Tuesday, May 15, 2007
David Radler and Conrad Black
I wrote the following comment on a legal blog. I'm not sure if it's going to be posted, so I decided to cut and past it here as well. It's a basic question pertaining to the Conrad Black trial. Answering it would help me understand this trial a lot better than I do now.
Here is the question:
There's something about this trial that I don't get. Maybe someone can help clarify it for me.
My understanding is that the basic crime here is one of taking non-compete payments without approval from the company.
Those payments did take place. Yet it's the contention of the defence that only Radler committed the crime.
How does that wash, if all the accused received the payments?
In other words, where is the illegality, and can only Radler be responsible for it?
I hope that makes sense.
That's where my confusion lies: Radler's complicity in all of this.
In essence, Conrad Black's freedom lies in the notion that whatever scheme there was, it was Radler's and Radler's alone.
It's a bit of a tough sell, if you ask me.
Post a Comment