Details

Written by Gordon Prentice

Published: 02 August 2019

Why on earth does the convicted fraudster Conrad Black want to return to the United Kingdom to reclaim his seat in the House of Lords?  

Does he just like dressing up? Or has he got something to say?

Black has been on leave of absence from the House of Lords. To get back he needs to give the Clerk of the Parliaments three months notice that he intends to sit in the Lords again.

The BBC recently reported that Black was planning a return to the House of Lords for the first time since he was convicted in 2007.

“Lord Black said he had already planned to retake his seat after being released from prison but the presidential pardon “makes it easier”.”

The reporter points out:

“Your co-defendants convicted of the same crime (Richard Boultbee and Peter Atkinson) did not receive a pardon.”

And Conrad Black replies:

“But they haven’t asked for one… I don’t see why they don’t apply for one.”

Pardon me. Pardon them.

I suppose His Lordship could make a recommendation to Trump, to pardon them as Trump pardoned him.

Eric H. Sussman, who prosecuted Conrad Black, told readers of the Financial Post that the presidential pardon is a mockery of justice:

“The pardon lays bare the fact that justice in Donald Trump’s America is unapologetically linked to who you know and how much money you have.”

Sussman says he was saddened but not surprised that Trump decided to pardon Black for his theft of millions of dollars from public shareholders and obstruction of justice.

“Nothing betrays the mockery that President Trump has made of our justice system more than the fact the Black’s co-defendants, Richard Boultbee and Peter Atkinson, Canadians who were convicted by the same jury, at the same trial, of the same fraud crimes as Black, did not receive any pardon consideration from President Trump. They remain convicted federal criminals with no pop singers or right-wing pundits to vouch for them.”

In fact, Black did not go through the usual channels (ie the US Department of Justice) to apply for his pardon. He lobbied the White House directly through Alan Dershowitz, the Harvard law professor who is one of Trump’s staunchest defenders.

The Washington Post reported on 23 May that:

“Conrad Black (had) enlisted one of Trump’s biggest on-air defenders, Alan Dershowitz, to get the president’s attention.”

And it worked.

Black has refused to send me the Report from the White House Counsel’s Office which allegedly persuaded Trump to issue his pardon. So I asked the Office of the Pardon Attorney for a copy. They tell me:

“We have received your correspondence requesting a copy of a report alleged to have been created by the Office of White House Counsel related to Conrad Moffat Black, who was granted a Presidential pardon on May 15, 2019.”  

“Please be advised that Mr. Black did not submit a pardon petition through the Department of Justice (the Department), so we are unaware of and cannot confirm or deny the existence of the records used by the President to make the above-referenced clemency decision.”  

Black's contributions in the House of Lords

Black joined the Lords on 31 October 2001.

In his maiden speech on 15 May 2002 Baron Black told his fellow peers:

“My Lords, it is a privilege to be here. After the tortuous course that I pursued getting to your Lordships’ House I would be remiss if I did not thank the former Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister for their kind persistence on my behalf…”

Next up is Viscount Slim who says it is a great privilege to hear from Lord Black:

“We hope to see him here often. I congratulate him on a marvellous maiden speech.”

We hope to see him here often!  

In all his many years as a member of the House of Lords Conrad Black has spoken twice. (The second occasion was on Iraq on 28 November 2002.) 

Isn’t it an impertinence to allow someone like Black, a convicted fraudster, to be part of the UK’s legislature, making the laws for everyone else? 

Criminal Record not "expunged" by Trump's pardon

To be clear, Black’s criminal record is not expunged by Trump’s pardon. Only a Court of Law can expunge a criminal conviction.

New rules set out in the Standing Orders of the House of Lords, agreed in 2015, make provision for the expulsion or suspension of a member but these are not retrospective. He is a peer for life and has been registered to sit as a cross-bencher (or independent) since the Conservative whip was withdrawn in 2007 on his imprisonment. 

In the House of Commons the rules are different. A jail sentence of a year or more for an MP means automatic expulsion. 

Despite everything Lord Black of Crossharbour retains his title and his privileges and his trade-mark braggadocio.

When he eventually stirs himself and returns to the House of Lords I am left wondering what his third speech will be all about.

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. 

Black renounced his Canadian citizenship in 2001 to get into the House of Lords. On his release from prison in the United States in 2012 he was allowed into Canada on a temporary residence basis. He is still here. 

Details

Written by Gordon Prentice

Published: 29 July 2019

Central Moscow is in turmoil as thousands of protesters take to the streets to demand fair elections to the City Council on 8 September 2019. 

Over 1,300 people were detained by police over the weekend with reports of protesters being brutally clubbed and manhandled.

The protesters say the election authorities are refusing to register candidates they don’t want to see on the City Council, inventing reasons to keep them off the ballot paper. We are told disqualified candidates submitted forms that contained errors or fraudulent signatures.

The demonstrations are happening just days after I return home from Russia. In Moscow I saw little groups of flag waving protesters but nothing on the scale now being reported. Otherwise I would have joined in to learn more about the issues.

Heavy police presence

There is a heavy police and security presence in central Moscow but I figure this is just normal.

The Western tourists I speak to marvel at the prosperity and freedom of today’s Russia, at least in the big tourist destinations. They and their tourist guides openly crack jokes about the KGB and the old surveillance state when everyone was frightened to say boo! to a goose. Things are different now, they say. 

A bronze dog in the Hermitage Museum in St Petersburg – pointed out to us as we file by - is the spitting image of Vladimir Putin. We all chortle. Then gales of laughter. What fun! 

The huge GUM store on Red Square – once the shopping destination of choice for the Soviet Union’s nomenklatura offering goods that couldn’t be found anywhere else – is now full of high-end fashion outlets and very expensive international brands.

But behind the glitz there is a different reality. 

Assassination a stone's throw from the Kremlin

One morning as I am walking over Stalin’s bridge to Red Square I come across two women, perched on little stools, in front of flowers and photographs of Boris Nemtsov, a Russian politician and an outspoken critic of Vladimir Putin whom he believed to be deeply corrupt. 

Nemtsov was assassinated on 27 February 2015 on this very bridge, a five-minute stroll from Red Square. As tourists wander past, unaware of that brutal killing four years ago, I ask the women how long they’ve been there and what the authorities think about the protest. I learn there are about 60 of them who take it in turns to keep the protest going. They’ve been there every day since Nemtsov was shot dead with four bullets in the back. 

They want those responsible to be tracked down and brought to justice and for a memorial to be erected on the spot where Nemtsov was slain. Personally, I can’t see it happening. 

In the early days, they tell me the authorities were very hostile to the protest but the women are now largely left alone. Sometimes men in boots appear and throw the flowers over the bridge parapet. When I ask for a leaflet explaining more about the protest, the women shake their heads (there are no leaflets) but one gives me the lapel badge she is wearing.

 Now I am reading about an opposition politician Alexei Navalny who has been hospitalised as 

 “the result of harmful effects of undefined chemical substances”. 

Radioactive relationships

We all know about polonium but I wonder what else is in the cupboard? 

The former UK Prime Minister, Theresa May, reportedly told Putin in a private meeting at the G20 summit in Osaka last month that, in relation to the Salisbury poisoning, there was:

“irrefutable evidence that Russia was behind the attack – based on painstaking investigations and cooperation with our allies”

Russia, of course, denies this.

Russia Today just reports the news as they see it.

In the same way, the assassinated Boris Nemtsov and the four year vigil on the bridge is not news and is therefore not reported.

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

The Soviet Union collapsed on 26 December 1991. 

Update on 31 July 2019 from the Globe and Mail: The Kremlin lashes out, but Russians are no longer afraid to fight back.

Update on 3 August 2019 from the Guardian: Opposition leader detained. And more here.

Update on 4 August 2019 from the Observer on the police crackdown.

Update on 11 February 2020: From the Guardian. Prague Square - home to the Russian Embassy - is named after Boris Nemtsov.

Details

Written by Gordon Prentice

Published: 28 July 2019

The oldest tree in Newmarket is in the back yard of a house at 438 Botsford Street but it may not be with us much longer.  

The old White Oak was designated as a heritage tree in 2005 and is at least 214 years old, possibly as much as 314 years old. It is huge.

Think about it. Astonishingly, it was there during the Battle of Trafalgar in 1805.

And the old tree was standing during the Rebellion of 1837. It is a fabled part of our Town’s history. 

438 Botsford Street (or Liberty Hall) was the home of James B. Caldwell, a rebel sympathiser. The tree became known as Liberty Tree.

"They paved paradise and put up a parking lot"

It sits smack bang up against the property line with a neighbouring house on Timothy Street whose owners, despite the tree’s heritage designation, paved over the entire back yard to provide additional parking for their new apartment building. About 35% of the tree’s root system is buried under 8 inches of impervious asphalt.

As a result, the old tree could be starved of the vital nutrients it needs. It doesn’t get the constant drip of nourishing rainwater. And construction of the Timothy Street building saw huge piles of earth being heaped on top of the tree’s root system by heavy construction equipment. Fifty per cent of a tree’s root system is in the top one foot of soil and 90% is in the top three feet. Heavy machinery can do real damage but it is hidden and can take years to manifest. For the moment, the tree looks good for its great age but that could change overnight.

"It's a piece of our history"

Victor Woodhouse was on the Council back in 2007 when the Council was considering making a $750 grant “to invest in the well-being of the tree”. At the time he said:

“It is the only designated tree in Town. This is a piece of our history. It’s too bad it’s not more visible to the public so everyone could enjoy it.”

So, what needs to be done? The Town should immediately commission an expert arborist to check the tree for signs of distress and to report on its overall condition. If the paving has to be dug up to save the tree then that should happen. No question.

But how was it possible for the Liberty Tree’s root system to be paved over, apparently without a second thought?

Who is policing the Town’s designated heritage properties and its other features of historic value? 

Trees need us

The Town is currently looking at its policies on trees and not before time. For years, developers have been buying up and clear-cutting building lots before putting in applications to the Town to demolish old houses and redeveloping with much bigger ones. Profit is the priority and trees get in the way.

That mind-set needs to change. Trees need us. And we need them.

What a terrible indictment of the Town of Newmarket and its stewardship if, by inaction, indifference or neglect, it allows the old Liberty Tree to wither and die, its roots suffocating under a parking lot.

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Update on 16 August 2019: And here is how Newmarket Today covered the story.

Details

Written by Gordon Prentice

Published: 24 July 2019

Earlier this afternoon I received this curious email from Conrad Black or someone purporting to be Conrad Black. The email address is shown as This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.. 

Baron Black of Crossharbour takes issue with an earlier post of mine in which I describe him as a convicted fraudster:

“Mr. Prentice, my media office has sent me your reference to me as “convicted fraudster” in a recent internet piece. The fraud in question was vacated by the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously and spuriously retrieved by the lower court to which the vacated counts were remanded for “assessment of the gravity of (the lower court’s) errors.” 

The charge consisted of the receipt of $285,000 that had been approved by the independent directors, posted in the company’s public filings, and was deemed (correctly) by the trial judge to be a clerical error of a co-defendant.

Finally, this count also was “expunged,” that is to say I have now officially never been charged in the U.S. 

The reason publicly given for this was not an ex gratia act of mercy and clemency by the president; it was on the recommendation of the White House counsel office after thorough research that I should never have been charged and that no crime was committed. Your reference was defamatory. 

As I doubt that you have enough readers or measurable influence to do me any damage, I don’t believe that if I sued you, while I would certainly gain a judgment that you have defamed me, I would receive a damage award adequate to cover my legal expenses. 

But this will serve as your notice that if you continue to describe me in those or similar terms-not calling me a jerk or a horse’s ass or anything like that, which would be a matter of opinion and fair comment, but as a criminal whose principal descriptive characteristic is the commission of frauds of which I have been convicted, I will be able to demonstrate intent to defame, which bears serious consequences even if you are only read by ten people. 

In that event, I will not be so forebearant. I did win the greatest libel settlement in Canadian history ($5 million) from the authors of the infamous special committee report of 2004. This is the only cautionary notice you will receive. Conrad Black”

Delicious!

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Update at 18.00 on 24 July 2019: Can I continue to describe Baron Black of Crossharbour as a “convicted fraudster”? I believe I can but I’ve got to tread carefully. Lord Black has pots of money to hire fancy dancing lawyers and I’ve got Wikipedia.  

The noble Lord tells me the conviction for the “receipt of $285,000” was “expunged” by the President:

“on the recommendation of the White House counsel office after thorough research that I should never have been charged and that no crime was commited”. 

The Office of the Pardon Attorney (in the US Department of Justice website) addresses this question:

"Does a presidential pardon expunge or erase the conviction for which the pardon was granted?"

And gives this answer:

"No.  Expungement is a judicial remedy that is rarely granted by the court and cannot be granted within the Department of Justice or by the President.  Please also be aware that if you were to be granted a presidential pardon, the pardoned offense would not be removed from your criminal record.  Instead, both the federal conviction as well as the pardon would both appear on your record.  However, a pardon will facilitate removal of legal disabilities imposed because of the conviction, and should lessen to some extent the stigma arising from the conviction…"  

That’s seems clear enough. Expungement cannot be granted by the President but only by a Court of Law and the White House Counsel’s Office is not, of course, a Court of Law. 

A presidential pardon – an Executive Act of Clemency - would not remove a pardoned offense from a criminal record. 

So how does his Lordship figure that I am defaming him when I refer to him as a “convicted fraudster”?

Isn't that what he is?

Update at 18.00 on 25 July 2019: The following exchanges took place with His Lordship

Me (Jul 25, 2019, at 12:14 PM) 

Thank you for your email of yesterday’s date in which you warn me not to refer to you as a convicted fraudster. You say I have defamed you.

You mention expungement which followed a recommendation from the White House Counsel’s Office.

I am told expungement cannot be granted by the President only by a Court of Law. Furthermore a Presidential Pardon does not remove the pardoned offence from the criminal record.

The two lie alongside each other so to speak, the pardon and the original offence.

Am I wrong about this? If so, in what way?

Lord Black of Crossharbour (Jul 25, 2019, at 12:39 PM):  

You are mistaken. Officially, I was never charged. 

Me (July 25, 2019 at 1:03PM)

In what way am I mistaken? How is it possible to be convicted of an offence without being charged first with that offence?

And what do your mean by “officially” when you tell me that “Officially, I was never charged”?

Please be as clear as possible so I can fully understand the argument and your reasoning.

Me (July 25, 2019 at 2.32PM)

I have been reflecting on our earlier exchanges. 

It would aid my understanding if you would let me have sight of the report from the White House Counsel’s Office on which you rely and which said you should never have been charged and that no crime was committed.

Will you please send it on to me?

Lord Black of Crossharbour: (2.51PM)

No

Update on 23 December 2020: From the New York Times. The editorial on Trump's pardons.

Update on 25 December 2020: From the National Post: Trump Pardons Hollinger Executives with the support of Lord Black.

Update on 14 January 2021: From Bob Hepburn in the Toronto Star: Conrad Black's loud and sad fawning over Trump.