Conviction of Conrad Black In Question

One of America's immigrant successes, who challenged the Federal government because a free people should not live in fear of their own government and its ambitiously prosecutorial judicial branch, has recently been given a peak into the light of day.

Convicted two years ago in what was a most appalling abuse of the law, the United States Supreme Court has just ruled that the grounds on which the government made their case against Black do not apply, and are in fact rightly limited to criminal activity such as taking bribes or kickbacks.

"A United States Supreme Court ruling narrowing the definition of a statute governing public officials could affect several recent corruption cases in New Jersey."

This is good news indeed.

"The high court ruled Thursday to curtail prosecutors' use of an anti-fraud law that's frequently used in convicting politicians and corporate executives. The court has ruled that "honest services" fraud should only apply in cases where people take bribes or kickbacks."

Conrad Black's defense against our government was heroic. We can never make right what the government has made wrong.

Mark Steyn has commented on this much anticipated development:

"Nobody who sees the system close up can be sanguine about it. For a start, this would not have been a criminal case in any other advanced Western democracy. Second, the pressure the SEC and U.S. Attorney can bring to bear on almost anyone around the accused tips the scales against a fair trial (the threat of "Wells letters" to fading A-listers dependent on corporate directorships for their livelihood, etc.). Third, the combination of a jury box plus dozens of charges makes it an easy temptation for jurors to split the difference and acquit on most but convict on just enough to destroy your life."

Read the rest of Mark's comments here.