From Macleans.ca website in Canada:
The final piece of the puzzle
Mark Steyn June 26, 2007 13:34:21
At the climax of his presentation, Mr Safer, like Hercule Poirot, tied up all the loose ends, including the most intriguing question of all: If there's no crime, why did David Radler plead guilty?
Today Safer gave us an answer: the very first transaction, the sale of American Trucker back in 1998. Radler and Todd Vogt ("and where's Todd Vogt?" asked Counsellor Safer, noting the government's conspicuous avoidance of one of the key figures in the Radler operation) transferred $2 million from the Trucker sale from International to Inc with no non-compete, no Audit Committee approval, no nothing. "He had no way out on American Trucker," said Safer. "None... On American Trucker alone, he's going to jail for more than 29 months."
Facing five years or more for the one transaction for which there's no defence, Radler the ultimate deal-maker decided to negotiate one last deal, with the US government. For six months of golf and community theatre on a farm in British Columbia, Radler gets to keep his company and almost everything else. "He's got his millions, he's got his plea deal," said Safer. "In stark contrast to Mark."
Ron Safer struck at the heart of the government's case and emptied it of meaning. The other three defendants are very fortunate the government got cocky and decided to punish Mark Kipnis by tossing him in the shark tank with Black and co. Without Ron Safer in court, their prospects would be considerably diminished.
Good questions
Mark Steyn June 26, 2007 12:49:43
Ron Safer for the defence:
"Why didn't the government call any US auditors?"
True. They only called Marilyn Stitt from KPMG's Toronto office, not the guys at the New York office who were principally responsible for Hollinger International.
"Why didn't they call Pat Ryan?"
True. The defence had to call him as a hostile witness. He testified that at the Audit Committee meeting he specifically drew Governor Thompson's attention to "Subparagraph F on page F-16" and sought his approval.
The Synchronized Skimmers didn't miss anything. Neither Mark Kipnis nor anyone else tried to hide anything from Jim the Skim. They didn't need to. The non-competed were approved -"time and time and time again," as Safer put it.
"Goodbye. That's it. Not guilty."
The big finish
Mark Steyn June 26, 2007 12:36:54
Ron Safer has done a terrific job in summing up, marshalling the arguments and evidence and graphic aids (a Letterman-style "Top Ten List") in very colloquial but focused way. What I find interesting is the use of little excerpts from witness transcripts - itsy-bitsy nothing exchanges no-one paid any attention to at the time nevertheless managed to elicit some or other confirmation of this or that that bolsters a point he's making in closing argument. It's almost as if he planned it that way, which he almost certainly did. Many of the other defences have a haphazard quality to them, as if they're winging it and figuring they'll settle on a strategy once they see how things are shaping up. What Safer is saying today he planned on saying back in March. Like a great novelist or songwriter, he decided what his ending was going to be and then figured out how to work up to it. Very impressive.
United we stand
Mark Steyn June 26, 2007 11:48:29
The points made by Ron Safer are peripheral to his client, the Fourth Man Mark Kipnis, but they're helpful to Conrad Black, Jack Boultbee and Peter Atkinson. That's the sub-text of this trial. Having failed to roll Kipnis and Atkinson before they got to court and thus forced to prosecute four guys rather than the two they'd planned for, the government was confident it could still rattle the multiple defendants sufficiently that they'd be distancing themselves from Black and in effect damaging each other's cases.
It didn't happen. The four separate defences have proceeded in unity. They stuck together.
Canucks on the loose in Chicago
Mark Steyn June 26, 2007 11:11:40
Mr Safer just made a point I made a few weeks back and which the Black team themselves should have pressed home. In her closing statement, Julie Ruder reiterated a line the government used ad nauseam: Hollinger Inc is a mere "holding company". It doesn't operate anything.
But so's Hollinger International. It's also a holding company that doesn't operate anything. The Canadian papers were operated by Southam. The British papers were operated by the Telegraph Group. The US community papers were operated by American Publishing. International, like Inc, is just half a dozen guys with a corporate office. The same half a dozen guys, in fact.
Yet throughout this trial the prosecutors have made repeated references, in sinister tones, to "Inc, that Canadian company". "How many times have you heard that?" marveled Safer. "It's not illegal for a Canadian company to operate in the United States. You know the Harris Bank?"
The jury did. Even I, a mere tourist in the Windy City, know the Harris Bank. They're all over Illinois. "That's Canadian," said Safer. His favourite Chicago donut joint is Canadian-owned. The Canadian-ness of Inc is not criminal. The fact that the government has managed to endow the adjective "Canadian" with exotic and sinister overtones is one of the more remarkable features of this case.
The burden of proof
Mark Steyn June 26, 2007 10:54:59
Ron Safer started the morning with a deft bit of improv theatre. He was making a rather dull point about a wire transfer his client Mark Kipnis sent from Hollinger International in Chicago to Hollinger Inc to Toronto.
According to the government, this demonstrates that Kipnis was in on the scheme.
Safer scoffed at this, pointing out that his client didn't know what proportion Conrad Black owned of Inc vs what proportion he owned of International. He didn't know what proportion of Inc was owned by Radler or Ravelston.
Eric Sussman leapt to his feet. "Objection! There's no evidence about what Mark Kipnis did or didn't know."
"Exactly!" said Safer. "That's the very point I'm making." The room fell around laughing, and defence counsel jabbed his finger at the chief prosecutor: "They have the burden of proof. A tie doesn't go to the government."
Exactly encore! But Sussman's twitchy trigger-happy objection is most revealing: The government seriously believes that its thinly stretched inferences unsupported by any evidence have to be actively disproved by the defence.
They don't, and it's alarming the government doesn't understand that. Let's hope the jury do.
No comments:
Post a Comment