Showing posts with label Black. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Black. Show all posts

Conrad Black going back to prison

Tim Boyle / Bloomberg Tim Boyle / Bloomberg

Conrad Black, former chairman of Hollinger International Inc., right, arrives with his wife Barbara Amiel at the Dirksen Federal Courthouse for a resentencing hearing in Chicago, Illinois, U.S., on Friday, June, 24, 2011

  Jun 24, 2011 – 2:54 PM ET | Last Updated: Jun 24, 2011 8:57 PM ET

By Theresa Tedesco
Chief Business Corespondent

The only sound that could be heard in the 12th floor courtroom in downtown Chicago immediately after Conrad Black was sentenced to an additional year in a U.S. prison was the sudden thud of Barbara Amiel Black’s head hitting the front row bench.

Overcome at the prospect that her 66-year-old husband would spend more time in a penitentiary, the frail 70-year-old wife of the former media baron who had been silently weeping with a tissue under her chin for most of the four-hour hearing, collapsed immediately as the judge ordered him back to jail on Friday, almost a year after he’d been released following 29 months in a Florida prison.

As court marshals and a medic rushed to her aid, the hearing continued unabated with the collapse acting as the punctuation mark on the oratory her husband had just delivered to the court, during which he expressed some regret, railed at his corporate successors who destroyed his media empire, for having trusted his long-time business partner David Radler, and for his “skepticism about corporate governance zealotry.”

For about 25 minutes, he unleashed an unrepentant speech full of pent-up opinions, not the least of which was the toll the eight-year legal campaign against him has taken on his family. “My concern is not for myself … but for those dearest to me,” he told Judge Amy St. Eve. “My family has suffered deeply … I do have great concerns in that area.”

When he was finished speaking, the judge went through a checklist of procedural explanations, leading to her justification for reducing his original 78-month sentence to 42 months.

“It was about what I expected,” he told the National Post after he the hearing. “It is now a public relations battle and the first round was my remarks today, and the next round will be my book in a few months.”

Still, it was not what he was hoping for.

His legal team had asked Judge St. Eve to release him from jail for time served as a result of his diminished convictions, his ailing health, and because he’d been a model prisoner.

It was not to be, that much was clear a few minutes into Friday morning hearing when the judge remarked that based on the federal sentencing guidelines, the new range for the one count of fraud and one count of obstruction of justice that remained was between 51 to 63 months.

It was highly unlikely that the judge, who rules by the book, would submit to a “variance,” effectively shaving a year off the federal guidelines, as Lord Black’s lawyers had asked her to consider.

From then on, it was really a matter of patiently listening to the submissions from both sides to make sure that her decision could withstand an appeal.

If they knew their arguments and voluminous submissions would be in vain, Lord Black’s lawyers certainly didn’t show it.

Three different lawyers argued repeatedly that there was no point sending him back to jail, because he’d already “has suffered unmitigated” personal consequences.

David DeBolt talked about “prosecutorial intimidation” by the government against Lord Black, who should not be blamed or punished for “being skeptical of the system.”

Carolyn Gurland, a Chicago-based lawyer, described Lord Black’s efforts as an educator at Coleman Federal Correctional facility in Florida “as an inspiration in a place where inspiration is rare.”

Reading from letters submitted by his fellow inmates, she told the court that Lord Black’s work as a tutor and mentor at the prison “affirmed the worth of many people whose life had been deemed worthless.” She spoke at length about the U.S. government’s contradictory affidavits from two prison staff members at Coleman who depicted Lord Black as an uninspired tutor who demanded special treatment.

Calling them a “recent fabrication” and “false,” Ms. Gurland argued it was “wrong to imply that his sentence should be more severe because of a mistaken depiction that he is an elitist.”

Ms. Gurland also read from letters submitted to the court by family and friends and noted Lord Black has serious health issues, including high blood pressure, high cholesterol, a heart arithmyia and required medical attention for skin cancer.

Miguel Estrada, the Washington-based lawyer who led the U.S. Supreme Court, described the “grace” Lord Black showed during his incarceration, which he described as “an utterly dehumanizing environment.”

“At the end of the day, this is about who Mr. Black is and what he does with the rest of his life,” Mr. Estrada told the judge. “He’s already been harshly punished.”

U.S. prosecutor Julie Porter asked that Lord Black be forced to compete his 78 month sentence, and scoffed at his “celebrity status in Coleman.”

She accused Lord Black’s team of laying “it on awfully thick” by offering an “exaggerated picture of his time” in prison, and asked the judge to view the letters from inmates “with a grain of salt.”

Mrs. Porter, one of the four attorneys who prosecuted Lord Black in 2007, defended against allegations that the government pursued the former media baron because of they confused his right to defend himself and not acquiesce as arrogance.

“To the extend the government cares about arrogance,” she said, “is the arrogance of a corporate CEO who committed fraud and covers it up by obstructing justice. That’s the only arrogance the government cares about.”

Finally, about three hours into the hearing, Lord Black stood to address the judge. In his remarks, he quoted Mark Twain, saying “a lie gets half way around the world before the truth gets its trousers on.” He added: “It is very late in this case, Your Honor, but the truth has almost caught up with the original allegations.”

Lord Black, who once controlled the third largest English-language newspaper empire, which included the National Post, was originally convicted in 2007 of three counts of fraud and one count of obstruction of justice for misappropriating US$6.1-million at Chicago-based Hollinger International Inc.

After a series of appeals, his convictions have been reduced to one count of fraud ($600,000) and the obstruction of justice, resulting in Friday’s resentencing hearing.

During his remarks, Lord Black challenged the prosecution’s portrayal of him as a “guerrilla warrior,” insisting he had been “absolutely submissive” to the court and “scrupulously obedient” to all of its rulings. In prison, Black said, he followed “every rule, every regulation” no matter how draconian.

“The problem is not my lawlessness, it is the weakness of their case,” he told the judge.

As a result, Lord Black said, the source of the government’s “irritation” toward him was that “I have led the destruction of most of their case, and have successfully protested my innocence of charges of which I have, in fact, been found not to have been guilty.”

In her ruling, Judge St. Eve largely said the prison letters played a “significant” role in her decision and that she was impressed by the preponderance of letters, especially from Lord Black’s fellow inmates, that showed “you are different person today having spent 29 months in jail.”

After Judge St. Eve rendered her verdict, his lawyers asked for six weeks before he surrenders to prison authorities. They also requested an opportunity for Lord Black to renew his British passport. The judge agreed, even suggesting he use his time before going back to jail to process the paperwork and get photographs.

“You are different person today having spent 29 months in jail,” she said. “I still scratch my head as to why you engaged in this conduct. Good luck to you.”

With that, a concerned-looking Lord Black rushed out of the courtroom to check on his wife.

National Post
ttedesco@nationalpost.com

Conrad Black settling civil lawsuits

Scott Olson/Getty Images Scott Olson/Getty Images

Conrad Black.

  Jun 23, 2011 – 12:29 PM ET | Last Updated: Jun 23, 2011 10:02 PM ET

Chief Business Corespondent

On the eve of resentencing for his criminal convictions, Conrad Black has reached a “tentative settlement” to resolve a bevy of civil lawsuits stemming from his high-profile ouster from the helm of Hollinger International Inc. almost eight years ago.

These lawsuits stole headlines years ago with the bombastic allegation he orchestrated a vast “corporate kleptocracy.” And while his accusers once even attempted to use U.S. racketeering laws to expand the suit to US$1.25-billion, it now appears Lord Black may come out on top.

Sources confirmed for the National Post that lawyers retained by Lord Black and attorneys for the former Chicago-based publishing company are on the verge of announcing a series of out-of-court settlements that will effectively end years of legal bickering in civil actions brought against him by the company and several defamation lawsuits launched by the former media baron against his accusers.

The settlement talks have been stickhandled by Chicago Newspaper Liquidation Corp. (“CNLC”), formerly known as Hollinger International Inc. and Sun-Times Media Group Inc., and although a tentative agreement has been hammered out between the parties, a final deal has not been signed or submitted for court approval.

Sources who spoke on the condition of anonymity say Lord Black is expected to receive “a substantial payment” in the range of about $8-million as part of the settlement agreements. In return, he has agreed to withdraw multi-million-dollar libel suits against Richard Breeden, a former chairman of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, and a number of former Hollinger International officers and directors filed after they released the now legendary 2004 “corporate kleptocracy” report.

David A. Jenkins, an attorney for Lord Black, confirmed the settlements in a statement to the Post saying “details of the settlements will be made public when the judicial approval process in Delaware and Illinois has been completed.”

Mr. Jenkins also noted that “Hollinger International’s successor company, Sun Times Media Group, attached a substantial value to the libel action in the settlement figure that will be paid to Mr. Black.”

Meanwhile, an attorney for the company confirmed that all of the company’s claims against Lord Black have been dropped, and that the Canadian-born businessman has agreed to withdraw his defamation claims against the Special Committee of Hollinger International’s board, its directors and employees.

However, the U.S. lawyer, who asked not to be named, would not comment on the terms of the settlement prior to its submission to the court, he disputed Mr. Jenkins’ assertion that Lord Black would receive a “substantial payment” from the defamation settlements.

“The settlement does not include any payment to Mr. Black by the defendants in the defamation actions; those defamation actions will be dismissed and the defendants therein released from all claims,” the attorney wrote in an email.

He also confirmed the company and Lord Black “are seeking to expand the settlement to include other parties.”

The lawsuits involved in the settlement discussions include a series of civil lawsuits involving former Hollinger International officers and directors after Lord Black was forced to resign from the company in late 2003.

These include the US$425-million lawsuit filed by Holliinger International against Lord Black in October, 2004, after a Special Committee released a 500-page report on Aug. 31, 2004 accusing the Canadian-born businessman and David Radler, his long-time business associate, of operating a “corporate kleptocracy” while looting the publishing company of about US$400-million. The report was widely distributed with the help of the SEC and became the basis of a criminal indictment on 13 counts of fraud and conspiracy against Lord Black and some of his former business associates by the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois.

Most of the criminal charges were eventually set aside and Lord Black was convicted of one count of fraud and one count of obstruction of justice.

Also included in the settlement talks is a $1.1-billion libel suit Lord Black filed against members of the special committee, including Mr. Breeden, Gordon Paris, Richard Seitz and Graham Savage, in response to the “kleptocracy” report. As is an $850-million defamation lawsuit filed in February, 2004 by Lord Black against a number of Hollinger International directors.

However, Hollinger Inc., the Toronto-based holding company through which Lord Black once controlled the world’s third largest English-language newspaper empire, is not at the settlement table. The company, which filed a $700-million lawsuit against Lord Black and his associates in July, 2006, also filed for court protection from creditors in Canada and has since emerged as a litigation trust.

Also not part of the tentative omnibus deal is the civil fraud lawsuit filed in November, 2004 by the SEC against Lord Black and Radler. Nor is the administrative proceeding launched against Lord Black by the Ontario Securities Commission in 2007.

The former press baron still faces a US$71-million lawsuit by the U.S. internal Revenue Service for alleged unpaid taxes, which he is challenging.

National Post
ttedesco@nationalpost.com

With files from Barbara Shecter

Black gets his millions back from U.S. prosecutors

John Gress/Reuters John Gress/Reuters

Conrad Black and his wife Barbara Amiel leave federal court in Chicago, June 24, 2011

  Jul 1, 2011 – 10:59 AM ET | Last Updated: Jul 1, 2011 5:07 PM ET

Less than a week after a U.S. court ordered Conrad Black back to jail, the former media baron learned prosecutors will return the millions of dollars they had been withholding from him for almost six years — plus interest.

Late Thursday, the United States Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Illinois said Lord Black will get back his $5.5 million, money prosecutors had confiscated in October of 2005. Those funds came directly from the sale of his New York City apartment, the FBI having taking the $8.5 million (US) earned there even before the deal closed.

This was also just before Lord Black and three other former executives of Hollinger International, a Chicago-based newspaper company, were charged and, two years later, convicted of fraud related to the misappropriation of money from the business. Lord Black was also charged with obstruction of justice based on video footage showing him moving boxes out of a Hollinger office. At the time of the convictions, Judge Amy St. Eve ordered the men return the $6.1 million she deemed stolen from Hollinger shareholders.

The Chicago court has already returned $2.4 million to Lord Black from the sale of his apartment, but kept the rest to cover the forfeiture order. A U.S. appeal court overturned two fraud charges and reduced the amount taken down to $600,000. This is why Lord Black gets his money back, said Randall Samborn from the Northern Illinois attorney’s office.

In an e-mail to the National Post, Lord Black said the interest on the $5.5 million is currently being calculated. “I have no comment on any of this until the money actually appears, though the award referred to is welcome,” he wrote. “The original charge on the basis of which the money was seized was part of a plan to prevent me paying the retainer of my counsel of choice in 2005, and was so spurious it was never meant by the prosecutors to be taken seriously other than as a harassment. It was thrown out by the jury in 2007, so the wheels of justice have not been turning with excessive speed. The trajectory is gratifying, but I only count the money that is in hand, and not merely in prospect.”

Less than a week ago, Lord Black was resentenced to 42 months in prison less the 29 he has already served from his last sentence of 78 months. The outcome came as a shock to his legal team, spurring his wife Barbara Amiel Black to faint when the verdict came down. He was given six weeks to get his affairs in order — including renewing his British passport — and will serve up to 13 months in prison. He will serve less time if he exhibits good behaviour.

The dramatic hearing drew from glowing letters written by Lord Black’s fellow inmates at Coleman Federal Correctional facility in Florida and involved a lengthy submission about the injustices of the case from Lord Black himself. Even still, Judge St. Eve ordered the former media magnate back to prison.

“You are a different person today having spent 29 months in jail,” she said as she laid down her verdict . “I still scratch my head as to why you engaged in this conduct. Good luck to you.”

Posted in: Canada, Canada, News, Posted, U.S., World  Tags: , , , , , ,

Tight-Lipped Networking & Black Hat SEO Tips @ SES

You are here: Home > Industry
davies-dave by Dave Davies, June 21, 2011

black-hat-ses-torontoThere are a lot of benefits to attending an SES event. If you're new to SEO, there are excellent tracks that will introduce you to the fundamentals of Internet marketing by seasoned veterans, an education that would otherwise cost well over the price of a flight and a ticket.

If you're an experienced SEO you'll have the opportunity to attend the more advanced or specific tracks to learn things you don't know, or have what you do know reinforced by people you respect. Yes, there's something for everyone.

If you don't attend you're likely reading the forums, blogs, and tweets about the event (or if not, you should be) but there is information you just can't get from these mediums.

While I love attending SES events and always come away with enough new information to easily cover the costs of attending, some of the biggest benefits come from the things you'll never read about. How much would it cost to sit down with 4 or 5 of the top Internet Marketers in the world and chat with them about strategy if you had to pay by the hour? More than the drink it'll cost you at SES, that's for sure.

While the sessions are full of outstanding information, it's after hours or over a meal that attendees get the chance to sit down with the speakers, vendors and other attendees to discuss what's going on in the industry and with their own sites.

But the most fun (and often best information you'll never hear about) is an event held on the last day; the white hat vs. black hat panel. Often held in a lounge and luring people to spill the beans with the offering of a free drink for doing so, this session allows webmasters and SEOs to talk about their experiences with black hat strategy without judgment and without risk of persecution.

If you've never been to SES you've likely never heard of this session and definitely haven't heard any of the details – because no one is allowed to blog or tweet it. Basically, it's a very nerdy form of Fight Club.

At this session you'll hear reputable SEOs and webmasters talking openly about cloaking, auto-content generation strategies, link-building crawlers, hacks, ways to send Google the wrong (or shall I say right) signals and so much more. I walked out of that session having cleansed my SEO soul with two confessions under my belt from my affiliate marketing days and a bunch of very interesting things to think about.

Even if you're not a black hat SEO, the strategies you'll hear about during this session will definitely open your eyes to what's possible and what you have to look out for from your competitors, but only if they're attending SES – and only if you don't work for Google.

Save up to $500! Register now for SES San Francisco. In addition to high-level strategy, keynotes, an expo floor with 100+ companies, networking events, and parties, you don't want to miss out on the latest trends and strategies during sessions on SEO, PPC management, social media, keyword research, local advertising, mobile engagement, link building, duplicate content, multiple site issues, online video, site optimization, usability, and more. Early bird rates expire July 22.

Search engine optimization • Internet marketing • Google • Fight Club • White or black hat • Search Engine Strategies • Marketing • SES

Incisive Interactive Marketing LLC.

© 2011 All rights reserved. 55 Broad St, 22nd Floor, New York, NY 10004

Incisive Media AOP Digital Publisher of the Year

How Google Creates Black Hats

The #1 goal for any organization is self-preservation. When people feel things are fairly just & they are just getting by they are fine with squeezing out more efficiency in what they do and figuring out ways to pay the bills. But when people feel the table is tilted at some point they stop caring and do whatever it takes.

Some longtime AdWords advertisers have recently been punished for affiliate ads they ran 8 years ago where some of the sites they promoted at some point fell out of Google's graces through an ad system which never allows you to delete your history & offers ex post facto regulations that turn a regular advertiser arbitrarily into a spammer.

What's worse is that sometimes the data Google ties together creates guilt where there is nothing but innocence.

In 3 weeks it will have been 3 months since Google first launched Panda. Outside of bloggers with 50,000 RSS subscribers few (if any) reports of recovery from Panda have been seen. Some of the theories floating around what caused Panda attempt to tie it to AdSense & many of Google's AdSense case studies are now highlighting best practices to follow if you want to be just like the sites Google torched.

As if that wasn't conflicting enough, some of the webmasters that were torched by Panda received automated messages that they were missing out on revenues by not using the maximum allotted number of ad units. After the huge fall off from Panda, Google has been pushing AdSense so hard that many webmasters have been receiving unsolicited emails from Google suggesting they sign up for AdSense.

I won't run AdSense on our main sections of this site because it would be tacky and destroy perceived credibility (having a "submit your site to 2000 search engines for $29" ad next to the content doesn't inspire trust on an SEO site). I could create a content farm answers section of the site that mirrors Ask's strategy, but with a higher level of quality. I won't though, because it would be viewed as spam because I am me. Once again, SEOs should be held to a higher standard than search engines. ;)

Where this rubs wrong is not only the overt brand push, but also that some of Google's pushes at expansion down the search funnel have looked a lot like the spam they claim to fight.

Many UK finance comparison sites were penalized for spammy link buys, and then Google somehow managed to buy BeatThatQuote without any due diligence. Others who were penalized for sketchy links (say like Overstock.com) were whacked for a couple months. BeatThatQuote was ranking again in Google in only 2 weeks ***without*** fixing any of the actual spam link buys.

TechCrunch's April 1st article about Google Places being inadvertently classified as a content farm sounded so authentic that I saw multiple friends in-the-know pass it around as though it was true.

In the Wall Street Journal there was an article about the Panda update highlighting that many small businesses were laying off their employees. The same article highlighted numerous cost extensive desperate marketing measures the firms were taking which may or may not work. Google didn't disclose much in the article other than:

The Google spokesman says the company doesn't disclose details about changes it makes to its algorithms because doing so "would give bad actors a way to game our systems."

Nobody likes bad actors, but most of the webmasters that were hit were not bad actors. Rather, most of them were naive & simply followed the Google guidelines thinking that was in their best interests and perhaps would allow them to stay competitive. Unfortunately, it wasn't.

Not only did the update allow some information-less pages to rank better than ever, but certain folks with 100% duplicate content screamed to the top of the search results.

If you adhere to guidelines, get beat down, are not told why, and are told that generally sites need to "improve their quality" that can be a pretty infuriating message. The presumption that your stuff isn't good enough when 3rd grade rewrites of your content now outrank you is both smug and obnoxious. What is worse about the update though now is that many scraper websites are outranking the original content sources, so the message is that your content is plenty good enough, but it is just not good enough when it is on your site. A large portion of those scraper sites are monetized via Google AdSense & would not even exist if it were not for AdSense.

So Google whacks your site, tells you to clean up your act (& increase your operating costs while decreasing your margins), lumps you in the bad actors group, offers no information about when the pain will (or even could) end, pays someone to steal your content, then ranks that stolen copy of your content above you in the search results.

If a person has the pleasure to experience the above it doesn't take much critical thinking skills to develop a different perspective on search.

Ultimately this is going to lead to a "why not" approach to search for many folks in the search space.

If Google already dinged your website why wouldn't you remove AdSense & replace it with competing ad programs? Why not test those affiliate programs you have been meaning to test? If you have to rework your content anyway, why not move past AdSense/webmaster welfare? If your AdWords budget was marginally profitable & you were buying ads to compliment your organic exposure, why wouldn't you stop buying ads with Google & test running ads on other websites? Google is fine funding an affiliate network that uses direct links, so why not use clean links on your ad buys? If you like run it through a self-hosted affiliate program so that you are just like Google. If your site is already whacked why wouldn't you buy links to help boost its ranking back? If your site earns nothing from search, why wouldn't you sell links if you have to do whatever it takes to make costs? If your site gets penalized & someone copying your content & wrapping it in AdSense outranks you why wouldn't you create new mirror sites? Why wouldn't you create scraper websites to pollute Google with? If rankings are unpredictable & one site is no longer enough, why wouldn't you create backup sites & projects of various levels of quality & effort? At this point diversity simply serves as a needed form of insurance. If while running these purely scientific experiments you accidentally run into something that works really well that shouldn't, why not scale it to the moon?

I am not convinced that the search results are any cleaner today than they were a few months ago. However I am fairly certain things will soon head south. I am not advocating going out of your way to be extra spammy, but am just highlighting the cost-benefit analysis which is going through the heads of thousands of webmasters who Google just torched.

Google is betting that anonymous strangers will behave more kindly than Google has, but when an animal is backed into a corner it often acts in unpredictable (and even uncontrollable) ways.

The big problem for Google is this: "when innocence itself, is brought to the bar and condemned, especially to die, the subject will exclaim, it is immaterial to me whether I behave well or ill, for virtue itself is no security." - John Adams