before_revision: On Wednesday, a United States federal appeals court upheld convictions of fraud and obstruction of justice against media mogul Conrad Black, along with three other executives from his former press corporation  Hollinger International. Black, a Canadian-born who holds the title Baron Black of Crossharbour in the United Kingdom, was found guilty in July 2007 of three counts of wire and mail fraud for giving himself and others millions of dollars in illegal bonuses taken from Hollinger holdings, and for obstruction of justice based on surveillance footage of him moving 13 boxes of documents out of his Toronto office to his home the day after he was informed that he was being investigated. He was sentenced, and from March this year  began a 6 1/ 2 year prison term. Peter Atkinson and John Boultbee were convicted on the same fraud charges, and were sentenced to terms of 24 and 27 months respectively, while Mark Kipnis, who was implicated in the fraud, was given probation with 6 months of home detention. The appeals panel from the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, who heard the defence attorenys ' oral arguments, presented its opinion in a 16-page document in which they rejected arguments against both the fraud and obstruction charges. They noted that while the defence had presented a "no harm-no foul argument", in which they argued that they were owed the money appropriated, "such arguments usually fare badly in criminal cases". They also dismissed claims that instructions given to the jury by the judge had been incomplete, or unclear, stating that "the defendants proposed a misleading statement as an alternative", and that in such situations the judge is allowed to stay with the original instruction, and in particular is not required "that a submitted charge be technically perfect to alert the court to the need for a particular charge". The appeals judges also discounted arguments from the defence regarding whether the defendants were all aware of the illegality of the transactions, making reference to an "ostrich argument" ( based on the urban legend that ostriches sensing danger stick their heads in the sand ), in that choosing not to investigate the suspicious nature of the payments was equivalent to accepting their illegality. An argument from Black's defence regarding the obstruction charge, that in moving the documents he was not in fact escaping scrutiny, was similarly rejected, as " All that needed to be proved is that the document was concealed in order to make it unavailable in an official proceeding," according to the ruling as written by Judge Richard Posner.
after_revision: On Wednesday, a United States federal appeals court upheld convictions of fraud and obstruction of justice against media mogul Conrad Black, along with three other executives from his former press corporation , Hollinger International. Black, born in Canada and bearer of the title Baron Black of Crossharbour in the United Kingdom, was found guilty in July 2007 of three counts of wire and mail fraud for giving himself and others millions of dollars in illegal bonuses taken from Hollinger holdings, and for obstruction of justice based on surveillance footage of his moving 13 boxes of documents out of his Toronto office to his home the day after he was informed that he was being investigated. He was sentenced, and from March this year he began a 6 1/ 2-year prison term. Peter Atkinson and John Boultbee were convicted on the same fraud charges, and were sentenced to terms of 24 and 27 months respectively, while Mark Kipnis, who was implicated in the fraud, was given probation with 6 months of home detention. The appeals panel from the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, who heard the defence attorneys ' oral arguments, presented its opinion in a 16-page document in which they rejected arguments against the fraud and obstruction charges. They noted that while the defence had presented a "no harm-no foul argument", in which it was argued that the accused were owed the money appropriated, "such arguments usually fare badly in criminal cases". They also dismissed claims that instructions given to the jury by the judge had been incomplete, or unclear, stating that "the defendants proposed a misleading statement as an alternative", and that in such situations the judge is allowed to stay with the original instruction, and in particular is not required "that a submitted charge be technically perfect to alert the court to the need for a particular charge". The appeals judges also discounted arguments from the defence regarding the defendants being unaware of the illegality of the transactions, making reference to an "ostrich argument" , based on the urban legend that ostriches sensing danger stick their heads in the sand . It was noted that choosing not to investigate the suspicious nature of the payments was equivalent to accepting their illegality. An argument from Black's defence regarding the obstruction charge, that in moving the documents he was not in fact escaping scrutiny, was similarly rejected, as " all that needed to be proved is that the document was concealed in order to make it unavailable in an official proceeding," according to the ruling as written by Judge Richard Posner.
edit_actions: A
edit_actions: ,
edit_actions: fluency
edit_actions: fluency fluency fluency
edit_actions: R
edit_actions: a Canadian-born who holds
edit_actions: born in Canada and bearer of
edit_actions: clarity
edit_actions: clarity clarity clarity
edit_actions: R
edit_actions: him
edit_actions: his
edit_actions: fluency
edit_actions: others fluency fluency
edit_actions: A
edit_actions: he
edit_actions: clarity
edit_actions: clarity fluency clarity
edit_actions: R
edit_actions: 2 year
edit_actions: 2-year
edit_actions: fluency
edit_actions: fluency fluency fluency
edit_actions: R
edit_actions: attorenys
edit_actions: attorneys
edit_actions: fluency
edit_actions: fluency fluency fluency
edit_actions: D
edit_actions: both
edit_actions: clarity
edit_actions: clarity coherence clarity
edit_actions: R
edit_actions: they argued that they
edit_actions: it was argued that the accused
edit_actions: clarity
edit_actions: meaning-changed clarity clarity
edit_actions: R
edit_actions: whether the defendants were all aware
edit_actions: the defendants being unaware
edit_actions: clarity
edit_actions: clarity clarity clarity
edit_actions: R
edit_actions: (
edit_actions: ,
edit_actions: fluency
edit_actions: fluency others fluency
edit_actions: R
edit_actions: ), in
edit_actions: . It was noted
edit_actions: coherence
edit_actions: coherence meaning-changed coherence
edit_actions: R
edit_actions: All
edit_actions: all
edit_actions: fluency
edit_actions: clarity fluency fluency