CTV NewsNet has aired an interview with David Akin, at 12:30 PM ET, whose report included the factoid that lead prosecutor Eric Sussman has a 95% success rate. The witness who is now on the stand was called by Jack Boultbee’s counsel. Judge St. Eve will rule later today on the defense request to put Radler on the stand. Conrad Black's butler may appear on the stand Thursday, but for now he’s on hold. The end of Conrad Black’s defense, except for closing argument, will be at the end of this week.
BNN had another interview, aired at 1:45 PM ET; this one was with Paul Waldie. In it, Mr. Waldie reported that there's more action outside than inside. Two of the defense witnesses were a professor of law from Osgoode, testifying on Canadian tax policy, and a compensation consultant there to testify on the noncompete payments. The latter witness concluded that they’re in line with industry norms, but Jeffrey Cramer on cross-examination said that the expert didn’t know all the relevant facts about how all the non-compete agreements were put together. The most interesting event to watch for is Mark Kipnis’ motion to dismiss the charges against him. Judge St. Eve has called for a special meeting regarding that motion, to make the prosecution justify the charges against Mr. Kipnis.
A Bloomberg report, by Andrew Harris and Joe Schneider, begins with: "Former Hollinger International Inc. Chairman Conrad Black and ex-finance chief John Boultbee received fair payment for an agreement not to compete with buyers of company newspapers, a witness at their fraud trial said." The executive-compensation expert, James Reda, testified that "CanWest's noncompete payments to the four Hollinger executives comprised only 2.5 percent of the total transaction value, while other comparable transactions produced a range of 0.12 percent to 24.62 percent.... [and] that Black and Boultbee received fair pay for their 2000 agreements not to compete with the Birmingham, Alabama-based Community Newspaper Holdings Inc., when it bought $90 million in Hollinger assets." As Mr. Waldie himself had indicated, though, he did concede that he was not asked to study the non-compete agreements for two other sales of newspapers. (Those would be the sale to Paxton Group and the larger one to CHNI.)
Mr. Waldie's report from this morning, webbed by the Globe and Mail, has some additional details on Mr. Reda's testimony tacked on to its end. "James Reda, a New York-based compensation consultant, showed the jury an analysis he had done of non-competition agreements in 25 transactions. He compared those with the non-compete agreements and related payments in the Hollinger case. Mr. Reda concluded that the Hollinger agreements and payments were not unusual and in some cases had more restrictive provisions.... Prosecutor Jeffrey Cramer[, though,] questioned Mr. Reda's analysis, noting that he included one deal worth $56 billion which skewered the calculations."
The same Bloomberg report, now updated, has details on the testimony of the Canadian tax expert, "Canadian corporate tax law professor Jinyan Li who said noncompete payments received by Black, Radler, Boultbee and Atkinson were tax-free because of a 1999 Canadian federal appeals court ruling." The non-compete payments would be legitimately tax-free "'as long as the contract is bona fide and legally enforceable,'" according to Professor Li.
An Associated Press report, written by Mike Robinson, starts off by noting that Judge St. Eve considers the trial to be running on schedule, which means that the defense will be finished by the end of this week and closing arguments will be through with as of next week. It also relates that the jury is being excused for tomorrow's session "because more defense witnesses won't be available until Thursday." She will announce Thursday morning whether or not Conrad Black's defense team can call David Radler to the stand. Near its end, it notes that Mr. Reda "acknowledged that he never had delved into the allegations of fraud that the government says underlie the seemingly innocent deal." Stephanie Kirchgaessner of the Financial Times has written a background report on David Radler, as webbed by MSNBC.com.
----------
Matthew McClearn, in the Canadian Business Black trial blog, has a report which notes that Kenneth Whyte had covered for Donald Trump regarding the business legitimacy of the birthday party: "Whyte also waxed about the benefits of hosting large, star-studded parties. It’s good for publicity, he said, when powerful and influential people attend. And it helps executives and journalists make contact with the shakers and movers of the day. This testimony lent credence to Black’s claim that the shin-dig at La Grenouille (for which International paid about two-thirds of the total bill) had a relevant business purpose." His more lengthy discussion of the cross-examination of Mr. Whyte, though, ends with the conclusion that the shoe was on the other foot regarding this expert witness for the defense. (Mr. McClearn also notes that the $100,000 bonus paid to Mr. Whyte was suspected of being in breach of a non-solicitation clause of the non-competition agreement that Mr. Black had signed for CanWest.)
The South African paper Mail and Guardian has a report that contains quite a few quotes from Conrad Black's statements made over the course of the trial. It also has some interestingly exotic language at the front of it. I can't think of any other report that describes Mr. Black himself as having "a broad face, as impervious as an Easter Island monolith and nearly as motionless; he expresses himself by tiny adjustments in the narrowness of his eyes. In court in Chicago, where he is facing up to 101 years in prison for fraud, he assumes a detached, sceptical air.
"Then there’s his third expression, a feline look of pleasure, eyes almost closed, which is rarely seen these days, but which will return, presumably, should he be acquitted of all charges."...
The following challenge, from the Toronto Life Conrad Black trial blog, is too good not to pass along: Douglas Bell is offering to personally deliver a "Conrad Black Will Win" T-shirt to the doorstep of the person who can explain, in the comments section of that post, what possible good re-calling Fred Creasey to the stand will do for the defense. This challenge, I will throw to the reader.
Tuesday, June 5, 2007
Media Roundup: The Importance Of Being Absent
The media reports, webbed overnight and today, about the Conrad Black trial focused on one of three developments yesterday: the absence of Donald Trump; the requested presence of David Radler; and/or Conrad Black's old renovation bills - with one exception:
1. From Crain's Chicago Business, an abridged Reuters report on the decision by Eddie Greenspan not to call Donald Trump to the stand.
2. The Vancouver Sun has webbed a report from Mary Vallis, which opens with the not-calling of Donald Trump but spends more time on the proposed calling of David Radler. After reviewing the testimony of Kenneth Whyte, it ends with the disclosure that two of the "several" prosecution witnesses that the defense plans to recall are Fred Creasey and Monique Delorme.
3. The Amherst Daily News has an abridged Associated Press report highlighting Lee Williams' testimony about the money plowed into the Manhattan apartment. So does the Calgary Sun.
4. The New York Times has webbed an in-depth report by Richard Siklos on why Donald Trump was first subpoenaed and then not called. The guess that Mr. Siklos attached most credence to is the fear that including Donald Trump would have made the trial too much of a circus. As far as Mr. Trump himself is concerned, he "declined to comment on his role in the case or what he would have testified but said he was pleased to be in New York with a clear calendar. 'I’ve caught up on all sort of stuff,' he said in a telephone interview. 'I have a free day — I haven’t had one of these days in a long time.'" (The end of the report contains a muttered remark in the hallway by you-know-who.)
5. The New Zealand Herald has webbed a report by Stephen Foley of the Independent, which deals with the help from Mr. Trump to Mr. Black, as well as those renovation expenses.
6. LawFuel.com has excerpted the Financial Times report on the testimony of Mr. Williams. The same report has been posted in FT's own "Alphaville."
7. A CP item, webbed by CBC News, also discusses the attempted substitution of David Radler for Donald Trump by the defense, and mentions tentative plans to "call several expert witnesses as well as Black's butler and former pilot."
8. Ameet Sachdev's report for today's Chicago Tribune takes up the same substitution. It ends with a recap of Mr. Williams' testimony.
9. Another report by Ms. Vallis, as webbed by the Ottawa Citizen, recounts the circumstances that have led Csr. Greenspan to recall Mr. Radler.
10. The Globe and Mail has webbed Paul Waldie's own take on the impending recall of Mr. Radler. His report also recaps the testimony of Mr. Williams, and the end of Mr. Whyte's under cross-examination - specifically, about the $100,000 bonus he had received in 2003. "Lord Black arranged the bonus even though he was bound by a five-year agreement with CanWest not to induce or recruit National Post managers, Ms. Ruder said."
11. Rick Westhead of the Toronto Star focuses upon the substitution of the renovation expenses for Donald Trump's appearance as the item of the day. Regarding those expenses, the report notes that "Hollinger had agreed to reimburse Black for 'capital improvements' that would increase the value of the property."
12. The reporter that was the original conduit of the speculation on Donald Trump testifying, the New York Post's Janet Whitman, has written a report headlined "Trump Is Fired." (CBC correspondent Mike Holbrook, on a CBC News: Morning clip aired at about 9:05 AM, confirmed that the original scoop was real at the time.)
13. The second report of the morning by Mr. Waldie, also webbed by the Globe, focuses upon a motion to dismiss all charges against Mark Kipnis: "The judge in the Conrad Black trial said she will seriously consider a legal motion that seeks to dismiss all of the charges against [Mr. Kipnis.]" The motion in question, a "rule 29," is a type that is frequently filed by the defense and rarely granted by the judge; it claims that the prosecution failed to meet its burden of proof. All four defendants have filed one, but "Judge Amy St. Eve singled out filings by Mr. Kipnis's team for special attention. She indicated that they are among those she is most interested in reviewing." The prosecution, of course, has objected to it.
14. A report by the Chicago Sun-Times' Mary Wisniewski has the second-most complete itemization of the expenses for the Manhattan apartment amongst the stories linked to in this entry. The last mentioned is "[o]ne invoice detailed accommodations for interior decorators, including a $200 lobster dinner." It's subtitled "Closing arguments could start this week."
15. Sun-Times columnist Stella Foster mentions a dinner that Conrad Black had in her latest column: "EMBATTLED LORD CONRAD BLACK, on trial in Chicago, apparently took some down time to dine with Cardinal Francis George May 21 at the Holy Name Cathedral's Rectory on North Wabash. Others in attendance at this small and private dinner: the Rev. Dan Mayall, pastor of Holy Name; Auxiliary Bishop Emeritus Timothy J. Lyne; businessman Joseph Fosco, and attorney Robert DeMeo."
16. The Daily Mail's report on the absence of Donald Trump claims that Mr. Black had made a "pledge last February that he would personally testify as a 'freedom fighter to clear my name.'" It suggests that the prosecution has asked for an "ostrich instruction" in retaliation for Mr. Black's bad attitude. As you may expect, it also reviews many of Mr. Black's expenditures revealed in the trial.
17. Yesterday's part of the trial garnered a mention on Chicago Public Radio.
18. The two-page report by Times Online reporter Jenny Booth takes the cake for the most complete itemization of the money plowed into the Manhattan apartment of all the reports linked to from this entry. The second page reviews the rest of yesterday's testimony.
19. Ms. Vallis has also wrote about the Kipnis story, in a Financial Post-webbed report entitled "Charges against Kipnis could be dropped." Like Mr. Waldie, she notes that Judge St. Eve will give the motion to dismiss the charges special consideration: "yesterday, Judge Amy St. Eve indicated she is particularly concerned about Mr. Kipnis because he is 'differently situated than the other defendants.'"
20. A two-page report in The Age of Melbourne has all three of yesterday's main events. It starts off with Donald Trump being let off the witness hook.
21. The Melbourne Herald-Sun has webbed an abridged Bloomberg report - the part that focuses upon the Radler item.
22. The blog "Media Bistro" has stripped away the surrounding wordage to distill a partial list of the items that Mr. Black bought for the apartment.
----------
The Sun-Times also has a report today on the current status of the charges against R.Kelly, which makes me wonder how long before "Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band" will be picked over for hip-hop sampling. (A related Onion-esque joke: "Yesterday, a new witness was called in the criminal trial of 'Big X' for statutory rape: his and the alleged victim's eldest son, now seven years old....")
Also, an editorial in the Canada Free Press compares Ontario premier Dalton McGuinty to David Radler, through drawing a parallel to Mr. Radler's testimony and Premier McGuinty's pledge back in 2003 not to raise Ontario taxes; the editorial claims he both broke that promise in 2004 and covered it up through dissembling. Reading that editorial after going through Premier McGuinty's "initiatives" may very well prove to be instructive.
Douglas Bell of the Toronto Life Conrad Black trial blog was quoted at the bottom of Shinan Govani's latest report, whose subject is "Will one Gore gore the other?" Mr. Bell himself has a new entry in the blog, entitled "Ken and Barbie," that continues on the Maclean's conflict-of-interest theme.
1. From Crain's Chicago Business, an abridged Reuters report on the decision by Eddie Greenspan not to call Donald Trump to the stand.
2. The Vancouver Sun has webbed a report from Mary Vallis, which opens with the not-calling of Donald Trump but spends more time on the proposed calling of David Radler. After reviewing the testimony of Kenneth Whyte, it ends with the disclosure that two of the "several" prosecution witnesses that the defense plans to recall are Fred Creasey and Monique Delorme.
3. The Amherst Daily News has an abridged Associated Press report highlighting Lee Williams' testimony about the money plowed into the Manhattan apartment. So does the Calgary Sun.
4. The New York Times has webbed an in-depth report by Richard Siklos on why Donald Trump was first subpoenaed and then not called. The guess that Mr. Siklos attached most credence to is the fear that including Donald Trump would have made the trial too much of a circus. As far as Mr. Trump himself is concerned, he "declined to comment on his role in the case or what he would have testified but said he was pleased to be in New York with a clear calendar. 'I’ve caught up on all sort of stuff,' he said in a telephone interview. 'I have a free day — I haven’t had one of these days in a long time.'" (The end of the report contains a muttered remark in the hallway by you-know-who.)
5. The New Zealand Herald has webbed a report by Stephen Foley of the Independent, which deals with the help from Mr. Trump to Mr. Black, as well as those renovation expenses.
6. LawFuel.com has excerpted the Financial Times report on the testimony of Mr. Williams. The same report has been posted in FT's own "Alphaville."
7. A CP item, webbed by CBC News, also discusses the attempted substitution of David Radler for Donald Trump by the defense, and mentions tentative plans to "call several expert witnesses as well as Black's butler and former pilot."
8. Ameet Sachdev's report for today's Chicago Tribune takes up the same substitution. It ends with a recap of Mr. Williams' testimony.
9. Another report by Ms. Vallis, as webbed by the Ottawa Citizen, recounts the circumstances that have led Csr. Greenspan to recall Mr. Radler.
10. The Globe and Mail has webbed Paul Waldie's own take on the impending recall of Mr. Radler. His report also recaps the testimony of Mr. Williams, and the end of Mr. Whyte's under cross-examination - specifically, about the $100,000 bonus he had received in 2003. "Lord Black arranged the bonus even though he was bound by a five-year agreement with CanWest not to induce or recruit National Post managers, Ms. Ruder said."
11. Rick Westhead of the Toronto Star focuses upon the substitution of the renovation expenses for Donald Trump's appearance as the item of the day. Regarding those expenses, the report notes that "Hollinger had agreed to reimburse Black for 'capital improvements' that would increase the value of the property."
12. The reporter that was the original conduit of the speculation on Donald Trump testifying, the New York Post's Janet Whitman, has written a report headlined "Trump Is Fired." (CBC correspondent Mike Holbrook, on a CBC News: Morning clip aired at about 9:05 AM, confirmed that the original scoop was real at the time.)
13. The second report of the morning by Mr. Waldie, also webbed by the Globe, focuses upon a motion to dismiss all charges against Mark Kipnis: "The judge in the Conrad Black trial said she will seriously consider a legal motion that seeks to dismiss all of the charges against [Mr. Kipnis.]" The motion in question, a "rule 29," is a type that is frequently filed by the defense and rarely granted by the judge; it claims that the prosecution failed to meet its burden of proof. All four defendants have filed one, but "Judge Amy St. Eve singled out filings by Mr. Kipnis's team for special attention. She indicated that they are among those she is most interested in reviewing." The prosecution, of course, has objected to it.
14. A report by the Chicago Sun-Times' Mary Wisniewski has the second-most complete itemization of the expenses for the Manhattan apartment amongst the stories linked to in this entry. The last mentioned is "[o]ne invoice detailed accommodations for interior decorators, including a $200 lobster dinner." It's subtitled "Closing arguments could start this week."
15. Sun-Times columnist Stella Foster mentions a dinner that Conrad Black had in her latest column: "EMBATTLED LORD CONRAD BLACK, on trial in Chicago, apparently took some down time to dine with Cardinal Francis George May 21 at the Holy Name Cathedral's Rectory on North Wabash. Others in attendance at this small and private dinner: the Rev. Dan Mayall, pastor of Holy Name; Auxiliary Bishop Emeritus Timothy J. Lyne; businessman Joseph Fosco, and attorney Robert DeMeo."
16. The Daily Mail's report on the absence of Donald Trump claims that Mr. Black had made a "pledge last February that he would personally testify as a 'freedom fighter to clear my name.'" It suggests that the prosecution has asked for an "ostrich instruction" in retaliation for Mr. Black's bad attitude. As you may expect, it also reviews many of Mr. Black's expenditures revealed in the trial.
17. Yesterday's part of the trial garnered a mention on Chicago Public Radio.
18. The two-page report by Times Online reporter Jenny Booth takes the cake for the most complete itemization of the money plowed into the Manhattan apartment of all the reports linked to from this entry. The second page reviews the rest of yesterday's testimony.
19. Ms. Vallis has also wrote about the Kipnis story, in a Financial Post-webbed report entitled "Charges against Kipnis could be dropped." Like Mr. Waldie, she notes that Judge St. Eve will give the motion to dismiss the charges special consideration: "yesterday, Judge Amy St. Eve indicated she is particularly concerned about Mr. Kipnis because he is 'differently situated than the other defendants.'"
20. A two-page report in The Age of Melbourne has all three of yesterday's main events. It starts off with Donald Trump being let off the witness hook.
21. The Melbourne Herald-Sun has webbed an abridged Bloomberg report - the part that focuses upon the Radler item.
22. The blog "Media Bistro" has stripped away the surrounding wordage to distill a partial list of the items that Mr. Black bought for the apartment.
----------
The Sun-Times also has a report today on the current status of the charges against R.Kelly, which makes me wonder how long before "Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band" will be picked over for hip-hop sampling. (A related Onion-esque joke: "Yesterday, a new witness was called in the criminal trial of 'Big X' for statutory rape: his and the alleged victim's eldest son, now seven years old....")
Also, an editorial in the Canada Free Press compares Ontario premier Dalton McGuinty to David Radler, through drawing a parallel to Mr. Radler's testimony and Premier McGuinty's pledge back in 2003 not to raise Ontario taxes; the editorial claims he both broke that promise in 2004 and covered it up through dissembling. Reading that editorial after going through Premier McGuinty's "initiatives" may very well prove to be instructive.
Douglas Bell of the Toronto Life Conrad Black trial blog was quoted at the bottom of Shinan Govani's latest report, whose subject is "Will one Gore gore the other?" Mr. Bell himself has a new entry in the blog, entitled "Ken and Barbie," that continues on the Maclean's conflict-of-interest theme.
Monday, June 4, 2007
Monday Surprises
The first item from today's coverage of the trial, as webbed by 680 News, carries a real surprise: the defense has filed a motion to have David Radler testify as a defense witness. Yes, they want "to require the government to produce F. David Radler for examination in the defence case." The reasons given: "Black's lawyers have since unearthed evidence that Radler had contacted a leading Canadian parole lawyer [John Conroy] before making his plea arrangement with U.S. prosecutors.
"'That Mr. Radler has had the leading Canadian parole lawyer on his legal team since November 2004 is probative of his bias, motive and interest in testifying for the government,' the court filing said.
"'It also impeaches his claims of ignorance about Canadian surrender and parole rules.'"
A report by Paul Waldie, webbed by the Globe and Mail, has some details of Julie Ruder's cross-examination of Kenneth Whyte. She focused in on the payment of a $100,000 bonus as an attempt on Mr. Black's part to wiggle out of the non-compete agreement that the prosecution has conceded to be legitimate. "Mr. Whyte insisted the bonus was for his past work at the paper which had been 'sold out from under him.' He said Lord Black wanted to ensure that they were remained on good terms so they could work together again in future." He added under redirect examination that he and Mr. Black "talked about positions in Chicago or New York. Mr Greenspan said the CanWest non-competition agreement only applied to Canada." Csr. Ruder also brought up bias in her cross-examination.
The second surprise of the day is that Donald Trump will not testify today. According to a Canadian Press report, webbed by the Montreal Gazette, "Conrad Black's fraud trial will have to wait to hear testimony from celebrity property developer Donald Trump, who had been expected to testify in defence of the media magnate on Monday.... Officials at Trump's office would not say why he did not appear Monday as had been expected or comment on trial, but a spokesperson did confirm Trump was still in New York. " The report, which also includes the defense's attempt to call Mr. Radler, says that no-one on the defense team is denying that Mr. Trump will testify sometime this week.
On a BNN interview with Paul Waldie, aired at 1:55 PM, Mr. Waldie disclosed an update on Donald Trump: he isn’t going to be a witness this week, and it’s not likely he’ll be called at all. [This item has been confirmed by the Chicago Tribune.]After Mr. Whyte, some tax experts and apartment experts were next. The defense presented invoices from spends on the Manhattan apartment, but the prosecution said that some of them were potential personal property, not improvements to the apartment itself – “likely that Black would have taken them with him,” in Mr. Waldie’s words.
Mr. Waldie has also updated his earlier report on this morning's trial events, as webbed by the Globe and Mail. It also includes Ms. Ruder showing E-mails to Mr. Whyte "from marketing people at the National Post around the time of the trip. The marketing people were trying to arrange a letter from Lord Black for an upcoming ad in a trade publication. However they were told that Lord Black was out of touch and 'on vacation.'" The apartment expert, Lee Williams, not only testified to what Mr. Waldie mentioned in the interview, but also acknowledged that Mr. Black did take some of the purchased items with him.
An Associated Press summary, webbed by ABC7 Chicago, starts off with this item: "Jurors at Conrad Black's racketeering trial today heard about the media mogul's lavish Park Avenue apartment, which featured a 12-thousand-dollar commode." It also mentions that Mr. Williams is a former tax agent.
The Donald Trump no-show starts off a Reuters report, written by Andrew Stern. It has a quote to that effect: "Edward Greenspan, Black's Toronto-based lawyer, told reporters outside of court 'We're not calling Mr. Trump.' He offered no explanation." The question about the true status of the Bora Bora trip is also referred to: when Csr. Ruder confronted him about it, he replied, "'I don't know about that,'... He later said he felt the issue was not urgent and that he had been able to call Black in the past wherever he was around the world." With regard to the bias issue, Mr. Whyte answered a question about whether or not he's loyal to Mr. Black with, "I no longer work for him. I suppose I'm loyal to him."
A more detailed AP report, by Mike Robinson, has been webbed by the Daily Southtown. It contains a partial itemization of the accessories for the apartment paid for by Mr. Black: "Besides a $12,000 'three-drawer' commode and the $17,000 music system, there were $4,399 towel-holder bars, $17,710 Indian white marble elephants, $9,800 Louis XVI painted stools, a 1920s Chinese carpet for $33,000 and a porcelain bottle that belonged to Napoleon Bonaparte on his campaign in Russia along with a mahogany shaving stand for $12,500.... [There was also a] diamond vault [that] cost $12,000 and Black paid $828 for sofa pillows plus two yards of silk, according to the list. It also included a Brussels carpet that cost $3,255, a mother of pearl Persian box valued at $9,600 and a $9,750 plaque depicting Amazon women." Near its end, it notes that "Williams testified the improvements cost $4.6 million -- exactly what Black and his defense attorneys are claiming. But the government has said no more than $2.3 million in such improvements are provable." A few of these items, as noted above, were taken away, and some others could have. Even more detailed is Canadian Business' version, which works in the above points with the David-Radler-for-the-defense story.
A much briefer report has been put out by UPI, and webbed by Monsters and Critics. It focuses on Donald Trump's no-show, and adds that Mr. Trump's office had no comment on his absence.
The Bloomberg report, written by Joe Schneider and Andrew Harris, begins by recounting the defense's motion to have David Radler testify for the other side. The reason why they are petitioning for it, according to Conrad Black counsel Marc Martin, is that "'Radler is under control of the government.''' It also notes that Mr. Whyte testified that the statement he had given in a 2006 deposition, that the $100,000 bonus he had received from Mr. Black in 2003 was to keep up a good business relationship, was accurate. It also relates that Eric Sussman used a capital-improvement versus removable-item standard to whittle down the $4.6 million figure to $2.3 million. Near its end, it discloses that "Williams also testified that what prosecutors say was a July 2001 journey by the Blacks to Bora Bora aboard Hollinger's corporate jet, which cost the company more than C$558,000, should have really cost as little as C$45,000. The witness said Hollinger had wrongly computed the cost of the trip."
Stephanie Kirchgaessner of the Financial Times is back on the trial beat, with an abbreviated list of the items in the apartment. Her report also notes that Csr. Sussman remembered his previous pronunciation difficulties. (See item #6.) "The posh terminology left prosecutors somewhat mystified. Eric Sussman, the chief prosecutor, did not even attempt to pronounce the word 'Guilloche' and confessed that he did not know what a barbiere was. The term is usually used to describe a shaving stand or table, which comes complete with a basin and mirror." It also has a scoop regarding the Donald Trump no-show: "the businessman’s personal assistant told the FT Mr Trump had been called over the weekend and was told he did not need to appear in court." ("Surprise" indeed.)
A report from Stephen Foley of The Independent explains why Conrad Black's defense team decided not to call Mr. Trump: they believe that they have enough to acquit without his help. Mr. Foley notes that the tesimony of Mr. Williams "appeared to do more harm than good to the Black defence, offering the prosecution an opportunity to give jurors another peek at Lord Black's lavish lifestyle."
Shifting back to the first surprise: a report by Mary Vallis, webbed by the National Post, has more details on the defense motion. It reveals that Csr. Greenspan only had a hunch that Mr. Radler had retained John Conroy, which was confirmed later. The prosecution is arguing against allowing the defense to call Mr. Radler to the stand, for two reasons: one, "the parole lawyer had not spoken directly with Radler other than to send him a bill;" two, "there is an 'insufficient factual basis'" for the recall. "'We believe it's completely collateral,' Sussman said." Judge St. Eve is expected to rule on the motion tomorrow.
Also, CTV's David Akin has a spot on The Verdict, during which he speculated that the reason Mr. Trump wasn't called was the fear that his testimony may have ticked off the jury, and that it was not worth the risk relative to the added benefit. They may also have been worried about the cross-examination. Also (probably the more significant reason,) the already-established presence of Donald Trump might be enough; other witnesses will have covered for the points he would have made. Today marks the end of the defense for Conrad Black; counsel for the other defendants are starting to call witnesses. Mr. Black's legal team will probably recall some witnesses. Other than Mr. Radler, though, those witness will just be “tying up loose ends.” The verdict in the Conrad Black trial might very well come by the end of June. At the end of this episode, Ms. Todd speculated that there must have been some hidden bomb in Mr. Trump's testimony; he would have been an unreliable witness. Donald Trump is the head of a private company; he himself said that the mindset needed to head up a public company is different.
And finally, CBC correspondent Neil Macdonald had a report on CBC's The National, in which he said that it has been assumed that Mr. Black et. al. believes that little defense is needed because the prosecution has failed to prove its case. Hugh Totten said on camera that this attitude is reckless. Mr. Black is still silent outside of court, but he was quite loquacious before Judge St. Eve's rebuke. Csr. Totten also said that Mr. Black's outside statements will come back to haunt him, if he's found guilty, during the sentencing.
----------
Mark Steyn has seen fit to respond to the publicly-raised suspicion that he harbours a conflict of interest regarding the Conrad Black trial. His latest disclosure: "By the way, all this media navel-gazing about 'conflicts of interest' ignores the obvious: as I've said before, I have no financial interest in defending Conrad and nor does Ken. He signed our paycheques, but that was long ago now."
Also, Douglas Bell has excerpted a Times of London column for the Toronto Life Conrad Black trial blog. The column itself compares Conrad Black to Paris Hilton.
If you yourself are intrigued about the recent Angus Reid poll asking (among other questions) whether or not Conrad Black will get a fair trial, Court TV Canada has an online poll that you can cast your vote in, and even supply a reason for your choice. The "No"s have a much greater frequency than in the AR poll, so the Court TV one may have been gamed. Interestingly, though, three "No" submitters said so because they thought that Mr. Black would buy his way out of a conviction through expensive legal talent. Something to consider when interpreting the result of Angus Reid's.
"'That Mr. Radler has had the leading Canadian parole lawyer on his legal team since November 2004 is probative of his bias, motive and interest in testifying for the government,' the court filing said.
"'It also impeaches his claims of ignorance about Canadian surrender and parole rules.'"
A report by Paul Waldie, webbed by the Globe and Mail, has some details of Julie Ruder's cross-examination of Kenneth Whyte. She focused in on the payment of a $100,000 bonus as an attempt on Mr. Black's part to wiggle out of the non-compete agreement that the prosecution has conceded to be legitimate. "Mr. Whyte insisted the bonus was for his past work at the paper which had been 'sold out from under him.' He said Lord Black wanted to ensure that they were remained on good terms so they could work together again in future." He added under redirect examination that he and Mr. Black "talked about positions in Chicago or New York. Mr Greenspan said the CanWest non-competition agreement only applied to Canada." Csr. Ruder also brought up bias in her cross-examination.
The second surprise of the day is that Donald Trump will not testify today. According to a Canadian Press report, webbed by the Montreal Gazette, "Conrad Black's fraud trial will have to wait to hear testimony from celebrity property developer Donald Trump, who had been expected to testify in defence of the media magnate on Monday.... Officials at Trump's office would not say why he did not appear Monday as had been expected or comment on trial, but a spokesperson did confirm Trump was still in New York. " The report, which also includes the defense's attempt to call Mr. Radler, says that no-one on the defense team is denying that Mr. Trump will testify sometime this week.
On a BNN interview with Paul Waldie, aired at 1:55 PM, Mr. Waldie disclosed an update on Donald Trump: he isn’t going to be a witness this week, and it’s not likely he’ll be called at all. [This item has been confirmed by the Chicago Tribune.]After Mr. Whyte, some tax experts and apartment experts were next. The defense presented invoices from spends on the Manhattan apartment, but the prosecution said that some of them were potential personal property, not improvements to the apartment itself – “likely that Black would have taken them with him,” in Mr. Waldie’s words.
Mr. Waldie has also updated his earlier report on this morning's trial events, as webbed by the Globe and Mail. It also includes Ms. Ruder showing E-mails to Mr. Whyte "from marketing people at the National Post around the time of the trip. The marketing people were trying to arrange a letter from Lord Black for an upcoming ad in a trade publication. However they were told that Lord Black was out of touch and 'on vacation.'" The apartment expert, Lee Williams, not only testified to what Mr. Waldie mentioned in the interview, but also acknowledged that Mr. Black did take some of the purchased items with him.
An Associated Press summary, webbed by ABC7 Chicago, starts off with this item: "Jurors at Conrad Black's racketeering trial today heard about the media mogul's lavish Park Avenue apartment, which featured a 12-thousand-dollar commode." It also mentions that Mr. Williams is a former tax agent.
The Donald Trump no-show starts off a Reuters report, written by Andrew Stern. It has a quote to that effect: "Edward Greenspan, Black's Toronto-based lawyer, told reporters outside of court 'We're not calling Mr. Trump.' He offered no explanation." The question about the true status of the Bora Bora trip is also referred to: when Csr. Ruder confronted him about it, he replied, "'I don't know about that,'... He later said he felt the issue was not urgent and that he had been able to call Black in the past wherever he was around the world." With regard to the bias issue, Mr. Whyte answered a question about whether or not he's loyal to Mr. Black with, "I no longer work for him. I suppose I'm loyal to him."
A more detailed AP report, by Mike Robinson, has been webbed by the Daily Southtown. It contains a partial itemization of the accessories for the apartment paid for by Mr. Black: "Besides a $12,000 'three-drawer' commode and the $17,000 music system, there were $4,399 towel-holder bars, $17,710 Indian white marble elephants, $9,800 Louis XVI painted stools, a 1920s Chinese carpet for $33,000 and a porcelain bottle that belonged to Napoleon Bonaparte on his campaign in Russia along with a mahogany shaving stand for $12,500.... [There was also a] diamond vault [that] cost $12,000 and Black paid $828 for sofa pillows plus two yards of silk, according to the list. It also included a Brussels carpet that cost $3,255, a mother of pearl Persian box valued at $9,600 and a $9,750 plaque depicting Amazon women." Near its end, it notes that "Williams testified the improvements cost $4.6 million -- exactly what Black and his defense attorneys are claiming. But the government has said no more than $2.3 million in such improvements are provable." A few of these items, as noted above, were taken away, and some others could have. Even more detailed is Canadian Business' version, which works in the above points with the David-Radler-for-the-defense story.
A much briefer report has been put out by UPI, and webbed by Monsters and Critics. It focuses on Donald Trump's no-show, and adds that Mr. Trump's office had no comment on his absence.
The Bloomberg report, written by Joe Schneider and Andrew Harris, begins by recounting the defense's motion to have David Radler testify for the other side. The reason why they are petitioning for it, according to Conrad Black counsel Marc Martin, is that "'Radler is under control of the government.''' It also notes that Mr. Whyte testified that the statement he had given in a 2006 deposition, that the $100,000 bonus he had received from Mr. Black in 2003 was to keep up a good business relationship, was accurate. It also relates that Eric Sussman used a capital-improvement versus removable-item standard to whittle down the $4.6 million figure to $2.3 million. Near its end, it discloses that "Williams also testified that what prosecutors say was a July 2001 journey by the Blacks to Bora Bora aboard Hollinger's corporate jet, which cost the company more than C$558,000, should have really cost as little as C$45,000. The witness said Hollinger had wrongly computed the cost of the trip."
Stephanie Kirchgaessner of the Financial Times is back on the trial beat, with an abbreviated list of the items in the apartment. Her report also notes that Csr. Sussman remembered his previous pronunciation difficulties. (See item #6.) "The posh terminology left prosecutors somewhat mystified. Eric Sussman, the chief prosecutor, did not even attempt to pronounce the word 'Guilloche' and confessed that he did not know what a barbiere was. The term is usually used to describe a shaving stand or table, which comes complete with a basin and mirror." It also has a scoop regarding the Donald Trump no-show: "the businessman’s personal assistant told the FT Mr Trump had been called over the weekend and was told he did not need to appear in court." ("Surprise" indeed.)
A report from Stephen Foley of The Independent explains why Conrad Black's defense team decided not to call Mr. Trump: they believe that they have enough to acquit without his help. Mr. Foley notes that the tesimony of Mr. Williams "appeared to do more harm than good to the Black defence, offering the prosecution an opportunity to give jurors another peek at Lord Black's lavish lifestyle."
Shifting back to the first surprise: a report by Mary Vallis, webbed by the National Post, has more details on the defense motion. It reveals that Csr. Greenspan only had a hunch that Mr. Radler had retained John Conroy, which was confirmed later. The prosecution is arguing against allowing the defense to call Mr. Radler to the stand, for two reasons: one, "the parole lawyer had not spoken directly with Radler other than to send him a bill;" two, "there is an 'insufficient factual basis'" for the recall. "'We believe it's completely collateral,' Sussman said." Judge St. Eve is expected to rule on the motion tomorrow.
Also, CTV's David Akin has a spot on The Verdict, during which he speculated that the reason Mr. Trump wasn't called was the fear that his testimony may have ticked off the jury, and that it was not worth the risk relative to the added benefit. They may also have been worried about the cross-examination. Also (probably the more significant reason,) the already-established presence of Donald Trump might be enough; other witnesses will have covered for the points he would have made. Today marks the end of the defense for Conrad Black; counsel for the other defendants are starting to call witnesses. Mr. Black's legal team will probably recall some witnesses. Other than Mr. Radler, though, those witness will just be “tying up loose ends.” The verdict in the Conrad Black trial might very well come by the end of June. At the end of this episode, Ms. Todd speculated that there must have been some hidden bomb in Mr. Trump's testimony; he would have been an unreliable witness. Donald Trump is the head of a private company; he himself said that the mindset needed to head up a public company is different.
And finally, CBC correspondent Neil Macdonald had a report on CBC's The National, in which he said that it has been assumed that Mr. Black et. al. believes that little defense is needed because the prosecution has failed to prove its case. Hugh Totten said on camera that this attitude is reckless. Mr. Black is still silent outside of court, but he was quite loquacious before Judge St. Eve's rebuke. Csr. Totten also said that Mr. Black's outside statements will come back to haunt him, if he's found guilty, during the sentencing.
----------
Mark Steyn has seen fit to respond to the publicly-raised suspicion that he harbours a conflict of interest regarding the Conrad Black trial. His latest disclosure: "By the way, all this media navel-gazing about 'conflicts of interest' ignores the obvious: as I've said before, I have no financial interest in defending Conrad and nor does Ken. He signed our paycheques, but that was long ago now."
Also, Douglas Bell has excerpted a Times of London column for the Toronto Life Conrad Black trial blog. The column itself compares Conrad Black to Paris Hilton.
If you yourself are intrigued about the recent Angus Reid poll asking (among other questions) whether or not Conrad Black will get a fair trial, Court TV Canada has an online poll that you can cast your vote in, and even supply a reason for your choice. The "No"s have a much greater frequency than in the AR poll, so the Court TV one may have been gamed. Interestingly, though, three "No" submitters said so because they thought that Mr. Black would buy his way out of a conviction through expensive legal talent. Something to consider when interpreting the result of Angus Reid's.
Media Roundup: Prepping For Trump
The several media reports, webbed overnight and today, all focus upon Donald Trump's expected appearance as a witness today:
1. From CBC News, a CP report that briefly summarizes Donald Trump's expected contribution to the defense's theory about the birthday party. It ends by mentioning that the trial will resume with the finishing of the cross-examination of Kenneth Whyte.
2. The Calgary Sun has webbed an expanded version of the above report, credited to Romina Maurino.
3. The Toronto Sun has webbed an abridgement of the same report that the Calgary Sun has webbed, also credited to Romina Maurino.
4. The expected upcoming testimony of The Donald is mentioned in a report by Paul Waldie, webbed by the Globe and Mail, but the bulk of it is devoted to a controversy last week when the jury was away: whether or not Eddie Greenspan can call a B.C. lawyer, John Conroy, as a rebuttal witness to show that David Radker knew of the lenient terms awaiting him for plea bargaining. Because Eric Sussman argued last Friday that Mr. Radler had never talked personally to Csr. Conroy, it looks unlikely that Judge St. Eve will rule in favour of him being called.
5. CTV News has an expanded version of the above CP reports, with an added quote from Steve Skurka about the risks of bringing in a celebrity as a character witness: "'It is risky because if the jury senses that the defence is playing with their emotions -- that this is just a trophy witness, that you're utilizing and exploiting celebrity to try to fool them -- then it has the opposite effect and it damages Conrad Black,' said Skurka."
----------
From the American Thinker comes an opinion piece arguing that "Scooter" Libby should be sentenced to parole only. The article, written by Clarice Feldman, makes a tie to the Libby case and the Conrad Black trial through the prosecutor-in-chief of both: "Fitzgerald demonstrates here, as he does in the Conrad Black case in Chicago, a too-eager jumping into cases without adequate research, a snipping the edges off the truth to make them fit the jigsaw puzzle case in his mind, a granting of immunity to the people really responsible for the claimed wrongdoing and then counting on the court's predilection to give the government the benefit of the doubt and the jury's distaste for the defendant to carry him through despite the weaknesses of the case which remains."
1. From CBC News, a CP report that briefly summarizes Donald Trump's expected contribution to the defense's theory about the birthday party. It ends by mentioning that the trial will resume with the finishing of the cross-examination of Kenneth Whyte.
2. The Calgary Sun has webbed an expanded version of the above report, credited to Romina Maurino.
3. The Toronto Sun has webbed an abridgement of the same report that the Calgary Sun has webbed, also credited to Romina Maurino.
4. The expected upcoming testimony of The Donald is mentioned in a report by Paul Waldie, webbed by the Globe and Mail, but the bulk of it is devoted to a controversy last week when the jury was away: whether or not Eddie Greenspan can call a B.C. lawyer, John Conroy, as a rebuttal witness to show that David Radker knew of the lenient terms awaiting him for plea bargaining. Because Eric Sussman argued last Friday that Mr. Radler had never talked personally to Csr. Conroy, it looks unlikely that Judge St. Eve will rule in favour of him being called.
5. CTV News has an expanded version of the above CP reports, with an added quote from Steve Skurka about the risks of bringing in a celebrity as a character witness: "'It is risky because if the jury senses that the defence is playing with their emotions -- that this is just a trophy witness, that you're utilizing and exploiting celebrity to try to fool them -- then it has the opposite effect and it damages Conrad Black,' said Skurka."
----------
From the American Thinker comes an opinion piece arguing that "Scooter" Libby should be sentenced to parole only. The article, written by Clarice Feldman, makes a tie to the Libby case and the Conrad Black trial through the prosecutor-in-chief of both: "Fitzgerald demonstrates here, as he does in the Conrad Black case in Chicago, a too-eager jumping into cases without adequate research, a snipping the edges off the truth to make them fit the jigsaw puzzle case in his mind, a granting of immunity to the people really responsible for the claimed wrongdoing and then counting on the court's predilection to give the government the benefit of the doubt and the jury's distaste for the defendant to carry him through despite the weaknesses of the case which remains."
Sunday, June 3, 2007
Martin Mayer, Corporate Complexity, and...Jean-Jacques Rousseau
I’ve been reading an old book called Nightmare on Wall Street (1993) by Martin Mayer, about the Salomon Brothers Treasury-note bidding scandal back in 1991. In addition to being interesting because it details the scandal for which then-SEC Commissioner Richard Breeden was called to task about, it also displays a framework that’s unusual in finance books - a thoroughly Rousseauian one. Specifically, its perspective is rooted in Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s first discourse, the one that argued that progress in the arts and sciences causes decay in society’s morals.
Rousseau’s argument, heavily controversial in its time, goes like this: when there are few scientists, artists and abstract thinkers in a society, the bulk of its members are simple men with clear-cut morals. In such a society, most everyone knows right from wrong because there’s no complexifiers around. In addition, there’s no advancement opportunity in becoming a scientist or artist, so the talent pool is limited to those who love their field for its own sake. Such a society is filled with simple, yet robust and resourceful people.
The growth of art means the growth of role models who are not living people, according to Rousseau. This prompts the growth of formal courtesies which become more artificial over time. In addition, the growth in numbers and prestige of artists means that “art for art’s sake” is debased into “art as an exclusive club.” Using art to influence other people for the sake of power-tripping becomes more and more frequent. The end result is that the simple but powerful men, the one whose strengths are the backbone of national greatness, are slowly put underfoot. What used to be virtuous becomes rude. What used to be excellence becomes uncouthness. What used to be pure becomes simplistic. What used to be prowess becomes a threat. What used to be common sense becomes stupidity. And, what causes this transformation according to Rousseau, is the plain fact that all artists are incorrigibly vain.
The growth of the sciences, Rousseau argues, does not result in that many benefits to humankind; instead, it results in the growth of pedantry and abstruseness. Much of it can be seen through by asking this question: how much better off were we before the growth of scientific progress? How much of scientific progress that has actually resulted in a pointable-to real benefit to humankind, has merely fostered the growth of luxury, idleness and vanity? A mute but eloquent set of counterexamples, to the dictum that all progress in science is “good,” can be found in those points of history where rich and sophisticated civilizations have been conquered by societies of rustic barbarians. There is much evidence to be found that a military equipped with the best tools and scientific ideas slowly decays into self-absorption, a state where its generals know everything there is to know about sophisticated war except how to win. Rousseau ends his argument that the growth of artistic or scientific professions means a growth in the number of practitioners who are just plain mediocre.
Martin Meyer’s adaptation of the above framework goes like this: the progress of derivatives and mathematics-driven trading corrupts customer service in the investment industry. As the number of products proliferate, and the number of hedging and arbitrage techniques become more numerous and mathematically sophisticated, the investment field becomes more and more dependant upon people who become more and more specialized, and more and more in love with their own specialty. As complexity is compounded upon complexity, the customer becomes less and less of a real person with real needs, and more and more of an abstraction. The irony of this ‘progress’ is that standards of ‘customer service’ become more and more stereotypical. Thus, there is more and more temptation to deduce, or assume, that the customer “oughta want” such-and-such. It’s only a matter of time before the customers get jerked around.
In addition, Mr. Meyer adapts one of Rousseau’s other arguments in that Discourse: “We have physicists, geometricians, chemists, astronomers, poets, musicians, and painters in plenty; but we have no longer a citizen among us…” As the investment field become hyper-specialized, the relevant statutes are no longer seen as part of the laws of the land, but as rules, then “rules of the game,” then as mere obstacles to be outfoxed. Specialism implies gamesmanship.
The relevance of this philosophic framework to corporate governance isn’t obvious. Advocates for corporate governance could draw from this argument by saying that corporate-governance reforms are being put in place to wring the gamesmanship out of the executive suite and to put the shareholder back in the owners’ seat. Skeptics could argue that corporate-governance experts are just another bunch of paper pushers with a new line, who will wind up being as self-aggrandizing as the crop they’re shoving out. If anything, the skeptic can further argue, they’ll be more cunning than the current suits are.
Interestingly, either side of the corporate-governance debate could take the opposite side of Rousseau’s discourse, too. The pro-governance side can argue that current management techniques are potentially exploitative because they’re not provably transparent. They can also bootstrap their argument for Sarbanes-Oxley-Act-enforced transparency from the computer industry, whose rule of thumb is “more user-friendly, bigger program.” The anti-corporate-governance side can argue that corporate governance proponents are the “terrible simplifiers” of public companies. (This phrase came from historian Jacob Burckhardt.)
Rousseau’s argument, heavily controversial in its time, goes like this: when there are few scientists, artists and abstract thinkers in a society, the bulk of its members are simple men with clear-cut morals. In such a society, most everyone knows right from wrong because there’s no complexifiers around. In addition, there’s no advancement opportunity in becoming a scientist or artist, so the talent pool is limited to those who love their field for its own sake. Such a society is filled with simple, yet robust and resourceful people.
The growth of art means the growth of role models who are not living people, according to Rousseau. This prompts the growth of formal courtesies which become more artificial over time. In addition, the growth in numbers and prestige of artists means that “art for art’s sake” is debased into “art as an exclusive club.” Using art to influence other people for the sake of power-tripping becomes more and more frequent. The end result is that the simple but powerful men, the one whose strengths are the backbone of national greatness, are slowly put underfoot. What used to be virtuous becomes rude. What used to be excellence becomes uncouthness. What used to be pure becomes simplistic. What used to be prowess becomes a threat. What used to be common sense becomes stupidity. And, what causes this transformation according to Rousseau, is the plain fact that all artists are incorrigibly vain.
The growth of the sciences, Rousseau argues, does not result in that many benefits to humankind; instead, it results in the growth of pedantry and abstruseness. Much of it can be seen through by asking this question: how much better off were we before the growth of scientific progress? How much of scientific progress that has actually resulted in a pointable-to real benefit to humankind, has merely fostered the growth of luxury, idleness and vanity? A mute but eloquent set of counterexamples, to the dictum that all progress in science is “good,” can be found in those points of history where rich and sophisticated civilizations have been conquered by societies of rustic barbarians. There is much evidence to be found that a military equipped with the best tools and scientific ideas slowly decays into self-absorption, a state where its generals know everything there is to know about sophisticated war except how to win. Rousseau ends his argument that the growth of artistic or scientific professions means a growth in the number of practitioners who are just plain mediocre.
Martin Meyer’s adaptation of the above framework goes like this: the progress of derivatives and mathematics-driven trading corrupts customer service in the investment industry. As the number of products proliferate, and the number of hedging and arbitrage techniques become more numerous and mathematically sophisticated, the investment field becomes more and more dependant upon people who become more and more specialized, and more and more in love with their own specialty. As complexity is compounded upon complexity, the customer becomes less and less of a real person with real needs, and more and more of an abstraction. The irony of this ‘progress’ is that standards of ‘customer service’ become more and more stereotypical. Thus, there is more and more temptation to deduce, or assume, that the customer “oughta want” such-and-such. It’s only a matter of time before the customers get jerked around.
In addition, Mr. Meyer adapts one of Rousseau’s other arguments in that Discourse: “We have physicists, geometricians, chemists, astronomers, poets, musicians, and painters in plenty; but we have no longer a citizen among us…” As the investment field become hyper-specialized, the relevant statutes are no longer seen as part of the laws of the land, but as rules, then “rules of the game,” then as mere obstacles to be outfoxed. Specialism implies gamesmanship.
The relevance of this philosophic framework to corporate governance isn’t obvious. Advocates for corporate governance could draw from this argument by saying that corporate-governance reforms are being put in place to wring the gamesmanship out of the executive suite and to put the shareholder back in the owners’ seat. Skeptics could argue that corporate-governance experts are just another bunch of paper pushers with a new line, who will wind up being as self-aggrandizing as the crop they’re shoving out. If anything, the skeptic can further argue, they’ll be more cunning than the current suits are.
Interestingly, either side of the corporate-governance debate could take the opposite side of Rousseau’s discourse, too. The pro-governance side can argue that current management techniques are potentially exploitative because they’re not provably transparent. They can also bootstrap their argument for Sarbanes-Oxley-Act-enforced transparency from the computer industry, whose rule of thumb is “more user-friendly, bigger program.” The anti-corporate-governance side can argue that corporate governance proponents are the “terrible simplifiers” of public companies. (This phrase came from historian Jacob Burckhardt.)
Media Roundup: Differings
The media reports, webbed today, on the Conrad Black trial are composed of two analysis pieces, an opinion piece and two prep sheets, one dealing almost exclusively with Donald Trump:
1. From Reuters, Andrew Stern has written an analysis of the prosecution's case, entitled "No smoking gun yet in Conrad Black fraud trial." It has a different take on the prosecution's case than Ms. Vallis' earlier piece, entitled "There's no 'smoking gun'," had. From the second paragraph of Mr. Stern's piece: "[Despite there being no telling piece of evidence,] the prosecution, which wrapped up its case last week, constructed a solid argument that Black and three co-defendants at former Chicago-based media giant Hollinger International Inc. committed a $60 million fraud and abused company perks." It notes that "several" media executives, from the other sides of the sales of Hollinger Int'l newspaper properties, have testified that they did not request any non-compete payments to Hollinger Inc. or any individuals, implying that the relevant disclosures were misleading.
2. An opinion piece by Mark Steyn, a compendium of certain themes in his Maclean's Conrad Black trial blog, has been webbed by the Orange County Register. It's entitled, "Trial by jury in America is in terminal decline."
3. A lengthy forecast piece, by Romina Maurino and webbed by CBC News, does bring up Donald Trump's expected testimony, but its main theme is the question: why would the defense exert so much of its allotted effort in shooting down the peripheral charges, instead of concentrating on the main ones? The two legal experts quoted, Steve Skurka and Hugh Totten, have differed in their assessments: Csr. Skurka said that it shows the defense's confidence that the prosecution has failed to meet its burden; Csr. Totten said that it was "surprising," as well as being inconsistent with the defense's opening arguments. He manages to imply that 'confidence' isn't the word he would have used to describe the defense's team-state of mind.
4. From the New York Times, a piece that picks up on a theme first explored by Douglas Bell: to what extent does Kenneth Whyte's appearance as a defense witness create a conflict of interest regarding Maclean's coverage of the trial? Mr. Whyte is the editor-in-chief of the magazine, and thus is Maclean's journalists' boss. "Mr. Whyte said that readers of Maclean’s were informed of the potential conflicts. 'When I decided to answer the subpoena I disclosed to our readers that I would appear as a witness in my capacity as a former Black employee,' Mr. Whyte said. 'Ms. Amiel’s relations to the defendant have been abundantly disclosed, as has Mr. Steyn’s former employment in the Black empire.'” It also notes that Mr. Whyte said that Mark Steyn has promised to be especially harsh on the boss - in a pledge to the boss.
5. The Guardian's Andrew Clark has a forecast piece on what Donald Trump will be testifying about, as well as the flurry that The Donald's appearance is expected to cause.
1. From Reuters, Andrew Stern has written an analysis of the prosecution's case, entitled "No smoking gun yet in Conrad Black fraud trial." It has a different take on the prosecution's case than Ms. Vallis' earlier piece, entitled "There's no 'smoking gun'," had. From the second paragraph of Mr. Stern's piece: "[Despite there being no telling piece of evidence,] the prosecution, which wrapped up its case last week, constructed a solid argument that Black and three co-defendants at former Chicago-based media giant Hollinger International Inc. committed a $60 million fraud and abused company perks." It notes that "several" media executives, from the other sides of the sales of Hollinger Int'l newspaper properties, have testified that they did not request any non-compete payments to Hollinger Inc. or any individuals, implying that the relevant disclosures were misleading.
2. An opinion piece by Mark Steyn, a compendium of certain themes in his Maclean's Conrad Black trial blog, has been webbed by the Orange County Register. It's entitled, "Trial by jury in America is in terminal decline."
3. A lengthy forecast piece, by Romina Maurino and webbed by CBC News, does bring up Donald Trump's expected testimony, but its main theme is the question: why would the defense exert so much of its allotted effort in shooting down the peripheral charges, instead of concentrating on the main ones? The two legal experts quoted, Steve Skurka and Hugh Totten, have differed in their assessments: Csr. Skurka said that it shows the defense's confidence that the prosecution has failed to meet its burden; Csr. Totten said that it was "surprising," as well as being inconsistent with the defense's opening arguments. He manages to imply that 'confidence' isn't the word he would have used to describe the defense's team-state of mind.
4. From the New York Times, a piece that picks up on a theme first explored by Douglas Bell: to what extent does Kenneth Whyte's appearance as a defense witness create a conflict of interest regarding Maclean's coverage of the trial? Mr. Whyte is the editor-in-chief of the magazine, and thus is Maclean's journalists' boss. "Mr. Whyte said that readers of Maclean’s were informed of the potential conflicts. 'When I decided to answer the subpoena I disclosed to our readers that I would appear as a witness in my capacity as a former Black employee,' Mr. Whyte said. 'Ms. Amiel’s relations to the defendant have been abundantly disclosed, as has Mr. Steyn’s former employment in the Black empire.'” It also notes that Mr. Whyte said that Mark Steyn has promised to be especially harsh on the boss - in a pledge to the boss.
5. The Guardian's Andrew Clark has a forecast piece on what Donald Trump will be testifying about, as well as the flurry that The Donald's appearance is expected to cause.
Steps To The Past
Webbed overnight is a new entry in Canadian Business' Black Trial Blog, by Matthew McClearn. He provides a detailed review of the circumstances surrounding the removal of the 13 boxes, with both the prosecution's and the defense's version of events laced in.
Instead of a roundup at this time, I present a trivia item, which I happened upon in an old Martin Mayer book dealing with the Salomon Brothers T-note scandal of 1991: Nightmare on Wall Street (1993.) The chairman of the SEC at the time was none other than Mr. Richard Breeden, described by Mr. Mayer as one of three regulators (the other being E. Gerald Corrigan, then President of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, and Robert Glauber, then Deputy Secretary of the Treasury) "revealed as having been drowsy if not actually asleep at the switch.... [All three] were not only tough and able, but vain." (p. 21.)
Yeah, Mr. Richard Breeden managed to garner a bit of unfavourable press as a result of that scandal, which had occurred on his watch. If you're interested, Mr. Mayer pegged the top boss at Salomon Bros. at the time, under whom the market manipulation had occurred, as a previously good man steered wrong by an arrogant and prodigal second wife, an ex-stewardess. That man was John Gutfreund.
Instead of a roundup at this time, I present a trivia item, which I happened upon in an old Martin Mayer book dealing with the Salomon Brothers T-note scandal of 1991: Nightmare on Wall Street (1993.) The chairman of the SEC at the time was none other than Mr. Richard Breeden, described by Mr. Mayer as one of three regulators (the other being E. Gerald Corrigan, then President of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, and Robert Glauber, then Deputy Secretary of the Treasury) "revealed as having been drowsy if not actually asleep at the switch.... [All three] were not only tough and able, but vain." (p. 21.)
Yeah, Mr. Richard Breeden managed to garner a bit of unfavourable press as a result of that scandal, which had occurred on his watch. If you're interested, Mr. Mayer pegged the top boss at Salomon Bros. at the time, under whom the market manipulation had occurred, as a previously good man steered wrong by an arrogant and prodigal second wife, an ex-stewardess. That man was John Gutfreund.
Saturday, June 2, 2007
Media Roundup: Fractured
The media reports, webbed overnight and today, on the Conrad Black trial have dwindled in number, but what's been posted shows a lot more variety than the usual coverage exhibits:
1. CBC News has webbed the latest installment of Susan Berger's "From The Inside" column, a wrapup of the weekly events at the trial.
2. The Globe and Mail has webbed an article, without byline, entitled "Trump could testify Monday." It notes that closing arguments have been scheduled for June 18, as a result of a meeting between Judge St. Eve and the lawyers yesterday afternoon. The witness list for the Conrad Black defense team was submitted, but it hasn't been released to the media.
3. An article by Theresa Tedesco of the National Post reveals that Canadian tax authorities are considering laying charges against Mr. Black, David Radler and "and two former Hollinger International Inc. executives [Peter Atkinson and Jack Boultbee] for possible tax evasion." The reason for this charge being contemplated at this late date is: "Canada" was originally listed as a "victim" in the indictment, based upon what David Radler said as part of his plea-bargain agreement, but "the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois... dropped the allegation last October because there could be 'double jeopardy concerns should Canadian authorities pursue criminal charges.'" It also notes that the "RCMP had begun a preliminary probe but decided not to pursue a formal investigation."
4. The Hamilton Spectator has webbed a special by Terry Cooke, entitled "My conversation with Conrad." Mr. Cooke went down to Chicago to watch the Tuesday installment of the trial, and had a brief talk with Mr. Black, during which he got his copy of The Invincible Quest: the Life of Richard Milhous Nixon signed. Mr. Cooke's impression of the course of the trial itself: "Back in the courtroom, the day's evidence by the prosecution was equal parts contrived drama and a stoking of the fires of upper class envy.... the defence team's cross examination demolished the prosecution's presentation of events, leaving court watchers wondering how the case ever made it to trial in the first place." The article ends, though, with an admonishment from an old Chicago lawyer about snap judgements of the outcome of Chicago criminal trials.
5. The Chicago Tribune's "Midwest Briefs" contains a one-paragraph item entitled "Ex-Hollinger exec requests mistrial."It reviews the attempt by Mark Kipnis to have one declared "because prosecutors misled jurors about the existence of evidence against him."
6. From the Calgary Sun, a brief CP item, also about Mr. Kipnis' motion.
7. Rick Westhead of the Toronto Star has written a report that details one of the prosecution's motions: to add a so-called "'ostrich motion'" to Judge St. Eve's instructions to the jury. This motion is a 'shoulda-known' one; it was originally used for drug cases, but has metastatized into an acceptable instruction for corporate-fraud cases at the criminal level. (Like the 'admissible-hearsay' provision for RICO cases, it's one of the peculiarities of American criminal law nowadays.)
8. An analysis piece by Mary Vallis, webbed by the National Post, argues, with supporting conclusions from legal experts Hugh Totten and Steve Skurka, that the prosecution's case hinges solely upon the credibility of David Radler. It mentions only one other prosecution witness whose testimony corroborated Mr. Radler's: Michael Reed, former CEO of Community Newspaper Holdings, Inc. The article ends with a note that Judge St. Eve is expected to rule on the defense motions, for dismissals, acquittals, and a mistrial, sometime next week.
----------
A two-fer about the dark side of American justice, both written by Americans and both unrelated to the Conrad Black trial itself:
1. From Matt Taibbi of Rolling Stone, an exposure of the dark side of Rudy Giuliani, done in typical Rolling Stone style. (Bad language, bad side, badassing, etc.) According to the article, Mr. Giuliani has the typical signs of a 'Man on Horseback': a public image as a secular saint/public hero combined with a normal, if not somewhat checkered, record of conduct; a conscience with a not-unusual accumulation of sins; and, when combined with said image, a resultant streak of latent fanaticism. There are a few sympathetic words for Ron Paul, solely because of his underdog status in the '08 Republican primary.
2. "Slouching Toward a Police State" by Matthew Hart, an article containing two vignettes about two nobodies' brushes with aggressive law enforcement. Despite the riff-raffish character of the two alleged victims, both of whom the author knows personally, Mr. Hart manages to be both clean-worded and more graphic than Mr. Tabbai.
(Disclosure/disguised plug: Both of these articles were linked to from LewRockwell.com, which I've written more than a few articles for. The latter is an LRC original.)
To get back to the trial, as well as to a less exotic worldview, Mark Steyn's latest post in his Maclean's Conrad Black trial blog has a sketch, as well as a sympathetic critique, of the defense strategy so far. An interesting subtext of it is Mr. Steyn's juxtaposing of the seriousness which Conrad Black's defense team is treating the obstruction-of-justice charge, and the relative flimsiness of the evidence for it. (At the time when Mr. Black removed the boxes, the SEC had only sent an advisory letter. According to the testimony under direct examination given by Joan Maida, all relevant documents in those boxes had been copied for the SEC before being packed up. I note parenthetically that the prosecution has resorted to a gremlin-in-the-closed-fridge argument to justify that particular charge.) For Canadians, of which I am one, the climactic paragraph is this one:
1. CBC News has webbed the latest installment of Susan Berger's "From The Inside" column, a wrapup of the weekly events at the trial.
2. The Globe and Mail has webbed an article, without byline, entitled "Trump could testify Monday." It notes that closing arguments have been scheduled for June 18, as a result of a meeting between Judge St. Eve and the lawyers yesterday afternoon. The witness list for the Conrad Black defense team was submitted, but it hasn't been released to the media.
3. An article by Theresa Tedesco of the National Post reveals that Canadian tax authorities are considering laying charges against Mr. Black, David Radler and "and two former Hollinger International Inc. executives [Peter Atkinson and Jack Boultbee] for possible tax evasion." The reason for this charge being contemplated at this late date is: "Canada" was originally listed as a "victim" in the indictment, based upon what David Radler said as part of his plea-bargain agreement, but "the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois... dropped the allegation last October because there could be 'double jeopardy concerns should Canadian authorities pursue criminal charges.'" It also notes that the "RCMP had begun a preliminary probe but decided not to pursue a formal investigation."
4. The Hamilton Spectator has webbed a special by Terry Cooke, entitled "My conversation with Conrad." Mr. Cooke went down to Chicago to watch the Tuesday installment of the trial, and had a brief talk with Mr. Black, during which he got his copy of The Invincible Quest: the Life of Richard Milhous Nixon signed. Mr. Cooke's impression of the course of the trial itself: "Back in the courtroom, the day's evidence by the prosecution was equal parts contrived drama and a stoking of the fires of upper class envy.... the defence team's cross examination demolished the prosecution's presentation of events, leaving court watchers wondering how the case ever made it to trial in the first place." The article ends, though, with an admonishment from an old Chicago lawyer about snap judgements of the outcome of Chicago criminal trials.
5. The Chicago Tribune's "Midwest Briefs" contains a one-paragraph item entitled "Ex-Hollinger exec requests mistrial."It reviews the attempt by Mark Kipnis to have one declared "because prosecutors misled jurors about the existence of evidence against him."
6. From the Calgary Sun, a brief CP item, also about Mr. Kipnis' motion.
7. Rick Westhead of the Toronto Star has written a report that details one of the prosecution's motions: to add a so-called "'ostrich motion'" to Judge St. Eve's instructions to the jury. This motion is a 'shoulda-known' one; it was originally used for drug cases, but has metastatized into an acceptable instruction for corporate-fraud cases at the criminal level. (Like the 'admissible-hearsay' provision for RICO cases, it's one of the peculiarities of American criminal law nowadays.)
8. An analysis piece by Mary Vallis, webbed by the National Post, argues, with supporting conclusions from legal experts Hugh Totten and Steve Skurka, that the prosecution's case hinges solely upon the credibility of David Radler. It mentions only one other prosecution witness whose testimony corroborated Mr. Radler's: Michael Reed, former CEO of Community Newspaper Holdings, Inc. The article ends with a note that Judge St. Eve is expected to rule on the defense motions, for dismissals, acquittals, and a mistrial, sometime next week.
----------
A two-fer about the dark side of American justice, both written by Americans and both unrelated to the Conrad Black trial itself:
1. From Matt Taibbi of Rolling Stone, an exposure of the dark side of Rudy Giuliani, done in typical Rolling Stone style. (Bad language, bad side, badassing, etc.) According to the article, Mr. Giuliani has the typical signs of a 'Man on Horseback': a public image as a secular saint/public hero combined with a normal, if not somewhat checkered, record of conduct; a conscience with a not-unusual accumulation of sins; and, when combined with said image, a resultant streak of latent fanaticism. There are a few sympathetic words for Ron Paul, solely because of his underdog status in the '08 Republican primary.
2. "Slouching Toward a Police State" by Matthew Hart, an article containing two vignettes about two nobodies' brushes with aggressive law enforcement. Despite the riff-raffish character of the two alleged victims, both of whom the author knows personally, Mr. Hart manages to be both clean-worded and more graphic than Mr. Tabbai.
(Disclosure/disguised plug: Both of these articles were linked to from LewRockwell.com, which I've written more than a few articles for. The latter is an LRC original.)
To get back to the trial, as well as to a less exotic worldview, Mark Steyn's latest post in his Maclean's Conrad Black trial blog has a sketch, as well as a sympathetic critique, of the defense strategy so far. An interesting subtext of it is Mr. Steyn's juxtaposing of the seriousness which Conrad Black's defense team is treating the obstruction-of-justice charge, and the relative flimsiness of the evidence for it. (At the time when Mr. Black removed the boxes, the SEC had only sent an advisory letter. According to the testimony under direct examination given by Joan Maida, all relevant documents in those boxes had been copied for the SEC before being packed up. I note parenthetically that the prosecution has resorted to a gremlin-in-the-closed-fridge argument to justify that particular charge.) For Canadians, of which I am one, the climactic paragraph is this one:
[Mr. Black had] already given 100,000 pages of documents to the SEC, including all the ones he removed in the heist. And he didn’t know of their latest demand, as it only arrived three days after he took the boxes. So any suggestion of criminal behaviour rests mainly on an Ontario court order on a matter entirely unrelated to the SEC. As far as I know, Ontario is not yet under the jurisdiction of the US Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, so even if Black breached a Canadian court order that’s not a matter for the US government to enforce.
Friday, June 1, 2007
Media Roundup: Assistance of the Assistant
Another week of testimony in the Conrad Black trial is over; this week ended with a bit of fireworks, when Mr. Black's personal assistant testified about her role in moving the 13 boxes that form the heart of the obstruction-of-justice charge. The media reports, webbed overnight and today, show it:
1. CBC News has a report that sums up the testimony of Joan Maida, Mr. Black's Toronto assistant, and mentions the testimony of two earlier witnesses. She testified that it was her idea to pack the boxes; that she knew she had needed permission to remove them, but not from whom; and, that she knew nothing about any SEC probe at the time she tried to take the boxes away for Mr. Black.
2. Also from CBC News, a brief summary of her testimony. It also notes that the trial will resume Monday with Kenneth Whyte still on the stand.
3. The Vancouver Province has an abridged Bloomberg report on her testimony. It ends with her reply, after being asked by Jeffrey Cramer where she thought the boxes were going: "'I didn't think about it.'"
4. Mary Vallis' report, as webbed by the Ottawa Citizen, concentrates on Ms. Maida's testimony, but summarizes that of the witness after her, Kenneth Whyte. It relates that "Ms. Maida said [under direct examination that] Lord Black never asked about the boxes' contents or looked inside them."
5. The Daily Herald has an abridged version of the Bloomberg report on Ms. Maida's testimony.
6. Janet Whitman has written a New York Post exclusive, entitled "Trump Set To Take The Stand On Black's Behalf." From its start, right after the opener: "The Post has learned that New York real estate mogul Donald Trump is jetting into Chicago on Monday to take the witness stand on behalf of Conrad Black, who's on trial for allegedly looting millions from investors in his company Hollinger International." It notes that Mr. Tump's agreement to do so is "a bit of a surprise" because "his name came up and embarrassed Black in testimony from a government witness." (I puckishly suggest that this spin on Mr. Healy's testimony would all-but-guarantee that The Donald would show up, after being re-asked to.)
7. The Chicago Sun-Times has a report that focuses on one moment of Ms. Maida's testimony: the pointed finger. When shown a picture of Conrad Black pointing at the camera, she at first suggested that he was pointing at her. (She was with him at the time.) It also relates, "At one point, she said she did not know that a security camera had been recently installed at the back door of Hollinger Inc. in Toronto, which captured Black actually hauling out the documents. Then she said she knew the camera was there."
8. Michael Sneed, columnist for the Sun-Times, discloses in the "Top Tip" part of her latest column that Conrad Black has gotten an invite to a party, whose theme is a "75th Anniversary Salute to FDR." He's one of 6,000 on the invite list.
9. The Guardian report on Ms. Maida's testimony is entitled "'Black did not know what was in boxes.'"
10. A report by Paul Waldie, webbed by the First Post, assesses the performance of the defense witnesses so far as "decidedly mixed." When discussing Ms. Maida's testimony, it says "under cross-examination by prosecutor Jeffrey Cramer, Ms Maida contradicted herself several times and became confused about details." She is the same witness who, the report states earlier, "may have done him more harm than good."
11. The same Mr. Waldie has put the same theme in a report webbed by the Globe and Mail. It described the questioning of her by cross-examiner Jeffrey Cramer as "tough."
12. A third from Mr. Waldie, also webbed by the Globe, reports on a motion filed by all four defendants to get the entire case dismissed. They're based on the "'federal rule of criminal procedure 29 (a),' are common and they generally come after prosecutors have rested their case. Defendants can argue before the judge overseeing the trial that the government's case is so weak the charges should be dropped without the jury even deliberating." (It's the same motion mentioned by Mr. McClern, linked to below.) The motions for Peter Atkinson and Jack Boultbee have already been filed as of last night.
13. Another report from CBC News has a check-up on Ms. Whitman's scoop about Donald Trump testifying on Monday - specifically, with regard to whether or not Mr. Trump was served with a subpoena: "A lawyer for one of the defendants in the case refused to confirm the Post story but suggested journalists would find Monday's events in court interesting. 'I would be there early,' the lawyer told CBC News." [A brief NewsMax report carries the item straight.]
14. Mr. Waldie appeared on a BNN interview with host Amanda Lang, aired at about 2:45 PM ET. He reported that there was a brief hearing this morning regarding jury instructions and “other motions.” Also, the witness list for the defense was handed over and discussed. Donald Trump wasn’t on it, but he was on the earlier list of potential witnesses. His name has also entered into the trial thanks to the prosecution's case - specifically the annual meeting held in 2003, and Mrs. Black's 60th birthday party. The defense case, for all four defendants, will be relatively short. This disparity in case length is not atypical, since the onus is on the prosecution. Experts in relevant fields are likely to appear. It's not likely that any famous people (with the possible exception of Mr. Trump) will be called. There will also be a couple of (unnamed) character witnesses. Ms. Lang asked if either or both of Izzy Aspers's CanWest-ensconced sons will show up, and Mr. Waldie replied that it was “not likely.”
15. Some of those other motions were brought up in a Bloomberg report, by Andrew Harris. Ron Safer has filed a written request for a mistrial on the basis of the prosecutors misleading the jurors "about the existence of evidence against him." The fact zeroed in on was the $150,000 bonus, which David Radler himself had testified, while under cross-examination, was unrelated to any alleged illegal activity. "'The government emphatically declared that Mr. Kipnis committed these crimes in order to receive $150,000 in bonus payments. Unfortunately these are statements the government knew couldn't be proven at trial,' defense lawyer Ronald Safer wrote." Counsel for Jack Boultbee is seeking dismissal of two of the charges against him. Also, "[a]ttorneys for Black and Atkinson told St. Eve they too will seek dismissal of charges[, which are unspecified in the report,] against them." Also disclosed is a no-comment from Randall Samborn, a spokesperson for Patrick J. Fitzgerald, about Csr. Safer's motion. (Unlike the several other mistrial motions, Judge St. Eve did not render a swift decision on Mr. Kipnis'.)
16. Romina Maurino has picked up on the contents of the above Bloomberg report in one of her own, webbed by 680 News, that quotes more extensively from Csr. Safer's motion to dismiss. An excerpt: "In a lengthy motion filed Friday, Kipnis' lawyers argued that he is 'entitled to a judgement of acquittal because no reasonable juror could conclude, based on the evidence presented, that Mark acted with the intent to commit mail and wire fraud or that he wilfully assisted in the filing of false tax forms.'" [An update, webbed by the Toronto Star, includes some analysis from Hugh Totten, who noted that such motions are hardly ever granted, and are done mainly to prepare for a possible appeal. He did, though, note that Csr. Safer's motion is "far more extensive than ones typically filed".]
----------
From the "In-House Counsel" section of Law.com, an article describes Mark Kipnis' defense strategy as passing the buck: "How does a general counsel stay out of jail if he's been accused of helping company executives line their pockets with millions of shareholder dollars? If he's Mark Kipnis, the former legal chief at Hollinger International Inc., he pleads lack of experience and shifts the blame to the company's outside counsel. In a few weeks Kipnis will find out whether this defense strategy worked."
Matthew McClern has posted his assessment of the prosecution's case in his latest entry for the Canadian Business Black trial blog: "The prosecution ended its case against former Hollinger International executives Conrad Black, John Boultbee, Peter Atkinson and Mark Kipnis on Wednesday afternoon with both a bang and a whimper." The "bang" was the 13 boxes; the "whimper" was the dropping of the money-laundering charge. He also reports: "The prosecution’s case will now undergo something of an acid test.... [According to a later report, not all of the defendants are asking for all charges against them to be dropped. Mr. McClern write this entry yesterday.] The court must now consider whether the government has shown sufficient cause for the remaining counts (17 in total) to be put before the jury for consideration."
Also, Mark Steyn concedes that the defense didn't get off to the best start in an early-morning entry for his Maclean's Conrad Black trial blog. He also mentions that "[t]he day climaxed with some reference to a memo by The National Post’s marketing hottie Alex Panousis, at which point the lawyers went into a huddle and the judge recessed for the week." (Yes, Alex is a she.)
And finally, Douglas Bell, in the Toronto Life Conrad Black trial blog, has penned an interesting think-piece about disclosure, one well worth spending some time thinking over. His own report on reports discusses a recent Wall Street Journal Law Blog entry, which I missed.
1. CBC News has a report that sums up the testimony of Joan Maida, Mr. Black's Toronto assistant, and mentions the testimony of two earlier witnesses. She testified that it was her idea to pack the boxes; that she knew she had needed permission to remove them, but not from whom; and, that she knew nothing about any SEC probe at the time she tried to take the boxes away for Mr. Black.
2. Also from CBC News, a brief summary of her testimony. It also notes that the trial will resume Monday with Kenneth Whyte still on the stand.
3. The Vancouver Province has an abridged Bloomberg report on her testimony. It ends with her reply, after being asked by Jeffrey Cramer where she thought the boxes were going: "'I didn't think about it.'"
4. Mary Vallis' report, as webbed by the Ottawa Citizen, concentrates on Ms. Maida's testimony, but summarizes that of the witness after her, Kenneth Whyte. It relates that "Ms. Maida said [under direct examination that] Lord Black never asked about the boxes' contents or looked inside them."
5. The Daily Herald has an abridged version of the Bloomberg report on Ms. Maida's testimony.
6. Janet Whitman has written a New York Post exclusive, entitled "Trump Set To Take The Stand On Black's Behalf." From its start, right after the opener: "The Post has learned that New York real estate mogul Donald Trump is jetting into Chicago on Monday to take the witness stand on behalf of Conrad Black, who's on trial for allegedly looting millions from investors in his company Hollinger International." It notes that Mr. Tump's agreement to do so is "a bit of a surprise" because "his name came up and embarrassed Black in testimony from a government witness." (I puckishly suggest that this spin on Mr. Healy's testimony would all-but-guarantee that The Donald would show up, after being re-asked to.)
7. The Chicago Sun-Times has a report that focuses on one moment of Ms. Maida's testimony: the pointed finger. When shown a picture of Conrad Black pointing at the camera, she at first suggested that he was pointing at her. (She was with him at the time.) It also relates, "At one point, she said she did not know that a security camera had been recently installed at the back door of Hollinger Inc. in Toronto, which captured Black actually hauling out the documents. Then she said she knew the camera was there."
8. Michael Sneed, columnist for the Sun-Times, discloses in the "Top Tip" part of her latest column that Conrad Black has gotten an invite to a party, whose theme is a "75th Anniversary Salute to FDR." He's one of 6,000 on the invite list.
9. The Guardian report on Ms. Maida's testimony is entitled "'Black did not know what was in boxes.'"
10. A report by Paul Waldie, webbed by the First Post, assesses the performance of the defense witnesses so far as "decidedly mixed." When discussing Ms. Maida's testimony, it says "under cross-examination by prosecutor Jeffrey Cramer, Ms Maida contradicted herself several times and became confused about details." She is the same witness who, the report states earlier, "may have done him more harm than good."
11. The same Mr. Waldie has put the same theme in a report webbed by the Globe and Mail. It described the questioning of her by cross-examiner Jeffrey Cramer as "tough."
12. A third from Mr. Waldie, also webbed by the Globe, reports on a motion filed by all four defendants to get the entire case dismissed. They're based on the "'federal rule of criminal procedure 29 (a),' are common and they generally come after prosecutors have rested their case. Defendants can argue before the judge overseeing the trial that the government's case is so weak the charges should be dropped without the jury even deliberating." (It's the same motion mentioned by Mr. McClern, linked to below.) The motions for Peter Atkinson and Jack Boultbee have already been filed as of last night.
13. Another report from CBC News has a check-up on Ms. Whitman's scoop about Donald Trump testifying on Monday - specifically, with regard to whether or not Mr. Trump was served with a subpoena: "A lawyer for one of the defendants in the case refused to confirm the Post story but suggested journalists would find Monday's events in court interesting. 'I would be there early,' the lawyer told CBC News." [A brief NewsMax report carries the item straight.]
14. Mr. Waldie appeared on a BNN interview with host Amanda Lang, aired at about 2:45 PM ET. He reported that there was a brief hearing this morning regarding jury instructions and “other motions.” Also, the witness list for the defense was handed over and discussed. Donald Trump wasn’t on it, but he was on the earlier list of potential witnesses. His name has also entered into the trial thanks to the prosecution's case - specifically the annual meeting held in 2003, and Mrs. Black's 60th birthday party. The defense case, for all four defendants, will be relatively short. This disparity in case length is not atypical, since the onus is on the prosecution. Experts in relevant fields are likely to appear. It's not likely that any famous people (with the possible exception of Mr. Trump) will be called. There will also be a couple of (unnamed) character witnesses. Ms. Lang asked if either or both of Izzy Aspers's CanWest-ensconced sons will show up, and Mr. Waldie replied that it was “not likely.”
15. Some of those other motions were brought up in a Bloomberg report, by Andrew Harris. Ron Safer has filed a written request for a mistrial on the basis of the prosecutors misleading the jurors "about the existence of evidence against him." The fact zeroed in on was the $150,000 bonus, which David Radler himself had testified, while under cross-examination, was unrelated to any alleged illegal activity. "'The government emphatically declared that Mr. Kipnis committed these crimes in order to receive $150,000 in bonus payments. Unfortunately these are statements the government knew couldn't be proven at trial,' defense lawyer Ronald Safer wrote." Counsel for Jack Boultbee is seeking dismissal of two of the charges against him. Also, "[a]ttorneys for Black and Atkinson told St. Eve they too will seek dismissal of charges[, which are unspecified in the report,] against them." Also disclosed is a no-comment from Randall Samborn, a spokesperson for Patrick J. Fitzgerald, about Csr. Safer's motion. (Unlike the several other mistrial motions, Judge St. Eve did not render a swift decision on Mr. Kipnis'.)
16. Romina Maurino has picked up on the contents of the above Bloomberg report in one of her own, webbed by 680 News, that quotes more extensively from Csr. Safer's motion to dismiss. An excerpt: "In a lengthy motion filed Friday, Kipnis' lawyers argued that he is 'entitled to a judgement of acquittal because no reasonable juror could conclude, based on the evidence presented, that Mark acted with the intent to commit mail and wire fraud or that he wilfully assisted in the filing of false tax forms.'" [An update, webbed by the Toronto Star, includes some analysis from Hugh Totten, who noted that such motions are hardly ever granted, and are done mainly to prepare for a possible appeal. He did, though, note that Csr. Safer's motion is "far more extensive than ones typically filed".]
----------
From the "In-House Counsel" section of Law.com, an article describes Mark Kipnis' defense strategy as passing the buck: "How does a general counsel stay out of jail if he's been accused of helping company executives line their pockets with millions of shareholder dollars? If he's Mark Kipnis, the former legal chief at Hollinger International Inc., he pleads lack of experience and shifts the blame to the company's outside counsel. In a few weeks Kipnis will find out whether this defense strategy worked."
Matthew McClern has posted his assessment of the prosecution's case in his latest entry for the Canadian Business Black trial blog: "The prosecution ended its case against former Hollinger International executives Conrad Black, John Boultbee, Peter Atkinson and Mark Kipnis on Wednesday afternoon with both a bang and a whimper." The "bang" was the 13 boxes; the "whimper" was the dropping of the money-laundering charge. He also reports: "The prosecution’s case will now undergo something of an acid test.... [According to a later report, not all of the defendants are asking for all charges against them to be dropped. Mr. McClern write this entry yesterday.] The court must now consider whether the government has shown sufficient cause for the remaining counts (17 in total) to be put before the jury for consideration."
Also, Mark Steyn concedes that the defense didn't get off to the best start in an early-morning entry for his Maclean's Conrad Black trial blog. He also mentions that "[t]he day climaxed with some reference to a memo by The National Post’s marketing hottie Alex Panousis, at which point the lawyers went into a huddle and the judge recessed for the week." (Yes, Alex is a she.)
And finally, Douglas Bell, in the Toronto Life Conrad Black trial blog, has penned an interesting think-piece about disclosure, one well worth spending some time thinking over. His own report on reports discusses a recent Wall Street Journal Law Blog entry, which I missed.
Thursday, May 31, 2007
CBC "National" Report on the Start of the Defense
On the CBC's nightly news show The National, correspondent Neil Macdonald relayed highlights of the defense's opening, and also supplied some perspective. Joan Maida testified that it was her idea to pack the boxes up, and that Conrad Black had given her no direction to do so. She also testified that she showed him where the boxes were when he arrived, and that she and he had never discussed them since. Mr. Macdonald noted that Mr. Black’s former journalist employees are quite loyal to him still, including later defense witness Kenneth Whyte. Maclean’s has even (in Mr. Macdonald’s estimation, unprecedentedly) allowed Barbara Black to write about her husband's trial in her column.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)