Conrad Black and Joseph Fosco interrupted by reporters
I had an opportunity to visit with Conrad Black at his court hearing early this afternoon. After Conrad’s uneventful status hearing, we both walked quickly to our awaiting vehicles as we discussed some very important matters. Apparently, one of his wife’s dogs had a serious medical procedure performed at the University of Florida at Gainesville. The young female canine was treated for perforated lungs and received care to rival that of human beings. I imagine it would please most animal lovers out there to hear such comforting news. Unfortunately I was unable to get the pooch’s name and age because of several rude reporters interrupting us.
I would like my readers to know that I intend to update this piece as soon as I have a chance to finish my conversation with Conrad. Thank you.
01/14/2011 – Update:
According to a source close to Conrad Black, the name of the canine is Maya and she is two years of age. She is said to be doing much better.
9 Comments
Besides a pic of Black and your well fed face… are there any significant legal updates in regards to Black?
Dear Tye,
Thank you for commenting on my well fed face. As to Conrad’s case, he keeps getting closer to winning the entire battle. When the investigation began in the early 2000’s the government alleged that Conrad defrauded his company – the Chicago Sun-Times – out of hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars. By the time he was indicted the new figure that he was alleged to have defrauded was nearly 100-million dollars. When the jury took it to the deliberation room, it was decided that Conrad had allegedly defrauded somewhere around 30-million dollars. When the jury issued their verdict, Conrad was convicted of taking part in defrauding approximately 6-million dollars. After the Unites States Supreme Court victory that Conrad scored last year, it was decided that he defrauded 600-thousand dollars. Today, Conrad is bringing the matter back to the United States Supreme Court with the intention of having his one remaining fraud count dismissed. After all that he accomplished, I believe that he will win. In addition, his Supreme Court case is the reason the government lost their excessively used honest services statute, which was enacted over 20-years ago.
Thank you for your comments.
Thanks for the update – Black, yourself and the miscreant reporters were also on fox chicago news at noon today – as the lead if I recall correctly.
Dear Tye,
Thanks for the update.
Interesting. Black’s previous history with Supreme Courts, especially that of Canada shows that his often shady dealings and moves don’t pass muster in the highest courts.
Was there that much of an emphasis of the “honest services law” by the prosecution in the 2007 original case? I see Jeff Skilling of Enron is also using this technicality to get an appeal.
I can see his defense team using technicalities to potentially win appeals on sentencing of fraud charges, but it will be virtually impossible to appeal the obstruction of justice charge levied after jurors were shown video of him sneakout out documents that the government had requested and taking them to an “undisclosed location.” Many believe these documents were the key to the government convicting Black on all counts.
Dear Logic,
Who am I to comment on Conrad’s past business deals? Only one deal out of hundreds was ever prosecuted.
Honest services were the main argument the prosecution made in the criminal case of Conrad Black. I authored previous articles thru ANP that include Conrad’s Supreme Court argument. The argument shows the portion of the transcripts of the trial, which indicate the prosecution telling the jury to rely on honest services shortly before the deliberation process began. I think that Conrad’s freedom half way thru his prison sentence is a good sign that the court realizes that Conrad is innocent. The Supreme Court’s ruling on Honest Services is very different from a technicality.
The obstruction charge is the biggest injustice out of all the charges. First let me correct you, Conrad did not sneak anything out of his office. Conrad and a couple of his employees moved some personal belongings that were located in Conrad’s office. Keep in mind that he had been evicted from his office days earlier because he was ousted as head of the company. In addition, the US Attorneys Office in Chicago had not indicted him at the time the boxes were moved in Canada. A Canadian court had jurisdiction over the matter at that time, which ultimately decided that moving the boxes was okay. The US threw in the obstruction as a last-minute decision after he was indicted on fraud, again, months after the box moving in Canada occurred. Read it in his Supreme Court papers, it is all explained. He did not sneak those boxes out as the prosecution alleged. Conrad was out in the open and was recorded on the very surveillance camera that he ordered installed. He was moving around in broad daylight in front of witnesses. There was nothing sneaky about what he was doing because he was not doing anything wrong. If he were a criminal and had decided to be sneaky, he would have moved the boxes at midnight with a ski mask on without his employees present.
Thank you for your comments.
Joe-Per your first question, anyone who adamantly decries the man’s innocense to others as you are doing is obviously able to comment on the man’s previous business dealings. By decrying innocense, you are testifying to Black’s character and character is something built over a period of time.
Let me clarify a few things regarding removal of these boxes:
In May 2005, Black had been removed from control of Hollinger Inc. His empire and all its trappings had been crumbling around him.
He no longer had use of his Rolls Royce Silver Wraith which was encumbered with unpaid repair bills, so was forced to drive his own cadillac to his former office, which he was told to stay away from.
Black was under a court order not to remove property from Hollinger Inc. I’m not sure how much clearer that could be.
He claims the boxes contained private property. Black personally removed the boxes roughly three hours after security had prevented assistant Joan Maida from removing five boxes.
A security guard who saw Black loading his limousine with the boxes at 5:11 p.m., but didn’t stop him from doing so, was dismissed.
Maida then testified in open court. She said when Black learned that a security guard had prevented her from removing the boxes, Black was visibly irritated and asked her to take him to the files.
Why would an innocent man directly defy a court order and in such a blatant manner? This is the same man who billed $42K through his company (that was not owned by him, but rather the shareholders) for his wife’s elegant 60th bday party. This is the same man who took the company plane on a vacation to Bora Bora.
Joe…naive, unaware, bad judgement, lack of character, whatever you want to call it…as a shareholder in various companies myself, I’ll stick with “criminal.”
Dear Logic,
I apologize for not responding to your comment sooner. However, initially I forwarded it to a source close to Conrad, thinking that it might be appropriate to have the best set of eyes look at your comments since you specifically cited testimony from the case relating to Joan. However, I am tired of waiting and would like to respond to you sooner rather than later. Therefore, I will be responding on my own.
As far as my assessment of Conrad’s current legal battle in the United States, I am simply concentrating on the facts of the case. His past dealings throughout his lifetime were not a part of his criminal case.
Conrad was indicted by the US in the end of 2005. Again the boxes in Canada, which were part of a Canadian court order had been moved, not destroyed. The Canadian court decided that nothing was wrong with Conrad moving the boxes. Again, Conrad had moved the contents of his office that he was evicted from, which is completely different then ‘removing’ items from ones permanent office. Again, the Canadian court that issued the order regarding the boxes decided that nothing was wrong.
Your dramatic description of Conrad’s empire crumbling is fascinating. I am not sure what you intend to prove by mentioning the fact that Conrad’s company car (Rolls Royce) had not been fixed by the company. The idea that you attempt to embarrass Conrad for having to rely on his chauffeured limousine instead of his company car is laughable.
Show me where it proves that Conrad’s claim that the boxes in his Canadian office did not contain personal items. Your point about a security guard interfering with Joan’s involvement is useless. Again, the Canadian court decided that nothing illegal occurred with the boxes – it was their order, again, the Canadian court found no criminal intent.
The fact that someone believed that Conrad was ‘visibly irritated’ with a security guard means absolutely nothing.
You ask, “Why would an innocent man directly defy a court order and in such a blatant manner?” The answer is simple; the Canadian court ruled that the court order was not breached. Your accusations that Conrad “…billed $42K through his company (that was not owned by him, but rather the shareholders) for his wife’s elegant 60th bday party… took the company plane on a vacation to Bora Bora” are libelous. Logic, the jury in Chicago acquitted Conrad of the charges that pertained to what are now unsubstantiated allegations.
Logic, naïve, unaware, bad judgment, lack of character is exactly what former Illinois Governor Jim Thompson should be saying about his egregious misconduct in approving the financial transactions that caused his business associates to be falsely indicted. The fact that Thompson was not indicted shows me that the entire case is nothing but a joke, which is why Conrad is at home right now. And Thomson remains untouched, leaving him in a capable position to advocate for the release of imprisoned former Governor George Ryan to be freed so he could be with his wife while she may have a year or more to live.
Someone such as yourself, proclaiming to be a shareholder in various companies, I ask you to please share your opinion on the way Thompson handled his responsibility to the shareholders and board of directors? I believe it was Thompson’s testimony that he only “skimmed the documents.” Again, the very documents that caused his business associates to be convicted of crimes.
Thank you for your comments.
Dear Logic,
I emailed my previously stated response in this thread to Conrad a few minutes ago for his blessings. Please read below what he had to say. Thanks.
Dear Joe,
I don’t think I saw Logic’s message, but you can cite Andy Frey (former deputy solicitor gen. of the US), that in 45 years of practice, this was the weakest obstruction complaint he had seen. I have never been accused in Canada of violating a document retention order and did not. The testimony was clear that I spoke to the chief representative of the inspector (E&Y) on site; had the clearance of the acting company pres. had nothing to do with selecting what was in the boxes, knew nothing of their contents except Joan’s assurance that they were not in violation of the court orders; pointed to the security camera to be sure no one would think there was anything surreptitious, was mainly filmed by cameras I had installed; did everything in broad daylight when the building was full of people; had already complied fully with five SEC subpoenas and handed over 120,000 pages; the boxes contained nothing they did not already have except some completely personal things; the government even presented a mutilated exhibit to try to disguise the fact that they already had it; I had no idea of any further official interest in these documents; and could have taken all of them out in my pockets and brief case over a period of a few days if I had wished; and I would have been stark raving mad to try to take out documents that way if there were any sensitivity to them. Joan’s and other evidence corroborated all of this. Send this to this party if you want to and if he was abusive as you seem to imply, invite him to shove it up his ass, if he can find it with both hands. Best wishes, Conrad