BREAKING! RUBASHKIN DENIED BAIL

Details and the written order:

rubashkin order.pdf

Comments

[Just a Goy]

Stunning!!!

[Just a Goy]

Perhaps there's justice in this world, after all!

What was on the first page? Did ho go uo to Totonto? How could he if he had an ankle bracelet and gave up his passport?

G-d damn you all.

[Andy]

He's going to get everything he deserves.

[Anon]

I am quite troubled by this ruling. The judge noted that the finding must be supported by a preponderance of the evidence. The evidence that the judge cites as creating the reason to believe that he is a flight are: (i) that his business is gone, (ii) Israel's law of return and (iii) the cash found in his home. I just don't see how the court was able to conclude that he is a serious flight risk. The fact that his business is gone is something facing many defendants and it troubles me from a policy perspective to allow that to serve as a basis. Similarly I am very troubled that Israel's law of return should be a valid factor as it smells of anti-semitism or can certainly be used in an anti-semitic manner. The determination should be based on actions of the defendant not that of a third party. Can you imagine the stink that would be raised if a judge said that all muslims are flight risks because they can move to Afghanistan? The cash seems to me the only reasonable basis, though I'm not sure if it rises to the level of being able to determine that he is a flight risk. Particularly, for someone that was born in the US, lived his entire life in the US and has a large family in the US.

The judge also noted that he cannot conclude that the safety of the community will be assured, yet he cites no evidence that Rubashkin poses any risk to the safety of the community.

[sage]

If you do the crime, you serve the time.

Let's hope that leading personnel in the Agri Kosher certifying agencies, who are as equally guilty as the Rubashkins, get arrested, tried, convicted and sent to the same "Big House" as the Rubashkins.

[state of disgust]

This is not a happy day and there is nothing to cheer about. But the court has determined that justice would best be served if SMR remained in jail until his trial. Nothing more and nothing less should be seen in the court's decision.

[mr]

May the person that runs this website along with everyone happy for tragedies which have befallen our very own Jewish family- our own brothers, may of all of be with an never amount of sorrow, pain, tragedy and only have bad news for you and your family>
Shame on all of you- people have qa heart for a stranger- and you don't haae for your fellow jew; its unbelieveable!
You are all just simply jealous of everything they had an g-d willing will have

[Isa]

Now ol' Rubi gets to live in somebody else's 'plantation'

Now all this could haver been avoided if he had honestly sought Dr. Temple advice in putting together a humane slaughterhouse. Peta would have left him alone and if he humanely treated his illegals. Other Houston places got raided but those illegals were paid/treated well and these places paid a nominal fine.
Run a slave plantation... everybody gets excited and HaShem hears the pleas mistreated workers-contrary to the lies of the Tanya.

[mordechai b.]

It is a sad day for all of us, and there is a Teshuva of R. Gavriel Tzinner that to go to jail these days is pikuach nefesh (especialy of what happens over there), and ont tell me that jail is a safe place to be. I have noticed that this website has been named as sources to certain details in this story (note the New York Times article) which sorry to say to you Shamarya, you have stepped over the line in regards to Lashon Harah. According to the Gemara, you have killed three people, (have a look at this URL to see what happens when you open your mouth when you shouldn't: http://www.ascentofsafed.com/cgi-bin/ascent.cgi?Name=572-07).

[sage]

Very well put, Isa.

Your view is shared by many others posting on this blog, who are fully aware of the complete history of this mess, going back to 2003.

[Jason]

Actually, anon, you are incorrect. The standard as set out by statute is that if "the judicial officer finds that no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure the appearance of the person as required...such judicial officer shall order the detention of the person before trial." Not "may order the detention," but must order the detention. Israel's law of return appears to be a factor because (a) they found a bag of cash and passports ready in SMR's home, (b) one of his employees (a non-Jew, by the way) already has escaped to Israel, presumably through Canada, and (c) SMR has appeared to have lied, either to the Court or to the Border Patrol, when he claimed to be in Canada visiting a potential investor, but told Border Patrol it was a personal trip and he conducted no business. The court was left no choice but to conclude there was at least a possibility SMR was arranging for his escape thru Canada. Add to that the length of incarceration SMR is facing and under those circumstances, it is not surprising the court could not be reasonably assured SMR would show up for his future hearings.

It would trouble me too if Jewish defendants were routinely denied bail purely based on Israel's law of return, but unfortunately we have plenty of evidence to the contrary. Unfortunately many crimes are committed by Jews in this country, and they routinely receive bail in both federal and state courts, regardless of Israel's Law of Return.

[Dave]

The judge also noted that he cannot conclude that the safety of the community will be assured, yet he cites no evidence that Rubashkin poses any risk to the safety of the community.

In this case, the allegations include tampering with evidence after his release on bail from the first arrest. That does count as a threat to the community. However, there was not sufficient evidence that he would do so if released again, so the judge would have been unable to order him held if he would have not been deemed a flight risk.

[Jason]

And Mordechai, you should be very careful accusing people of killing others. If SMR wanted to avoid jail, it was his responsibility to avoid a criminal act. It is high time we stopped allowing criminals and other abusers of people and the system to avoid the consequences of their actions because of a misuse of the concept of lashon hora. I don't think that is how it was intended, otherwise how would a bet din ever try an accused?

[Jason]

I think anon is misreading the judge's order, perhaps because of the confusing double negative. The judge says that he cannot conclude that there is no combination of conditions that would assure the safety of the community, meaning that there is in fact a combination of factors which could ensure the safety of the community. Safety of the community is one of the factors that allows a judge to deny bail. In this case, the court is saying that the safety of the community is not an issue. He goes on to say that based on the arguments however , there is a flight risk and that , i.e. the flight risk, is why he is denying bail.

[Sam]

++Not "may order the detention," but must order the detention.++

It does not say "must" either. It says "shall".

[uncle joe mccarthy]

mr

when that jew commits massive chillul hashem and may very well have been serving treif meats onto the tables of thousands of other frum jews...then im sorry, but gone is my hakoras hatov to that individual

[bilbul]

It is not a tragedy when the people responsible for this: http://www.petatv.com/tvpopup/Prefs.asp?video=agri_short are punished.

Prison is an opportunity for SMR to search his soul. I hope that he uses his time wisely.

[Jason]

Sam, in the law, as in the rest of the English language, "shall" = "must"

From Merriam Webster Disctionary
shall
One entry found.

Main Entry:
shall Listen to the pronunciation of shall
Pronunciation:
\shəl, ˈshal\
Function:
verb

verbal auxiliary

1archaic
a: will have to : must
2 a—used to express a command or exhortation
b—used in laws, regulations, or directives to express what is mandatory

[Dave]

I'm pretty sure that when the law says "shall" the law means "must". That's why we differentiate, for example, between states where the concealed carry laws say "may issue" and where they say "shall issue".

[baccaloco]

My family is sorry for mr.rubashkin. hes helped people in my family and i know hes a kind man. right now everyone involved is worried if there going to eat tomarrow and i know even though hes in jail im shure hes sad about this. it wasnt some plan to mess up his fathers company and destroy there family name and the town of postville. in my mind hes no diffrent then martha and she went to a summer camp compaired to what hes going through. my christan prairs go out to the rubashkins, postville, and the people going through what i am. i hope this is just the lowest low this story gos and pray it dosent get worse. its sad to see cops have to surround a small town to keep people from hurting innance people. i was going to go to the multi cultural center for help but im to worried to leave the house for the drunks trying to cause trouble.

[Anon]

Jason, your reading of the rule is correct. My objection was twofold. First while your reading of the rule is correct, the judge nonetheless made an affirmative determination that SMR is a serious flight risk. Second, even under the base finding requirement, I find it hard to believe that there are no combination of conditions that would reasonably assure his appearance at the trial. Rubashkin has a very large family. If need be the judge could demand that his family put up their homes (which apparently they volunteered to do) and their ther businesses as collateral. Do you think that it would not be sufficient to reasonably assure his appearance if he new that if he fled he was throwing away his entire families fortune (whatever is left)?

[Jason]

Anon, I don't presume to know what would give the courts reasonable assurance that SMR wouldn't flee. He is facing serious time. I'm sure judges have seen people in those situations flee even though it might mean leaving their families without homes. Desperate people do desperate things. Maybe there are restrictions that could have been placed on him to assure he didn't flee. But my only point was not to infer that the Law of Return was the primary factor here. If you spend your whole life searching for whiffs of anti-semitism, you are sure to find them, even where there are none. We should save the anti-semitism charges for situations where they are warranted, or we risk being the people that cried wolf (or anti-semite, as the case may be).

[Noclue]

Sure. Lynn Stewart, who was convicted of terrorism, is free onbail, while Rubashkin, who has been convicted of nothing and is charged with a much less serious offense,is denied any bail.

Prediction, the no bail decision will be reversed by a higher court.

[neighbor girl]

I just finished reading Linda Waddington's article http://iowaindependent.com/8785/rubashkin-will-remain-in-custody
It says that along with real estate posted as bail, "Rubashkin offered the court an additional $225,000 cash deposit." WOW! Now that the cash is not needed for bail, I'm sure there are creditors and former Agri workers in Postville who have need of the money.

[Anon]

--Prediction, the no bail decision will be reversed by a higher court.--

I am troubled by the judge's decision, but this ruling is based on factual determinations made by the judge. It is very difficult to overturn such determinations. If it does get overturned, it will indicate that the appeals court felt that the judge was way out of line.

[Noclue]

Anon: You are right about overturning factual decisions.

However, I just do not see Rubashkin as being the type of accused for whom bail should be denied. Bail, after all, is a Constitutional right.

[Noclue]

Anon: You are right about overturning factual decisions.

However, I just do not see Rubashkin as being the type of accused for whom bail should be denied. Bail, after all, is a Constitutional right.

[Nigritude Ultramarine]

>G-d damn you all.

Nice. Hey, do you want to buy some soap on a rope for your friend?

[Anon]

--However, I just do not see Rubashkin as being the type of accused for whom bail should be denied. Bail, after all, is a Constitutional right.--

Agreed. I find it hard to swallow how a judge can't grant bail to someone charged with a white collar crime with no criminal history. At worst, he should be asking for a very high bail amount, but no bail at all seems a bit extreme.

[Dave]

Bail was denied in this case because the prosecution met its burden of showing a flight risk. Flight risk is independent of violent/non-violent crime.

[Choni Davidowitz]

It appears to me that Chabad are more concerned about Rubaskin being in jail than the captivity of Jonathan Pollard.

[StillNotShmarya]

not taken out by Shmarya not by this blog but by law enforcement officers because warned warned warned cautioned cautioned cautioned and decided to be a seat-of-the-pants recidivist.

not about jews chabad kosher non-kosher this that about whole big country and laws of great big country and a shnook crook

but still who knows maybe courthouse will have a fire

[Yochanan Lavie]

G-d damn you all.

Posted by: | November 20, 2008 at 04:59 PM

Cool! I didn't know that Jeremiah Wright reads this blog.

Seriously: Israel needs to rethink extradition. They didn't allow Meyer Lansky to stay, despite the law of return. Maybe an arrangement can be made to try Jews in the US and serve time in Israel. That way they're not "handed over to Gentiles" and the US taxpayer gets a break. If Israeli taxpayers get fed up, so much the better. Israel is not meant to be a haven for rogues.

[Just a Goy]

> 'Cool! I didn't know that Jeremiah Wright reads this blog.' - Yochanan

Ha! Sweet!!!

[Just a Goy]

Yochanan, honestly, you've brought tears to my eyes from laughing so hard! Thanks!

[Just a Goy]

Cry all you want about R' schmo being incarcerated and denied bail... but facts are facts. After ALL the heinous things he has perpetrated upon his fellow man, and mankind - add intentional financial fraud. This AFTER he was arrested the first place, and out on bail - I ask you, when does it end?

Rubashkin doesn't seem to know to stop. He disses G-d as well as man. He's addicted to crime, and he'll simply pay the price for being stupid enough for reoffending while out on bail.

Don't try to defend the indefensible.

[Yochanan Lavie]

JAG: You're welcome. I mentioned on the other post that I enjoyed the PBS special.

[Noclue]

To Dave. Is Rubahkin a bigger flight risk then others out on bail, including Lynn Stewart.

I doubt it. As to the prosecution's burden, it must show that there is no other way of securing his appearance reasonably, such as a combination of high bail and electronic monitoring. Watch for this ruling to be overturned.

[Shmarya]

He had both high bail and electronic monitoring when he was out on bail originally.

So I doubt this decision will be overturned.