There has been surprisingly little media attention paid to last week's decision in the Conrad Black appeal. As you undoubtedly know, the Seventh District Court of Appeals affirmed the first instance decision, virtually guaranteeing Lord Black a five year stay in prison.
The decision was rendered by Judge Richard Posner -- one of America's top public intellectuals, who once wrote a book attacking public intellectuals. Judge Posner is known as something of a Renaissance man, teaching courses, giving lectures, writing articles and books and penning an astounding number of decisions on annual basis. He is clearly a brilliant man, and likely one of the most able jurists alive today.
I guess that's why I expected a better and more soundly reasoned judgement from him, not something that appears to have been written on the back of a napkin.
This is an unusually-written opinion at best, and a travesty at worst. It barely deals with the substance of the appellants' arguments and dismisses others out of hand, preferring to ignore them. There are also a number of factual errors in the text (one example: Ravelston is not a "defunct" company.) This is not what one expects of an Appeals Court.
My feelings were best summed up in this excellent commentary by Father Raymond de Souza:
Many readers have written over the past year inquiring as to why I – and others at the Post – defend him. It is because we believe him to have been grossly mistreated by a flawed process, and that he is entitled to a measure of loyalty from a country – and the journalistic profession – for which he did so much, even as the birds of prey were taking wing.
Despite this newest setback, Lord Black will plough ahead, make the best of a bad situation and prepare to begin anew once he reclaims his freedom in a few years.
# posted by Adam Daifallah : 2:24 PM
