MattBray.net

Category: Media

  • Government Indicts Media Executive, Attorney, and Corp.

    The former publisher of the Chicago Sun-Times, along with a lawyer for Hollinger International have been indicted.  Additionally, the company that controlled Hollinger International – The Ravelston Corp. Ltd. was also indicted.   See DOJ press release here.  The press release states that the indictment was for "federal fraud charges for allegedly fraudulently diverting from the U.S.-based Hollinger newspaper holding company more than $32 million through a complex series of self dealing transactions."

    The 27 page indictment presents seven counts of mail and wire fraud.  Interestingly, 18 U.C.S. sec. 1346, the intangible right to honest services is used in the indictment. The charges against in-house counsel are premised on an alleged "fiduciary duty of undivided loyalty to International, which among other things, required [the attorney] to provide honest services to International, to disclose all material facts regarding all related party transactions to International’s Audit Committee, and to refrain from assisting others in any breach of fiduciary duty against International."

    This case perhaps could have had some interesting issues – for one the corporation is a Canadian company and the former publisher is a Canadian citizen; although the indictment does note that the publisher "often stayed at an apartment in Chicago that was owned by International, and often worked at International’s office in Chicago." 

    But one has to wonder if the indictment is just a prelude to a larger show.  According to CNN Money here, the prosecutor stated that Radler, the president and CEO of Hollinger who was indicted, is cooperating with the government.

    The indictment can be found here.

    See Wall Street Jrl here.

    See Chicago Sun Times (AP story) here.

    (esp) (w/ thanks to PH for documents)

  • ABA Supports Reporters Shield Statute

    The American Bar Association issued a news release here supporting a journalist’s shield statute.  Interestingly it did not take a hard line approach of protecting all sources, but rather provided for some exceptions.  The essence of the news release provides that:

    "To overcome the reporters’ shield, the new association policy would require a showing that the information sought from a journalist is essential to a critical issue, that all reasonable alternative sources for the information have been exhausted, and that the need for the reporter’s information clearly outweighs the public interest in free flow of information."

    In reading this, I am reminded of Rule 3.8(e) of the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct that precludes prosecutors from subpoenaing a lawyer to a "grand jury or other criminal proceeding to present evidence about a past or present client unless the prosecutor reasonable believes" that the information is not protected by the privilege, the information is essential to an ongoing investigation and the prosecutor has no other way of obtaining the information.  Here, however, the privilege reigns as a priority above the public’s need to know. 

    Are lawyers more entitled to a privilege than journalists?  On the other hand it is nice to see some restraint being suggested so that prosecutors cannot try to use the media as a shortcut for doing the hard work in their investigation.

    (esp)

  • CIA Leak Case – Are We Going in Circles?

    We left off here, asking, – where is this investigation heading? 

    John Dean looks squarely at Rove here, and speaks about his thoughts and in one instance a comparison to Watergate. 

    Then the New York Times here titles its article, "2 Aides to Rove Testify in CIA Leak Inquiry."

    Then you have columnist Novak and a CIA operative not seeing quite eye to eye in prior discussions here.  Did some of this actually come from a simple "Who’s Who?"

    Grand jury secrecy is a strange thing, it keeps the public from the transparency of the judicial system that they so desire. It allows for the media to go in so many different directions.  But the bottom line is that no one really knows what goes on behind the closed doors except the prosecutor, grand jurors, and the court stenographer – and luckily none of them are talking. Remember – white collar cases sometimes move a lot slower than the street crime cases.  They are a breed unto themselves. So the fact that things are still fairly quiet is not alarming.

    (esp)

  • White Collar Crime Conference

    Georgetown University and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL) will be holding a conference titled, "Defending the White Collar Case:In and Out of Court"  September 22-23, 2005.     The website states:

    Georgetown University School of Law and NACDL will hold this jointly sponsored 2-day seminar at Georgetown University School of Law, September 22-23, 2005.

    Today’s white collar climate is unlike any we have ever seen. With sentencing guidelines and government investigations bearing-down on corporate accounting scandals, the white collar bar needs to stay abreast of the latest strategies for representing corporate clients.

    The federal guidelines have dramatically increased sentencing exposure, and more individuals and corporations are going to trial in white collar cases. Knowing when to plea is essential, but when trial is necessary, you need to understand the complex issues involved and know about the latest enforcement tools being used by prosecutors and how to avoid and discredit them.

    Georgetown University Law Center and The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers have produced this very timely and unique program to address lessons learned from current cases and investigations, and teach you the best ways of defending your clients on all fronts. Seasoned defense lawyers, corporate counsel, consultants and judges will share their stories and arm you with new skills, techniques, and knowledge to negotiate and try the toughest cases in the white collar legal arena, including the appropriate actions to take and what to avoid. Veteran prosecutors will also be on hand to contribute the government’s perspective on the most pressing issues facing the defense bar.

    Join NACDL and Georgetown in addressing the new realities of white collar defense and threats to your clients.

    For more information, see here.

    (esp)

  • Reward Offer

    We all have heard of rewards being offered for lost items or to find information on the location of individuals- – even information leading to arrests in connection with a crime where the perpetrator may be unknown – but this one is VERY DIFFERENT.

    According to CCN here the "The Cook County Republican Party is offering a $10,000 reward for information leading to an indictment and conviction of Mayor Richard M. Daley. . ." 

    Would any prosecutor dare to proceed on information obtained this way?  Can you imagine the cross-examination at a trial on how the information was obtained? So if the jury fails to convict, no payment?

    This is a lesson in why politics should stay out of law enforcement.

    (esp) 

    Addendum – The second part of this story may be around the question of whether the Republicans actually have the money to pay such a reward.  John Kass in a column for The Chicago Tribune quotes them as saying, "We’ll get it." See here.

    (esp) (with thanks to Mike Orenstein).

    Addendum – The  Marathon Pundit has here a post "Cook County GOP chairman fired from day job (after offering $10,000 bounty for Mayor Daley conviction)"

  • Where Is This Investigation Headed?

    Discrediting a CIA operative may have been a motive of some of the administration, but motive is not the same as intent. If  Prosecutor Fitzgerald wishes to prosecute someone he is faced with showing some form of intent in the leak of the confidential information to the press. Intent, however, can be inferred from the circumstances and the motive may form a circumstance that assists in showing an intent.

    Alternatively, Prosecutor Fitzgerald has to look at whether someone has committed a crime of obstruction of justice, perjury, false declarations or false statements.  The "who" still remains an unknown – at least to most of us – with new information being presented in the press each day. The Washington Post reports here some of the latest in an article titled, "Prosecutor In CIA Leak Case Casting A Wide Net."

    Thinking back to Special Prosecutor Ken Starr’s investigation that started with the Whitewater investigation and traveled to sexual conduct engaged in by the President, one has to wonder how far Prosecutor Fitzgerald will go with his investigation.  Will he start examining the 16 words in a State of the Union address, televised over wires, that may have started this whole chain of events? 

    (esp)

  • What Happens When the Name on the Building Is Tainted?

    Bruce Carton on the Securities Litigation Watch blog has an interesting post (here) about schools with buildings (or in one case a professorship) named after defendants in corporate crime prosecutions, including Kozlowski Hall at Seton Hall and the Rigas Family Theater at St. Bonaventure.  Other examples include Alberto Vilar, who is charged with fraud for allegedly taking funds from a client’s account to make good on various charitable pledges, including his alma mater Washington & Jefferson College, and the A. Alfred Taubman College of Architecture and Urban Planning at the University of Michigan, named after Al Taubman, who was convicted of an antitrust violation and served a little less than a year in federal prison. Unfortunately for the schools, they cannot control the actions of major donors.  (ph)