RSS Feed MenuIt is a stunning victory for Conrad Black.
Probably the only people who seriously thought the U.S. Supreme Court would hear the appeal of his 2007 conviction in a Chicago court, were his immediate friends – and even they had doubts.
And yet the Supremes have agreed to hear arguments as to why Black’s conviction should be overturned, his 6½-year sentence quashed, and why he should be freed.
“It’s akin to winning a lottery to even have your case heard by the Supreme Court,” said one lawyer, not connected to the case.
Some 10,000 applications are made to the Supreme Court every year, and usually only 100 to 120 are heard. The rest are rejected. Even George Bush refused Black’s rather desperate request for a pardon at the end of Bush’s presidency.
Conrad Black was found guilty on four charges of fraud and obstruction of justice – and acquitted on nine other more serious charges. Ever since, Black has filed numerous appeals, all of them rejected. All the time protesting his innocence.
When I visited him at the federal prison in Coleman, Florida in February, he was hopeful that the Supremes would hear his case, but not optimistic. Ever looking on the bright side, and as adamant as ever that a fair hearing would result in the verdict being reversed, Conrad felt the greatest challenge was to get the Supremes to hear his case.
It was felt that the various appeal processes since his conviction have merely rubber-stamped the verdict that was reached in Judge Amy St. Eve’s Chicago court nearly two years ago.
Conrad believed his lawyers for the Supreme Court were so substantial that they’d be difficult to ignore. Still, the odds were 100 to one against his case being heard.
Opinions differ on what happens next.
The U.S. Supreme Court sits from October to June, and Conrad’s case will likely be heard before Christmas. Several options are open to the court. After hearing arguments the Justices can order a retrial, or order that the case be dismissed. Or that aspects of the conviction were erroneous and should be reviewed.
Most likely the case will be sent back to a lower court – that in itself a morale victory for Black, and anything but reassuring for the prosecuting lawyers who went to extraordinary lengths to get a conviction.
Some who covered the Chicago trial – such as myself – felt there was nothing in the prosecution’s case that indicated guilt “beyond a reasonable doubt.” There was a certain lynch mentality loose in the courtroom, and certainly among prosecution lawyers.
One of the themes pressed by Blacks lawyers and supporters is that lower courts have not really examined reasons why his conviction falls into a grey area – for example, the obstruction of justice in his removal of boxes from the Canadian Hollinger offices hardly constitute “obstruction” when U.S. prosecutors already had the original material.
But surveillance areas showing Conrad carrying boxes of documents to an awaiting car, sure looked bad. Certainly the jury thought so.
The Supreme Court’s decision to hear his case is one of the few bright moments in the continuing ordeal of Conrad Black and his wife, Barbara Amiel.
Conrad Black has steadily maintained that lower courts hearing his appeals have not read his briefs. At least Black can be assured the Supreme Court is unlikely to rubber-stamp anything.
The convictions of former Hollinger executives may also be in doubt, pending the Supreme Court decision: Peter Atkinson, Jack Boultbee and Mark Kipnis.
It also gives pause to those who relish attacking Black and his family.
His story is far from over, so don’t make the movie yet.
Mike K // May 18, 2009 at 6:46 pm
His books on Nixon and Roosevelt are superb but his lifestyle made him a target for the populist types that finally got him. On the merits of the case, I don’t know but he sure seems to be an old lion beset by jackals.
Churl // May 18, 2009 at 11:52 pm
Six and a half years in a federal pen for carrying boxes out of your own office?Chicago justice at its finest.
midcon // May 19, 2009 at 3:10 am
The boxes got him the obstruction charge. The boxes were not relevent for the fraud charges. Let’s not make this about boxes. The jackels had a few more bits of information than Black carrying boxes.
ottovbvs // May 19, 2009 at 5:22 am
This guy fraudulently transferred literally hundreds of millions of dollars from public companies he managed to his own interest. There were literally hundreds of cases. Before anyone starts making profound comments about lions and jackals, or Chicago justice, they need to read the record which is truly appalling.
sinz54 // May 19, 2009 at 7:10 am
ottovbvs & Mike K & everybody else: Can SOMEONE please explain to me why Conrad Black is so vital to New Majority’s mission that he gets top billing on today’s issues?What exactly is his connection to conservatism? He’s not Leo Strauss or Kristol.
Rubicon // May 19, 2009 at 10:37 am
Conrad Black was a supporter and contributor to conservatism over the years. Some of his newspapers advanced conservative causes. He employed many conservative heavy weights to pen columns and man editorial pages. He was also part of the inner circle in the upper echelon of Republican and conservatives.
midcon // May 19, 2009 at 10:59 am
Well that doesn’t explain why he is vital to New Majority’s mission unless…
ireign // May 19, 2009 at 11:10 am
Is Conrad Black providing the financial support for this blog? If so, then please write a disclaimer. If not, this isn’t really newsworthy. Hearing a case isn’t that newsworthy unless we are talking about a controversial issue such as abortion or the 2nd Amendment. So far Conrad Black is in jail and even assuming the case is remanded and he wins in the lower court, that will take at least a year. Even Ottobs is less full of it than normal.
Mike K // May 19, 2009 at 12:19 pm
Frankly, few of the commenters complaining about Black are “vital to the mission ” of reviving the GOP fortunes. Have any of you read his books ?Of course not.”ireign11:10 AMIs Conrad Black providing the financial support for this blog? If so, then please write a disclaimer.”This is the kind of nutball stuff that gives blogs a bad name. I think I can hear the Dailykos calling for you. Are you lost ?
gibberish // May 19, 2009 at 12:30 pm
Black may be acquitted of some or all charges by the supreme court. This article seems to think it automatic that the court finds people not guilty.But he would remain a dubious figure any sensible right winger would avoid. He obtained large amounts through ‘non-compete’ payments. These payments are apparently legal although it doesn’t sound like any sort of capitalism or competition I’ve ever heard of. But even if legal surely the money should go to the owners of the company not 1 or 2 directors? This may somehow be found legal too, but it remains an abuse of the shareholders none the less. Apparently the poor Sun-Times has gone bankrupt paying $118 to fund Black’s legal costs so far….
ireign // May 19, 2009 at 12:46 pm
Mike K-It is not “nutball”. Funny, that other idiots on this blog have called me “far-right wing” and you think I belong on the dailykos. If Black is not financing this effort than how does he play a role in helping the GOP? Last time I checked he is a British citizen involved in Canadian politics. I haven’t read any of Michael Crichton’s books either, does that mean if this blog ran a profile of his criminal proceeding (hypothetically) that I couldn’t say that it is irrelevant to the blog’s mission? Your comment is illogical. Black wrote a book recently on Roosevelt. If you want to have a discussion of the meaning of that book on today’s conservatism, fine. But you argue that his criminal proceeding is relevant to this blog’s mission is ridiculous. Moreover, neither Frum nor his father-in-law is a constitutional lawyer and neither one is providing any kind of skilled analysis of his proceeding. Instill there is just allegations that a convicted felon got a raw deal. This may or may not be true. But at least have an expert write on the subject and explain the relevancy of this to a conservative’s take on the justice system, if you are going to have a post on it.
Mike K // May 19, 2009 at 12:58 pm
If he was a British citizen involved in Canadian politics, why was he tried in Chicago ? The whole case stinks but, of course, your legal talents can predict the results of the appeal.He also wrote the best book on Nixon that I have read. I think I could run down a list of posts and find a couple that are less germane. I am simply amused by the furious hatred of Black by the left. You find yourself in curious company if you are conservative, as you claim.You’d think he was related to Bush, or something.
ireign // May 19, 2009 at 1:57 pm
MikeK-”If he was a British citizen involved in Canadian politics, why was he tried in Chicago ?”British citizens can be tried in the US. Please tell me you have some rudimentary understanding of the American legal system. ” I am simply amused by the furious hatred of Black by the left. You find yourself in curious company if you are conservative, as you claim.” Only a few people on this blog expressed any hatred of him. Most people just expressed bewilderment that somehow his criminal trial was newsworthy for this blog. I never claimed to be a consevative although I am a Republican, I merely stated that others on this blog have called me “far right-wing”.
chephren // May 19, 2009 at 6:43 pm
Re: “Why Conrad Won” Huh? Conrad hasn’t “won” anything. His conviction stands until the Supreme Court says otherwise. He’s still an involuntary guest of the state of Florida, and may well remain so for another 5 1/2 years. If, as a result of this final appeal, Black’s case is sent back to a lower court, he will only have “won” a chance to spend years, and the last vestiges of his fortune, on another expensive trial (and possible appeals). A victory might only be partial and may result in his return to jail for a reduced term. What is striking about Black’s supporters, including Frum and Worthington, is that to them his conviction seems to stand for something larger than Black himself. For some reason, Black’s fraud (for so it is in law, unless the appeal proves otherwise), seems to offend many staunch conservatives at the core of their beliefs. Never mind why he was convicted, or what he actually did to his shareholders (in a nutshell: he wrongfully appropriated millions of dollars in corporate assets and cash flows that rightfully belonged to all shareholders, not just himself); to his friends, Black’s prosecution was a persecution, even a martyrdom. Rich, shrewd, well-bred, erudite, elitist, deeply conservative, Catholic establishmentarians like Conrad just shouldn’t have to go through such ordeals, because – well, because they are so rich, shrewd, erudite, elitist, well-bred, conservative and Catholic.There seems to be a basic bias among Conrad’s conservative friends against the idea that Lord Black could be a crook, based simply on Who He Is. To think otherwise is, to them, proof of lame, collectivist liberal thinking.I wonder how many of Black’s supporters had a significant amount of their wealth invested in Black’s companies. Damned few, I’d bet. If they were shareholders, and if they were satisfied with the returns they received over the years, it’s doubtful if they knew how to read their annual reports very well. As good as Conrad was at writing convoluted sentences, he was even better at building highly complex and self-serving corporate structures. From the time he took over Argus Corporation at age 33 until he negotiated the non-compete agreements that helped send him to jail, Black’s management consisted of corporate reorganizations, asset-stripping and fee-gouging. These consistently enriched the coffers of Black and his partners at the expense of his shareholders. The shares of Black’s companies tended to underperform the markets and competitors, due to the cash flows paid to the majority owners in the form of management fees, non-competes (Black discovered early on that these were non-taxable, and therefore an ideal way to take money off the balance sheet for his benefit), and outright misappropriation (personal use of aircraft, vacations, apartments, jewelry for the wife, paid for from corporate funds). These schemes were enabled by crony directors and by Canada’s lax securities laws, which probably lulled Conrad into thinking he could get away with his self-dealing shenanigans in the US. Black wasn’t victimized by the Left, contrary to what his supporters on this site claim. Tweedy, Browne, the value investment firm that blew the whistle on the non-compete payments that should have gone to Hollinger Inc. and not Black personally, is hardly a nest of anti-capitalists. Win or lose, Black is no hero. He’s a brilliant man whose talents were harnessed to serve his own greed. Aside from the National Post, which has never turned a profit, he built nothing. His business career was devoted to shuffling assets for his own enrichment. If this constitutes a validation of conservatism, conservatives are badly in need of new role models.
Mike K // May 19, 2009 at 9:35 pm
“There seems to be a basic bias among Conrad’s conservative friends against the idea that Lord Black could be a crook, based simply on Who He Is. To think otherwise is, to them, proof of lame, collectivist liberal thinking.”Actually, there is some concern about the process. The people who bought his interest in Hollanger may have run the company into the ground, then sought to recoup their losses by prosecuting the only person who seems to have been able to operate the company successfully. The eventual outcome will be determined by the courts but the furious reaction to the attempt at justice is revealing about the partisans of the litigants. The political left seems to be the most interested in denying his right to a fair trial. Interesting.