What in heaven’s name does that mean? There is no such thing as a prosecutor absolutely adhering to all the laws on the books. They must pick and choose which laws are to be enforced. To do otherwise—would destroy the system.

Mr. Kimble says in part that Mr. Fitzgerald’s actions were

‘an object lesson in judicial arrogance and overreach.’

I believe those actions were a very important obligation of both Mr. Fitzgerald and the Criminal Justice System. Mr. Fitzgerald showed humility in following the law and not putting himself above the law by ignoring his obligations under the law
Mr. Kimball further asks;

“What had he (Mr. Black) done to occasion the unbridled wrath of the U.S. Justice Department, or at least its representative, Patrick Fitzgerald?”

I think the answer is in two parts, the first part is: that Mr. Kimball has not proved or show beyond reasonable doubt that either the Justice Department or Mr. Fitzgerald engaged in any wrath or did anything with a bridle. Second what Mr. Fitzgerald did do was present allowable evidence in open court that was confronted and questioned by Mr. Black’s attorneys. Then the jury convened and found to their subjective group judgment that the evidence presented and challenged showed beyond reasonable doubt that Mr. Black had committed crimes and so found him guilt of these crimes. Note they did not find him guilty of all crimes charged.
It strongly appears to me that the prosecutor, jury and judge fulfilled their obligations well.

“At the federal prosecutor’s office in the Southern District of New York, the staff, over beer and pretzels, used to play a darkly humorous game. Junior and senior prosecutors would sit around, and someone would name a random celebrity—say, Mother Theresa or John Lennon.
It would then be up to the junior prosecutors to figure out a plausible crime for which to indict him or her. The crimes were not usually rape, murder, or other crimes you’d see on Law & Order but rather the incredibly broad yet obscure crimes that populate the U.S. Code like a kind of jurisprudential minefield: Crimes like “false statements” (a felony, up to five years), “obstructing the mails” (five years), or “false pretenses on the high seas” (also five years). The trick and the skill lay in finding the more obscure offenses that fit the character of the celebrity and carried the toughest sentences. The, result, however, was inevitable: “prison time.”

As this story suggests, American law is underenforced—and we like it that way. Full enforcement of every last law on the books would put all of us in prison for crimes such as “injuring a mail bag.” No enforcement of our laws, on the other hand, would mean anarchy. Somehow, officials must choose what laws really matter.”

http://www.slate.com/id/2175730/entry/2175733/

When ordered to return them, he did so tout de suite and right speedily.

He returned the boxes about a week after the video of him removing them was made public. What if anything was removed from those boxes in not known.

In that security video at 10 Toronto Street, Conrad Black may be doing all manner of things, but he’s not tampering with any witnesses.

Tampering with evidence fits the statute just as well as tampering with witnesses.
If some other criminal were to shred all evidence of their criminal wrongdoing would you also think that they should not be subject to obstruction charges provided that shredding was done in Canada or Mexico?