Jim:
I think I agree with Jeb.
Mr. Black’s company oversight supervisors did there duty in finding out about Mr. Black’s behavior and reporting it to the share holders and again when they reported the behavior to the justice system for investigation. This I believe was the duty of the corporate board to the share holders, and to the community at large because theft and fraud are public wrongs that go beyond the wrong done to the share holders alone. A thief has hurt us all not just the immediate victims. The unjust Stuart should be pointed out to the community.

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.