One insurance fraudster down, few hundred to go... | Page 5 | GTAMotorcycle.com

One insurance fraudster down, few hundred to go...

Rob MacLennan said:
#1 - Convicted of "mail fraud", not theft, but I'll give you that one. Close enough.

#2 - Apparently it could only be substantiated or upheld, in court, that he (conceding your first point) 'stole' $600,000.00.

#3 - You are presuming that lives have been 'ruined', while presenting no support for that claim. Supposition is not fact.

.... therefore, you are amplifying in two out of three claims. You are also wrong about the first but, as it's a technical issue rather than a substantive one, I'm giving you that point.
Click to expand...

http://financialpostbusiness.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/black-cta7-remand.pdf

have a gander through that ruling.

this is what i base my claim on. . .they were guilty, until the supreme court moved the goalposts on them (which should have overturned a slew of previous convictions of other fraudsters too. . .but those, afaik, have been held)

as for lives ruined, if we don't count those collaterally damaged by both the fraud and the families of the co-conspirators, and the shareholders who got burned as the value of hollinger plummeted with the criminality charges coming to light, there are at the very least, the others who went down with him. if one were to apportion blame or culpability, clearly black was at the top, and others, like mark kipnis were not. . .

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/repo...er-hollinger-exec-mark-kipnis/article1598462/
 
afong56 said:
http://financialpostbusiness.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/black-cta7-remand.pdf

have a gander through that ruling.

this is what i base my claim on. . .they were guilty, until the supreme court moved the goalposts on them (which should have overturned a slew of previous convictions of other fraudsters too. . .but those, afaik, have been held)

as for lives ruined, if we don't count those collaterally damaged by both the fraud and the families of the co-conspirators, and the shareholders who got burned as the value of hollinger plummeted with the criminality charges coming to light, there are at the very least, the others who went down with him. if one were to apportion blame or culpability, clearly black was at the top, and others, like mark kipnis were not. . .

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/repo...er-hollinger-exec-mark-kipnis/article1598462/
Click to expand...

They didn't move any goal posts. Two of the mail fraud convictions were for something that didn't fit the definitions of the crime. Other convictions were in fact overturned, which created the situation in which Black could appeal. Horse before cart, not 'tother way 'round. This, because The US Supreme Court feels that this particular law is defined too broadly, when statutes should generally be applied narrowly.

The only potential moving of goalposts, here, is if you're trying to bring in the acts of others and attribute them to Black, in order to support your claim that he "ruined lives." Even so, you haven't pointed to a single life that was ruined. As with the above, I prefer to narrowly define the terms that you, yourself, named. I already named, then discounted, his co-conspirators, so for you to claim them here is ludicrous.
 
Ruined lives is a pretty broad brush. Any stock that goes down takes a toll. Can the shareholder handle the loss or not? Got a crystal ball?
 
I would go with the highest court decision.
 
Rob MacLennan said:
They didn't move any goal posts. Two of the mail fraud convictions were for something that didn't fit the definitions of the crime. Other convictions were in fact overturned, which created the situation in which Black could appeal. Horse before cart, not 'tother way 'round. This, because The US Supreme Court feels that this particular law is defined too broadly, when statutes should generally be applied narrowly.

The only potential moving of goalposts, here, is if you're trying to bring in the acts of others and attribute them to Black, in order to support your claim that he "ruined lives." Even so, you haven't pointed to a single life that was ruined. As with the above, I prefer to narrowly define the terms that you, yourself, named. I already named, then discounted, his co-conspirators, so for you to claim them here is ludicrous.
Click to expand...

so, if by your own admission there were lives ruined, then by 'discount[ing]' them that invalidates them, how does that change the fact that lives were ruined? lol, if you want to draw your arguments in such tautological ways, then sure, you'll be correct every time. congratulations.

btw, if you read that source closely enough, it confirms that millions of dollars were siphoned off, and that it was through a narrow interpretation (an expressly conducted bribe) that allowed black to have that conviction overturned. even the supreme court doesn't question that the money went to black, just that it didn't meet a narrow definition of in what form that money would have to appear. black beat that conviction because the sc felt the specific charge was no longer met. black did pocket millions, not just $600k.

OpenGambit said:
I would go with the highest court decision.
Click to expand...

and the highest court has confirmed he is a thief.
 
And the T-shirt goes to.................

once_i_thought_i_was_wrong_tshirt-p235357623861605626bahid_400.jpg
 
afong56 said:
so, if by your own admission there were lives ruined, then by 'discount[ing]' them that invalidates them, how does that change the fact that lives were ruined? lol, if you want to draw your arguments in such tautological ways, then sure, you'll be correct every time. congratulations.

btw, if you read that source closely enough, it confirms that millions of dollars were siphoned off, and that it was through a narrow interpretation (an expressly conducted bribe) that allowed black to have that conviction overturned. even the supreme court doesn't question that the money went to black, just that it didn't meet a narrow definition of in what form that money would have to appear. black beat that conviction because the sc felt the specific charge was no longer met. black did pocket millions, not just $600k.
Click to expand...

The law is the law, until it's changed.

Do we really care if a "criminal" ruins his own life? That's who I discounted.

and the highest court has confirmed he is a thief.
Click to expand...

"Mail fraudster."
 
Rob MacLennan said:
Immaterial. We're talking about Conrad Black.
Click to expand...

I thought we were talking about Uthayakanthan “Mano” Thirunavukkarasu (try putting that on your hockey jersey). Interesting that he graduated grade 12, has worked since he moved here and masterminded a huge insurance scam yet when it hits the fan he needs to speak through an interpreter.
 
mikem said:
I thought we were talking about Uthayakanthan “Mano” Thirunavukkarasu (try putting that on your hockey jersey). Interesting that he graduated grade 12, has worked since he moved here and masterminded a huge insurance scam yet when it hits the fan he needs to speak through an interpreter.
Click to expand...

Of course. Delay in any way that you can.

afong56 wanted to try and equate Conrad Black with Uthayakanthan “Mano” Thirunavukkarasu, where little to no equivalency exists. The 'little to no' is the point of discussion.
 
Rob MacLennan said:
Immaterial. We're talking about Conrad Black.
Click to expand...

mark kipnis, following the same ruling that quashed two of black's fraud convictions is no longer 'a criminal' as you put it, and his life was ruined by black.

try reading up on him, since according you, once someone is a criminal, they cease to have 'lives' that you care about, lol. . .don't why i'm going along with your weak logic, but whatever. . .
 
Rob MacLennan said:
Of course. Delay in any way that you can.

afong56 wanted to try and equate Conrad Black with Uthayakanthan “Mano” Thirunavukkarasu, where little to no equivalency exists. The 'little to no' is the point of discussion.
Click to expand...

actually, you should try reading my first post again. i'm not suggesting equivalency. . .i suggested black was worse than our sri lankan friend.
 
afong56 said:
actually, you should try reading my first post again. i'm not suggesting equivalency. . .i suggested black was worse than our sri lankan friend.
Click to expand...

No better. No worse. Just different. Also someone whose crimes were apparently committed OUTSIDE this country.

afong56 said:
mark kipnis, following the same ruling that quashed two of black's fraud convictions is no longer 'a criminal' as you put it, and his life was ruined by black.

try reading up on him, since according you, once someone is a criminal, they cease to have 'lives' that you care about, lol. . .don't why i'm going along with your weak logic, but whatever. . .
Click to expand...

If the rulings were quashed, then he is no longer a criminal in the eyes of the law. His actions, in advising (and making money from) the principals of hollinger put him where he was.

As I said, immaterial to the discussion.
 
afong56 said:
remind us all why you got banned?

could it be the lies and insults in your posts?

have never reported a post before, but now have been told specifically by paul in pm to do so.

his forum, so his rules.

grow up.
Click to expand...

I got banned for insulting you but no one said the ban was due to untrue insults.
 
afong56 said:
actually, you should try reading my first post again. i'm not suggesting equivalency. . .i suggested black was worse than our sri lankan friend.
Click to expand...

Cause he's white, rich and you are jealous? Hilarious you think taking money from a corporation with blessings from the board is the same as causing a brain injury and impacting the insurance industry which hurts millions
 
Last edited:
sonnythebull said:
Cause he's white, rich and you are jealous? Hilarious you think taking money from a corporation with blessings from the board is the same as causing a brain injury and impacting the insurance industry which hurts millions.
I got banned for insulting you but no one said the ban was due to untrue insults.
Click to expand...

you got banned because you aren't mature enough to have a discussion without resorting to insults.

some ignorant person here claimed black was only guilty of obstruction. that person was flat out wrong and were LYING when they claimed otherwise. learn to read properly, you're not psychic, and shouldn't attempt to be.

i guess you must feel empathy for black, since you're both convicted criminals and apparently white. only he's actually rich, and you just think you are.

for the record, learn to read my posts instead of continuing to spam lies about what i wrote--i don't like black because he's a d-bag thief just like the sri lankan guy. he's actually worse than the car insurance fraud guy, because he's not even a canadian citizen.

Rob MacLennan said:
No better. No worse. Just different. Also someone whose crimes were apparently committed OUTSIDE this country.

If the rulings were quashed, then he is no longer a criminal in the eyes of the law. His actions, in advising (and making money from) the principals of hollinger put him where he was.

As I said, immaterial to the discussion.
Click to expand...

yes, and those crimes were committed by a british citizen, thus making him worse than the sri lankan guy. if one person should be deported for being a d-bag, it should definitely the guy who turned his back on this country.

and no, read your own post again. you claim that kipnis could not be used as an example of a life that was ruined by black because he was a criminal. well, that isn't the case. those convictions were overturned. and yet, his life remains ruined.

i am curious as to what you think kipnis is guilty of, since the courts have reversed those convictions. . .
 
afong56 said:
you got banned because you aren't mature enough to have a discussion without resorting to insults.

some ignorant person here claimed black was only guilty of obstruction. that person was flat out wrong and were LYING when they claimed otherwise. learn to read properly, you're not psychic, and shouldn't attempt to be.

i guess you must feel empathy for black, since you're both convicted criminals and apparently white. only he's actually rich, and you just think you are.

for the record, learn to read my posts instead of continuing to spam lies about what i wrote--i don't like black because he's a d-bag thief just like the sri lankan guy. he's actually worse than the car insurance fraud guy, because he's not even a canadian citizen.



yes, and those crimes were committed by a british citizen, thus making him worse than the sri lankan guy. if one person should be deported for being a d-bag, it should definitely the guy who turned his back on this country.

and no, read your own post again. you claim that kipnis could not be used as an example of a life that was ruined by black because he was a criminal. well, that isn't the case. those convictions were overturned. and yet, his life remains ruined.

i am curious as to what you think kipnis is guilty of, since the courts have reversed those convictions. . .
Click to expand...

Fongy...you know you insult too. So stop whining, I was insulting but I wasnt lying What's your definition of rich?And why do you get so upset when people assume to know you but you know everyone to a tee. Must be all those years of teaching and not doing.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom