Here we go again.
The Conrad Black story hits another road bump, with the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals delivering what is being called “a partial victory” in his bid to stay out of jail.
The decision could just as easily be called a serious defeat.
What once seemed almost a slam-dunk that his days as a “guest” (Conrad’s facetious description) in the federal prison in Coleman, Florida, were over, thanks to the U.S. Supreme Court casting aspersion on three of the four of his convictions, now is not so clear.
The Court of Appeals tossed out two of the fraud convictions that involved the discredited “honest services” technicality. But it upheld one fraud conviction?($600,000) and let stand the conviction of “obstruction” in Conrad’s removal of boxes from Hollinger’s Toronto St. headquarters.
So, theoretically, Conrad could go back to jail.
That’d be tough, since practically everyone thought the Supreme Court’s ruling meant Conrad’s prison ordeal was over.
The three-member appeals court is headed by Judge Richard Posner, who has a reputation of feuding with the Supreme Court – with Conrad Black caught in between. Posner’s snarky view that Conrad was “barely” innocent, reinforces the above.
In practical terms, Black’s fate now hinges on Chicago’s Judge Amy St. Eve – the very judge who sentenced him to 6? years in 2007, after a jury convicted him on four counts and found him not guilty on nine other charges.
If not exactly a victory for Conrad Black at the time, the verdict was an indictment against the prosecution which radiated unseemly malice and vindictiveness.
As one who covered Conrad’s trial, I heard nothing that indicated guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. I felt he should be acquitted on 12 of the 13 charges, but that the optics of the obstruction charges were such that the jury would convict. Which it did.
Black and his lawyers were never enthused about the way Judge Amy ran her court, but I always felt that as the trial dragged on (four months) she grew more impatient at the prosecution.
While my optimism was not reflected in the sentence, I thought she was fair.
My gut feeling is that in re-sentencing, Judge Amy could rule that enough is enough — that the whole case has been such a screw-up, that she’ll re-sentence Conrad to time already served; some 28 months.
I’ve no reason for supposing this, except that it seems right.
A fraud case in which the ever-malevolent prosecution’s battery of 17 charges was reduced to 13 (with guilt found in two), and speculation of a $600 million fraud case now reduced to $600,000, indicates persecution as much as prosecution.
So time-served plus probation for one fraud and “obstruction” that really didn’t obstruct anything (the prosecution already had all the material), seems fair.
Looking back, the “fraud” charges against Black were virtually all for “non-compete” payments from the sale of publications that brought considerable profits to Hollinger and its investors.
Had these tax-free (in Canada) “non-compete” payments been called taxable “bonuses,” there’d have been no concern in the U.S. It was the “tax-free” ploy that made American hackles rise.
It indicates Black and executives were not crooks but wily businessmen exploiting loopholes. Hollinger’s investors didn’t suffer until regulators took over and looted the Hollinger till with grotesque payments to themselves.
It’s all academic now, but I’m betting Judge Amy will go for time-served.
This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service — if this is your content and you're reading it on someone else's site, please read our FAQ page at fivefilters.org/content-only/faq.php
Five Filters featured article: Beyond Hiroshima - The Non-Reporting of Falluja's Cancer Catastrophe.
View the original article here
The Huffington Post reports:
The New York Times 
Talking Points Memo