Per Joseph Fosco, in what may be a Gifthub "scoop," Conrad Black has retired from the Board at Hudson. At this hour, however, Lord Black is still listed at Hudson as being on a leave of absence.
« Eye on The Right's Think Tanks | Main | The Story of Stuff »
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
The comments to this entry are closed.
To Whom it May Concern
Gifthub is an immortal work of art in theMenippean Tradition,written in a Padded Cell (he calls it a Dumpster for obvious reasons) in a state of shock by Phil Cubeta, Morals Tutor to America's Wealthiest Families, under an alias, or alter ego, The Happy Tutor, Dungeon Master to the Stars in Wealth Bondage...... More....
Email Phil Cubeta, Morals Tutor to America's Wealthiest Families.
Join the Charity Masquerade Ball.Or, just come as you are.
You have finally accepted that I am an extremely knowledgeable person. I was beginning to think you could be retarded when you seemed to doubt me at first. Yes, I know a great deal about everything, and yes, Lord Black has retired from Hudson. Obviously, all of the folks from the peanut gallery have realized they are no match for me and have disappeared from the face of the Earth. Good thing, since they are all a bunch of “want-to-be’s.”
Lord (Conrad) Black’s brother-in-Christ, Joseph Fosco
Posted by: Joseph Fosco | January 13, 2008 at 10:58 AM
Being the center of attention is fun, Joseph, but to do that we have to step forward with interesting new material. We actually came to like you, at least I certainly did. We can hardly go back to acrimony after that.
Posted by: phil | January 13, 2008 at 11:57 AM
Actually all of the folks from the peanut gallery have come to understand and believe that you have a clear point of view and set of beliefs to which you tenaciously hold.
Not necessarily a bad thing, it's just your mode. I am not sure that Lord Black is viewed any differently, and he certainly made it clear that he believes the judgments meted out by the society's institutions created to arrive at those judgments do not apply to him (even if there is the physical reality of spending time cordoned off from his previous reality).
One could say that there has been no learning accomplished for either party by this particular conversation about Black's opportunity or dilemma.
Posted by: JJ Commoner | January 13, 2008 at 12:42 PM
That's about right, JJ. I also think that Joe has done an admirable job of publicizing Lord Black's fate.
Posted by: Gerry | January 13, 2008 at 01:11 PM
Lord Black has an appeal in order, and will win!
Posted by: Joseph Fosco | January 14, 2008 at 04:44 AM
Please excuse us if we have more faith in our system of justice than that.
Posted by: Gerry | January 14, 2008 at 07:25 AM
In the same faith that you imply having in our system of justice, at the least, you obviously believe that Conrad Black is guilty of swindling his shareholders out of 6.1-million dollars (which arrived from the jury’s verdict; our faithful justice system). In addition, Conrad did not act alone as he purportedly conspired with three others (actually four others if you count Radler). Therefore, you are asking me to believe that a man whose enormous intelligence that has been proven over and over, has actually risked his reputation, all of his many accomplishments, his family and his staggering fortune (consisting of hundreds and hundreds of millions; if not billions), for a quick 1.2-million (his cut of the 6.1; including the deduction of Radler’s cut)? Gerry, what are you thinking? This man (Lord Black) has fucking oil paintings on the walls of his vacation homes that far exceed the frivolous 1.2-million that he purportedly swindled at what would be the risk of his life. The entire case is and always has been a joke. If you cannot see this, you are as silly as the jurors that believe Radler was covering for Conrad during direct examination on the stand.
Our nation’s founding fathers had this type of case in mind when they devised the appeals system and the presidential powers of “pardons.”
Posted by: Joseph Fosco | January 15, 2008 at 12:16 PM
If anyone would care to touch base with me: http://www.linkedin.com/in/joefosco
Thank you, Joe
Posted by: Joseph "Joe" Fosco | January 17, 2008 at 05:57 AM
Posted by: Gerry | January 17, 2008 at 06:02 AM
Nice of you, Joe, to put your identifying info on line. It does help to have a real world point of reference. If you have been following the conversation here for the last couple of weeks, you can see how easily things can become unmoored when it is not possible to connect an online name and voice to any real world coordinates, particularly when the speaker is coming from a different community, or walk of life.
Posted by: phil | January 17, 2008 at 09:35 AM
looks italian. (not that there's anything wrong with that.)
Posted by: archy | January 17, 2008 at 12:04 PM
Hey, Joe, a thought experiment:
Let's say you are Karnofsky - as he was *before* he was exposed as a "self-promoting, competitor-bashing, sock-puppeteer."
You *are* Karnofsky, remember - the man committed to "transparency" in the affairs of non-profits - Joe Fosco's consciousness slipped into Karnofsky's in a dream generated by a playful God. Your consciousness has minority control and influence in the Karnofsky consciousness total, say 20-80, to start.
The Karnofsky majority consciousness "errs" and then makes this public confession. The Fosco minority consciousness has no control over this impulsive act by the majority consciousness - his impulse to confess was too strong and the Fosco consciousness was never consulted.
What would the Fosco consciousness have advised the Karnofsky consciousness:
1 at the point before exposure?
2 at the point after exposure but before confession?
3 at the point after confession when the "norm police" deployed against him with a vengeance?
4 at the present point with respect to rehabilitating his reputation as it currently stands?
Posted by: O Lucky Man | January 17, 2008 at 12:49 PM
Or, what could Conrad Black learn from the rise and fall of Holden Karnofsky. I will be at a Hudson Institute Party tonight, and at the Institute tomorrow. I wish Lord Black were here, and you too, Joe. We are discussing philanthropy. Come to think of it, I wish Holden were here too. The rest of you impertinent riffraff can join Tutor in his Dumpster, or Toybox.
Posted by: phil | January 17, 2008 at 03:58 PM
I dreamed of a toybox in a dumpster in a toybox in a dumpster... all the way down, Daddy!
Posted by: Horslink | January 17, 2008 at 04:34 PM
Yes and in the toybox, if you look for it, is a Jack in the Box, where the box looks like a dumpster. Wind the crank, out pops Tutor holding a toybox.
Posted by: phil | January 17, 2008 at 05:03 PM
Or, what could Conrad Black learn
Please, phil, Please. Will you ever dismount that dead horse??
A Sponsor with bona fides, propria personas, whatevuh, for my little thought experiment.
To such Sponsor I shall cede full rights and responsiblities to/for this "intellectual" property at the going market rate for such evanescent flights of fancy: A single ball of high grade pocket lint will do.
Who shall lift this Albatross from round my neck? Step up, Ladies and Gents, a bit of Christian Charity, please??
Posted by: O Lucky Man | January 17, 2008 at 05:31 PM
OLM, look he has money. The man does. I am looking for an appointment. He could be my first paying client in my capacity as Fool. These cases take time.
Posted by: phil | January 17, 2008 at 05:36 PM
Yack in the box! Yack in the box! Wheeeeee!!!
Posted by: tater tot | January 17, 2008 at 05:56 PM
"Step up, Ladies and Gents, a ball of Christian Charity, please??"
Fixed that for you.
Posted by: crumple | January 17, 2008 at 06:08 PM
OLM, your links are broken, I can't get to your fiendish plan to see if I might turn it into a smallish fortune.
Posted by: Gerry | January 17, 2008 at 07:11 PM
Our nation’s founding fathers had this type of case in mind when they devised the appeals system and the presidential powers of “pardons.”
I was just looking over Joe's old post, and it occurs to me that his statement here seems to be factually in error. Isn't the appeals system something that got created by the Judicial branch after it began operating? About the only thing I could find about it is that the Supreme Court has "appellate jurisdiction" except in special cases. The court organization and hierarchy is created after the constitution with legislation (to determine districts, budgets and the like), right?
Joe, it isn't a matter of belief, as I said I have some faith in the system. It is almost impossible for a rich man to be convicted of anything, so even though I know many defendants cannot afford justice, as you point out, Joe, he has plenty of cash to get the best defense possible. Forgive me if I trust a panel of jurors more that the protestations of the defendant and his friends.
Posted by: Gerry | January 17, 2008 at 07:34 PM
Those are special links, Gerry. They only activate in the presence of The Ideal Sponsor.
(I hope I've made it clear I'm not setting the bar that high, however. Any Person with bona fides, propria personas, whatevuh, clears the bar with ease. Even folks from Nevada!)
Posted by: O Lucky Man | January 17, 2008 at 10:38 PM
I saw William Schambra tonight. Discussed Holden but not Conrad. Some sense of priorities Bill has. I apologized sincerely for the hard time we gave Bill that time at Sean's. Having been been served some mob-sourced justice myself, I regret the hijinks at his expense. Next time we will do better.
Posted by: phil | January 17, 2008 at 11:26 PM
If I have erred, thank you for the correction. Although, my point has now become stronger, that an appeals mechanism, implemented by the entity that you store your faith in (judicial/justice system), was obviously established for the reason I have mentioned, a case like Conrad Black’s.
I have one question; do you suppose that at least one person in this country (U.S.A.) has been incorrectly found guilty by a jury? You seem to be suggesting that the jury system in perfect.
Our founding fathers most definitely designed the presidential powers of “pardoning,” surely for cases like that of Conrad Black. American presidents have pardoned thousands of defendants over the two centuries. Another question; you do not suppose that “pardons” are “criminal,” do you?
Posted by: Joseph Fosco | January 18, 2008 at 06:23 AM
Sure, Joe, as I said, it happens all the time to poor people who can't afford justice. Please provide at least two historical examples of a rich person falsely convicted and imprisoned? I can't think of any, not in this country. I suppose you think OJ got justice too. He could have been an example, oh wait, he wasn't convicted.
Posted by: Gerry | January 18, 2008 at 07:23 AM
How about those Enron rascals? Your arguments would work just as well for Key Lay for someone as close to him as you are to Conrad.
Posted by: Gerry | January 18, 2008 at 07:26 AM
Martha Stewart and Governor George Ryan
Posted by: Joseph Fosco | January 18, 2008 at 07:51 AM
Insurance mogul Michael “Mickey” Siegel
Posted by: Joseph Fosco | January 18, 2008 at 07:54 AM
Howard Hughes should have been falsely convicted and imprisoned, however, was capable of turning the tables in enough time, therefore, walked… a narrow escape for him. I am so pleased that he succeeded.
Posted by: Joseph Fosco | January 18, 2008 at 07:59 AM
I am 110% certain that Governor George Ryan will be granted a full presidential pardon shortly after the November presidential election this year (along with Scooter Libby of course). I am 90% certain that Michael Segal (at the very least) will have his sentence commuted, which will release him from prison (around the same time Ryan is pardoned). I am 100% certain that Martha Stewart and Lord (Conrad) Black will some day receive a full pardon from a president. I realize that I have deviated here a bit; however, I felt compelled to say these things.
Posted by: Joseph Fosco | January 18, 2008 at 08:11 AM
Addendum to my previous post:
My prediction about Conrad Black’s perspective presidential pardon is contingent on whether his appeal results are as incorrect as the jury’s verdict.
Posted by: Joseph Fosco | January 18, 2008 at 08:20 AM
The commutation of Libby's sentence is an impeachable offense.
Posted by: Gerry | January 18, 2008 at 09:29 AM
Martha Stewart was not innocent, and again you could make the same argument about why would she do it. If she had been as forthcoming as Holden when caught, she would have weathered the storm a lot better. As it is she should be an example to Conrad of how to handle oneself once the appeals are done.
George Ryan is guilty of a lot more that he was convicted of. He allowed subordinates to cover up and take the fall for him, and still he was convicted.
Posted by: Gerry | January 18, 2008 at 09:34 AM
On the “Libby” matter, Bush will be out of office before the impeachment process begins. On the “Stewart” matter, I am extremely knowledgeable, and I strongly disagree with your opinion of the case. On the “Black” matter, I believe he will win his appeals. On the “Ryan” matter, I believe that if being a “politician” were a criminal charge, he would be appropriately found guilty and convicted.
Posted by: Joseph Fosco | January 18, 2008 at 10:41 AM
The chair will advise that the rules do care. [ video: from 3:30-6:10 ] The gentleman will suspend.
Posted by: Alejandro H. Fukit, Visiting Scholar, The Cruikshanks Center For Kiss My Ass | January 18, 2008 at 11:53 AM
An interesting series.
Posted by: Alejandro H. Fukit, Visiting Scholar, The Cruikshanks Center For Kiss My Ass | January 18, 2008 at 12:00 PM
Usama Bin Laden might have secretly funded Fahrenheit 9-11 (disguised by the help an overgrown social misfit), in my opinion. Anyone that condones such material should be indicted as a terrorist.
By Joseph Fosco
Posted by: Joseph Fosco | January 18, 2008 at 01:48 PM
Certainly, Sir, we agree: overgrown misfits are a bane.
Still, as learned men, can we not consider the excerpt noted (3:30-6:10) a reasonable document of events without endorsing the vile work as a whole?
Posted by: Alejandro H. Fukit, Visiting Scholar, The Cruikshanks Center For Kiss My Ass | January 18, 2008 at 02:30 PM
Very nice AHF, though your points are no doubt lost on the trolls.
Posted by: Gerry | January 19, 2008 at 12:14 AM
I shall sponsor your thought experiment, young man. As for my bona fides, I was once the wife of an important Senator, a doctor, I am told. I reared his children, managed his household and succored him when appropriate. I embraced his every endeavor as my own. When his prospects waned, we separated, amicably, and still correspond.
He is a man among men, though diminished. I was his woman. These claims may be dubious but they are nonetheless "true."
Posted by: Mrs. Frist Do No Harm | January 19, 2008 at 01:41 PM
Mr. Fosco, you may now feel confident in addressing Mr. Man's questions. I have met his price and so hold all rights and responsibilities attendant to and for these speculations.
I thank you for entertaining this offer, sir. You may proceed if you wish.
Posted by: Mrs. Frist Do No Harm | January 19, 2008 at 01:44 PM
Plus, the Pope will absolve them.
Posted by: phil | January 19, 2008 at 02:01 PM
Mr. Man & Mrs. Frist Do No Harm,
I appreciate your interest in what my “interworking” consists of, however, the thought of participating in such an experiment (on the internet via Mr. Man’s questions) without knowing for sure the purpose, rather seems a bit inappropriate. Furthermore, it is not that I feel inadequate in anyway; on the contrary, I feel that in being extremely adequate, there is a possibility that some viewers (the less brilliant of course) could misinterpret my answers.
Posted by: Joseph Fosco | January 20, 2008 at 01:37 AM
Mrs. Frist Do No Harm, if you will permit? Thank you. I shall acquit myself well on your behalf.
To Mr. Fosco, also: Thank you. My odd "consciousness within a consciousness" framing no doubt owes to the influence of blog captain Cubeta's constant exhortations to put onself into the other's shoes, to slip into his skin, and to operate, at least virtually, at least temporarily, from that position. Somewhat against my will I now find myself "empathizing" with lesser creatures. This is useful? To hear Mr. Cubeta's passive aggressive whisper tell it: "Probably."
For me, it has created far more problems than it has solved. The psychic scars sustained from beatings about the head with Mr. Cubeta's candy coated medicines, the repetitive stress suffered in spurring his dead horses down the road, the coming a cropper of closely held convictions "weeded" by "the constant gardener," have begun to, shall we say, "affect performance," in domains the Man's have always been masters of: Our own.
And for what reward? LOW grade pocket lint, at best - and not rolled into a practicable ball (as the estimable Mrs. FDNH has supplied) but "dusted" into one's eyes as a "palliative." If my Jewish readers will allow me: "Feh." If my Arab readers ... تغوط
In keeping with the theme of this blog (or is it the other, one never knows) I offer this tortured prose to the reader so that she may suffer less than I have at the hands of this preening cad. This is my "gift," the "hub" of which needs grease. It is a sturdy if noisome cart, my ass, too.
Your wisdom is on full display, Mr. Fosco, your dignified declination, exemplary. Would that I had the gift of your counsel months ago, instead of Master Phil's. Perhaps now the future would be opening to me in stunning vistas instead of falling about my shoulders like a dry-rot tent.
I yield, sir, I yield - and that is a problem. One seldom hits a winner from the back foot.
Posted by: O Lucky Man | January 20, 2008 at 10:03 AM
Posted by: archy | January 20, 2008 at 10:29 AM
Let it steam, archy. You never know what may come of a stink like that.
Posted by: mehitabel | January 20, 2008 at 10:30 AM
Archy, you remind me of the patients educated by the CIA years ago with electroshock, isolation, and LSD. Your sufferings are unfortunate, but will ultimately be helpful in keeping America safe. You have lost your mind, but your mind has not been lost in vain.
Posted by: phil | January 20, 2008 at 11:24 AM
Not that I understand much about the law, but I have the feeling his appeal will fail and there's no way President Clinton II will pardon him. In fact, not even President Bush would so so. Why should he?
Check this blog out, looks like the debate is getting really dirty all the way down to contacting foreign police forces with wild accusations.
Hope you moderate youir blog better.
Posted by: Shamus | January 20, 2008 at 11:46 AM
relax. تغوط = "shit"
is a joke:
Posted by: archy | January 20, 2008 at 12:02 PM
Right, it is all my fault. I feel terrible about it. What can I do at this point to make amends? We should have a "Dunk the Moderator" booth. Moderating a Carnival has its downside, I guess.
Posted by: phil | January 20, 2008 at 12:56 PM
Black goes on to decry the “antics” of federal prosecutors and to claim for himself the mantle of defender of the people’s liberties. “I am fighting not just for my life and liberty, but also for the benefit of certain constitutionally guaranteed rights essential to the rule of law,” he writes.
Black also complains about something that will probably be familiar to DealBreaker readers—the ongoing injury done to our criminal justice system in pursuit of the prosecution of business crimes. He cites “the gradual redefinition in recent decades of the Fifth, Sixth and Eighth Amendment guarantees of due process, the grand jury as insurance against capricious prosecution, the prohibition against seizure of property without just compensation, speedy justice, access to counsel of choice and reasonable bail.”
Amen (posted by Joe Fosco)
Posted by: Joseph Fosco | January 20, 2008 at 03:20 PM
Presidential pardons may soon become the norm for rich and poor alike?
Posted by: phil | January 20, 2008 at 04:42 PM
Thanks for the info, i just posted over there
Posted by: Joseph Fosco | January 20, 2008 at 05:05 PM
Mr. Man, you certainly had a "head of steam" you needed to vent. Mr. Fosco must be pleased with your compliments.
While I cannot condone entirely Mr. Cubeta's methods, I do believe his efforts here are an honest if somewhat desperate attempt to "cure" an ailing body politic based on a deep understanding of history, philosophy, psychology and the liberal arts.
I agree with Phil unreservedly to this extent: we must speak our minds, we must stimulate each other to THINK beyond prefabricated talking points, we must defend vigorously the delicate space between the poles of our "values" where growth in understanding takes place, we must be prepared for metanoia or "mind shift," and we must be kind to each other.
Kindness does not undercut anything that precedes it in the list above - it only reinforces it. Be kind enough to openly engage with your strongest perceived adversary - be kind enough to do your honorable "worst" so that we all may do our human best.
Be a human being. Fulminate. Wax poetic. Cogitate. Have a laugh. But be a "mensch."
Perhaps you could open a new thought here, Joseph, a thought wholly unrelated to your advocacy of Lord Black. Your role with the Catholic Church in Chicago raising money so that good works may be done, your role as spiritual confidante to Lord Black in his extended trials, both of these suggest that you have some interest in ethics, charity and justice. Which of Mr. Man's questions could you address in that general spirit? Which point of Gerry's or Phil's or JJ's or Alejandro's could you re-view, respond to, expand?
If your main goal here is to defend Lord Black, certainly you see that by discussing more general questions of ethics, justice and the like you will be increasing the likelihood that your arguments for Conrad will be well received. If only for this reason, open out.
Posted by: Mrs. Frist Do No Harm | January 20, 2008 at 08:54 PM
Here, Mr. Fosco. This should give you something big to bite on:
Why The Rich Care About Inequality Up to A Point
and a gallery of other peanut worthies!
It is a GiftHub "best of" thread, according to Master Cubeta. What a maroon.
Posted by: Alejandro H. Fukit (Speaking as a Private Citizen) | January 22, 2008 at 10:16 AM
Anybody holding any TypePad stock? I'd like to short it.
Posted by: Alejandro H. Fukit (Speaking as a Private Citizen) | January 22, 2008 at 10:22 AM
Let's start a de-investment club:
Posted by: Alejandro H. Fukit (Speaking as a Private Citizen) | January 22, 2008 at 10:52 AM
Sorry, Phil. Let me change "What a maroon" to "To each his own." I am the maroon. Carry on.
Posted by: Alejandro H. Fukit (Speaking as a Private Citizen) | January 22, 2008 at 04:34 PM
Typepad is frustrating these days. The problem with the links to comments over 50 is a known issue, to be corrected "in the next release." I don't know when that will be.
Posted by: phil | January 22, 2008 at 06:22 PM
Mrs. Frist Do No Harm,
I would gladly entertain the idea of bringing my work at Holy Name Cathedral here to the Gift Hub, although, I would have to discuss the matter with Phil.
Posted by: Joseph Fosco | January 27, 2008 at 12:12 PM
I have formed a Papal Committee this month, to prepare for Pope Benedict’s visit to America in April of 2008. Perhaps interested parties may volunteer their support in whatever way they can do to help.
Posted by: Joe Fosco | January 27, 2008 at 02:16 PM
My website is www.keystothevatican.org
It will be up in one or two more days.
Posted by: Joe Fosco | February 01, 2008 at 06:18 PM
Thank you, Joe. You hold ownership, then, of keys to the vatican?
Posted by: phil | February 01, 2008 at 07:32 PM
The site is up now, however, in need of a great deal of further developing; www.keystothevatican.org
Posted by: Joe Fosco | February 04, 2008 at 08:00 PM