Prosecution Details Ugly Conditions In Agriprocessors' Plant
Sholom Rubashkin trial: Prosecution details ugly conditions in plant
BLOG POST BY JENS KROGSTAD • Des Moines Register
12:15 p.m., Waterloo, Ia. — Sholom Rubashkin had no way to know nor any reason to employ minors at his kosher meat plant, his defense attorney argued, while prosecutors said he occasionally walked down to the slaughterhouse floor and looked at the underage workers in the eye.
State prosecutors opened their case against the former Agriprocessors executive by flashing the picture of every underage worker on May 12, 2008, the day of an immigration raid.
They started with the smiling picture of Ana Lopez, taken before she started working at the plant at age 14, then cut to the picture taken by a federal agent. Her eyes half closed, she appeared exhausted, and her smile had vanished.
“Ana Lopez said she made face-to-face contact with him,” said assistant attorney general Laura Roan. “When she made eye contact, he’d divert his eyes and turn away.”
Defense attorney F. Montgomery Brown described the plant’s management as dysfunction and amateur, an inevitable by-product of a butcher and his rabbi sons running a $300 million business on a “holy” mission to deliver kosher food to Jews around the world.
Brown said Rubashkin took on a leadership role out of obligation after his father asked him to move to northeast Iowa.
He said a vast array of forces converged against Agriprocessors – everyone from the government, union organizers to the local Catholic church – making it impossible for the plant to keep any activities secret.
Plus, the Rubashkin family and its lawyers knew a raid was imminent. On May 8, 2008, company attorneys sent a letter to the federal government volunteering to cooperate with its investigation.
“I want you to think about this simple proposition. If he knew there were any minors in the plant, would not a reasonable person have told somebody to get them out of there before ICE arrived?” he said.
State prosecutors offered grizzly details of children sometimes coming to the plant after hearing about the jobs from other students at school.
They worked up to 16-hour days, sometimes the in the middle of the night, and always six days a week. Their oversized protective frocks caught on conveyer belts, dragging them down the kill line.
On the job, the children sliced beef carcasses in half with electric saws, and ripped the gizzards and pulled the feathers from chickens. Those in the sanitation department sometimes became sick with the flu from exposure to chlorine and bleach used to kill E.coli bacteria on the meat.
“This did not happen in a third-world country. It happened in Iowa. This man is guilty of the crimes charged because we say, “Not in Iowa. Not here,’” Roan said.
The first witnesses will take the stand this afternoon.
"... became sick with the flu from exposure to chlorine and bleach..."
Total and complete BS.
One doesn't acquire the influenza virus from chorine or bleach.
Posted by: Bill | May 10, 2010 at 12:58 PM
From the article, "Defense attorney F. Montgomery Brown described the plant’s management as dysfunction and amateur, an inevitable by-product of a butcher and his rabbi sons running a $300 million business on a “holy” mission to deliver kosher food to Jews around the world."
A "holy" mission? This kind of language only causes the anti-Semitism of which SMR's claque is accusing the prosecution in these cases. If you wrap SMR in his religion, that religion will come under attack.
Child labor violations are a bad enough chilul haShem. This kind of defense makes it even worse.
Posted by: Lawrence M. Reisman | May 10, 2010 at 01:25 PM
True coverage should by neutral not one sided.
Posted by: Omer | May 10, 2010 at 01:32 PM
If the USDA which on the production floor all day and partially at night and they work for the Govt never were able to tell that there was minors, then how would Sholom Rubashkin who employed over 900 employees and who is mostly upstairs in the office know they are minors?.
The feds already tried to smear Sholom Rubashkin that Agri was a place to make certain drugs such as cocaine and heroine, they tried Sex abuses they tried saying Agri ran a brothel, how many more lies are coming from the Fed's?.
Posted by: Dr Moe | May 10, 2010 at 01:35 PM
Omer, if you are looking for true coverage you should look elsewhere.
Posted by: Successful Messiah | May 10, 2010 at 01:37 PM
Seems like Rubashkin was a slave master.
Where were the parents of those minors? shouldn't child protective services come in the picture and take away the kids because they abused them by allowing them to work at the plant?
Wake up Jews please send funds to help out our brother in trouble
Posted by: Cheskel | May 10, 2010 at 01:37 PM
Idiot.
Again, you've been told this before and showed ample proof before.
1. The USDA does NOT supervise employment law.
2. The USDA was compromised under Bush and its enforcement was limited, as the agency's own comptroller found.
Posted by: Shmarya | May 10, 2010 at 01:38 PM
Shmarya,
The USDA are the people that are in the plant all day, they inspect the and place a print stamp on the Beef right after it is skinned, they are there ALL day, they occasionally will go in different parts of the plants to inspect other stuff, your the idiot.
Posted by: Dr Moe | May 10, 2010 at 01:45 PM
No they do not.
Moe, you are either a complete idiot or an inveterate liar.
Posted by: Shmarya | May 10, 2010 at 01:50 PM
Dr Moe,
Do you understand english?
"The USDA does NOT supervise employment law." Dont you understand that its not their job. Even though they are a government agency and they were in the plant more then SMR,still its not their job.Idiot,liar
Posted by: Cheskel | May 10, 2010 at 01:53 PM
That's right. They do not have the legal mandate. They had to contact OSHA and the US Department of Labor.
Labor is currently being investigated, I think, for a near complete lack of enforcement of law under President Bush.
OSHA is handled by the state and, as you can see from this trial, there was a process where the state tried to enforce and Rubashkin wouldn't let them in the plant and did not comply with their written requests for information.
Process that.
Posted by: Shmarya | May 10, 2010 at 01:59 PM
Cheske,
I know that USDA does not enforce employment law, however when you see a baby working on the belt at the plant they said nothing, this is what we know.
Posted by: Dr Moe | May 10, 2010 at 02:09 PM
I think you are confused by mandatory reoprting and mandate.
According to Iowa state law:
Professionals Required to Report
Citation: Ann. Stat. §§ 232.69; 728.14
The following persons are required to report:
Health practitioners
Social workers or psychologists
School employees, certified paraeducators, coaches, or instructors employed by community colleges
Employees or operators of health care facilities, child care centers, Head Start programs, family development and self-sufficiency grant programs, substance abuse programs or facilities, juvenile detention or juvenile shelter care facilities, foster care facilities, or mental health centers
Employees of Department of Human services institutions
Peace officers, counselors, or mental health professionals
Commercial film and photographic print processors
Reporting by Other Persons
Citation: Ann. Stat. § 232.69
Any other person who believes that a child has been abused may report.
If the USDA inspectors believed that child abuse was occuring (such as exposing children to dangerous chemicals and environment), they did not have to report, but they certainly could report.
Posted by: Dr. Dave | May 10, 2010 at 02:09 PM
I know that USDA does not enforce employment law, however when you see a baby working on the belt at the plant they said nothing, this is what we know.
No, Moe, You do N-O-T know that.
USDA inspectors would have reported to OSHA and the US Department of Labor.
Labor, as I noted above, was ineffective in the extreme under President Bush. Even so, they had an open ongoing investigation into Agriprocessors abuses at the time of the raid, and this was widely reported.
OSHA is handled by the state and, again, as you see from this trial, the state tried to enforce the law before the raid but Rubashkin refused to comply.
This trial is an outgrowth of that refusal.
Posted by: Shmarya | May 10, 2010 at 02:16 PM
Dr Moe,
I hope you understand i was sarcastic.
From what they accuse Rubashkin it almost sounds like a slave labor camp
Posted by: Cheskel | May 10, 2010 at 02:22 PM
From what they accuse Rubashkin it almost sounds like a slave labor camp.
Posted by: Cheskel | May 10, 2010 at 02:22 PM
BINGO!!!!! we all knew you would finally get the connection, congratulations!!!!!! you have seen the truth.........
Posted by: Concerned for the Postville Area... | May 10, 2010 at 02:58 PM
"BINGO!!!!! we all knew you would finally get the connection, congratulations!!!!!! you have seen the truth........."
And according to these witness one after another are saying their Dads and uncles who were currently employed at agri ENCOURAGED them to work at this plant.
Posted by: Dr Moe | May 10, 2010 at 03:13 PM
What is astonishing is that Rabbis who worked in the plant - many of whom have young children - didn't speak up about underage kids working there. They certainly knew what an underage child looks like. This is a complete and total moral failure and why many of us feel that ANY product coming out of that plant at that time was treif.
Posted by: state of disgust | May 10, 2010 at 03:14 PM
And according to these witness one after another are saying their Dads and uncles who were currently employed at agri ENCOURAGED them to work at this plant.
And how does that change the law?
If your father encourages you to rob a bank, are you therefore innocent if you rob it?
Posted by: Shmarya | May 10, 2010 at 03:14 PM
shmarya,
If my father worked in Aushwitz Labor Camp he would not encourage me to work in a labor camp and if my father worked at Agri and encouraged me to work at Agri part time and I didn't know better I would have worked at Agri and if I felt I was at anytime I was in danger working at Agri when I am 15 years old I would complain and not work there unlike these witness who did not complain, only after the church told them if they want food and other goodies they must speak out against Sholom Rubashkin
But shame on the USDA for shutting their mouths who where there more then the Rabbis.
Posted by: Dr Moe | May 10, 2010 at 03:32 PM
Moe –
You've finally proved it. Facts don't matter. The law doesn't matter. Reality doesn't matter.
You are a certifiable nutcase.
Posted by: Shmarya | May 10, 2010 at 03:36 PM
"But shame on the USDA for shutting their mouths who where there more then the Rabbis"
Wrong.
There were 60 - 70 rabbonim working at the plant. Only 7-8 USDA inspectors. Rabbonim were always present during processing, performing shechita, etc. The USDA had an office, would come out every once in a while to inspect and were not a constant presence.
Like I said, the real shanda is that these Rabbonim, whose parnassah came from Rubashkin kept there mouths shut.
Posted by: state of disgust | May 10, 2010 at 03:38 PM
"WEINHARDT : there were a lot of men a the plant who fit that description .. beards, head covering, dark clothes.
ORDONEZ: yes."
And you wonder why bail was denied AFTER conviction? Can you spell d-o-p-p--e-l-g-a-n-g-e-r?
Posted by: state of disgust | May 10, 2010 at 03:42 PM
Brilliant !!!!!!!!
Posted by: sage | May 10, 2010 at 04:48 PM
These people lied about their ages and produced credible identity documents in support of their lies!!!!
There is substantial evidence that Agriprocessors did discharge those whose documents were found to be false.
Why should Sholom Rubashkin have to go to jail because of these adolescents' lies and forgeries?
These irresponsible and law-breaking ex-workers should be paying for Rubashkin's legal defence and damages for all the demonstrable harm that their lies have done to him and his family.
Posted by: A E ANDERSON | Miami, Fla. | May 10, 2010 at 04:57 PM
It's a crying shame, that you are jumping to conclusions before ALL of the evidence is in.
When the trial is over, you should hang your head in shame, for posting the above comment.
Posted by: sage | May 10, 2010 at 05:55 PM
These people lied about their ages and produced credible identity documents in support of their lies!!!!
Posted by: A E ANDERSON | Miami, Fla. | May 10, 2010 at 04:57 PM
I guess everyone forgot that Rubashkin actually paid for some of those "credible identity documents."
Posted by: nachos | May 10, 2010 at 06:04 PM
This "holy mission" garbage is revolting. Sick. nauseating. AGRI was a FOR PROFIT business. The Rubashkins made DAMN GOOD MONEY from this business. CUT THE S**T about holy work baloney. They did it TO MAKE MONEY. Why else would you hire children and illegals> TO MAKE MORE PROFIT. It's always the dollars...
Posted by: Monseydude | May 10, 2010 at 06:43 PM
According to the tape of lawyer Cook at the dinner, Agri was a $300 Million business. Lines speeds at max, stab wounds, hook wounds, amputations, shorted paycecks. Real holy work.
Posted by: state of disgust | May 10, 2010 at 07:48 PM
One flaw in the prosecution in the federal case was that they they didn't bother to prove that SMR personally benefited from his crimes.
They didn't bother to do so, because personal benefit was not one of the elements of the crimes of which SMR was convicted.
However, this did leave an enormous public relations gap that SMR's people were quick to exploit.
The prosecution tried to plug this PR hole at sentencing showing all the ways that SMR personally benefited from his crimes - but it was too little and too late.
Posted by: Bill | May 10, 2010 at 08:10 PM
Lines speeds at max, stab wounds, hook wounds, amputations, shorted paycecks.
Was never convicted of your allegations in the United States of America.
Posted by: Dr Moe | May 10, 2010 at 08:41 PM
Lines speeds at max, stab wounds, hook wounds, amputations, shorted paycecks.
Was never convicted of your allegations in the United States of America.
Posted by: Dr Moe | May 10, 2010 at 08:41 PM
Dr. Moe :
Amputations definitely happened. In addition, what about people that paid for health insurance and the money was pocketed. One woman was in the middle of chemo. Doesn't that bother you a little?
Posted by: nachos | May 10, 2010 at 09:03 PM
Nachos, please stop bothering Dr. Moe with the facts.
We all see how liberal and open-minded Dr. Moe and the Rubashkin Amen Chorus are when it comes to taking advantage of the American system of law.
They are very quick to point out 'innocent until proven guilty', blah blah blah, and at the same time that very system of American law is tagged as unkosher, illegitimate, and antisemitic.
Only their Torah Law, upon which no civilized society has ever succeeded, is valid in their minds. The same Torah Law that calls for the death penalty for picking up sticks on the Sabbath Day, or for a son who eats too much meat and drinks too much wine, or for defying your husband.
It's really just a matter of what's convenient for them to get away with their sociopathic behaviors.
Posted by: WoolSilkCotton | May 10, 2010 at 09:16 PM
The same Torah Law that calls for the death penalty for picking up sticks on the Sabbath Day, or for a son who eats too much meat and drinks too much wine, or for defying your husband.
Posted by: WoolSilkCotton | May 10, 2010 at 09:16 PM
What's wrong with the death penalty for a woman that defies her husband....ow I just got hit with a frying pan!
Posted by: nachos | May 10, 2010 at 09:27 PM
The government's ridiculous claim that Rubashkin handed over cash to illegals so they could buy forged documents was never proven, in great part because the government dismissed those counts!
(Amazingly, even though it dismissed those charges and forwent the opportunity to prove the underlying claims, the government continually and sneakily reasserts these unproven "facts" at every opportunity.)
Let's try to grasp this picture: a company CEO personally running out to the ATM to take out cash, then personally handing it out to entry-level manual labourers so they can procure forged documents?! This is but one of the many unlikely scenarios that the feds alleged, and then welched on proving when the opportunity arose.
Indeed, except in the wild conspiracy theories from prosecutors, all the evidence points to Agriprocessors' dislike of any problem employees. They were happy, even eager, to dismiss anybody identified as underage or illegally working. And there are repeated instances where they asked authorities to identify such people so they could be dismissed.
That ICE wanted to use Agriprocessors as some sort of national example or test case for its controversial (and then problematic) E-Verify scheme seemed to have trumped the normal procedures for handling these kinds of situations.
Obviously, the identification and dismissal of illegal workers had to proceed cautiously and deliberately, so as not to ruin the business (which is exactly what the raid did). Agriprocessors hired outside experts to do just this, interface with ICE and other agencies. It remains a puzzlement why ICE (and state labour officials) preferred the drama and upheaval of a mass raid over a more sensible, deliberative process of helping the obviously troubled company come into regulatory compliance.
Posted by: A E ANDERSON | Miami, Fla. | May 10, 2010 at 10:45 PM
Anderson, your essays are exercises in hallucinogenic fantasy.
Has it occurred to you that the attorneys already presented your arguments over and over, and they have been resoundly rejected by judge and jury, and will be once again at the aptly-located Waterloo courthouse?
And yet you persist. As the late great Rick James said, "Cocaine is a powerful drug. Heh heh."
Posted by: WoolSilkCotton | May 11, 2010 at 06:55 AM
A E ANDERSON "Why should Sholom Rubashkin have to go to jail because of these adolescents' lies and forgeries?"
For the same reason there are laws protecting minors in this country. They are not mature enough to make certain judgements.... drinking, driving cars, getting married, having sex with adults, serving in the armed forces......
Posted by: Hometown Postville | May 11, 2010 at 06:57 AM
"grizzly" details? Were there bears in the plant,too? How were they treated? Forced to work long hours away from their native habitats?
Spelling, Shmarya, spelling...it's "grisly"...
Posted by: Heart of Stone | May 11, 2010 at 07:25 AM
Can any of you tell the age of a Latino or Latina who is 5ft 5 or shorter? I give you as an example minor league ballplayers and the Wrestler Rey Mysterio. Mysterio looks like he might be a teen by size but is in his 30's. So how is the USDA inspector or anyone else suppose to be able to tell.
Posted by: Friend of Northeast Iowa | May 11, 2010 at 01:04 PM
"On the job, the children sliced beef carcasses in half with electric saws, and ripped the gizzards and pulled the feathers from chickens. Those in the sanitation department sometimes became sick with the flu from exposure to chlorine and bleach used to kill E.coli bacteria on the meat."
"Bill" says this is BS. It isn't, and here's why:
While chlorine and bleach obviously don't contain the flu virus, what happens is that if you inhale chorine, or bleach, or hydrochloric acid, it'll irritate the lungs, and pave the way for a flu or pneumonia bug to infect you.
This is a common problem with people working with those chemicals, of any age.
Posted by: Mr. Apikoros | May 11, 2010 at 06:03 PM
++Friend of Northeast Iowa | May 11, 2010 at 01:04 PM++
If the worker is wearing a mask and cape, it is probably Rey Mysterio.
Otherwise, it is likely to be an underage worker.
Posted by: WoolSilkCotton | May 11, 2010 at 08:02 PM
Gizzards? Now I get it...what you meant to say, Shmarya, is that prosecutors offered GIZZARDLY details...
Posted by: Heart of Stone | May 11, 2010 at 09:14 PM