A few weeks back, I mentioned Eric Sussman’s curious question to his star witness after introducing a letter addressed to “David Radler, Esq”: “You’re not a lawyer, are you?” “Esq” is a term reserved for the legal profession in the United States but of more general application in Britain and the Commonwealth. And I added that it was only a matter of time before some hapless Englishman dated a memo in the day/month/year format and accidentally placed himself at the scene of the crime as far as federal prosecutors were concerned.

There was a bit more of that at the end of last week. Ken Whyte, publisher of Maclean’s, had used the term “proprietor”, as Conrad himself had in an incriminating e-mail. This is a fairly common term on Fleet Street for the principal executive of a newspaper: Lord Beaverbrook and Lord Thompson, just to cite the Canucks, were routinely described as “proprietors” of The Daily Express and The Times. It doesn’t mean they own 100% of the shares; it’s simply the standard designation in that industry. But the grimly literalist plonkers who make up the government prosecution team seem to think Black must be using the term in the IRS sense of a “sole proprietorship” and that therefore he is misrepresenting himself at the expense of the shareholders. If the Northern District of Illinois wants to toss foreigners in jail for a century or so, you’d think they’d be a little less parochial when combing through the paper trail.

So Ken, having airily made reference to Conrad’s “ownership” of The Chicago Sun-Times, found himself on the receiving end of a even more humorless barrage than usual from the grimly earnest bluestocking Julie Ruder. Prosecutor Ruder went back and forth with him over and over about how Conrad Black wasn’t the owner, was he? The shareholders of Hollinger International were the owners, weren’t they? And Ken said, well, he didn’t really think of it like that; Conrad was the guy he worked for. And Ms Ruder said he didn’t work for Conrad Black, did he? He worked for the shareholders of Hollinger International. They were the ones who paid him, didn’t they? And Ken said, actually, he got his paycheque from The National Post. Which (if I recall correctly) was a subsidiary of Southam Canada, which is a subsidiary of Hollinger International, whose parent was Hollinger Inc, which was controlled by Ravelston. 

But so what?

Had I been in Ken’s position, I’d have pointed out that Ms Ruder “works for” the US taxpayers, who pay her salary. But the executive authority to which she’s answerable is US Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald. He’s her manager and her boss, just as Conrad was Ken’s. And, that being so, it doesn’t really matter what all those US taxpayers think. I have it on good authority that Mrs Gladys Scroggins of 47b Elm Street, Presque Isle, Maine thinks this case is a total crock. But fat chance Mrs Scroggins or anybody else has trying to get the prosecution’s attention on the matter. Ms Ruder knows who she “works for”, just as Ken does. And, for all her portentous puffery on the matter, this mock outrage on behalf of fictional widows and spinsters is not only ridiculous but a witless distortion of the distinction any functioning business enterprise draws. In Tom Bower's biography, incidentally, there's a  moment when Conrad offers to sell his shares to his nemesis Christopher Browne, and a horrified Browne splutters that, oh no, they're just passive investors, they don't want to run anything. Just so.

So I’d have been hooting with derision at Ms Ruder, which may be why the defence put Ken on the stand rather than yours truly. Nonetheless, at this stage in the case a bit more open scoffing mightn’t go amiss. By taking the government’s more preposterous gambits seriously you risk making them seem more respectable than they are.