I wish "This Is The Law" reruns would come on. You can't walk a goat down the north side of the street in Bridgewater, Nova Scotia, and you can't say "fuck" at a rock concert in PEI. THIS is the law!

Also, you can't tug on Superman's cape. Or spit into the wind.

Blogging about hot dogs: bleh.

Ry did bring a certain level of mania and excitement to things, esp. when Marian was around.

I agree that people who attended the Nickelback concert have no justifiable reason for complaint about the language. Bear in mind that people on PEI always think, for some reason, a concert is a family event. Go figure. The real problem, as I see it was that the sound carries all over town. Yes, the Gallant family barbeque in Parkdale and Aunt Mildred on Euston Street and Dr. MacDonald's dinner party in Lewis Point Park were all strafed by Nickelback f-bombs even though they didn't pay to go see it. It seems a bit much to subject non-participating citizens to the noise although there is some debate about which is worse torture: unsolicited listening to Nickelback's language or Nickelback's music.

The music, unquestionably. There is a chance they might emit some colourful language we haven't yet heard. But if you've been a resident of Canada since 2001 then you've heard their entire song catalogue several times over.

Also, Hans, why did you not tell us that Councillor Lantz has a freakin' blog?! Is there any chance he could be persuaded to move to Toronto and run for our council?

Phone or Cable Internet?

My policy is that art is art and if fuck is said in the middle of a song on my stereo, we do not panic. As if elementary school kids do not hear and say it every day. As for "family friendly Nickleback", Good Lord. Like they will return given that the Binns gov't and the "Millions for Celebrities" program are history.

Phone highspeed.

I can think of two reasons -- one is that water could be leaking into cables and creating shorts. The other issue is that phone cables are also great big antennae. Lighting is a big a RF signal generator. When the modems on either end start seeing all the interference, they start getting confused.

I remember back in the old days when 32Kbps was consider amazing and 64Kbps was considered the _theoretical_ maximum (as I remember it, anyway). Evidently they got new theories.

Sorry Chris. Its cuz I haven't figured out how to hyperlink within the comments here. Rob has a personal blog @ freelantz.ca and a political blog at ward3brighton.ca. When is Genx40 going to be as userfriendly as facebook.

Nickelback.. ick.

It's really basic HTML, Hans. After five years of commenting, couldn't you try a little tagging? I mean, I have been to Heuvelton for you.

I know. Its terrible dereliction on my part. maybe I will try to get web-savvy on my vacation this summer. Last night I learned how to use our digital camera.

Hint: click on "view", click on "Page Source", then study and copy HTML code structures and tricks.

20 years for removing some boxes? <i>That</i> is criminal.

Removing boxes that _weren't requested by the prosecutors at the time_, _weren't used by the prosecutors afterwards_ and from a building that he was being _evicted from two days later_.

As part of a massive fraud. What is so hard about celebrity or public figure prosecutions and the idea that being a celebrity or public figure prosecutions doesn't give you permission to undermine and evade justice?

I don't care who you are, 20 years in prison is extreme punishment, even for fraud.

I meant, "for fraud", not "even for fraud".

Then just make sure you don't commit fraud in the states. I would think it would be far less in Canada.

It's interesting the view that degrees of punishment give you into the values of a society.

I dunno. What makes it so hard for pro-prosecution lawyers to understand that "tails I win, heads you lose" doesn't serve justice in any way. Takes the boxes out, he's guilty of obstruction; leaves the boxes there and they get thrown out by the landlord, obstruction of justice; hires someone to bring the boxes out, fraudulently didn't disclose wealth; brings them out himself, why, The Fat Lord Black of Cross Harbor obviously didn't want any witnesses, guilty.

Simply put, you're begging the question. You say his actions prove he's guilty because he's guitly anyway.

I dunno. What makes it so hard for pro-prosecution lawyers to understand that "tails I win, heads you lose" doesn't serve justice in any way. Takes the boxes out, he's guilty of obstruction; leaves the boxes there and they get thrown out by the landlord, obstruction of justice; hires someone to bring the boxes out, fraudulently didn't disclose wealth; brings them out himself, why, The Fat Lord Black of Cross Harbor obviously didn't want any witnesses, guilty.

Simply put, you're begging the question. You say his actions prove he's guilty because he's guitly anyway.

Good one - observing on a ruling is "begging a questions". He is guilty because it has been proven he is guilty in a legal process I know I do not understand in detail, not having been a practicing criminal lawyer in that state. I suspect you are in an equal or less capabile position of making comment but roll out the Illinois Bar membership certificate. I think a court, jury, defence and prosecution is slightly above the level of moron it would take to actually be blindly swept up in a "tails I win, heads you lose" matter.

Why wasn't Bernardo's lawyer guilty of obstruction of justice for retrieving and hiding the video tapes? (seriously, why wasn't he?)

I thought he did get in crap. Anyway, the lawyer's role in the presence of evidence is different as you are the court sanctioned protector. I am reaching back but the smoking gun rule is if a guy walks in with a gun, you do not keep it, you mail it to the police and do not disclose where it came from under privilege. A lawyer can blab about future crime to stop it (public safety exception) but not ever past events as breaches of confidence are always to the detriment of the client. Here is a 2000 CBC article on the lawyer, Ken Murray. Note this: <blockquote class="smalltext">In his verdict, Justice Patrick Gravely pointed out the guidelines for lawyers who come into evidence aren't clear. "In my opinion, it does not follow that because concealment of incriminating evidence is forbidden, there is a corresponding positive obligation to disclose," said Gravely.</blockquote>So, even though there are two different sets of law here, remember Black and not his lawyer buggered with the evidence and in criminal matters the defense does not need to disclose (right to remain silent relates to this). But the cases may not be satisfactory in the end even though Murray could have used the tapes to prove Karla was a liar, giving them substantive value to the defence of his client. Black's obstruction had no legal procedural aspect to it.

I'm referring to _your_ argument here; how can it be "part of a massive fraud" if _nothing in the boxes was used as evidence_. He cleans out the shed, he's guilty of obstruction _as part of a massive fraud_; he gets his hair cut, maybe he's throwing out evidence of drug use _as part of a massive fraud_; he takes a shit, maybe he's flushing evidence down the toilet _as part of a massive fraud_.

Let's do it in math:

A person is convicted of a crime "A". Between the period of time when he was charged, he does two particular actions, "X" and "Y", neither which have any bearing on his conviction for "A". Why is "X" also a crime and "Y" not a crime, and how could have the person reasonably known not to do "X"

How about this math? Person X is charged with a number of offenses. He is found guilty of some of them. Some of the ones he is guilty of relate to attempts at undermining the process of justice.

And I will grant 3.5 million may not be massive to some but I like any word that I can say slowly and then say "bwahaha" after.

That's pretty shitty math, and on that I'm damn well qualified to speak on. He's guilty of "X" because he's guilty, call the hangman.

The real "bwhahah" is going on in London, where lawyers and sundry other professional types are making a mint incorporating companies because doing it in the US is insane.

Well, yes. The cheapest company around is a Federal Canadian one that you can set up on the internet for $250.<p>But he is not guilty because he is guilty. He is guilty because he did it, it is a crime and a jury of his peer held it so. By the time the civil actions are done there won't be much left of him...but as a buy-out man there never was. Give me a 19th century industrialist anytime.

"As part of a massive fraud"

Well, the opening bid on the prosecutor's part was 80 million, now they have secured convictions on mail fraud (use of Fed-Ex to deliver cheques) on 3.5 million and Black has been acquitted on the other 76.5 million.

Now, the really tasty part is that the 3.5 mil fraud was the transaction characterized by the prosecution as an agreement not to compete with themselves. Which, if you are a Chicago juror unaccustomed to actual business transactions, sounds insane. But, if you look at the transaction as being between two legal entities, aka companies, which happen to share managements, it makes perfectly good sense for the acquiring company to buy non-competes from the selling company's key personel. Why? Because, down the road, the acquiring company might wish to sell itself and, as a matter of due diligence, the acquiring company in that transaction would probably want to confirm the existence of non-competes with the key players in the earlier transaction. Fraud; hardly - arguably it would have been a breach of fiduciary duty to acquire the company without those non-competes.

In general, this entire matter should never have come before a criminal court and wouldn't have were the prosecutor more interested in justice than in burnishing his reputation. Now, as a civil matter Black and co's conduct raise all sorts of red flags though, were it me, I would start by suing the audit committee which approved all these transactions.

Even there I'll have to disagree with you Jay -- there's a very reasonable argument that Black signing non-competes increased shareholder value because they increased the value of deals and increased the chances of deals happening. Now, it's possible that some deals would have gone through without the non-competes, but one remember buying and selling newspapers is just daily business for Black & co.. Otherwise (and maybe) we'll have Libby suing WalMart for offering a sale on lawn furniture in Fresno because (a) it would have got sold anyway and (b) a family member of a board member bought one, thus ripping off shareholders to enrich themselves!

"...Which, if you are a Chicago juror unaccustomed to actual business transactions, sounds insane..."<p>This is a classic example of bloggy lay-person <i>minimization of convenience</i>. It equates a trial with a bar room shouting match which is likely the closet to principled constitutionally founded discourse you apparently have experienced. It supposes that the judge, the defense and the prosecutors are stupid and unprincipled. It is an example of the worst of what the internet foists. Well done.

Remember, too, if we are to consider the trial and what was and what was not before the jury:<blockquote class="smalltext"> The jury also didn’t hear testimony from Richard Breeden, the former SEC commissioner hired by Hollinger International after it ousted Black as CEO in 2003 to examine the company’s compensation practices. Breeden ultimately reported that Black, former partner David Radler (who pleaded guilty to one count of fraud and testified against Black) and other Black associates had been operating what Breeden called a “corporate kleptocracy” at Hollinger – a term never uttered in the courtroom, as Breeden’s report was deemed inadmissible. Breeden’s report accused Black and his Hollinger International fellow executives of diverting $400 million (U.S.), or 95 per cent of the firms adjusted net income between 1997 and 2003, to themselves and holding companies Black controlled. </blockquote>A trial is not a fact finding exercise. It is an exercising in reviewing the facts which are pretty much unimpeachable and leaving it to community standards of acceptability through the mechanism of the jury. Black had a defense which any of us would pay a lifetime's income to buy. He is guilty as art of the working system of justice as well. He may win on appeal. That would be part of the working system as well. Slandering the system to the point it is shifted from the constitutional and democratic cornerstone it is because a popular figure has been found guilty, however, is thankfully not.

Really Al? Funny, the CBC had some sort of legal expert (some Enron involved type) of this afternoon saying the whole point of the Birthday Party and Bora Bora charges weren't to get convictions but to alienate the jury from Black; not stupid from a prosecution point of view, but certainly pigeonholing of the mental abilities of the jury members, and dare I say, somewhat unprincipled.

My previous response was to Al's response to Jay.

<i>I am listening right now to Jesus Left Chicago, entirely coincidentally</i>

You do remember I was paid by the CBC to give my views on a Federal election, right?

I don't remember the "paid" part.

No talking head is on the CBC but for pay.

I was interviewed by Lorne Saxberg as an expert on mass municpal composting.. I didn't even get a mug..

I liked the lawyer being interviewed on CBC yesterday regarding a "sexual assault" trial in the US where they wer enot allowed to use the term rape, assailant or victim during the trial. He said that a trial is essentially two narrarators teling conflicting or at least different versions of the same story and it is the jury or the judge's job to pick who is telling the most truthful tale. Kinda sums it up for me.

Except it is not that at all. You do have two narrators telling conflicting or at least different versions of the same story but it is up to the jury or the judge's job to create the most likely third tale based on the evidence presented by both sides and accepted (including unpresented evidence that is called "judicial notice" when required) to determine if it reasonable beyond a doubt. A Canadian jury does not and cannot explain itself or make itself understood. Breaking that silence is also a crime so it is fully free to do whatever it wants in making its decision. A Canadian judge can reject all the evidence it wants but if there is still sufficient acceptable proof of the essential elements of the charge, the judge can explain himself or herself and leave it to the appeal court to approve it. I am not aware, like many, of the specific rules that apply in Chicago.

I am up to my ears in boxes as I am moving. As "foists" go, pointing out that Chicago jurors are largely bereft of business knowledge is pretty mild. As you well know, Alan, it is not likely that a case like this would be tried by jury in Canada.

My more general point remains: the prosecution bamboozled the jury with a transaction which anyone who survived Business Coroporations 101 would take as matter of course. Which renders this verdict a joke on justice. One can but hope that Judge Amy will grab a clue and sentence accordingly. In this case "accordingly" would take into account that the prosecution lost on every single substantive count and won on its correct assessment that the Chicago jury would have no capacity to understand even simple business transactions. Say a ten dollar fine.

No capacity? No substantive counts? You seem to have forgotten that there is a self-fulfilling prophecy in relation to the old "101" thing. Your trip up is that there are three fraud counts of fraud been found, not one and they are all substantive. <p>There is nothing odd about three breaches of fiduciary duty being understood by the average person who can place himself in the seat of the victim, the shareholder. What is odd is that we have come into an age when celebrity and business criminals seem to not be able to understand the limits of what is acceptable. That being said I expect something more single-digity in terms of years. But I expect years.

Er, three Fed-Ex envelopes rather than the more economical one...I realize the shareholders might be aggrieved that the secretary used three; but I'm not sure it warrants years. Hours perhaps.

And what is with this celebrity criminal rift. Black is hardly a celebrity in Chicago. Nope, this was about a celebrity prosecutor thinking that if he threw the kitchen sink at a fancy pants "MiLord" he'd win. And, clever Fritz (and points to people who spot the allusion as well as the mispelling), did indeed win: on envelope fraud and a bad camera angle.

Scooter was cheap, this is base. I sense a pattern.

I won't myself in the place of the jury, but I'll note one thing the prosecution did not do was bring in any victims, and from a larger pov, most shareholders got screwed as the government gave Hollinger over to a chop organization and destroyed it, greatly enriching themselves in the process.

Al is swapping the the different meanings of the word "guilty", one definition being one who is convicted by a court, the other being what we call people who did stuff [see the crazy women in the comments here for more of the same].

I am (and Jay too, though I guess I shouldn't speak for him) offended by this case because it essentially arbitrarily criminalizes business. <i>Everyone</i> in business is guilty of something under this system, it's only a matter of whether they want to haul you in or not.

You two pre-politicized the trial, making it an indictment against business or a attack by "the left" or something. This also illustrates the problem with blogging is that you are not engaging with the justice system that you are commenting on your own understandings of other things and importing them. Jay is failing to grasp that mail fraud is a fraud by a mechanism under the jurisdiction of the courts, the mail. It is not that mail was used and therefore courier and postal workers everywhere are at risk. <p>As for no victims, look up, look waaaaay up and notice the "judicial notice". The idea that there are no victims when there are only shareholder losses is a complete reversal of the corporate call to act in the best interests of the shareholders only. And it fails to notice the many civil actions by shareholders that will leave the principals involved destitute when this all plays out.

This is interesting:<blockquote class="smalltext">Ms. Kadisak said she had little time for David Radler, the prosecution's star witness. Mr. Radler pleaded guilty to one charge and testified for the prosecution as part of a plea agreement. "I expected a lot more out of that testimony than I got," she said. As for the lawyers, Ms. Kadisak liked the prosecution team but was not as fond of Edward Greenspan, a Toronto lawyer who represented Lord Black. "I wasn't too impressed with him. He'd get kind of nasty, which I understand is his job ..." she said.</blockquote>Did Black pick the wrong lawyer?

Ah, we're hacks, you're a humble servant of Justice. On to nitpicking: I didn't say there were no victims, I said the prosecution didn't call any.

Anyone on to more fruitful avenues of bickering. To answer your latter question: yes, he picked the wrong lawyer, and not just in a "second guessing" sort of way. One can't ignore either the social or legal technicality aspect of place/jurisdiction; Greenspan fit neither bill.

It is interesting that the simple dynamic of a Canadian lawyer - and one with a flair for attention getting - could turn off a Chicago jury. I think I once saw Greenspan at the Marshall Inquiry in Halifax years ago. Even though the tribunal was in session, he entered and emptied his brief case whamming every file and book on to his table without a care that he was interrupting. A real two edged sword.

Yes, my impression of him to, though I obviously never saw this. I believe a read a self-authored book a decade or too ago. This sort of stuff is more impressive within a context where everyone knows who you are and what you have accomplished. I have to say that if I could ask one question of Black wrt this trial, it was "why not a team of American lawyers?"

You need "A Good Legal Blog" Alan..

I'm feel ing all dirty and in need of chemical exfoliation after the mere mention of Mister Greenspan.

Back to watching season 2 of All Creatures Great and Small for me.

Ah, but you miss the Lady Black to George Jonas to Eddie Greenspan connection.

Following the trial fairly closely my sense was that Greenspan was out of his element. When he walks into a criminal Courtroom anywhere in Canada the way is paved with copies of his Criminal Code annotation; in the US he was a nobody. Ed Genson seemed to falter as well (likely due to illness). What Black needed and really did not have was a really good corporate litigator to actually make the evidentiary points needed to establish the defences. I don't think he had that person which is too bad as it meant the jury continued to be mislead by the prosecution.

I was with you until you flipped to Italian criminal tribunal theory circa 1938.

See what happens when you allow swearing at concerts? The social order all goes to hell!

The best is the name of the jail - Sleepy Hollow. Away you go, sleepy drunken folk. <p>I just wonder why the province had to pay Aerosmith $350,000 when 30,000 people paid huge ticket prices to see them?