Conrad Black: My Destruction by Murdoch

Moderators: DrVolin, 82_28, Elvis, Jeff

Conrad Black: My Destruction by Murdoch

Postby dbcooper41 » Tue Sep 27, 2011 3:00 pm

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/conrad-black/conrad-black-book_b_983065.html

with all the murdoch news lately it may be time to revisit conrad black's story.
i must say, he does sound pitiful. :cry:
In 2007, I was convicted of fraud and
sentenced to six-and-a-half years of imprisonment. At the time I was ranked as
the third largest newspaper magnate in the world: Through my company, Hollinger
International, I published many of the most famous newspapers in the world,
including the Daily Telegraph, the Chicago Sun-Times, the National Post, the
Jerusalem Post, and hundreds of community newspapers throughout North America.
I'd been a member of the British Parliament since 2001, and was known formally
as Lord Black of Crossharbour. All but my title were subsequently stripped away
from me: My company was destroyed by court-sponsored administrators who
vaporized $2 billion of shareholders' equity while pocketing $300 million for
themselves. I sold my homes in London, New York, and Palm Beach, as I did not
wish to own a home in a country where I would not be welcome (and would be
ambivalent about visiting anyway), and to ensure that I had plenty of cash for
avaricious American lawyers. Only the home in which I grew up, in Toronto,
Canada, was spared.



My prosecutors began with a demand for life imprisonment and fines and
restitution of $140 million. Their 17-count indictment accusing me of
racketeering, money laundering and almost everything except complicity in the
murder of Abraham Lincoln, however, disintegrated. Four counts were not
proceeded with, nine were rejected by jurors, and four were unanimously vacated
by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2010. The U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals
overturned two of the three remaining mail fraud counts in October of that year.
On July 19, 2010, after I had served 29 months of a 78 month sentence in a
federal prison, I was granted bail. And on June 24, 2011, I was resentenced on
one remaining count of mail fraud and one count of obstruction of justice and a
fine of $125,000. I was sent back to prison for a little less than eight months.
I write from there.
No sane, fair-minded person could possibly now believe that I was guilty of any
crime, and no similarly endowed person, writing from the vantage point I do,
could have endured this persecution for over eight years without it diluting his
affection for the United States. Before this cataract of horrors began, I had
known that there were some dodgy aspects to the U.S. legal system, and feared
that the plea bargain system was essentially a bazaar for the exchange of
inculpatory perjury for reduced sentences or immunities, a traffic that would
lead to the disbarment of prosecutors in most serious jurisdictions.
Of course, the fact that the United States has persecuted me half to death does
not mean that it has ceased to be a great country, and the fact that my
affection for it has been largely vaporized does not mean that I do not still
admire it in many ways and fondly remember, like an old romance, my days of
greater credulity. And I feel that given how its justice system operates and the
correlation of forces between the United States and me, that I have fought my
corner as well as I could to a better outcome than the prosecutors' 90-something
percent success rate usually allows. And as I look forward to the end of this
travesty, of my sentence, and to my departure from this country on May 5, 2012,
with no scheduled or forecast date of return, I'd be happy if this story,
recounted in my book excerpted below, A Matter of Principle, and confined to the
facts, will help bring these very profound problems to a serious review.
The United States has six to 12 times as many incarcerated people per capita as
other comparable, prosperous and sophisticated democracies: Australia, Canada,
France, Germany, Japan, and the United Kingdom. The Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth
Amendment guaranties of due process, the grand jury as assurance against
capricious prosecution, no seizure of property without fair compensation, access
to counsel, an impartial jury, prompt justice, and reasonable bail, (I enjoyed
none of these rights), have all been jettisoned while the Supreme Court has been
drinking its own bathwater.
Prosecutors routinely seize and freeze defendants' assets on the basis of false
affidavits to prevent engagement of (avaricious) counsel of choice; there are
many catch-all charges apart from the Honest Services statute that the Supreme
Court rewrote in our case, that are impossible to defend, and prosecutors attack
with unfeasible numbers of counts and have the last word before unsophisticated
juries that have to rely on their memories of lengthy and complex proceedings
and have been pulled from jury pools that have been softened up by an
unanswerable prosecution lynching in the media. The public defenders are Judas
Goats of the prosecutors rewarded for the number of victims they load on to the
conveyor belt to the prison industry, not for the services they perform.
This book is my effort to present the facts of my case, which are quite typical,
graphically but fairly, and what is written is, in all material respects,
indisputable. Back as the people's invitee in a government guest house, my
morale is peppy as I contemplate another, but spontaneous career change. My
present regime, while Spartan, as prisons should be, and requiring much
self-generated divertissement, is perfectly civilized and survivable. What has
happened to me could happen to anyone, and only those with substantial resources
inaccessible to the prosecutors' ability to immobilize it in ex parte actions,
could see it through and not be ground to powder, ruined financially and
reputationally, stigmatized, ostracized, their family and social lives ruptured.
None of that has happened to me, and if I am of the slightest assistance or
encouragement to the large numbers of similarly unoffending people ground down
in this system so far from what Jefferson and Madison and the other early
champions of civil rights in America envisioned, it is my honor. It is a
terrible, and largely unrecognized problem, gnawing at the moral soul of this
country.


****
Below is my excerpt from A Matter of Principle (McClelland & Stewart 2011),
exclusive to The Huffington Post.
I already regarded Rupert Murdoch as the greatest media proprietor of all time.
He had come from a faraway place, had conquered the London tabloid field, buying
the derelict Sun from the Mirror and swiftly outpacing the Mirror. He had
cracked the Fleet Street unions that had reduced the industry to a financial
shambles for decades. I was the only Fleet Street chairman publicly to
acknowledge the debt we owed to Murdoch for this.



We had a joint printing venture in Manchester and several other direct
arrangements with him. I had always found his word to be fairly reliable, and he
was a straightforward negotiator. He developed astonishing enthusiasms at times.
Once, he telephoned me to urge me to buy the satellite transmission air space
allocated to Canada by treaty with the United States in order to fill it with
his American-directed signals. I replied that there would be an international
dispute over which country would have the honour of prosecuting us: the
Canadians for piracy or the Americans for trespass.
Personally, Murdoch is an enigma. My best guess is that culturally he is an
Archie Bunker who enjoys locker room scatological humour and detests effete
liberalism. I have long thought that his hugely successful animated cartoon
television program, The Simpsons, is the expression of his societal views: the
people are idiots and their leaders are crooks.
His airtight ruthlessness does have amusing intermissions. From time to time, he
conducts a campaign to humanize himself in the media: dressed in black, with
dyed orange hair, pushing a baby carriage in Greenwich Village; explaining to
the Financial Times that he was on guard against errors and arrogant misjudgment
in his company; claiming to be a churchgoer and mentioning his possible
conversion to Catholicism.
Murdoch has no friendships, only interests; no nationality emotionally -- the
company he has built is his nation. Except Ronald Reagan, and perhaps Tony
Blair, he has deserted almost every politician he ever supported, including Paul
Keating, Margaret Thatcher, John Major, Jimmy Carter, and Hillary Clinton, to
several of whom he owed much.
In the summer of 1993, my wife Barbara and I chartered a boat with some friends
in the Aegean. While loitering around the Greek islands, I read of Murdoch's
plan to restore The Times' strategic position by lowering its cover price. He
would start with a regional discount only. But, knowing Rupert as I did, knowing
his compulsive belligerence as a competitor -- and his daring -- I was sure that
if there were any encouragement in the response, he would cut prices very
aggressively. Across the gleaming waters of the Aegean, with its splendid yachts
and frolicking porpoises, I saw a disquieting vision of the economics of the
British national newspaper industry being torn apart by my formidable
competitor...
Later, when Lord Black announced his resignation as Chairman of Hollinger --
under pressure by investigators -- he'd find himself being torn apart by his
former competitor:
The press release [announcing my resignation] was on the wires the following
Monday morning [after my decision]. In the next 24 hours, the full force of the
media hostility to anyone suspected of abusing an executive position -- and to
me personally -- came pouring forth in Britain and Canada and a few sections of
the United States. Murdoch's newspapers had been stoking up all through the
run-up and went straight into joyous orbit. The London Sun began a widely
emulated trend by announcing in a headline that I was likely to be sent to
prison. Murdoch's New York Post did the same. Most of the newspapers that
reprinted and even embellished the extraordinary vitriol of the British press
had no idea that part of the anger with me was an ideological divide. Instead,
like children wallowing in a mudbath, North American press and television picked
up without any pretense of investigation every last vicious canard written in
the U.K. newspapers about Hollinger, Barbara and me.
Murdoch had his own motives of course. His New York Post became the outlet for
every fictional tale of my enemies and then some enthusiastically invented by
the Post itself. One day it would report that I had terrorized a table at the
New York restaurant La Goulou after overhearing their table chat. Another time
it recounted a negative incident involving Barbara that took place, according to
the Post, at a London party when she was, in fact, in New York. The inventions
were tabloid gutter, which, after all, has never ceased to be Murdoch's chief
stock in trade, in print, and on television. In the post-Enron frenzy, the
climate was so hostile to well-paid executives it was hard to rule out anything.
I had recently seen Martha Stewart, a casual acquaintance, at a social
engagement, and was impressed with her tough Polish Catholic imperviousness to
the criminal charges that would lead to her brief imprisonment. I had
experienced some of the fury of the corporate governance movement, but rapidly
pro-American as I was, I assumed that justice could be had for those who were,
in fact, innocent. Whatever might happen, I was going to bear up with as much
dignity as I could muster.



I had been a disdainful resister to corporate governance poseurs such as Tweedy
Browne and now, denuded of defences and presumed by an eager international press
to be an embezzler, came the public relations lynching.... As I was almost
instantly without a reputation I was practically unable to sue anyone. Even in
the countries that, unlike the United States, maintained the civil tort of
defamation damages would be impossible to prove. The initial New York Times
front-page story implied that I had been revealed as an embezzler.... It was one
thing to convict executives if Enron and WorldCom, companies in which there had
been colossal bankruptcies, a large accounting fraud, billions lost in the stock
market, tens of thousands unemployed, and destruction of evidence. Executives at
Adelphi appeared to have been involved in the misappropriation of billions of
dollars, disguised from the auditors. Could the corporate governance movement
reach such a level of ferocity that an innocent man could be prosecuted in the
absence of evidence and effectively convicted and sentenced by a hostile press?
I thought not, but I was in free-fall now, so swift had been the collapse of the
life I had known. Watching my name crawl across the bottom of the television
screen linked to accusations of fraud and "looting" on American news stations
was unearthly.
Attacks came from totally unexpected quarters.... The reviews of my
[just-released biography of Franklin Delano Roosevelt] continued to pour in
almost universally positive, including Ray Seitz's generous review in The Times.
It was a strange leitmotif to the business and public relations debacle. I will
never know how much better the book would have sold if I had been able to market
it effectively, nor how much more depressing the time would have been without
it. But the publication at least made it more difficult to claim that I was just
another sticky-fingered, grubby businessman.
In Britian, apart from book reviewers, the media assassination squads ruled the
coverage. The Murdoch newspapers played the prison card for all it was worth.
The Guardian and the Independent joined them.... One edition of the Financial
Times, generally a fairly responsible newspaper, bannered the front-page
headline that I had taken a 94-million pound dividend (about $200 million at the
exchange rates of the time) from the Telegraph, a complete invention. (We did at
least extract a "clarification" on this story.) The Daily Telegraph was factual
but gradually gave way to showing it was no gentler than the competition....
The unseemly joy that so many seemed to take in the thought of me incarcerated
in America was slightly unnerving. I reread de Gaulle's description of the fall
of France, and excerpts of The Bonfire of the Vanities, to try to gain both a
historian's and a novelist's insight into how to cope with a sudden,
overwhelming rout and collapse, when, in de Gaulle's words, a slope becomes a
fall....
On November 21, 2003, the Kravises, de la Rentas, and Jayne Wrightsman held a
book launch party for me at the New York Four Seasons restaurant. I had given
them plenty of opportunity to dodge it, but they insisted. The former Treasurer
secretary, Robert Rubin, was holding a reception in the neighbouring room that
naturally pulled a great many more people--and many of the same ones.
The presence of Candice Bergen, Joan Collins, Barbara Walters, the Kissingers,
former and current mayors Ed Koch and Michael Bloomberg, World Bank president
Jim Wolfensohn, Bill Buckley, long-serving district attorney Robert Morgenthau,
Mrs. Nelson Rockefeller, the Ahmet Erteguns, the George Livanoses, Barry Diller
and Diane von Furstenberg, Bob Silvers of the New York Review of Books, the
Podhoretzes and others from Commentary magazine, and a considerable swatch of
New York finance and society convinced even the New York Post that "the New York
power structure rallied in support of Conrad Black." A more widely held view was
that of Tina Brown, an undoubted expert on the subject of career reversals from
her own and her husband's experiences, that it was more like a wake for the life
we had. Both descriptions were partly true, but I nevertheless had enjoyed
myself. Barbara described herself as "in rigor mortis" throughout the evening.
The dinner afterwards at Jayne Wrightsman's was a touching and exquisite
occasion. Henry Kissinger, the Weidenfelds, and the Sid Basses were especially
generous in their comments, about both the book and its author. But this
agreeable interlude could not long distract me from the fact that I was now in a
truly horrible crisis.
User avatar
dbcooper41
 
Posts: 670
Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2009 6:55 pm
Location: North Carolina
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Conrad Black: My Destruction by Murdoch

Postby norton ash » Tue Sep 27, 2011 3:07 pm

Intrigue among the scumbags. Lord Tubby of Fleet is angry because Rupert's the more powerful and efficient psycho scumbag.
Zen horse
User avatar
norton ash
 
Posts: 3840
Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2006 5:46 pm
Location: Canada
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby annie aronburg » Tue Sep 27, 2011 5:18 pm

It's annoying to have to think about business when one is yachting the Aegean.
it's all in me
User avatar
annie aronburg
 
Posts: 1341
Joined: Fri Oct 19, 2007 8:57 pm
Location: Smokanagan
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Conrad Black: My Destruction by Murdoch

Postby Canadian_watcher » Wed Sep 28, 2011 8:22 am

It's possible that Black has been genuinely radicalized.
Satire is a sort of glass, wherein beholders do generally discover everybody's face but their own.-- Jonathan Swift

When a true genius appears, you can know him by this sign: that all the dunces are in a confederacy against him. -- Jonathan Swift
User avatar
Canadian_watcher
 
Posts: 3706
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2006 6:30 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Conrad Black: My Destruction by Murdoch

Postby BenDhyan » Thu May 16, 2019 1:00 am

President Trump Grants Pardon to Conrad Black

By Annie Karni May 15, 2019

WASHINGTON — President Trump on Wednesday granted a full pardon to Conrad M. Black, the former press baron and onetime society fixture who was found guilty of fraud and obstruction of justice in 2007.

The pardon of Mr. Black, a political ally and longtime associate of Mr. Trump’s, was the latest example of the president using one of the unilateral powers of his office to absolve a high-profile public figure whose case resonates with him personally, bucking the more traditional practice of sifting through thousands of pardon applications awaiting his review.

In 2017, Mr. Trump granted a pardon to Joe Arpaio, the former Arizona sheriff and another close political ally whose aggressive efforts to detain undocumented immigrants earned him a criminal contempt conviction.

Last year, the president pardoned Dinesh D’Souza, the conservative commentator convicted of campaign finance violations.

His pardon of Mr. Black, a personal friend and the author of pro-Trump opinion pieces as well as a flattering book, “Donald J. Trump: A President Like No Other,” is his first since the release of the special counsel’s report, which did not come to any conclusion on whether Mr. Trump obstructed justice. It comes as Mr. Trump has continued to vent publicly about being the target of what he views as an unjust “witch hunt.”

Mr. Black, who was born in Canada and is also known as Lord Black of Crossharbour, was charged with swindling his company, Hollinger International, of $60 million. He was sentenced to a prison term of six and a half years but was released after serving just over two years. After a federal judge ruled that Mr. Black had not served enough time, he returned for about a year.

In a statement, the White House press secretary, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, noted that the Supreme Court “largely disagreed” with the prosecutors who put Mr. Black in jail, and “overturned almost all charges in the case.” She added, “He nevertheless spent 3.5 years in prison.”

Ms. Sanders described Mr. Black, who once owned The Chicago Sun-Times, The Jerusalem Post and The Daily Telegraph in London, as “an entrepreneur and scholar” who “has made tremendous contributions to business, as well as to political and historical thought.” She also cited support for Mr. Black from Henry A. Kissinger, the former secretary of state; Rush Limbaugh, the conservative radio host and a frequent golf partner of the president’s; and the musician Elton John.

Mr. Black, an outsize character in the vein of the president, has a long history with him. During Mr. Black’s 2007 trial, Mr. Trump was expected to be called as a witness to bolster Mr. Black’s defense. He was expected to fly to Chicago and testify that a lavish $62,000 surprise party Mr. Black threw for his wife at the restaurant La Grenouille in New York — the bulk of which he charged to his company — was a business event, not a social event.

He was expected to say that he was negotiating a possible joint venture with Mr. Black’s company to turn the headquarters of The Sun-Times into a hotel and residential tower.

But Mr. Black’s defense lawyers decided at the last minute not to have Mr. Trump testify.

A day before his pardon was announced, Mr. Black published an opinion piece in National Review titled “Smooth Sailing Ahead for Trump.” Mr. Trump was “the only serious businessman to hold the office,” Mr. Black wrote, asserting that Mr. Trump would have “a stronger argument for reelection next year than any president since Richard Nixon in 1972.”

On Tuesday night, Mr. Black posted an essay explaining that when the president called him last week, he believed it was a prank.

Mr. Black wrote that Mr. Trump addressed him as “the great Lord Black” and said he was pardoning him to “expunge the bad wrap you got.” He said that Mr. Trump and the White House counsel, Pat Cipollone, who was in the room with the president, agreed that he could say publicly that the pardon was being granted because Mr. Trump believed that his verdict was unjust.

“We’ve known each other a long time,” Mr. Trump said, according to Mr. Black. “But that wasn’t any part of the reason. Nor has any of the supportive things you’ve said and written about me.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/15/us/politics/trump-conrad-black-pardon.html

Ben D
User avatar
BenDhyan
 
Posts: 523
Joined: Wed Apr 12, 2017 8:11 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)


Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests