Rubashkin Files Petition With US Supreme Court

Nathan Lewin asks the Supreme Court to save Rubashkin.

 

Link.

What Rubashkin filed is a writ of certiorari:

In the United States, certiorari is most often seen as the writ that the Supreme Court of the United States issues to a lower court to review the lower court's judgment for legal error (reversible error) and review where no appeal is available as a matter of right. Before the Evarts Act,[4] the cases that could reach the Supreme Court were heard as a matter of right, meaning that the Court was required to issue a decision in each of those cases.[5] As the United States expanded in the nineteenth century, the federal judicial system became increasingly strained, with the Supreme Court having a backlog of years.[6] The Act solved these problems by transferring most of the court's direct appeals to the newly created Circuit Courts of Appeals, whose decisions in those cases would normally be final.[7] The Supreme Court did not completely give up its judiciary authority, however, because it gained the ability to review the decisions of the courts of appeals at its discretion through writ of certiorari.[8]

Since the Judiciary Act of 1925, most cases cannot be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court as a matter of right. A party who wants the Supreme Court to review a decision of a federal or state court files a "petition for writ of certiorari" in the Supreme Court. If the Court grants the petition, the case is scheduled for the filing of briefs and for oral argument.

A minimum of four of the nine Justices are required to grant a writ of certiorari, referred to as the "rule of four." The court denies the vast majority of petitions and thus leaves the decision of the lower court to stand without review; it takes roughly 80 to 150 cases each term. In the most recently-concluded term, for example, 8,241 petitions were filed, with a grant rate of approximately 1.1%,[9] Cases on the paid certiorari docket are substantially more likely to be granted than those on the in forma pauperis docket.[10] The Supreme Court is generally careful to choose only cases over which the Court has jurisdiction and which the Court considers sufficiently important, such as cases involving deep constitutional questions, to merit the use of its limited resources. See also Cert pool.

The granting of a writ does not necessarily mean that the Supreme Court disagrees with the decision of the lower court. Granting a writ of certiorari means merely that at least four of the Justices have determined that the circumstances described in the petition are sufficient to warrant review by the Court. Conversely, the Supreme Court's denial of a petition for a writ of certiorari is sometimes misunderstood to mean that the Supreme Court approves the decision of the lower court. Such a denial "imports no expression of opinion upon the merits of the case, as the bar has been told many times." Missouri v. Jenkins, 515 U.S. 70 (1995). In particular, a denial of a writ of certiorari means that no binding precedent is created by the denial itself, and that the lower court's decision is treated as mandatory authority only within the region of jurisdiction of that court.

Certiorari is sometimes informally referred to as cert, and cases warranting the Supreme Court's attention as certworthy. One situation where the Supreme Court sometimes grants a writ of certiorari is when the federal appeals courts in two (or more) federal judicial circuits have ruled different ways in similar situations, and the Supreme Court wants to resolve that "circuit split" about how the law is supposed to apply to that similar kind of situation. Issues of this type are often called "percolating issues."

Cert. granted sub nom is an abbreviation of the legal phrase "certiorari granted sub nomine", meaning "judicial review granted, under name", indicating that a petition for certiorari of a case has been granted, but that the court granting certiorari is hearing the case under a different name than the name under which the subordinate courts heard the case. For example, the case of District of Columbia v. Heller was known as Parker v. District of Columbia in the court below.

The response is due April 14.

Rubashkin's attorney is Nathan Lewin.

[Hat Tip: FGBA.]

Comments

[a reader]

talk about a waste of time/money/effort

[The Real Joe]

Hay Mr a reader- its not a wast of money, unlike you and me and most other people he happens to have a lot of supporters due to his long history of helping people, and now some of these people are returning the favor, weather or not this particular move will work in not relevant his supporters and legal defense fund want to try every and any maneuver that even has a small chance of working, I think we can all agree that the American justices system even though its the best in the world is still lacking in a lot of area's and this case shines the spotlight on many of these problems.

[ML]

The Real Joe: Which problems exactly?

[Nigritude Ultramarine]

due to his long history of helping people

It's easy to help people in the fashion of Robin Hood.

[FormerPostvillian]

I am not a lawyer, but what the hell??? Does this man not understand there is no question he is GUILTY!!!! He should have plea bargained to save his ass, not appeal to the supreme court.

The law does not care what a good person you are, it doesn't matter if your the Pope, if you break the law you have to pay the penalty!

I'm thinking he would have a better chance with a insanity plea!

[Bill]

"we can all agree that the American justice system ... is the best in the world" - Joe

Proof that "we all agree" to this?

Thanks!

[effie]

Small chance? More like no chance that the USSC will grant cert. So, yes, it is a waste of money.

[Isa]

NO, NO, NO
It is NOT a waste of money

Think of the fees that a Law Office will get, maybe someone will now be able to purchase that new car that they looking at.

[critical_minyan]

i was with nat lewin around the time rubashkin got busted. I asked him about it. the guy is basically clueless. If this is Rubashkin's legal strategy. he is basically fucked.

[Hometown Postville]

No matter how this turns out here on earth, God is biding His time until SMR stands before Him to beg for mercy on behalf of the vulnerable people he exploited and for the gross misuse of millions spent on his behalf. The country is close to bankruptcy, but there continues to be millions in private money floating around to fund causes such as this?? BTW, how much of what these "stellar" lawyers are making is going back to charity? A fine upstanding group, all the way around! They won't be able to take their fancy cars, boats, and hookers along when they die.

[chatz]

More exciting news from Monsey / New Square:

New Square's ex-clerk pleads guilty in $11.6 million scam
http://www.lohud.com/article/20103160353

Board OKs yeshiva at illegal Hasidic school "calf-slaughter" site
http://www.lohud.com/article/20103160333

Hat tip: me!

[Yisroel Pensack]

"What Rubashkin filed is a writ of certiorari:" WRONG!

What he (his attorney) filed is a petitition for a writ of certiorari, which is simply legalese for what ordinary people call an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

[Yisroel Pensack]

Make that a petition. Sorry for the typo. The point is that litigants do not file writs; they file petitions, which, like motions, are requests to the court.
Courts issue writs, if they so decide.

[Norm]

In general a petiioon for cert. is not field until the Court of Appeals has ruled denied releif.

This filing is unusual in that Lewin seeks to get Supreme Court review prior to a hearing by the Court of Appeals. I don't recall a case whtehre this has happened and I think (but am not sure) that even in the Bush v. Gore matters in 2000-a Petiion for Cert wasn't filed until the Court of appeals had ruled. It's very hard to get a Petioon fro Cert granted even after review by the Court of Appeals and its very doubtful the Court will grant his petiion now.

What's disappointign is that he Jewish Defense Groups liek AJC and ADL which do a good job of fighting anti-semtism from without have kept silent on Rubashkin who is the current main of anti-semitism.

It's also offensive to me that Rubashkin claims to be a victim of antisemistism whne he is a prime cause.

[chabadnik attorney]

Waste of money. Nat Lewin should be ashamed of himself.

[WoolSilkCotton]

The Supreme Court turns down the vast majority of applicants wanting to be heard.

This case is just more hasidic hubris. Let a mob of hasidic knuckleheads, wearing tallis and tefillin, marching around with women pushing baby strollers and children carrying signs, protesting in front of the Supreme Court building, just like the pro-gun and the anti-abortion groups do. There's always plenty of room on the sidewalk there for more nutjobs protesting their cause.

Meanwhile, ring ring ring goes the Lewin cash register, and the VIN and crownheights.info crowds get even more apoplectic with their appeals to God to rescue their beloved Meat Messiah Who Art in Prison.

[chabadnik attorney]

Hi WSC, I hope all is well with you. Pls email me at jlwesq2@yahoo.com

[Yisroel Pensack]

Norm: You are wrong. The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals already denied his motion for pre-sentencing bail on Jan. 8 and also denied his motion for a rehearing on Feb. 17. Just click on image above to enlarge it, and you'll see.

This U.S. Supreme Court proceeding is absurd, because he will probably be sentenced soon, and any other issues can await normal, post-sentencing appeal.

http://failedmessiah.typepad.com/failed_messiahcom/2010/02/court-wont-hear-rubashkin-bail-appeal-456.html

[state of disgust]

Given the judicial activism of the Robert's court, I wouldn't be surprised if Lewin got what he wanted here.

[yidandahalf]

Lewin is senile. I am glad that the Rubishclan have continued to place their faith and confidence in him.

[itchiemayer]

I am all for the Lubavitchers wasting their money on Rubashkin. It leaves less for their brainwashing activities. If all Lubavitchers were as reasonable as Chabadnik Attorney, I would have an entirely different opinion. I grew up in the 70's with enormous respect for Lubavitchers and the Rebbe, but their meshugas has undermined it all. As one ba'al teshuva Lubavitcher told me recently.."The Rebbe is dead, it is time to move on." I would say maybe at the most 10% of Lubavitchers would agree with that statement...maybe less.

[effie]

After he is sentenced, he is still pending appeal. Therefore, the issue of bail pending appeal is not moot. Not winnable, but not moot.

Lewin is not senile. He is doing what his client asked him to do.

[effie]

"Given the judicial activism of the Robert's court, I wouldn't be surprised if Lewin got what he wanted here. Posted by: state of disgust"

Are you on drugs? I can think of no other reason for you making such a statement.

[Yisroel Pensack]

effie (10:50 AM): The primary issue now is bail pending sentencing, which is what both the trial judge and the Circuit Court of Appeals denied. I don't think bail pending appeal can arise as an issue until he is sentenced.

[Raphael Kaufman]

Without commenting on the character of Mr. Rubashkin's offenses, I would point out that the federal fraud statute under which Mr. Rubashkin was charged and convicted is so extremely broad and so loosely defined that almost anyone in business could be charged with a violation.
There are currently three other cases before the Supreme Court arguing that the fraud statute be disallowed as "Void for Vagueness" and the Court is probably going to find their favor. In that case, since the Feds in their wisdom have dropped the Immigration charges, Mr. Rubashkin will be a free (albeit broke)man.

[amateur]

can someone explain, Yossi Rubashkin's business is apparently flourishing as his Tevye's ranch meat is sold all over Brooklyn and elsewhere. Mrs. Rubashkin senior still runs her restaurant on 13th Avenue (just try going in and asking free food...!!! What a ridiculous claim). Other family members seem to be running the 14th Avenue store. Brother-in-law the school principal reported to have 30 guests at every Shabbos meal. And yet Sholom needs tzedaka money for his defense. What is the real story? Are they destitute or successful business people?

[state of disgust]

"since the Feds in their wisdom have dropped the Immigration charges,"

I believe the Feds did not drop the charges and they can be reinstated at any time.

[Chaim from Monsey]

"More exciting news from Monsey / New Square:

New Square's ex-clerk pleads guilty in $11.6 million scam
http://www.lohud.com/article/20103160353

Board OKs yeshiva at illegal Hasidic school "calf-slaughter" site
http://www.lohud.com/article/20103160333

Hat tip: me!

Posted by: chatz | March 16, 2010 at 07:20 AM"

How come you forgot to post Nathan Rothschild's fraudulent activities? He could bring down an entire school system!

[OMG]

There are currently three other cases before the Supreme Court arguing that the fraud statute be disallowed as "Void for Vagueness" and the Court is probably going to find their favor. In that case, since the Feds in their wisdom have dropped the Immigration charges, Mr. Rubashkin will be a free (albeit broke) man.
Posted by: Raphael Kaufman | March 16, 2010 at 01:35 PM
Can you cite us atleast one of the three cases, were the suprems are lookin to strikedown bank fraud, if that is true we all should lineup and get all the money possible out of the banks. I just cannot wait, yeppe

[A E ANDERSON]

Rubashkin's doesn't make the cleanest case for overturning the various bank, wire and mail fraud statutes because it was fairly clearly established that he defrauded a bank by obtaining money (loan advances) with falsified documents, accounts and certifications, and incidentally used the media of mail and wire (fax) to do it.

Yes, he probably intended to repay the money, and there probably should be a lesser charge for mostly honest people who fib a bit, but are otherwise well intentioned.

Clearly, the wire and mail fraud statutes are overconstrued and overused, just like the feds today use "money laundering" as a broad-brush for nearly any illegal act connected with the exchange of money, no matter how remote the act may be from what Congress intended to punish.

I think it indisputable that the nation's justice system would do well by a judicial clean-up of vague, broad-brush statutes, that are more "tools for prosecutors" than they are proscriptions of specific acts.

[sage]

Rubashkin will win!