Back to John Gapper's Business Blog homepage
Barbara Amiel’s laughable defence of Conrad Black
August 11, 2008
Barbara Amiel’s delayed defence of the actions of herself and Conrad Black, her husband, this weekend in the Sunday Times was worth waiting for.
It has an entertainingly deranged quality since Lady Amiel admits no wrong, on behalf of either of the pair, and is contemptuous about almost everyone else’s behaviour. The facts, she thinks, are on their side.
The fact that the courts did not believe her husband’s story proves their imbecility, in her view.
It is also pleasingly written, combining high dudgeon, amour propre, self-delusion and expansive rhetoric in a wonderful recipe. If anything, she manages to make herself seem more unlikeable than her already fearsome reputation.
There is nothing quite like the wounded pride of a social climber and egomaniac:
Every wife says her husband is innocent. Every convicted man has a tale of how the system is rigged. I suspected some tales were true. Now I know.
The Amiel-Black’s version of what occurred is a mirror image of everyone else’s. The courts found that he diverted $32m from Hollinger to himself, but Lady Black believes he was bundled out of the way to others let abuse the law.
She recounts the work of the special committee of Hollinger and how it came down against her husband:
Thus began the draining of Hollinger International and its parent company Hollinger Inc of billions, and my husband of his lifetime of work and earning.
Her view of how the world ought to work at times is bizarrely myopic. She objects, for example, to the fact that, at her husband’s unsuccessful appeal, Judge Richard Posner interrupted his lawyer repeatedly.
Justice Posner made 32 interventions, 24 of which were outright interruptions and 21 of which took place after less than two sentences. Posner’s leitmotif was an irritating whine: “I don’t understand.”
She concludes that this amounted to “judicial murder”
Lady Black, it was an appeal court. Of course Judge Posner kept on interrupting to discover points of law when faced by a defence attorney rhetorically claimng that Lord Black had been a victim of a miscarriage of justice.
If you don’t know that know this is how US appeal court and Supreme Court judges behave in order to get to the point, you don’t get out much.
I also have to pick her up on another matter. She appears to be particularly hurt that their friends (and Hollinger directors) such as Henry Kissinger and Marie-Josée Kravis did not stick by them when things got ugly.
Well, if you choose your friends according to how important they are and treat people of lesser wealth or social status with contempt, as the Blacks were notorious for doing, then you should not be surprised when your “friends” do not stick with you through thick and thin.
Mr. Gapper writes:
“There is nothing like the wounded pride of a social climber and egomaniac.”
Spare everyone your lectures, please.
Lady Black’s husband is in prison.
Enough already!
Don’t you have some babies that you could be stealing candy from ?
Posted by: RMiller | August 11th, 2008 at 3:14 pm | Report this commentWell said!
The Blacks portray themselves as innocent victims to sooth their bizarre egos. Nobody else buys it.
Rather than telling his side of the story in court (and facing withering cross-examination!), Conrad Black sends his wife to peddle a twisted, hilarious, fairy tale.
Yes folks, it’s a vast anti-Black conspiracy involving investors, investigators, prosecutors, jurors, judges, and Henry Kissinger.
It’s telling that Barbara Amiel can still describe herself as ‘wealthy’. Conrad Black should have been forced to give back the money he took from investors. Unfortunately, Canadian securities regulators chose to look the other way, ensuring that Amiel can continue living in luxury.
Posted by: Ken from Canada | August 11th, 2008 at 4:18 pm | Report this commentSir, Your prejudice shows! Lady Amiel clearly stated the fact that the appeal court judges did not read and understand the facts. Your answer? Slimy insults mixed with cheap envy. A company destroyed by the unbridled greed of tweedy, breeden and and their wolfish brethern swallow up a brilliantly operated company which they effectively shredded. Your little piece will not hurt a fine man still producing some of the finest copy for to-days newspapers (as is Lady Amiel).
Posted by: pj johnson | August 11th, 2008 at 7:35 pm | Report this commentThere is such thing as a miscarriage of justice. Maybe this is not such a case, but in a way America’s vindictive judicial system guarantees it is: with 30-year sentences for white-collar crimes, however reprehensible, who could claim justice has been done? On the other hand, OJ Simpson was acquitted…
Posted by: RCS | August 11th, 2008 at 8:23 pm | Report this commentAgree pj johnson…
Lord Black had a fine piece about the Beijing Olympics in the National Post in Canada recently, one of the best articles that I have recently read in any paper anywhere.
Of course, British gossip rag commentators wouldn’t understand facts and history anymore…
Ad homineum attacks against Lady Black seem to be their thing these days.
Quelle dommage.
Posted by: RMiller | August 11th, 2008 at 8:26 pm | Report this commentIncreasingly, I am seeing articles with little errors in key sentences making them difficult to read.
EXAMPLES
“It has a entertainingly deranged quality …”
“If you don’t that know this is how US appeal court and Supreme Court judges behave in order to get to the point, you don’t get out much.”
OK, nitpicking, but, I am sure the pace of this overly-fast-paced world is no excuse. Some of us live slow, and careful. Unlike the “hero” of this story, or the whining wife bemoaning the loss of stature occasioned by theft, overt elitism, cruelty and dishonesty - hallmarks of these type of people I might add. I mean the type that has a tendency to smirk somewhat while a large percentage of the world suffers in agony.
The two illegible words we are required to decipher before posting do not help.
Posted by: Bruce Conway | August 12th, 2008 at 2:06 am | Report this commentThose users of other people’s money who haughtily deride their doubters can scarcely expect sympathy when their fortunes turn as dramatically as Con Black’s. Barb has put her views but they don’t reconcile with the real world. Enjoy the sausages and potato Con!
Posted by: tomansoc | August 12th, 2008 at 4:02 am | Report this commentKen from Canada:
How long do you plan to travel the MSM boards of the world playing kick the Blacks while they are down ?
I think that they have already learnt some lessons here, don’t you ?
And yes, there were several high ranking members of the Hollinger Board including Kissinger who signed off on the company’s statements that did walk away without any personal consequences to themselves in this affair…
One doesn’t really have to be a conspiracy theorist to wonder why that was…
And yes, Black was an arrogant man as some posters have noted…
So what ? That’s not a crime.
Does pointing these fact out make you feel better somehow ?
Posted by: RMiller | August 12th, 2008 at 7:15 am | Report this commentI have corrected those errors. Thanks for pointing them out.
Posted by: John Gapper | August 12th, 2008 at 8:50 am | Report this commentWhat a whineologue! Amiel reminds me of the proud mother watching a regiment of soldiers marching past. She turns to the lady beside her and says. “Look, they’re all out of step except my Johnnie!”
Black deserves about six months in jail for stealing millions and six years for stupidity: What could be more stupid than stealing from the RICH in the USA?
I hope he’s been careful not to drop the soap!
Posted by: leaf | August 12th, 2008 at 11:44 am | Report this commentThe funny thing is that Barbara Amiel probably thinks that she did herself and Conrad Black some good by writing that laughable article. (Okay, she maybe made a few bucks from the original piece for Macleans.)
As long as this ridiculous couple tries to escape responsibility by blaming everyone else for their misfortune, some of us will be around to point out the truth.
Besides, why is Amiel complaining about how bad things are? Conrad Black doesn’t seem to mind being in jail. He brags about having almost full access to the Internet, email, telephone, news media, and visitors. It sounds like he’s back to work in a new office that’s slightly less opulent but quite adequate — for a jailbird.
Posted by: Ken from Canada | August 12th, 2008 at 4:40 pm | Report this commentKen from Canada:
I think that most intelligent readers will look at Amiel’s article and consider both the source and the potential bias in her writing on a topic of such a personal nature.
All I am trying to say is that these kinds of ad hominum attacks against Lord and Lady Black in the media (particularly British sources) should stop. Criticizing the opinions of a woman whose husband is in jail with language like “egomaniac” and “social climber” does not really suggest that one is on a higher level of morality.
Personally, I am glad that Lord Black has been allowed the opportunity to write and blog from his prison cell in Florida. It has allowed me the opportunity to figure out that he is not quite the egocentric monster that many members of the British media are trying to make him out to be.
Posted by: RMiller | August 12th, 2008 at 5:58 pm | Report this commentOne final thought that relates to your last posting, Ken from Canada…
If stupidity were a crime, jail cells everywhere would be overflowing moreso than they already are.
Cheers
Posted by: RMiller | August 12th, 2008 at 6:10 pm | Report this commentLord and Lady Black have every right to be stupid. Conrad Black exercised that right fully when he tossed aside his Canadian citizenship for a silly British peerage. (He’s paying the price now because he’ll have to serve 85% of his sentence in the U.S. jail instead of 33% in Canada.)
The Blacks have a history of issuing chilling libel writs over every perceived slight. Then, Amiel plays hypocrite when she uses her own media platform to smear Henry Kissinger, Marie-Josée Kravis, and judges Posner and St. Eve.
Until Conrad Black admits that he fleeced investors and behaved badly, we’ll continue to dog the Big Lie floated by his wife or whoever.
Given that Black appears incorrigible, we’ll be busy for years.
Posted by: Ken from Canada | August 12th, 2008 at 7:43 pm | Report this comment@Fintan: Good to read you here!
It’s my impression that people aren’t pursuing their civil suits against Black because they don’t think they can recoup enough to pay the legal costs. Of course, this means that the Blacks remain wealthy at the expense of shareholders.
If Canadian securities regulators weren’t in awe of Conrad Black, they’d pursue him to (at least) set the record straight and perhaps recover a few pennies.
Black argues that he’s victimized by the faulty U.S. judicial system. Would he find such a receptive audience if Canadian investigators uncovered the identical misdeeds? You know the answer!
That said, I think Black will come out of jail still denying everything and still quite well-off.
Posted by: Ken from Canada | August 12th, 2008 at 8:12 pm | Report this commentIf arrogance was a crime, Canada would have imprisoned Pierre Trudeau, Mordecai Richler, Brian Mulroney and Jean Chretien a long time ago too.
If stupidity were a crime, who exactly would be left in the Canadian House of Commons ?
I agree that Lord Black acted rashly in renouncing his Canadian citizenship for a silly British peerage, but then again, PM Chretien seems to have employed a rather outdated Canadian law to force his hand to do so.
Black also seems to have been under the misunderstanding for most of his adult life that the USA and Great Britain were somehow superior states than Canada. One need not look any further than the Iraq War to see the truth on that particular matter.
However, Black is responsible for bringing a lot of the current much needed small-c conservative thought to Canada when he established the National Post.
Many posters here would not know (or maybe, wouldn’t want to know) about Black’s positive contributions to Canadian society.
Posted by: RMiller | August 12th, 2008 at 8:31 pm | Report this comment@ Ken from Canada:
Speaking of conspiracy theorists, you seem to be maintaining that Canadian securities regulators were somehow in awe of Black in your last post.
Brief reminder: The Ontario Securities Commission also tried John Felderhof, the Chief Engineer of the Bre-X scam, whose actions lost investors many billions instead of millions. The trial lasted from 2001-2007.
The end result: NOTHING because the OSC seems to actually be quite toothless in practise — I don’t think that the OSC are in “awe” of anybody.
However, I really fail to see how keeping Conrad Black in prison does anyone any good except in an attempt to “stick it to the man” sort of sense.
I agree with the poster, leaf, when he says that Black deserves six months for stealing millions. Stupidity is not an inprisonable offense as I have previously mentioned.
Posted by: RMiller | August 12th, 2008 at 9:40 pm | Report this comment@Rmiller: You’re chasing me around the Internet?
We agree that the Ontario Securities Commission is useless when it comes to protecting the public. Whether in awe, fear, or whatever of Black, the OSC refuses to take him on and grants delay after delay in even setting a *date* for a hearing. It left the dirty work to the U.S. courts.
Back to Barbara Amiel, she’s getting exactly what she predicted in her own writing so she shouldn’t be surprised:
“I have been a bitch all my life…. I know this: in a century that has seen the collapse of the Austro-Hungarian, British and Soviet empires, reversal of fortune is the rich bitch’s reality.”
[Source: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/the-gaiety-the-folly-barbara-amiel-a-case-for-the-defence-422029.html ]
Posted by: Ken from Canada | August 13th, 2008 at 4:45 am | Report this commentHere is a good response to Amielticket’s outpouring of venom:
http://www.canadianbusiness.com/columnists/john_gray/article.jsp?content=20080812_120508_17276
I think Mr. Grey hits the nail on the head in this sentences. “If you hire disengaged directors who will not stand up for shareholders around the boardroom table, it’s a sure bet that when the company runs into difficulty — whether it’s legal, regulatory, or just plain old business challenges — those directors will not help the company overcome those challenges.”
Amielticket should get used to her new status of prominence in society: the wife of a really famous jailbird, who is probably beginning to realise how fortunate he is to be away from her and her greed.
Posted by: Fintan | August 13th, 2008 at 2:21 pm | Report this comment@ Ken from Canada:
I assure you that I am not chasing you around the Internet deliberately, and I actually agree with much that you have already said on this issue. However, I think that there are larger issues that also deserve exploration here.
We seem to both agree that the Ontario Securities Commission is almost completely toothless, but their inattentiveness was certainly not unique to Lord Black’s case.
In addition to the OSC’s aforementioned failed case against Bre-X’s John Felderhof, there have been numerous other Canadian examples of corporate criminal investigations that have entirely relied on American involvement before Canadian authorities decided to take any action (ie. Alan Eagleson, Garth Drabinsky, etc.)
Black grew up in a political culture in Canada that both revered and rewarded pomposity and arrogance.
Don’t we get both the corporate criminals and government that we deserve?
Without addressing these larger issues that Lord Black’s case has exemplified, we can probably expect more of the same in Canada in the future.
This is not to excuse Lord Black’s behaviour in any way, but ad hominum attacks and imprisonment won’t really change any of these systemic failures of Canada for the better.
Posted by: RMiller | August 13th, 2008 at 3:49 pm | Report this commentDoes anyone else also find it curious as to why Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien enforced an outdated Canadian law to force Lord Black to choose between his Canadian citizenship or a peerage in the British House of Lords when Ontario’s Lord Thomson and New Brunswick’s Lord Beaverbrook were previously allowed to maintain both ?
In fact, Lord Thomson (who also lived in Toronto) had been quoted as previously saying: “I’m honouring a promise to my father by being Lord Thomson, and at the same time I can just be Ken.”
I don’t want to sound conspiratorial, but this does strike me as somewhat curious.
Posted by: RMiller | August 13th, 2008 at 5:16 pm | Report this commentChretien as a liberal and on personal terms never liked Conrad Black. Eager to get is peerage, Black fell into the citizenship trap. He could have waited for a conservative government in Canada and have it both ways.
Posted by: Christian G. | August 13th, 2008 at 6:04 pm | Report this comment@ Christian G.
Black often seemed to see himself as in a personal battle against Liberal “hegemony” in Canada. I suppose that his being a small-c conservative in a Canadian city dominated by Liberals didn’t help matters.
I also agree with you that Prime Minister Chretien’s actions in selectively applying an outdated Canadian law to deny Black his peerage (while other Canadian citizens had been allowed to receive one) may have been motivated by both his differing partisanship and malice towards Lord Black.
Again, I certainly don’t condone what Lord Black has done in surrendering his Canadian citizenship, but without taking into context the political culture of the time, I find it hard to criticize him for taking a stand against a PM that may have very likely been behaving inappropriately.
Similarly, without taking into account the “Argus tradition” that Lord Black learned from his father and the fact that the Ontario Securities Commission was (and still is) a completely toothless organization in enforcing corporate law, one may see how Lord Black could easily have gone astray in the conduct of his business affairs.
One can even believe that Lord Black may honestly believe that he has done nothing wrong in this matter.
I certainly don’t understand how not a single member of the British media cannot be seeing the bigger picture here than these sorts of ad hominum type of attacks above.
Do British journalists now just want to be the next Tom Bower and discuss Lady Black’s pre-marriage sex life in detail ?
Readers in Britain should demand better !
Posted by: RMiller | August 14th, 2008 at 5:31 am | Report this commentI apologize for my misspelling of ad hominem on this thread…
As you might be able to tell, I am a physician and not a lawyer.
Posted by: RMiller | August 14th, 2008 at 6:03 pm | Report this commentThis article is laughable. The author’s snide bitterness exudes all signs of what must be a devastating inferiority complex, coupled with a total lack of the journalistic wherewithal to come up with something intelligent to say.
Firstly, Black was convicted of diverting 6.2M, in approved and duly owed management fees for brokering the sale of assets which netted the company a great profit… about 1/5 of what this article is claiming.
Secondly, the auditing committee, who approved the management fees and their restructuring as non-compete payments, bullied by the US Justice Department testified in court that they “skimmed over” the documents that they had repeatedly approved. I’d be hurt too people I trusted were intimidated into perjuring themselves in court to have me falsely imprisoned.
And finally, Posner sounded like he had no clue what he was talking about, and no sense of what the facts in the case before him were, as evidenced by his countless factual errors in his final judgement. The guy was claiming Black did things that the prosecution wasn’t even claiming he’d done. If that’s not proof positive that the good judge was bias and the appeal was a sham, then I don’t know what is.
But rather than discussing the facts, this article just seems like a lousy journalist bad-mouthing someone they’re jealous of, reminiscent more so of the extra-curricular gossip at an all girl prep school than a reasonable take on the news.
Posted by: JB | August 18th, 2008 at 5:11 am | Report this commentconrad black was convicted by a system which in the 21st century still gasses and electrocutes people.conrad black was convicted by a legal system which gave birth to guantanmo bay and conrad black was convicted of obstructing this self same system for removing his documents from his fooice in canada a seperate judicial entity from the land of the free.conrad blacks conviction is about as reliable as the central bank of zimbabwae
Posted by: larry sweeney | August 23rd, 2008 at 10:09 pm | Report this comment