Indeed, as the above mentioned, he founded the Post.
Followers of the story (largely, Canada and UK) have seen quite a drama over the last few years. It's helpful to understand he is, in fact, a British Lord - after renouncing Canadian citizenship under a Prime Minister blocking the appointment due to a personal vendetta - and was convicted of defrauding shareholders under a law recently deemed by SCOTUS as open-ended and unconstitutional.
It's worth pointing out that Black sued the Government of the day over blocking his peerage (Black v. Chretien) and lost. So while he may say that it was a personal vendetta that caused him to renounce his citizenship, it's not like he didn't have a recourse to due process.
As for his conviction, it was both for honest-services fraud (which SCOTUS is in the process of unravelling), as well as for obstruction of justice - brought on by, among other things, being caught on a security tape removing (with the assistance of his chauffeur) a number of boxes of documents from his former office without court permission and in the middle of an investigation.
Thanks for that. Your one sentence did a better job of summing up what was going on than the whole article. I wish he could have worked it into the story at some point, so that the rest of us could figure out what he was talking about.
I can guarantee that there isn't a person in Canada that reads the National Post that doesn't know who Conrad Black is. I actually appreciate that they didn't waste my time with any backstory. I think in this day and age people can google shit if they want backstory.
Followers of the story (largely, Canada and UK) have seen quite a drama over the last few years. It's helpful to understand he is, in fact, a British Lord - after renouncing Canadian citizenship under a Prime Minister blocking the appointment due to a personal vendetta - and was convicted of defrauding shareholders under a law recently deemed by SCOTUS as open-ended and unconstitutional.