small point a big win."
As mentioned previously, the same Bloomberg report has been updated to include the same moment in the closing argument that Mr. Steyn and Ms. Lang mentioned. "Genson produced a list of Black's expenses showing that prosecutors had chosen some and skipped others to add up to the same amount and that many were paid before he received his check.
"'It's not right,' Genson said. 'It's not fair.'' Earlier, Csr. Greenspan had pointed to the 11 instances of disclosure to the Audit Committee, stating that "'[i]f this does not raise reasonable doubt, I don't know what does.'" He also claimed that the committee members had a lot to lose, career-wise, by refraining from telling a simple lie.
[More quotes from Csr. Genson are in the next update to the same report. "Genson said the noncompete deals were put together by Radler and men who worked with him.... 'There is no scheme and he's a liar.' Gensen [also] told jurors that Radler and Black had little in common, ran different parts of the company and were rarely in contact. He contrasted Radler, who cursed in business meetings, according to trial testimony, with Black, 'who writes like a Victorian author... These are not people who hang out,' Gensen said. 'These guys were not pals.'"
[A further update details Csr. Genson's argument that the 60th birthday party for Barbara Black was indeed a business event, and that the cost split was fair.]
BNN aired an on-the-fly analysis from Jacquie McNish, aired at about 4:05 PM, who claimed that Csr. Greenspan's assertion that there was no smoking gun isn't true. David Radler is a living smoking gun, according to Ms. McNish. She wondered why Csr. Greenspan did not engage the prosecution's closing address more directly. Ms. McNish also speculated that the apologia was included because Csr. Greenspan was worried about previously alienating the jury.
Stephanie Kirchgaessner's report, webbed by MSNBC.com, contains these quotes from the more rhetorical part of Csr. Greenspan's part of the closing argument: "The prosecution had 'bargained for and bought' Mr Radler's testimony to go after Lord Black... and, in return, Mr Radler was heading to 'some country club farm' – in other words, a prison in his native Canada – 'where he will work on the tan he sported' during the trial.... The government wants you to rely on David Radler to convict Conrad Black for relying on David Radler. This is not a quip. It's not a joke. This is the government's case.'" Near its end, it also contains a bit of cleverness from Csr. Genson, relating to that CHNI payment which the prosecution tried to use to show motive: "Lord Black's expenses exceeded $4.3m but the government had 'cherry-picked' items off Lord Black's accounts – which were shown in full – that totalled $4.3m to make it appear as if Lord Black needed the money."
A third interview with Ms. Lang on BNN, aired at approx. 5:45 PM ET, started with her reviewing the highlights of the closing argument so far. Once again, she went out of her way to emphasize Csr. Genson's (metaphorical) ripping apart of part of the prosecution’s evidence-board exhibit. She also noted that Csr. Greenspan had begun unimpressively, in terms of delivery, but he gave a “solid” performance through sticking to two themes: the government’s case resting on Mr. Radler’s unsubstantiated word and reasonable doubt. The strong point of his part of the argument was his emphasis on the latter.
His tackling of the non-compete agreements issue had an argument that was, according to Ms. Lang, "sublime." After saying that the CanWest non-compete was the first one Conrad Black had signed as an individual, Csr. Greenspan claimed that the rest were presented to Mr. Black by Mr. Radler. The prosecution expects the jury to believe David Radler, while also expecting the jury to expect Mr. Black to have disbelieved the same man. He also made the general suggestion that Ms. Ruder's presentation implies that any defense should be interpreted as further justification of the crime.
The lifestyle issues have been emphasized more by the defense than by the prosecution, because the defense wants to bring up the possibility of class demagogy on the part of the prosecution. Csr. Genson is not finished yet; the afternoon stretch of his part of the closing argument has been workmanlike, with few quotable moments.
Another reporter, James Bone, has written an article for the Times Online on Csr. Greenspan's part of the closing argument, which notes that Greenspan neatly tied in the customary jurors' flattery with a reminder that the job of juror is too important to decide cases through using personal animosities. Mr. Bone also observes that "Mr Greenspan did not appear to connect with the predominantly female jury in the way that Julie Ruder, the prosecutor, did in her impassioned summing up of the Government’s case the previous day."
There's yet another update to Ms. Maurino's report, which has been webbed by the Vancouver Sun. Among other items, she's added this quote from Csr. Genson: "Ed Genson, [while reinforcing the defense's argument that Mr. Radler acted alone,] said that if Black and Radler were really like 'siamese twins' acting as one, they'd be 'schizophrenic.' As a married couple, he added, they would bicker constantly.
"'Can you imagine?', he asked, prompting laughter from the court as well as Black."
There's more Genson excerpts in Mike Robinson's AP report, as webbed by the JournalGazette Times-Courier, such as: Csr. "Genson said the sales closed in Paducah, Ky., and Fargo, N.D., and that Black wasn't anywhere near those cities when the papers were signed.
"'How is he supposed to know?' Genson said. 'Is Conrad supposed to go down there and look?'"
With regard to the Bora Bora trip, "Genson said Black paid half the cost... and had the estimated $565,000 price tag added to his income for tax purposes as well. He said Black was justified in billing the company for the rest of the trip because he did considerable work while on his vacation.
"'He works all the time,' Genson said."
Two British newspapers, The Independent and the Telegraph, both have articles that focus on Csr. Greenspan's part of the closing address for Conrad Black. The former is written by Stephen Foley; the latter, David Litterick; both are regular trial-watchers.
----------
The National Post blog, "Posted," has a media round-up of its own, which includes a link to a post in the Wall Street Journal's Law Blog about the ostrich instruction.
Another blog's "Media Blitz" has mentioned the trial: Jossip's. Beside the link, to a New York Times report, is this wisecrack: "Black’s attorneys expected to describe an acquittal as 'a sound investment—I mean, "verdict"' and then wink knowingly at the jury."
Douglas Bell has posted his latest commentary on the previous day's media reports for the Toronto Life Conrad Black trial, noting that the Britons are back now that "voyeuristic fodder" has been made available once again.
He's also posted a write-up on Judy Ruder's closing address from yesterday, which may be worth reading for balance's sake. Although he conceded the possibility that she may have been 'singing to the kids', he nevertheless adds to the plethora of fulsome praise for her performance yesterday.
In the Maclean's Conrad Black trial blog, Mark Steyn brought up the possibility that Csr. Genson tailed off in the afternoon because of ill health; his heath was bad enough to induce Judge St. Eve to end the day's proceedings a little early. (This item might prove to be a scoop.)
Media Roundup: First Closing
Now that the closing arguments have started, the coverage of the Conrad Black trial has expanded:
1. From CTV News, a summary of Judy Ruder's closing argument, with approving commentary from trial watcher Hugh Totten. It includes a note that she "attacked a claim by Edward Greenspan, Black's Canadian attorney, that the audit committee of Hollinger International's board of directors approved the non-compete payments at a Sept. 11, 2000 meeting.... [and later] 'conveniently forgot' when people criticized the payments.
"'There is nothing, no evidence, nothing at all to suggest Mr. Greenspan's allegation,' Ruder said, almost shouting."
2. The New York Times has a report by Richard Siklos, entitled "Closing Arguments Begin in Black Trial." Mr. Siklos relates: "In a daylong closing argument, Julie Ruder, an assistant United States attorney, frequently struck a tone of outrage and repeatedly dismissed the arguments of Mr. Black’s defense team as 'ridiculous.'" Csr. Ruder also quoted, in support of her argument, an excerpt from defense witness Alan Funk, a former FBI investigator into white-collar crime and the closest witness in the trial to a police officer.
3. The Washington Post has webbed an abridged AP report by Mike Robinson.
4. Yesterday's closing argument has rated a brief article webbed by the Khaleej Times Online, of Dubai, UAE. It summarizes Csr. Ruder's argument as "a scheme in which Black and other executives awarded themselves what amounted to massive tax-free bonuses by lying to the board and saying that the buyers of the papers had asked them to sign non-competition agreements."
5. The prosecution's closing argument has made item #3 in a daily digest of business items in the Houston Chronicle.
6. A Times Online report has been excerpted by the South African Website "Legalbrief."
7. Andrew Clark of the Guardian is back, with a report entitled "Prosecutors urge the jury to see through Black's 'phoney paper trail'"
8. The Chicago Daily Herald has an opinion column about the closing argument by Burt Constable, which casts the trial as a Shakespearian drama. In one paragraph, he focuses on Alana Black: "Through it all, Black’s adult daughter, Alana, behaves like a bored child in church...."
9. From Ameet Sachdev of the Chicago Tribune, a report that begins with: "In kicking off closing arguments on Monday, the prosecution described Conrad Black, the former chairman of Hollinger International Inc., as a liar and thief and the central figure in a series of dirty deals that enriched him and other former executives while defrauding shareholders." It also reveals that she explained motive by claiming that "he treated Hollinger as his private company -- not an entity owned by public shareholders. In the process, he and other former executives 'systematically stole over $60 million.'" The evidence showing this, she contended, was the buyers' testimony that they did not request a non-compete agreement in advance of the sale's closing.
10. The Los Angeles Times has webbed an excerpt of the Reuters report on the prosecution's closing argument.
11. The Edmonton Journal has webbed a CP summary that mentions the latest juror to be excused from the trial.
12. Mary Vallis has written a report, as webbed by the National Post, which mentions some of the spectators there: Conrad Black's entire family, Barbara Black's ex-husband George Jonas, and Csr. Ruder's father. It also mentions the missing juror.
13. BNN had an interview with Amanda Lang, aired at 8:23 AM ET. Ms. Lang believed that a lot of the doubts about the prosecution’s case were “put to rest” yesterday. Csr. Ruder was very methodical in the closing argument. She claimed that the existence of a paper trial is irrelevant, and that the purpose for the corporate jet is irrelevant too. The next closing argument is from Edward Genson. Csr. Ruder had to admit that Marie-Josée Kravis and James Thompson were bad witnesses. She also left a hole regarding the buyer’s: why did they sign the sale agreement with the non-compete agreement in them? Ms. Lang also said that it isn't known why the latest juror went missing.
14. The Vancouver Province has a summary that includes a note that the prosecution "saved some key bits of evidence for closing arguments: invoices for a number of extravagant purchases Black made -- including $150,000 US spent at a bookseller and a $2.6 million US ring."
15. The Calgary Sun has webbed Peter Worthington's latest column on the trial. He notes that Csr. Ruder quietly dropped the metaphor used by Jeffrey Cramer in the prosecution's opening address, "of 'four conspirators' wearing suits and ties rather than masks and carrying crowbars like burglars." He notes that the defense has a challenge ahead of it, and also observes that "[t]he difficulty for journalists covering the trial -- and it is a packed courthouse now that we're on the end-game -- is to reduce seven hours of prosecution rhetoric into five minutes of newspaper reading." He also speculates that the real nub of this case is taxes.
16. Janet Whitman's report on the closing argument for the New York Post notes that "[s]everal courtroom observers concluded after Ruder's strong, daylong presentation that Black's lawyers would face a heavy burden trying to raise reasonable doubt about the alleged crimes when they begin their closing arguments today."
17. Mary Wisniewski's, for the Chicago Sun-Times, begins with: "Jurors at Conrad Black's fraud trial were warned Monday to 'keep your eye on the ball' and not be distracted by the 'cover story' presented by the defense." It includes a mention of that metaphor about a bus driver taking the bus home for the weekend. (For all I know, it might end up in one of those Hollywood teen movies.)
18. The report in the Daily Mail comes with two photographs, one of Conrad Black and the other of both Mr. and Mrs. Black.
19. CBC News: Morning aired a report by Mike Hornbrook, right after 9 AM ET. Mr. Hornbrook mentioned that both Edward Greenspan and Edward Genson will make the closing argument for Conrad Black. Csr. Genson has “a tough row to hoe” today. Like the other observers, Mr. Horbrook thinks that Csr. Ruder did quite the job; she gave the prosecution’s case “coherence.” The jurors were “very attentive.” [CBC News also has a report on the prosecution's closing address, with a link to another televised report that's been broadbanded.]
20. Sun-Times columnist Mark Brown has devoted his latest column to the prosecution's closing argument, which starts off by his observation that "[t]he government's case against former Sun-Times owner Conrad Black sounded considerably better in the retelling Monday by Assistant U.S. Attorney Julie Ruder than it had during months of testimony from the witness stand." Despite Mr. Brown's self-disclosed sympathy for the prosecution, he acknowledges that "Radler is a person for whom truth-telling does not come naturally, which made him a very problematic witness.... During his own turn as a witness, Thompson couldn't bring himself to eat the humble pie he so richly deserved[, which] made him easy pickings for the defense as he tried to defend his practice of 'skimming' important documents instead of reading them." He concludes, though, that Csr. Ruder managed to show that the prosecution's case does not hinge upon their testimony, thus easing over the earlier difficulties that the prosecution had with them.
21. Paul Waldie's latest report, as webbed by the Globe and Mail, begins by revealing that Csr. Greenspan will begin the closing argument for Conrad Black. "Mr. Greenspan is expected to spend several hours arguing that prosecutors have not presented enough evidence to convict Lord Black of fraud, racketeering, tax evasion and obstruction of justice. He will be followed later in the day by Edward Genson, a Chicago lawyer also representing Lord Black." It also notes, in a summary of yesterday's closing argument, that Csr. Ruder conceded that all three Audit Committee members had fallen down on the job. The report ends with a forecast that Eric Sussman will give the prosecution rebuttal next Monday. [A related report goes into the closing argument in more detail, and has a sub-section entitled "Bring Your Family To Court Day."]
22. CTV News has webbed an AP summary entitled "Defence to make closing arguments in Black trial."
----------
Mark Steyn has come up with a different twist on the prosecution's closing argument in a late-night entry in his Maclean's Conrad Black trial blog - one that will probably not be too surprising for veteran Steyn-watchers. Instead of describing Csr. Ruder's closing argument as brilliant or captivating or whatnot, he effectively categorizes it as spellbinding and more appropriate for a TV movie. Although not directly relevant to the trial, he also makes the point that the control structure implies that Conrad Black had a fiduciary duty to three groups of shareholders, implying that all he did was bobble the requisite balancing act. (Regardless of the outcome of the trial, that point is a sobering one for any management type. The more corporations with shareholders you head up, the more fiduciary duties you have to shoulder.)
[In a later entry, Mr. Steyn did concede that some of the defense's arguments were a bit of a stretch. Eg: "Despite the multiple occasions on which his lawyers have brought it up, the fact that Jack Boultbee was briefly publisher of Saturday Night - in 1987 - is not a reason for a community newspaper group in Alabama to pay him a big-time non-compete fee."]
1. From CTV News, a summary of Judy Ruder's closing argument, with approving commentary from trial watcher Hugh Totten. It includes a note that she "attacked a claim by Edward Greenspan, Black's Canadian attorney, that the audit committee of Hollinger International's board of directors approved the non-compete payments at a Sept. 11, 2000 meeting.... [and later] 'conveniently forgot' when people criticized the payments.
"'There is nothing, no evidence, nothing at all to suggest Mr. Greenspan's allegation,' Ruder said, almost shouting."
2. The New York Times has a report by Richard Siklos, entitled "Closing Arguments Begin in Black Trial." Mr. Siklos relates: "In a daylong closing argument, Julie Ruder, an assistant United States attorney, frequently struck a tone of outrage and repeatedly dismissed the arguments of Mr. Black’s defense team as 'ridiculous.'" Csr. Ruder also quoted, in support of her argument, an excerpt from defense witness Alan Funk, a former FBI investigator into white-collar crime and the closest witness in the trial to a police officer.
3. The Washington Post has webbed an abridged AP report by Mike Robinson.
4. Yesterday's closing argument has rated a brief article webbed by the Khaleej Times Online, of Dubai, UAE. It summarizes Csr. Ruder's argument as "a scheme in which Black and other executives awarded themselves what amounted to massive tax-free bonuses by lying to the board and saying that the buyers of the papers had asked them to sign non-competition agreements."
5. The prosecution's closing argument has made item #3 in a daily digest of business items in the Houston Chronicle.
6. A Times Online report has been excerpted by the South African Website "Legalbrief."
7. Andrew Clark of the Guardian is back, with a report entitled "Prosecutors urge the jury to see through Black's 'phoney paper trail'"
8. The Chicago Daily Herald has an opinion column about the closing argument by Burt Constable, which casts the trial as a Shakespearian drama. In one paragraph, he focuses on Alana Black: "Through it all, Black’s adult daughter, Alana, behaves like a bored child in church...."
9. From Ameet Sachdev of the Chicago Tribune, a report that begins with: "In kicking off closing arguments on Monday, the prosecution described Conrad Black, the former chairman of Hollinger International Inc., as a liar and thief and the central figure in a series of dirty deals that enriched him and other former executives while defrauding shareholders." It also reveals that she explained motive by claiming that "he treated Hollinger as his private company -- not an entity owned by public shareholders. In the process, he and other former executives 'systematically stole over $60 million.'" The evidence showing this, she contended, was the buyers' testimony that they did not request a non-compete agreement in advance of the sale's closing.
10. The Los Angeles Times has webbed an excerpt of the Reuters report on the prosecution's closing argument.
11. The Edmonton Journal has webbed a CP summary that mentions the latest juror to be excused from the trial.
12. Mary Vallis has written a report, as webbed by the National Post, which mentions some of the spectators there: Conrad Black's entire family, Barbara Black's ex-husband George Jonas, and Csr. Ruder's father. It also mentions the missing juror.
13. BNN had an interview with Amanda Lang, aired at 8:23 AM ET. Ms. Lang believed that a lot of the doubts about the prosecution’s case were “put to rest” yesterday. Csr. Ruder was very methodical in the closing argument. She claimed that the existence of a paper trial is irrelevant, and that the purpose for the corporate jet is irrelevant too. The next closing argument is from Edward Genson. Csr. Ruder had to admit that Marie-Josée Kravis and James Thompson were bad witnesses. She also left a hole regarding the buyer’s: why did they sign the sale agreement with the non-compete agreement in them? Ms. Lang also said that it isn't known why the latest juror went missing.
14. The Vancouver Province has a summary that includes a note that the prosecution "saved some key bits of evidence for closing arguments: invoices for a number of extravagant purchases Black made -- including $150,000 US spent at a bookseller and a $2.6 million US ring."
15. The Calgary Sun has webbed Peter Worthington's latest column on the trial. He notes that Csr. Ruder quietly dropped the metaphor used by Jeffrey Cramer in the prosecution's opening address, "of 'four conspirators' wearing suits and ties rather than masks and carrying crowbars like burglars." He notes that the defense has a challenge ahead of it, and also observes that "[t]he difficulty for journalists covering the trial -- and it is a packed courthouse now that we're on the end-game -- is to reduce seven hours of prosecution rhetoric into five minutes of newspaper reading." He also speculates that the real nub of this case is taxes.
16. Janet Whitman's report on the closing argument for the New York Post notes that "[s]everal courtroom observers concluded after Ruder's strong, daylong presentation that Black's lawyers would face a heavy burden trying to raise reasonable doubt about the alleged crimes when they begin their closing arguments today."
17. Mary Wisniewski's, for the Chicago Sun-Times, begins with: "Jurors at Conrad Black's fraud trial were warned Monday to 'keep your eye on the ball' and not be distracted by the 'cover story' presented by the defense." It includes a mention of that metaphor about a bus driver taking the bus home for the weekend. (For all I know, it might end up in one of those Hollywood teen movies.)
18. The report in the Daily Mail comes with two photographs, one of Conrad Black and the other of both Mr. and Mrs. Black.
19. CBC News: Morning aired a report by Mike Hornbrook, right after 9 AM ET. Mr. Hornbrook mentioned that both Edward Greenspan and Edward Genson will make the closing argument for Conrad Black. Csr. Genson has “a tough row to hoe” today. Like the other observers, Mr. Horbrook thinks that Csr. Ruder did quite the job; she gave the prosecution’s case “coherence.” The jurors were “very attentive.” [CBC News also has a report on the prosecution's closing address, with a link to another televised report that's been broadbanded.]
20. Sun-Times columnist Mark Brown has devoted his latest column to the prosecution's closing argument, which starts off by his observation that "[t]he government's case against former Sun-Times owner Conrad Black sounded considerably better in the retelling Monday by Assistant U.S. Attorney Julie Ruder than it had during months of testimony from the witness stand." Despite Mr. Brown's self-disclosed sympathy for the prosecution, he acknowledges that "Radler is a person for whom truth-telling does not come naturally, which made him a very problematic witness.... During his own turn as a witness, Thompson couldn't bring himself to eat the humble pie he so richly deserved[, which] made him easy pickings for the defense as he tried to defend his practice of 'skimming' important documents instead of reading them." He concludes, though, that Csr. Ruder managed to show that the prosecution's case does not hinge upon their testimony, thus easing over the earlier difficulties that the prosecution had with them.
21. Paul Waldie's latest report, as webbed by the Globe and Mail, begins by revealing that Csr. Greenspan will begin the closing argument for Conrad Black. "Mr. Greenspan is expected to spend several hours arguing that prosecutors have not presented enough evidence to convict Lord Black of fraud, racketeering, tax evasion and obstruction of justice. He will be followed later in the day by Edward Genson, a Chicago lawyer also representing Lord Black." It also notes, in a summary of yesterday's closing argument, that Csr. Ruder conceded that all three Audit Committee members had fallen down on the job. The report ends with a forecast that Eric Sussman will give the prosecution rebuttal next Monday. [A related report goes into the closing argument in more detail, and has a sub-section entitled "Bring Your Family To Court Day."]
22. CTV News has webbed an AP summary entitled "Defence to make closing arguments in Black trial."
----------
Mark Steyn has come up with a different twist on the prosecution's closing argument in a late-night entry in his Maclean's Conrad Black trial blog - one that will probably not be too surprising for veteran Steyn-watchers. Instead of describing Csr. Ruder's closing argument as brilliant or captivating or whatnot, he effectively categorizes it as spellbinding and more appropriate for a TV movie. Although not directly relevant to the trial, he also makes the point that the control structure implies that Conrad Black had a fiduciary duty to three groups of shareholders, implying that all he did was bobble the requisite balancing act. (Regardless of the outcome of the trial, that point is a sobering one for any management type. The more corporations with shareholders you head up, the more fiduciary duties you have to shoulder.)
[In a later entry, Mr. Steyn did concede that some of the defense's arguments were a bit of a stretch. Eg: "Despite the multiple occasions on which his lawyers have brought it up, the fact that Jack Boultbee was briefly publisher of Saturday Night - in 1987 - is not a reason for a community newspaper group in Alabama to pay him a big-time non-compete fee."]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)