Here are a couple of articles covering the Conrad Black trial as Week 4 is prepared for:
1. A subscribers-only feature from the Sunday Independent of Ireland. It's entitled "Kissinger on Black list of witnesses for the defence."
2. Romina Maurino has a report on the next witnesses expected to testify, after Fred Creasey is done with: Darren Sukonick, with Torys LLP; Gulliame Hecketsweiler; William (Bud) Rogers; and, Paul Saunders, Henry Kissinger's lawyer. (The first of the four, all lawyers, will testify by videotape.) Her report also explains why the prosecution in the trial had shifted to charge #10 before they're done with substantiating the ones that are direct consequences of the non-competes, and why David Radler's still being held back by the prosecution. (A list of the charges is here.)
3. The Globe and Mail has a feature report by Paul Waldie that documents the fall of the Chicago newspapers, including the Sun-Times, which relates that they began hitting the skids in the 1980s. He finishes with a report on what the latest turnaround strategy for the Sun-Times is - yeah, you guessed it: job-and-cost cuts. He also mentions that the Sun-Times Group is beginning to treat its suburban dailies in a manner similar to the way Conrad Black treated the smaller Southam dailies when starting up the National Post. (Shades of Black, p. 290.)
Michael Sneed's most recent Sun-Times column has a quote from Barbara Amiel Black's most recent Maclean's column, which discusses her current travails with the media. It's his second note on the Conrad Black trial. (Thanks to FetchHound for digging this up.)
Also: a post at "Point of Law" takes issue with Mark Steyn's description of Mr Creasey as an unreasonable witness, but leaves open the possibility that Mr. Steyn was right about the man. He is a known pro-vindication journalist/blogger.
Sunday, April 8, 2007
"Self-dealing:" a quick thought
As I was taking a glance at the indictment again, a thought occurred to me: if it were the aim of Black, et. al. to "loot" Hollinger International for the benefit of themselves, then they were uncharacteristically dumb about it, by the standards of more 'august' forms of public-company crookery. I refer, of course, to stock-market manipulation.
The name of the game in the latter kind of crime is to paint up the stock one owns, so as to funnel as much 'windfall' cash to oneself by unloading a big block of the company once the market's gotten excited about its prospects. Had Black, Radler and the others been sneaky about money shuffles in the "pyramid" that Hollinger Int'l formed the base and Ravelston formed the top of, there was a more efficacious way to do it: instead of selling Hollinger Int'l assets to companies they also controlled (Horizon, Bradford) at a low price, they would have sold those assets at a very high price and claimed later that they had unlocked "hidden value" in those relatively moribund properties.
That move is precisely analagous to buying and selling shares of stock to oneself - the classic kind of crooked self-dealing - at an inflated price. That practice used to be called "painting the tape."
"Painting the assets" in that way would not only have made Hollinger Int'l seem much more valuable than it was, but also would have justified huge bonuses - no, not non-compete payments, but performance bonuses - that would have gone right into Black, et. al's pockets with much applause. In addition, given that the alleged deal-making would have kept parent company Hollinger Inc. solvent, Black, et. al., through Ravelston, could have demanded huge performance bonuses from Hollinger Inc. for heading off a liquidity crisis at the pass.
Lest you think that setting up a side corporation and then overpaying for an asset (in order to make the much larger corporation you already control appear to be more valuable than it is) makes no sense, consider that doing so establishes a precedent that can make the assets of that larger corporation acquire sudden goodwill. If the deal in question is small relative to the size of the pre-existing corporation's assets, then it's a relatively small cost of doing crookery - just as buying a chunk of stock for much more than it's worth is a relatively small cost, provided that you own a much larger chunk of that same stock whose value gets boosted by inference. In addition, there may not be a cost at all, if the greater-fool-theory is tapped into skillfully by that side corporation.
That's how it used to be done back in the crooked old days, folks; an accurate label for it would be, "giving the mark what he wishes for." Had Black, Radler, et al. been bent on looting Hollinger Int'l in that manner, they would have allowed Horizon and Bradford to be (temporarily) stiffed, while loudly proclaiming that those Hollinger Inc. newspapers that Horizon and Bradford bought were a "bargain at twice the price." That would have been plain self-dealing crookery, Vancouver-Stock-Exchange style. I find it interesting that the original self-dealing charges that pertain to the sales of Hollinger Int'l properties to Horizon and Bradford go the other way, accusing Black, Radler, et. al of "painting the assets darkly."
[The only hint of the kind of bombast associated with CEOs who swindle the shareholders is found in the evidentiary proffer, p. 23 of it, footnote 19. That footnote quotes a statement Conrad Black had made somteime May, 2003, more than four years after the original Horizon deal closed and more than two years after the Bradford purchase; the latter deal closed sometime in 2000, according to Richard Siklos (Shades of Black, p. 440.) The context given in that part of the proffer indicates that it was not said at the Hollinger Int'l shareholders' annual meeting. It can be downloaded from here. ]
Of course, Conrad Black doesn't make for the most up-front of characters to the legally-minded, given his experiences in the Delaware Court of Chancery. That court promises swift justice in expedited cases, like the ones that Mr. Black lost. Swift justice has its price, and the price in the Delaware chancery court is the subjection of complex cases to certain rules of thumb. One rule of thumb, evidently, is, "the person who goes back on an agreement, or acted in a manner that contradicts a document he or she had signed, had better have a damned good reason for doing so." In the 1982 Hanna injunction, and in the 2004 Hollinger Int'l bylaw-change injunction, Conrad Black couldn't prove that he had a damned good reason, one that he could identify when on the stand and back up when being cross-examined. Hence, he was pegged as unbelievable by both judges, and he lost both cases.
If you're interested, the opposite side in the 2004 injuction case pegged Mr. Black as someone who played the man instead of the ball. The lawyer for Hollinger Inc., Martin Flumenbaum, pulled a classic "meta-trick," which Black fell for: acting like he's pulling a trick while, in fact, offering a lifeline to the knowledgable. It's in the question, "'Well, might it be possible that someone wanted those cheques to be a lot closer to the transactions that you were going to claim they were non-competes for, when there was no documentation for that? Is that a possibility?'" (Siklos, p. 429.) This kind of trick might be a scurvy one, but it does take advantage of the less-than-knowledgeable.
The moral of this tale of Delaware woe? Swift justice depends upon drawing lines, which put the presumptive finger of guilt on the party who crossed one of them. If you find yourself in a legal dispute under the purview of an unfamiliar court, especially one that delivers swift justice, you'd do very well for yourself to find out when, and over what actions, the rule of stare decisis (the rule of precedent) kicks in, specifically for that court. At least, you'll know what you're in for.
Admittedly, Tom Bower may have been on to something when he called Conrad Black mentally lazy (Conrad & Lady Black, in the last sentence on p. 413) - even if Mr. Bower expressed it in an aspersive form.
The name of the game in the latter kind of crime is to paint up the stock one owns, so as to funnel as much 'windfall' cash to oneself by unloading a big block of the company once the market's gotten excited about its prospects. Had Black, Radler and the others been sneaky about money shuffles in the "pyramid" that Hollinger Int'l formed the base and Ravelston formed the top of, there was a more efficacious way to do it: instead of selling Hollinger Int'l assets to companies they also controlled (Horizon, Bradford) at a low price, they would have sold those assets at a very high price and claimed later that they had unlocked "hidden value" in those relatively moribund properties.
That move is precisely analagous to buying and selling shares of stock to oneself - the classic kind of crooked self-dealing - at an inflated price. That practice used to be called "painting the tape."
"Painting the assets" in that way would not only have made Hollinger Int'l seem much more valuable than it was, but also would have justified huge bonuses - no, not non-compete payments, but performance bonuses - that would have gone right into Black, et. al's pockets with much applause. In addition, given that the alleged deal-making would have kept parent company Hollinger Inc. solvent, Black, et. al., through Ravelston, could have demanded huge performance bonuses from Hollinger Inc. for heading off a liquidity crisis at the pass.
Lest you think that setting up a side corporation and then overpaying for an asset (in order to make the much larger corporation you already control appear to be more valuable than it is) makes no sense, consider that doing so establishes a precedent that can make the assets of that larger corporation acquire sudden goodwill. If the deal in question is small relative to the size of the pre-existing corporation's assets, then it's a relatively small cost of doing crookery - just as buying a chunk of stock for much more than it's worth is a relatively small cost, provided that you own a much larger chunk of that same stock whose value gets boosted by inference. In addition, there may not be a cost at all, if the greater-fool-theory is tapped into skillfully by that side corporation.
That's how it used to be done back in the crooked old days, folks; an accurate label for it would be, "giving the mark what he wishes for." Had Black, Radler, et al. been bent on looting Hollinger Int'l in that manner, they would have allowed Horizon and Bradford to be (temporarily) stiffed, while loudly proclaiming that those Hollinger Inc. newspapers that Horizon and Bradford bought were a "bargain at twice the price." That would have been plain self-dealing crookery, Vancouver-Stock-Exchange style. I find it interesting that the original self-dealing charges that pertain to the sales of Hollinger Int'l properties to Horizon and Bradford go the other way, accusing Black, Radler, et. al of "painting the assets darkly."
[The only hint of the kind of bombast associated with CEOs who swindle the shareholders is found in the evidentiary proffer, p. 23 of it, footnote 19. That footnote quotes a statement Conrad Black had made somteime May, 2003, more than four years after the original Horizon deal closed and more than two years after the Bradford purchase; the latter deal closed sometime in 2000, according to Richard Siklos (Shades of Black, p. 440.) The context given in that part of the proffer indicates that it was not said at the Hollinger Int'l shareholders' annual meeting. It can be downloaded from here. ]
Of course, Conrad Black doesn't make for the most up-front of characters to the legally-minded, given his experiences in the Delaware Court of Chancery. That court promises swift justice in expedited cases, like the ones that Mr. Black lost. Swift justice has its price, and the price in the Delaware chancery court is the subjection of complex cases to certain rules of thumb. One rule of thumb, evidently, is, "the person who goes back on an agreement, or acted in a manner that contradicts a document he or she had signed, had better have a damned good reason for doing so." In the 1982 Hanna injunction, and in the 2004 Hollinger Int'l bylaw-change injunction, Conrad Black couldn't prove that he had a damned good reason, one that he could identify when on the stand and back up when being cross-examined. Hence, he was pegged as unbelievable by both judges, and he lost both cases.
If you're interested, the opposite side in the 2004 injuction case pegged Mr. Black as someone who played the man instead of the ball. The lawyer for Hollinger Inc., Martin Flumenbaum, pulled a classic "meta-trick," which Black fell for: acting like he's pulling a trick while, in fact, offering a lifeline to the knowledgable. It's in the question, "'Well, might it be possible that someone wanted those cheques to be a lot closer to the transactions that you were going to claim they were non-competes for, when there was no documentation for that? Is that a possibility?'" (Siklos, p. 429.) This kind of trick might be a scurvy one, but it does take advantage of the less-than-knowledgeable.
The moral of this tale of Delaware woe? Swift justice depends upon drawing lines, which put the presumptive finger of guilt on the party who crossed one of them. If you find yourself in a legal dispute under the purview of an unfamiliar court, especially one that delivers swift justice, you'd do very well for yourself to find out when, and over what actions, the rule of stare decisis (the rule of precedent) kicks in, specifically for that court. At least, you'll know what you're in for.
Admittedly, Tom Bower may have been on to something when he called Conrad Black mentally lazy (Conrad & Lady Black, in the last sentence on p. 413) - even if Mr. Bower expressed it in an aspersive form.
Saturday, April 7, 2007
Leverage, Or A Different Kind Of Two-Edged Sword
It's interesting that the Breeden Report [copy of it courtesy of the Chicago Tribune] used the word "levered" on p. 2: the subsequent fate of all three companies gives a fresh reminder to the concept that leverage is a two-edged sword. Over the last three years, from early April 2004 to today:
- The price of Sun-Times Media Group (formerly Hollinger International) common shares has declined close to 74%, from approx. $20/share to its most recent close of $5.30 (derived from this chart and its most recent quote);
- The common shares of parent company Hollinger Inc. has declined close to 95%, from about C$7.20/ share to its most recent close of 38 Canadian cents (derived from this chart);
- The parent company of Hollinger Inc., Ravelston, filed for bankruptcy on April 20, 2005, as did Argus and five associated companies associated with the latter. (Found in this Hollinger Inc. Status Update, in the second-to-last item, "Ravelston Receivership and CCAA Proceedings.") Since the bankruptcy proceedings are still in mid-stream, due to what could euphemistically described as "legal complications," there's no way of telling how far it's sunk. I suspect, though, that "declined close to 100%" is pretty accurate.
A sobering lesson for anyone who still believes in the efficaciousness of holding companies. FYI: Conrad Black was ousted from Hollinger International in December, 2003, and from the chairmanship of Hollinger Inc. on Jan. 18, 2004. (See this timeline.) The time between each ouster and April 2004 is enough for the "Black Factor," depressing the shares of each, to have vanished.
The Breeden Report was released on August 31, 2004.
[Thanks to Mark Steyn for bringing this subject up. Gordon Paris was CEO of Hollinger Int'l from about November 19, 2003, until Nov. 15, 2006.]
Also: as this August 2005 Canadian Business article recounts, Conrad Black being ridiculous with regard to Al Capone may have a very unhumorous blowback, in the end.
[Someone else may learn the hard way that ridiculousness of this sort does make one a marked man in moralizing times.]
- The price of Sun-Times Media Group (formerly Hollinger International) common shares has declined close to 74%, from approx. $20/share to its most recent close of $5.30 (derived from this chart and its most recent quote);
- The common shares of parent company Hollinger Inc. has declined close to 95%, from about C$7.20/ share to its most recent close of 38 Canadian cents (derived from this chart);
- The parent company of Hollinger Inc., Ravelston, filed for bankruptcy on April 20, 2005, as did Argus and five associated companies associated with the latter. (Found in this Hollinger Inc. Status Update, in the second-to-last item, "Ravelston Receivership and CCAA Proceedings.") Since the bankruptcy proceedings are still in mid-stream, due to what could euphemistically described as "legal complications," there's no way of telling how far it's sunk. I suspect, though, that "declined close to 100%" is pretty accurate.
A sobering lesson for anyone who still believes in the efficaciousness of holding companies. FYI: Conrad Black was ousted from Hollinger International in December, 2003, and from the chairmanship of Hollinger Inc. on Jan. 18, 2004. (See this timeline.) The time between each ouster and April 2004 is enough for the "Black Factor," depressing the shares of each, to have vanished.
The Breeden Report was released on August 31, 2004.
[Thanks to Mark Steyn for bringing this subject up. Gordon Paris was CEO of Hollinger Int'l from about November 19, 2003, until Nov. 15, 2006.]
Also: as this August 2005 Canadian Business article recounts, Conrad Black being ridiculous with regard to Al Capone may have a very unhumorous blowback, in the end.
[Someone else may learn the hard way that ridiculousness of this sort does make one a marked man in moralizing times.]
No Media Roundup Warranted Today; Mentions Instead
There were no new stories on the Conrad Black trial today, as far as I could find; the only reports to come in overnight covered Judge St. Eve's decision not to release the name of the jury, such as this one in the Chicago Tribune. It reports that she cited the appeal of the George Ryan trial as a reason for denying their motion. [This ruling has also been webbed by The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, and by the First Amendment Center. The Center's webbing of the AP report on the denial has a link to the text of her ruling.]
So, in lieu of a roundup, here are two blog items, a Free Republic post, an opinion piece and a lifestyle write-up that mention the trial:
- From "The Organic Leadership Blog," a twice-monthly round-up of business leadership articles, called "Carnival of Leadership Growth." One of its entries uses the Conrad Black trial as a case study and is from "SoxFirst."
- From "Skipper," a blog entry on Arnold Toynbee's theory of growth and decline of civilizations, which mentions Conrad Black as one symptom of a civilization in "the 'abundance-selfishness-apathy' stage."
- From the Free Republic: a posting of a Mark Steyn interview, which starts off with the trial and ends with Denny Doherty's recent demise.
- Pamela Wallin writes, as an opener to discussing what the American media is presently fixated upon, that the Conrad Black trial isn't attracting much mainstream media attention in the United States because the dollar amounts involved are small in comparison to that of a "real" corporate scandal. ('Call us when it hits a billion,' to put it one way.)
- Shinan Govani of the National Post notes how the lives of Richard Nixon and Conrad Black have become intertwined, with the "sluts" aspersion delivered by Barbara Amiel Black as an opener to it. (Mr. Black has recently written a biography of Richard M. Nixon.)
Also: Toronto Life's blog on "The Trial of Conrad Black" has lively commentary on the trial, as well as a top-stories list of its own.
So, in lieu of a roundup, here are two blog items, a Free Republic post, an opinion piece and a lifestyle write-up that mention the trial:
- From "The Organic Leadership Blog," a twice-monthly round-up of business leadership articles, called "Carnival of Leadership Growth." One of its entries uses the Conrad Black trial as a case study and is from "SoxFirst."
- From "Skipper," a blog entry on Arnold Toynbee's theory of growth and decline of civilizations, which mentions Conrad Black as one symptom of a civilization in "the 'abundance-selfishness-apathy' stage."
- From the Free Republic: a posting of a Mark Steyn interview, which starts off with the trial and ends with Denny Doherty's recent demise.
- Pamela Wallin writes, as an opener to discussing what the American media is presently fixated upon, that the Conrad Black trial isn't attracting much mainstream media attention in the United States because the dollar amounts involved are small in comparison to that of a "real" corporate scandal. ('Call us when it hits a billion,' to put it one way.)
- Shinan Govani of the National Post notes how the lives of Richard Nixon and Conrad Black have become intertwined, with the "sluts" aspersion delivered by Barbara Amiel Black as an opener to it. (Mr. Black has recently written a biography of Richard M. Nixon.)
Also: Toronto Life's blog on "The Trial of Conrad Black" has lively commentary on the trial, as well as a top-stories list of its own.
Friday, April 6, 2007
Notice of yet another Amazon review
[CORRECTION NOTICE: According to Richard Siklos, the '72%' factoid included below, now 'almost 72%,' covers the years "between 1997 and 2003" (Shades of Black, p. 438.) Apologies to any who were misled.]
I've submitted a short review of Wrong Way by Jacquie McNish and Sinclair Stewart to Amazon.com. As a preview, I offer this guess as to the historical significance of the Conrad Black trial: it will be to shareholder rights in America what the 1986 Dominion Stores case was to employee-pension rights in Ontario, Canada. (See item #3 in the opinion-and-analysis-piece list in the bottom half of this entry for a brief explanation.) The factoid that's stuck in many people's minds about this case is the egregious ratio, mentioned in Wrong Way as well as in other write-ups, of top executive compensation to Hollinger International's total net income from 1997 to 2003: almost 72%. (Wrong Way, p. 255) In terms of compensation packages for a company of comparable assets, though, I suspect that the compensation levels enjoyed by Mr. Black, et. al. weren't that far out of line. In this sense, the Conrad Black case is really a dredging of the top-executive mire, if in a spot of it that particularly inflames public sensitivities (or, perhaps, outrage.) It's a safe guess that, if Mr. Black is exculpated, then new corporate-governance laws will swiftly follow, ones that may go sufficiently far as to effectively neuter controlling shareholders. Taking companies private should enter a renascence as a result.
The Amazon review is now live.
I've submitted a short review of Wrong Way by Jacquie McNish and Sinclair Stewart to Amazon.com. As a preview, I offer this guess as to the historical significance of the Conrad Black trial: it will be to shareholder rights in America what the 1986 Dominion Stores case was to employee-pension rights in Ontario, Canada. (See item #3 in the opinion-and-analysis-piece list in the bottom half of this entry for a brief explanation.) The factoid that's stuck in many people's minds about this case is the egregious ratio, mentioned in Wrong Way as well as in other write-ups, of top executive compensation to Hollinger International's total net income from 1997 to 2003: almost 72%. (Wrong Way, p. 255) In terms of compensation packages for a company of comparable assets, though, I suspect that the compensation levels enjoyed by Mr. Black, et. al. weren't that far out of line. In this sense, the Conrad Black case is really a dredging of the top-executive mire, if in a spot of it that particularly inflames public sensitivities (or, perhaps, outrage.) It's a safe guess that, if Mr. Black is exculpated, then new corporate-governance laws will swiftly follow, ones that may go sufficiently far as to effectively neuter controlling shareholders. Taking companies private should enter a renascence as a result.
The Amazon review is now live.
Media Roundup: Week 3 Ends With Prosecution Ostensibly Weak
As the Conrad Black trial enters the usual three-day weekend hiatus, the overnight media reports are reassessing the prosecution's resurgence that was reported the night before last:
1. The Chicago Tribune's report on the cross-examination of the latest witness, George Creasey.
2. From NewsMax.com, a report that highlights Mr. Creasey's wobbly recall.
3. CBC News has a report that includes one of the questions of Mr. Creasey by Conrad Black's co-chief counsel, Eddie Greenspan, yesterday: "'You rounded up?' Greenspan asked Creasey. 'You made the tax bill bigger? H&R Block would never do that, would they?'" This question refers to Mr. Creasey's calculation of the tax liability for the Bora Bora flight.
4. The International Herald Tribune has a wrapup of the most telling points that Csr. Greenspan made in his cross-examination of Mr. Creasey yesterday.
5. From 570 News, a brief wrap-up and note that Mr. Creasey will be cross-examined again Monday, followed by a videotape of the next witness, Torys LLP lawyer Darren Sukonick.
6. The Ottawa Citizen has a subscribers-only report.
7. The Boston Globe report mentions another document whose existence Mr. Creasey couldn't remember.
8. From the Calgary Sun, a write-up that mentions the frequency of Mr. Creasey's memory lapses, with respect to "meetings and memos that were at least five-years-old[sic]." Also webbed by the Courier.
9. The Australian has a report that relays Mr. Creasey's testimony under direct examination, with a costing of $8.5 million for the annual cost of the plane used by Mr. Black.
10. The write-up from the Chicago Sun-Times, "Witness' math skills questioned," reports on both Csr. Greenspan's cross-examination and Patrick Tuite's earlier memory checks.
11. The Globe and Mail's latest report, by Paul Waldie, starts off with this sentence: "If the prosecutors going after Conrad Black hoped to build their case around the testimony of former Hollinger Inc. executive Fred Creasey, they're in trouble." Like the Australian report, it recounts the testimony elicited by both direct and cross-examination of Mr. Creasey, but it also mentions that the "half" of the cost of the Bora Bora trip that Mr. Black offered to pay was reported as a taxable benefit on his T4 income tax statement for that year.
12. An AP story, posted by the Belleville News-Democrat, has revealed that Judge St. Eve will not allow the names of the trial jurors to be made public. So, the Chicago Tribune is out of luck. [It's also been webbed by Business Week, and has propagated to quite a few media Websites in the last hour or so. The author of it, Mike Robinson, included copious quotes from Judge St. Eve's ruling; those quotes give her reasoning behind the rejection of the Tribune's motion.]
Also: both Tom Bower's biography of Conrad Black and Mr. Black's own biography of Franklin D. Roosevelt have gotten a mention in a column on biographies, by the Times' Ben Macintyre, which discusses how far the genre has come from its servants'-entrance origins.
1. The Chicago Tribune's report on the cross-examination of the latest witness, George Creasey.
2. From NewsMax.com, a report that highlights Mr. Creasey's wobbly recall.
3. CBC News has a report that includes one of the questions of Mr. Creasey by Conrad Black's co-chief counsel, Eddie Greenspan, yesterday: "'You rounded up?' Greenspan asked Creasey. 'You made the tax bill bigger? H&R Block would never do that, would they?'" This question refers to Mr. Creasey's calculation of the tax liability for the Bora Bora flight.
4. The International Herald Tribune has a wrapup of the most telling points that Csr. Greenspan made in his cross-examination of Mr. Creasey yesterday.
5. From 570 News, a brief wrap-up and note that Mr. Creasey will be cross-examined again Monday, followed by a videotape of the next witness, Torys LLP lawyer Darren Sukonick.
6. The Ottawa Citizen has a subscribers-only report.
7. The Boston Globe report mentions another document whose existence Mr. Creasey couldn't remember.
8. From the Calgary Sun, a write-up that mentions the frequency of Mr. Creasey's memory lapses, with respect to "meetings and memos that were at least five-years-old[sic]." Also webbed by the Courier.
9. The Australian has a report that relays Mr. Creasey's testimony under direct examination, with a costing of $8.5 million for the annual cost of the plane used by Mr. Black.
10. The write-up from the Chicago Sun-Times, "Witness' math skills questioned," reports on both Csr. Greenspan's cross-examination and Patrick Tuite's earlier memory checks.
11. The Globe and Mail's latest report, by Paul Waldie, starts off with this sentence: "If the prosecutors going after Conrad Black hoped to build their case around the testimony of former Hollinger Inc. executive Fred Creasey, they're in trouble." Like the Australian report, it recounts the testimony elicited by both direct and cross-examination of Mr. Creasey, but it also mentions that the "half" of the cost of the Bora Bora trip that Mr. Black offered to pay was reported as a taxable benefit on his T4 income tax statement for that year.
12. An AP story, posted by the Belleville News-Democrat, has revealed that Judge St. Eve will not allow the names of the trial jurors to be made public. So, the Chicago Tribune is out of luck. [It's also been webbed by Business Week, and has propagated to quite a few media Websites in the last hour or so. The author of it, Mike Robinson, included copious quotes from Judge St. Eve's ruling; those quotes give her reasoning behind the rejection of the Tribune's motion.]
Also: both Tom Bower's biography of Conrad Black and Mr. Black's own biography of Franklin D. Roosevelt have gotten a mention in a column on biographies, by the Times' Ben Macintyre, which discusses how far the genre has come from its servants'-entrance origins.
Thursday, April 5, 2007
Nothing On The Trial On The Verdict; "Sub" Found
Tonight's episode of The Verdict had nothing relating to the Conrad Black trial in it. So, in lief of the standard reportage on it, I point to a column in the Chicago Reader, the latest "Hot Type," in which Sam Zell is compared to Conrad Black. The section in the column devoted to this question, "Sam Zell: An Old-Fashioned Publisher?," answers (despite the fact that the two men in question took over different papers) that there is a certain similarity between the old proprietor and the new, in extravagance and in a causative similarity to William Randolph Hearst (one of Conrad Black's heroes.)
Enjoy your "Chicago homecoming," Mr. Zell, and be contented with the cheery realization that you weren't given the full-ignore treatment instead.
Enjoy your "Chicago homecoming," Mr. Zell, and be contented with the cheery realization that you weren't given the full-ignore treatment instead.
Mr. Creasey and "Csr. Rollback"
The Globe and Mail has an item, by Paul Waldie, reporting that Fred Creasey was flummoxed by the defense presenting a document, one that he admitted to signing after being shown it, which mentioned the non-compete agreements, long before 2002: "under cross examination Thursday morning by Patrick Tuite, a lawyer for John Boultbee who is on trial with Lord Black, Mr. Creasey was shown a regulatory filing signed by him in November, 2000, that mentioned the non-compete payments."
[A BNN interview with Mr. Waldie mentions the compound confoundment. Look for the 1:40 PM ET clip near the bottom of BNN's home page. According to Mr. Waldie, there's more cross-examination in the afternoon shift. He also anticipates redirect, with this forecast: the prosecution will clarify that the documents signed did not specify any of the defendants as payees.]
Other reports are beginning to hit the Internet. From WQAD in Moline, Illinois, a short AP report which implies that Mr. Creasey was confounded over several points: "Creasey often had to confess that he had no memory of meetings and memos that were at least five years old." A more detailed report, by AP's Mike Robinson, has been webbed by the Daily Southtown. It mentions that Mr. Creasey used the phrase "vague recollection" when cross-examined, and ends with a coup-de-grace. "[H]e said that Boultbee never asked him to change, erase, shred or hide documents either" is part of it. This longer report has also been webbed by the Toronto Star.
[Today's cross-examination was also mentioned on BNN, on its program "Squeeze Play;" the discussion aired at about 5:10 PM ET today. The co-host Kevin O'Leary, predicted that "every one" of the documents relating to the non-competes will be shown to have been passed by the board of directors, and that "every single" non-compete payment was disclosed in a timely manner. This thoroughness, he added, will emerge over the next several weeks. FYI: Mr. O'Leary is rather forthright.]
A Reuters write-up, by Andrew Stern, has also been webbed, by EarthTimes.org. It starts off by disclosing that some of the payments under allegation "were reported to U.S. government regulators in a timely fashion and not hidden as prosecutors have suggested". It also mentions that Csr. "Tuite suggested that Creasey was trying to 'mislead the jury,' but he was cut off after objections from prosecutors." The CBC has webbed a slightly different version of this report, with a few background facts snipped out, and a quote from a 2002 Hollinger Int'l document, prepared for the February meeting of the audit committee, added in. A much smaller write-up, with little detail about Fred Creasey's grey day, has been webbed by LawFuel, and AP has its "Summary Box" out now, with the note that the cross-examination of Mr. Creasey will continue on Monday, when the trial resumes.
Csr. Tuite wasn't the only defense counselor whose cross-examination knocked down Mr. Creasey's testimony, though. Peter Brieger of the National Post has details on Edward Greenspan's questioning, which got Mr. Creasey's lack of knowledge of how much business was conducted during the flight to Bora Bora as well as the fact that Hollinger Int'l. was obliged to pay for the fixed costs for the planes anyway, on the record.
The latest from 680 News has CP's Romina Maurino back on the beat: her latest piece makes the point that Conrad Black's attempt at image management, through writing articles for the press, may very well "galvanize" the prosecution "to seek a harsher sentence if he is convicted..." [She also mentions Mr. Black pouring himself into an unrelated activity when under stress: two of these activities during the trial itself were his attendance at George Jonas' book launch party, and his penning an article on Mario Dumont's unexpected success in the recent Quebec election. You can judge for yourself if Conrad Black has an unrepentant attitude in his March 10th column, published and webbed by the National Post.]
Mark Steyn has heard of Mr. Creasey's witness-stand troubles...and he did revise his earlier assessment of Mr. Creasey's value to the prosecution. [His second post for today speculates on why the prosecution seems to have miscalculated in their handling of the case.]
-----------
This seems the best time to call attention to the webbed Globe article, which anointed Conrad Black as Report on Business' "Man of the Year 1978." In this congratulatory mini-biography of Black '78, it mentions Massey-Ferguson, the company that Mr. Black later pulled Argus out of by giving Argus' shareholdings in it to the Massey employees' pension fund. He did so on October 1, 1980, after an intial turnaround under Victor Rice, its then CEO, went sour. (Richard Siklos, Shades of Black , p. 66.) As of the time of Mr. Black's anointing, Victor Rice was 37 years old, the same age then as Eric Sussman is now (Admittedly, I'm that age too.) I am happy to relate, though, that Mr. Rice grew into the job: "$1 invested in Massey [later Varity Corp and Lucas Varity plc.] stock when Argus walked away from it would have been worth nearly $75 by 1999." (Ibid , p. 68.)
So, there's hope, in their long-term futures, for thirty-seven year old wunderkinds who, somewhat later, end up hapless during unexpected times.
[A BNN interview with Mr. Waldie mentions the compound confoundment. Look for the 1:40 PM ET clip near the bottom of BNN's home page. According to Mr. Waldie, there's more cross-examination in the afternoon shift. He also anticipates redirect, with this forecast: the prosecution will clarify that the documents signed did not specify any of the defendants as payees.]
Other reports are beginning to hit the Internet. From WQAD in Moline, Illinois, a short AP report which implies that Mr. Creasey was confounded over several points: "Creasey often had to confess that he had no memory of meetings and memos that were at least five years old." A more detailed report, by AP's Mike Robinson, has been webbed by the Daily Southtown. It mentions that Mr. Creasey used the phrase "vague recollection" when cross-examined, and ends with a coup-de-grace. "[H]e said that Boultbee never asked him to change, erase, shred or hide documents either" is part of it. This longer report has also been webbed by the Toronto Star.
[Today's cross-examination was also mentioned on BNN, on its program "Squeeze Play;" the discussion aired at about 5:10 PM ET today. The co-host Kevin O'Leary, predicted that "every one" of the documents relating to the non-competes will be shown to have been passed by the board of directors, and that "every single" non-compete payment was disclosed in a timely manner. This thoroughness, he added, will emerge over the next several weeks. FYI: Mr. O'Leary is rather forthright.]
A Reuters write-up, by Andrew Stern, has also been webbed, by EarthTimes.org. It starts off by disclosing that some of the payments under allegation "were reported to U.S. government regulators in a timely fashion and not hidden as prosecutors have suggested". It also mentions that Csr. "Tuite suggested that Creasey was trying to 'mislead the jury,' but he was cut off after objections from prosecutors." The CBC has webbed a slightly different version of this report, with a few background facts snipped out, and a quote from a 2002 Hollinger Int'l document, prepared for the February meeting of the audit committee, added in. A much smaller write-up, with little detail about Fred Creasey's grey day, has been webbed by LawFuel, and AP has its "Summary Box" out now, with the note that the cross-examination of Mr. Creasey will continue on Monday, when the trial resumes.
Csr. Tuite wasn't the only defense counselor whose cross-examination knocked down Mr. Creasey's testimony, though. Peter Brieger of the National Post has details on Edward Greenspan's questioning, which got Mr. Creasey's lack of knowledge of how much business was conducted during the flight to Bora Bora as well as the fact that Hollinger Int'l. was obliged to pay for the fixed costs for the planes anyway, on the record.
The latest from 680 News has CP's Romina Maurino back on the beat: her latest piece makes the point that Conrad Black's attempt at image management, through writing articles for the press, may very well "galvanize" the prosecution "to seek a harsher sentence if he is convicted..." [She also mentions Mr. Black pouring himself into an unrelated activity when under stress: two of these activities during the trial itself were his attendance at George Jonas' book launch party, and his penning an article on Mario Dumont's unexpected success in the recent Quebec election. You can judge for yourself if Conrad Black has an unrepentant attitude in his March 10th column, published and webbed by the National Post.]
Mark Steyn has heard of Mr. Creasey's witness-stand troubles...and he did revise his earlier assessment of Mr. Creasey's value to the prosecution. [His second post for today speculates on why the prosecution seems to have miscalculated in their handling of the case.]
-----------
This seems the best time to call attention to the webbed Globe article, which anointed Conrad Black as Report on Business' "Man of the Year 1978." In this congratulatory mini-biography of Black '78, it mentions Massey-Ferguson, the company that Mr. Black later pulled Argus out of by giving Argus' shareholdings in it to the Massey employees' pension fund. He did so on October 1, 1980, after an intial turnaround under Victor Rice, its then CEO, went sour. (Richard Siklos, Shades of Black , p. 66.) As of the time of Mr. Black's anointing, Victor Rice was 37 years old, the same age then as Eric Sussman is now (Admittedly, I'm that age too.) I am happy to relate, though, that Mr. Rice grew into the job: "$1 invested in Massey [later Varity Corp and Lucas Varity plc.] stock when Argus walked away from it would have been worth nearly $75 by 1999." (Ibid , p. 68.)
So, there's hope, in their long-term futures, for thirty-seven year old wunderkinds who, somewhat later, end up hapless during unexpected times.
Media Roundup: More Bora, Less Boring
Here is a broad sample of stories about Wednesday's revelations in the Conrad Black trial:
1. From the Chicago Tribune's Rudolph Bush: highlights from Fred Creasey's testimony yesterday afternoon. Contains a breakdown of the $7 million/year corporate jet costing: $4.6 million/yr for Conrad Black's jet, and "$2 million to $3 million" per year for David Radler's.
2. From NewsMax.com, a summarization of both Angela Way's testimony and Mr. Creasey's.
3. ABC Money has a write-up that includes, at the end of it, a fuller quote from that E-mail from Mr. Black to Mr. Creasey about the Hollinger Inc. audit committee, along with a next-day softening of the message: "One day later, a contrite sounding Black sent another memo saying that his missive of the previous day may have sounded 'a bit abrupt.'" It also reports that Jack Boultbee considered the jets to be a "'reasonable business expense'."
4. Canadian Business has a brief item, which reports that there'll be more disclosures from Mr. Creasey today as his direct-examination testimony continues.
5. Andrew Clark of the Guardian reports that a logbook showing all of the flights Conrad Black made in 2001, including the vacation to Bora Bora, was introduced into testimony yesterday afternoon by questions from prosecuting attorney Julie Ruder. Also in his report: the only flight that seemed dubious to Mr. Creasey was the flight to Bora Bora; as Mr. Clark recounts, Mr. Creasey didn't quite know the precise location of it. Mr. Clark has also written a longer piece, on the difference between "not guilty" and "innocent" and what this imples for Black's life after the trial is over, for his "On America" column.
6. From the Montreal Gazette, Peter Brieger reports that Mr. Creasey "was accustomed to Conrad Black and his right-hand man David Radler running a tab of up to $10 million annually on the newspaper publisher's two private jets..." He also costs out the Bora Bora trip at a precise $565,326. His article supplies jet costs that are different from Mr. Bush's more recent Tribune piece, as do the others below which split those costs between Black and Radler.
[A more recent report by the same Mr. Brieger, in the National Post, shrinks that figure to $9 million. It's a complete summation of yesterday's testimony, and is much longer than the Gazette report. ]
7. Paul Waldie of the Globe and Mail goes into detail about Mr. Creasey's testimony concerning his 2003 hunt for documentation on the non-compete agreements that are at the heart of the prosecution's case. Excerpt: "After about a week of reviewing the information, Mr. Creasey recorded his findings in a memo, portions of which were read out in court. He concluded that it did not appear that payments to the individuals had been approved by company directors. He also found that some of the underlying documents approving the payments to Hollinger Inc. had been signed by Mark Kipnis, a company lawyer at Hollinger International at the time who is also on trial. Mr. Creasey told the jury that Mr. Kipnis did not have signing authority for Hollinger Inc."
8. The New York Post has a wrap-up of Angela Way's testimony under cross-examination.
9. The Chicago Sun-Times' Mary Wisniewski's report on Mr. Creasey's yesterday-afternoon testimony includes the methodology that Mr. Black used to come up with the 50/50 split of costs for the Bora Bora trip.
10. Mark Steyn's blog entry discussing yesterday afternoon's testimony acknowledges that Mr. Creasey is the best prosecution witness so far but concludes: "As a criminal act, Bora Bora is several blades short of a grass skirt..."
11. Another report from the Globe and Mail's Mr. Waldie follows up on the Chicago Tribune's motion to have the name of the jurors released. He also reports on two other expected rulings: on a motion from David Radler's company, Horizon Communications, to quash a subpoena by the defense for it to release certain documents; and, on a motion from the defense asking that Mr. Creasey's further testimony, on the Bora Bora trip, be limited.
12. The latest, televised, report from from CBC Newsworld's Mike Hornbrook: a brief summation of the testimony of Mr. Creasey, the comptroller or "money-tracker," or "money guy," of Hollinger Int'l back in 2001. He also provided accounting services for Ravelston, the holding company that controlled Hollinger Inc., and Hollinger Int'l. Mr. Hornbrook also related that Black's own jet cost $7 million, and that Mr. Radler's cost "2 to 3" million dollars a year. There's no word as of yet when Mr. Radler will testify.
13. The Age of Australia has a report, with an extra detail about that "more concilatory E-mail" which Mr. Black wrote the day after he penned the more controversial one; the later E-mail said that "no related-party transactions were expected and that if any arose, the board would be told..."
14. The Times Online also has a report, as does the Telegraph; the latter mentions the cross-examination of Mr. Creasey at the end of it.
Also from the Chicago Tribune: a media column from Phil Rosenthal about the present circulation difficulties that the Chicago Sun-Times is facing.
----------
The current trial in Chicago isn't the only legal trouble that Conrad Black is facing; there's also an Ontario Securities Commission hearing on the matter of Mr. Black, et. al.'s alleged violation of Ontario securities laws. Out of consideration for the American judicial process, as this Globe and Mail report relates, the June 1 hearing, for Mr. Black, Mr. Atkinson, Mr. Kipnis and Mr. Boultbee, has been thoughtfully postponed.
If you haven't seen it already, here's a trivia exercise for you: go through the list of names at the bottom of this Regulatory Order and see how many of them you know. The Globe article above reports that the next lift-the-restriction hearing is on April 10.
1. From the Chicago Tribune's Rudolph Bush: highlights from Fred Creasey's testimony yesterday afternoon. Contains a breakdown of the $7 million/year corporate jet costing: $4.6 million/yr for Conrad Black's jet, and "$2 million to $3 million" per year for David Radler's.
2. From NewsMax.com, a summarization of both Angela Way's testimony and Mr. Creasey's.
3. ABC Money has a write-up that includes, at the end of it, a fuller quote from that E-mail from Mr. Black to Mr. Creasey about the Hollinger Inc. audit committee, along with a next-day softening of the message: "One day later, a contrite sounding Black sent another memo saying that his missive of the previous day may have sounded 'a bit abrupt.'" It also reports that Jack Boultbee considered the jets to be a "'reasonable business expense'."
4. Canadian Business has a brief item, which reports that there'll be more disclosures from Mr. Creasey today as his direct-examination testimony continues.
5. Andrew Clark of the Guardian reports that a logbook showing all of the flights Conrad Black made in 2001, including the vacation to Bora Bora, was introduced into testimony yesterday afternoon by questions from prosecuting attorney Julie Ruder. Also in his report: the only flight that seemed dubious to Mr. Creasey was the flight to Bora Bora; as Mr. Clark recounts, Mr. Creasey didn't quite know the precise location of it. Mr. Clark has also written a longer piece, on the difference between "not guilty" and "innocent" and what this imples for Black's life after the trial is over, for his "On America" column.
6. From the Montreal Gazette, Peter Brieger reports that Mr. Creasey "was accustomed to Conrad Black and his right-hand man David Radler running a tab of up to $10 million annually on the newspaper publisher's two private jets..." He also costs out the Bora Bora trip at a precise $565,326. His article supplies jet costs that are different from Mr. Bush's more recent Tribune piece, as do the others below which split those costs between Black and Radler.
[A more recent report by the same Mr. Brieger, in the National Post, shrinks that figure to $9 million. It's a complete summation of yesterday's testimony, and is much longer than the Gazette report. ]
7. Paul Waldie of the Globe and Mail goes into detail about Mr. Creasey's testimony concerning his 2003 hunt for documentation on the non-compete agreements that are at the heart of the prosecution's case. Excerpt: "After about a week of reviewing the information, Mr. Creasey recorded his findings in a memo, portions of which were read out in court. He concluded that it did not appear that payments to the individuals had been approved by company directors. He also found that some of the underlying documents approving the payments to Hollinger Inc. had been signed by Mark Kipnis, a company lawyer at Hollinger International at the time who is also on trial. Mr. Creasey told the jury that Mr. Kipnis did not have signing authority for Hollinger Inc."
8. The New York Post has a wrap-up of Angela Way's testimony under cross-examination.
9. The Chicago Sun-Times' Mary Wisniewski's report on Mr. Creasey's yesterday-afternoon testimony includes the methodology that Mr. Black used to come up with the 50/50 split of costs for the Bora Bora trip.
10. Mark Steyn's blog entry discussing yesterday afternoon's testimony acknowledges that Mr. Creasey is the best prosecution witness so far but concludes: "As a criminal act, Bora Bora is several blades short of a grass skirt..."
11. Another report from the Globe and Mail's Mr. Waldie follows up on the Chicago Tribune's motion to have the name of the jurors released. He also reports on two other expected rulings: on a motion from David Radler's company, Horizon Communications, to quash a subpoena by the defense for it to release certain documents; and, on a motion from the defense asking that Mr. Creasey's further testimony, on the Bora Bora trip, be limited.
12. The latest, televised, report from from CBC Newsworld's Mike Hornbrook: a brief summation of the testimony of Mr. Creasey, the comptroller or "money-tracker," or "money guy," of Hollinger Int'l back in 2001. He also provided accounting services for Ravelston, the holding company that controlled Hollinger Inc., and Hollinger Int'l. Mr. Hornbrook also related that Black's own jet cost $7 million, and that Mr. Radler's cost "2 to 3" million dollars a year. There's no word as of yet when Mr. Radler will testify.
13. The Age of Australia has a report, with an extra detail about that "more concilatory E-mail" which Mr. Black wrote the day after he penned the more controversial one; the later E-mail said that "no related-party transactions were expected and that if any arose, the board would be told..."
14. The Times Online also has a report, as does the Telegraph; the latter mentions the cross-examination of Mr. Creasey at the end of it.
Also from the Chicago Tribune: a media column from Phil Rosenthal about the present circulation difficulties that the Chicago Sun-Times is facing.
----------
The current trial in Chicago isn't the only legal trouble that Conrad Black is facing; there's also an Ontario Securities Commission hearing on the matter of Mr. Black, et. al.'s alleged violation of Ontario securities laws. Out of consideration for the American judicial process, as this Globe and Mail report relates, the June 1 hearing, for Mr. Black, Mr. Atkinson, Mr. Kipnis and Mr. Boultbee, has been thoughtfully postponed.
If you haven't seen it already, here's a trivia exercise for you: go through the list of names at the bottom of this Regulatory Order and see how many of them you know. The Globe article above reports that the next lift-the-restriction hearing is on April 10.
Wednesday, April 4, 2007
The Verdict: When Itemization Become Lurid
Tonight's episode of The Verdict discussed the first surprise that's been advantageous to the prosecution, pending cross-examination. In the only segment of the show devoted to the Conrad Black trial, Ms. Todd had three guests on to discuss George Creasey's testimony about Mr. Black's corporate expenses: Steve Skurka, a show regular who was at the trial earlier today; James Morton, a criminal lawyer in Toronto; and Howard Anglin, an appellate lawyer.
Csr. Skurka began by stating that the surprise factor wasn't a complete one, as there has been talk of the Bora Bora trip already. Now, the full extent of the alleged theft from the shareholders of Hollinger International is becoming evident. He reported that the evidence was presented in a matter-of-fact way at the trial, but noted that Barbara Black's expenditures haven't been testified about, as of yet. So, it is possible that there may be a bit of courtroom demagogy soon. The third guest, Csr. Anglin, said that the expenses were itemized in "vulgar" detail so as to impress the jury.
He also pointed out a comparison to the Dennis Kozlowski trial, noting that Mr. Kozlowski's initially ended with a mistrial, and the re-trial had a jury that was not very swayed by Mr. Kozlowski's wife's even more lavish birthday party, which cost $2 million in total. More germane, if mundane, evidence was decisive in convicting him.
The second guest, Csr. Morton, observed that a Canadian trial would leave far less latitude to the prosecutor to itemize in that way; a total would have sufficed. It's quite evident that the prosecution is trying to paint a picture of an avaricious Conrad Black to the jury. Even though Csr. Skurka pointed out that the jury should know what the money was spent on, Csr. Morton said that it wasn't necessary for a Canadian trial, at least in that much detail.
Near the end of the segment, Ms. Todd raised the question of what the defense will put into the record; she started off by mentioning the standard workaholic defense. She then raised the point, dealt with by Csr. Morton, of whether or not the establishment of board-of-directors' approval for all of these expenditures was sufficient to acquit. Morton said that it wasn't. It does, though, place an additional burden on the prosecution; some kind of hoodwinking has to be shown to have taken place. Csr. Skurka noted that the audit committee members, including a former prosecutor, were no dummies.
That former prosecutor was former Governor James Thompson. None of the three guests brought up a certain Lieutenant-Governor who was elected under then-Gov. Thompson's governorship.
If you're interested, this episode will be available in broadband form as of approx. 11:30 PM tonight. Quite evidently, George Creasey is one prosecution witness that David Radler won't have to "fire."
Csr. Skurka began by stating that the surprise factor wasn't a complete one, as there has been talk of the Bora Bora trip already. Now, the full extent of the alleged theft from the shareholders of Hollinger International is becoming evident. He reported that the evidence was presented in a matter-of-fact way at the trial, but noted that Barbara Black's expenditures haven't been testified about, as of yet. So, it is possible that there may be a bit of courtroom demagogy soon. The third guest, Csr. Anglin, said that the expenses were itemized in "vulgar" detail so as to impress the jury.
He also pointed out a comparison to the Dennis Kozlowski trial, noting that Mr. Kozlowski's initially ended with a mistrial, and the re-trial had a jury that was not very swayed by Mr. Kozlowski's wife's even more lavish birthday party, which cost $2 million in total. More germane, if mundane, evidence was decisive in convicting him.
The second guest, Csr. Morton, observed that a Canadian trial would leave far less latitude to the prosecutor to itemize in that way; a total would have sufficed. It's quite evident that the prosecution is trying to paint a picture of an avaricious Conrad Black to the jury. Even though Csr. Skurka pointed out that the jury should know what the money was spent on, Csr. Morton said that it wasn't necessary for a Canadian trial, at least in that much detail.
Near the end of the segment, Ms. Todd raised the question of what the defense will put into the record; she started off by mentioning the standard workaholic defense. She then raised the point, dealt with by Csr. Morton, of whether or not the establishment of board-of-directors' approval for all of these expenditures was sufficient to acquit. Morton said that it wasn't. It does, though, place an additional burden on the prosecution; some kind of hoodwinking has to be shown to have taken place. Csr. Skurka noted that the audit committee members, including a former prosecutor, were no dummies.
That former prosecutor was former Governor James Thompson. None of the three guests brought up a certain Lieutenant-Governor who was elected under then-Gov. Thompson's governorship.
If you're interested, this episode will be available in broadband form as of approx. 11:30 PM tonight. Quite evidently, George Creasey is one prosecution witness that David Radler won't have to "fire."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)