U.S. Justice on trial!

Lord Black of Crossharbour (a.k.a. Conrad Black) has a problem!

Ever since the financial scandals in the United States business community over the last 15 years (Enron, World Com, Duke Energy, Lucent Technologies, AIG etc.) the U.S. justice department has declared open season on business executives and good old Conrad got tagged as "It" in the big game of financial "gotcha."

So as not to bore you too much I will give a very brief history of what our wayward hero did over the years to get himself in this jam.

1960s to 1970s - Black began buying small Canadian newspapers during his 20s and in 1971 co-founded the Sterling Newspapers Group.

1978 - Became chair of the Argus Corporation, one of the original and biggest "old money" corporations of the Canadian Establishment.

This was a position he used as a stepping stone to launch the Hollinger Group.

1990s - By the early part of the decade Hollinger controlled 60 per cent of Canadian newspaper titles, as well as hundreds of dailies in the U.S., England, Australia and Israel. Newspapers included the Spectator, Chicago Sun Times, Montreal Gazette, Daily Telegraph, and Jerusalem Post.

Black soon earned a reputation for taking over newspapers and raising profits by cutting costs and slashing jobs and before you could shout "hold the presses" he was the third largest Media (Press) Baron in the World behind Rupert Murdoch and Robert Maxwell.

At its peak in 1999, Hollinger was earning revenues of more than $2 billion a year but then for some strange reason our protagonist decided that he had made his fortune and started selling everything in one gigantic garage sale.

The British government moved to make him Lord Black, but Prime Minister Jean Chretien, who was attacked relentlessly by Black's newspapers during his leadership, opposed the move.

Chretien pointed to the 1919 Nickle Resolution which ruled that foreign governments could not grant honours to Canadians that carry a title or privilege. Black challenged the ruling in court, but was unsuccessful so in a fit of pique renounced his Canadian Citizenship.

During the sale of Hollinger assets by November 17, 2003 Black announced he would step down as CEO of Hollinger International following an internal inquiry which found that Black and other Hollinger executives received more than $32 million US in unauthorized payments. Refusing to admit any wrongdoing, Black described his departure as "retirement."

The committee of Hollinger's board found that payments styled as 'non-competition payments' were made that were not authorized or approved by either the audit committee or the full board of directors of Hollinger."

Of that, Black and chief operating officer David Radler each reportedly received $7.2 million, while $16.6 million went to parent company Hollinger Inc. Two other Hollinger executives reportedly received just over $600,000 each. Black again denied any wrongdoing and insisted the unauthorized payments were above-board.

His position was that the "non-competition" payments were made to him and his management team and not the Board or shareholders. (Since the old board and shareholders were not the threat to the new owners/managers. Black was if he started another competing paper.)

(His position was vindicated when, after his departure, Hollinger shares fell from about $21 to less than a buck. (They went into the 'penny stock' category!) PLUS they went from being a highly profitable paper to losing money. This made the Board see red all the more.)

(Conrad wondering how things ever got so crazy!)

One thing led to another and the next thing you know lawsuits for tens and even hundreds of millions were flying this way and that.

On top of this the U.S. Justice Department had by then decided it needed another businessman to make an example of and our Hero and all his Canadian friends came under their scrutiny.

(By some strange co-incidence none of the Americans were indicted.)

November 17, 2005 - The U.S. Attorney's Office in Chicago charges former Hollinger International head Conrad Black and others in an alleged scheme to divert more than $80 million US from the company. (Remember the non-competition clauses, etc.)

December 1, 2005 - Conrad Black pleads not guilty to eight fraud charges in connection with the alleged diversion of $80 million from Hollinger International Inc. He is released on $20 million US bail and ordered to live in Canada, Chicago, or Florida.

By this time the District Attorney is getting really carried away with his job and by Dec. 15, 2005 four new charges are leveled against Conrad Black, including racketeering, money laundering and obstruction of justice. Black faces a maximum of 95 years in prison if convicted on all charges.

Now, my friends, we get to the point of this diatribe.

If the bombastic, arrogant, self-righteous Lord Black had been tried in any other jurisdiction, (Such as New York) where they understood the intricacies of financial matters then I would have no sympathy for him whatsoever. But, instead he is being tried in a "blue collar" (read "lunch bucket") town (Chicago) by a blue collar jury and they do not bode well for our wayward Baron.

The day after jury selection one of these lunch bucket jurors was quoted as saying "It would take me a lifetime to make a million dollars and if this guy can make that much and more in one year he has got to be a crook!!!"

(And the prosecution didn't see anything wrong with that!)

Chicago could be a black day for our dear Lord Black!

Your "hot of the press" scribe;
Allan W Janssen

Justice really IS blind!

Back in 1959 there was a 14 year old kid here in rural Ontario who was convicted of killing a girl he knew and sentenced to hang.

Since he was only 14, his appointment with the executioner was changed to life in prison.
Outrage over his conviction from some area locals who knew that he was really innocent grew to such an extent that he was paroled about ten years later.

Ever since he has been trying to clear his name and has been blocked at every turn by the Crown (prosecuting) lawyers whose job it was to convict him in the first place.


We now also know the police got it into their heads that he did it, and evidence was "gathered" that supported that view!

It also became known, in the decades since, that a pedophile lived in the area but this information was not presented. (He was later arrested for the rape and murder of another young girl.)

Truscott's case is being heard by the Ontario Court of Appeal in Toronto and I'll let you read a condensed version of what is going on now before giving a few thoughts of my own!

(CBC News) Crown lawyers put forward their case Thursday against Steven Truscott, saying there's no fresh evidence that would have changed the guilty verdict against him almost 50 years ago.

Rosella Cornaviera took the opening swipe at the new evidence, arguing that the rules that governed disclosure of information to the defence in 1959 differ from today.

"In our submission, the application of those rules to the proposed fresh evidence compels the conclusion that the verdict remains unaffected by the fresh evidence and the conviction remains valid," she said.

In 1959, Truscott, then a 14-year-old school boy, was convicted of raping and murdering his 12-year-old classmate, Lynne Harper, near Clinton, Ont.

He was sentenced to hang and that was later commuted to a prison term.

He was paroled in 1969.

For days, Truscott's lawyers have argued before the Appeal Court that new evidence casts doubt on the credibility of evidence used to convict him.

They have claimed that the evidence undermines the coroner's testimony about the timing of Harper's death and contradicts the testimony of some child witnesses who claimed they saw Truscott along the county road with Harper at an incriminating time.

But, Crown lawyer Greg Tweeney argued Thursday that the new revelations aren't enough to acquit Truscott.

"To put it bluntly, there's nothing new here," Tweeney said.

"What's being advanced as fresh evidence either isn't new — it was known to the defence at trial and wasn't used — or couldn't have impacted on the proceeding.

"It's our submission the proposed fresh evidence does not affect timing and couldn't have been used at trial as a way to undermine the verdict," Tweeney said.

But, the sitting Judges challenge lawyer's arguments and took Tweeney to task on several points.

"Even if undisclosed information wouldn't affect the outcome, there's an issue of fairness of trial," Justice Karen Weiler said.

Justice Michael Moldaver pointed several times to inconsistencies in the Crown's case, including testimony by a 13-year-old boy who admitted to initially lying to police, then went on to discredit other witnesses.

Moldaver also said there appeared to be an inconsistency on the crucial matter of when key witnesses said they saw Truscott and Harper along the county road.

He also criticized the Crown for suggesting the times given by some young witnesses were approximations.

"You come to us and say, 'Don't fuss with the particular times,'" Moldaver said, noting the Crown at trial went to "great pains" to trace the time line of events. "I'm not sure you can play this both ways."

The Crown will continue its arguments for several days.

The judges could acquit Truscott, order a new trial, dismiss the appeal or halt the proceedings.

Even if new evidence about the pedophile can't be used after-the-fact, it is a disgrace that prosecutors don't give a shit about guilt or innocence, but rather only care about their "CONVICTION"!

This proves to me that our legal system is seriously flawed.

Trail lawyers couldn't care less about guilt or innocence. Prosecutors will go after a guilty verdict no matter what the cost and defense lawyers will defend their clients regardless of the facts of the matter.

Anything that can be done to further their particular agenda will be done, while things that hinder it are ignored or suppressed.

In other words, guilt or innocence is a sham since they are not really trying to get at the TRUTH, but rather just further their own cause.

In the long run this means the guy with the best lawyer wins! The guy with the most money has the best chance. Just look at O.J. Simpson!



And, it also means that Justice really IS blind!





Your "just the facts, ma'am" scribe;

Allan W Janssen

Saddam Shmaddam, kill the bastard.

A New York based human rights group and bunch of bleeding heart pacifists called "Human Rights Watch" have come to the defense of Saddam Hussein of all people. The Iraqi court that sentenced Hussein to death this month was flawed and its verdict was unsound, the said on Sunday.

"Serious administrative, procedural and substantive legal defects" prevented the deposed Iraqi dictator from getting a fair trial on charges of crimes against humanity, Human Rights Watch says in a 91-page report.

The report describes the court as "an institution struggling with all aspects of conducting these legally and factually complicated trials, beset by external problems: misunderstanding and hostility in public opinion and from political leaders' grave and increasing security threats to all participants."

Three defence lawyers were murdered during the trial, and the first chief judge resigned.

"Under such circumstances," the report concludes, "the soundness of the verdict is questionable. In addition, the imposition of the death penalty — an inherently cruel and inhumane punishment — in the wake of unfair trial is indefensible."

I bet a million bucks they wouldn't feel that way if they had lived in Iraq when Hussein was still the Dictator, especially if they were Kurds, or Shia Muslim.

Allan W Janssen is the author of The Plain Truth About God-101 (what the church doesn't want you to know!) at; www.God-101.com
And the petition to have people mind their own business instead of yours at; http://www.petitiononline.com/moses/petition.html