Rubashkin Escapes Conviction On Child Labor Charges Even Though Evidence Clearly Shows Crimes Committed

"There were not only wholesale violations of Iowa's child labor law. There was abundant evidence to support the claim that there was extortion, sexual abuse and forced labor committed against the population of workers at Agriprocessors."

Rubashkin is acquitted on all counts in child labor case

By JENS MANUEL KROGSTAD • Des Moines Register

Waterloo, Ia. - Former Agriprocessors Inc. executive Sholom Rubashkin was found not guilty Monday of all 67 misdemeanor child labor charges against him, a verdict his attorneys called an unprecedented legal upset.

Rubashkin smiled when the judge read the decision, and he slapped his lawyers on the back as they embraced.

"It's been a long-running American opera," defense attorney F. Montgomery Brown said outside the courthouse. "This act was written by a very courageous jury. This act can never be taken away from Sholom and his family - ever."

For 12 hours, the four-woman, three-man jury sifted through the testimony of dozens of people who had taken the stand during the five-week trial. The witnesses included 26 alleged child laborers and several former managers of the Postville plant.

State prosecutors alleged Rubashkin allowed minors to labor up to 90 hours per week, wield large powered saws and knives, and work around bleach and dry ice.

The defense argued that company policy and the firing of some minors reflected Rubashkin's desire to keep children from working at the plant and that minors had tricked the company with false documents.

Rubashkin's defense team repeatedly reminded the jury that the evidence had to show beyond a reasonable doubt that Rubashkin "intentionally, deliberately and knowingly" allowed children inside Agriprocessors, not just that they worked there.

Jury foreman Quentin Hart, a Waterloo city councilman, said the legal bar ultimately proved too high for the state. The evidence did not provide a clear line between Rubashkin and the alleged hiring of minors to work at the plant, he said.

The testimony of the young workers served as a key tipping point, he said. For weeks, fresh-faced Guatemalans and Mexicans told the jury that they had lied about their identities and had presented false documents to get jobs at the slaughterhouse.

"Each one of them indicated they didn't tell the truth, and indicated they knew they had to be over the age of 18 to get a job, so they acquired documentation from somewhere else," Hart said.

The case was unprecedented in the number of charges brought in a child labor case. In 2008, the state charged five company officials each with 9,311 child labor violations.

The state whittled the list to 83 charges in May, in part to make the cost and length of the trial more manageable. The judge dismissed another 16 counts last week when the state didn't bring five witnesses listed on the complaint to testify.

Many of those involved in the trial said that regardless of the jury's decision, the case served as a call to justice for the most vulnerable in society.

Hart emphatically stated that the case highlights the need for comprehensive immigration reform.

"It was a bad situation," he said. "We have a lot of people where we can't necessarily change what goes on in their countries. But we need to take a holistic look when looking at this challenge of immigration."

Sister Mary McCauley, who assisted many of the workers at St. Bridget's Catholic Church in Postville, called the case a "desperate cry" for immigration reform. She said the verdict made her heartsick, because "once again it is the little people that have been hurt."

"I think they were hurt at Agriprocessors, they were hurt by circumstances in their own country, and now they have been hurt by the verdict," she said.

Deputy Iowa Attorney General Thomas H. Miller said the humane treatment of workers in Iowa, regardless of their legal status, must be guarded because the laws of Iowa reflect the values of its people.

"There were not only wholesale violations of Iowa's child labor law," he said. "There was abundant evidence to support the claim that there was extortion, sexual abuse and forced labor committed against the population of workers at Agriprocessors."

After the verdict was read, District Associate Judge Nathan Callahan said the prosecution had served notice to employers across the state that child labor will not be tolerated. For that alone, he said the case was "worth every penny" the state spent.

"In my view, really, a clarion call from the trial is that in this day and age there is no excuse for having children in an occupation of this nature," he said.

Rubashkin's family called the decision a moral vindication for a man already facing sentencing June 22 for federal financial fraud.

The former executive's legal troubles started two years ago when federal immigration agents raided his family's slaughterhouse and arrested 389 workers.

Rubashkin faces a stiffer sentence for financial fraud, but his family, who are devout Hasidic Jews, said the heinous nature of the child labor charges carried greater moral weight.

"The seriousness of the crime, in a moral sense, was much stronger in this case," said his son, Getzel Rubashkin.

The jury's decision in the child labor trial bolsters Rubashkin's appeal on his financial fraud conviction, said Guy Cook, one of his attorneys.

Rubashkin's attorneys have argued that the judge in the financial fraud trial tainted the jury by allowing evidence that he hired illegal immigrants without allowing a vigorous defense of the allegations.

The Courier's story:

Jury foreman explains Rubashkin verdict
By JEFF REINITZ • Waterloo-Cedar Falls Courier

WATERLOO --- Considering the evidence in the state's child labor case against Sholom Rubashkin was no small task, according to the Waterloo City Council member who served as the jury's foreman.

"It's kind of tough to call because you want to make the right decision. But what we had to go on was the testimony, the materials given within the court case," said Quentin Hart said.

Rubashkin was charged with 67 counts of child labor violations in connection with underage workers at the Agriprocessors meatpacking plant.

Monday afternoon jurors acquitted him of all counts.

Jurors deliberated Friday and returned Monday morning. After ordering in lunch and taking a short break, they announced they had reached a decision at about 12:50 p.m.

In explaining the verdict, Hart noted that all 26 former underage workers who testified said they had submitted false paperwork that made it appear they were over age 18 when they applied. He also noted that company officials had hired underage workers it found in 2007.

"There never was any clear line of communication between Sholom about him knowing that the 26 on there were underage. That was a little challenging," Hart said.

He said the case showed a need to focus on immigration.

"We as a community, a state, a country need to take a look into those situations, because you have young people, older people in there seeking a better opportunity and having to hide who they are to maintain some type of citizenship," Hart said.

Deputy Attorney General Thomas H. Miller said it was a complicated case, but prosecuting it sent the message that child labor violations won't be tolerated.

"We're disappointed of course. We felt this was a fight that needed to be fought," Miller said.

Defense attorney F. Montgomery Brown called the jury "courageous" and said the verdict was an unprecedented upset writes "a wonderful new story for Sholom and his family. ... And that story is his being vindicated as a human being that did not want minors working in his father's plant."

The New York Times:

Former Manager of Iowa Slaughterhouse Is Acquitted of Labor Charges
By JULIA PRESTON • New York Times

The former manager of a kosher slaughterhouse in Iowa that was the site of a 2008 immigration raid was acquitted on Monday of criminal charges that he knowingly employed under-age workers at the plant.

Sholom Rubashkin, the former slaughterhouse manager, and a defense lawyer, Mark Weinhardt, after hearing the verdict.

After a five-week trial in state court in Waterloo, Iowa, the jury rejected prosecutors’ arguments that the manager, Sholom Rubashkin, had seen many warning signs that child laborers were working on production lines at the Agriprocessors plant. The jury, after about 12 hours of deliberations, found Mr. Rubashkin not guilty of all 67 charges of child labor violations.

“The key was whether the state had evidence that Mr. Rubashkin actually knew that minors were working in the plant and willfully permitted that condition to exist,” said Mark Weinhardt, a defense lawyer. “The state simply did not have evidence to prove that.”

The verdict brought rare good news for Mr. Rubashkin since the raid at the plant in Postville on May 12, 2008, when federal agents arrested 389 illegal immigrants, most from Guatemala. The operation became an emblem of the high-profile immigration enforcement strategy under President George W. Bush.

In November, Mr. Rubashkin was convicted in federal court in Iowa of 86 counts of bank fraud in connection with loans to Agriprocessors. Federal prosecutors are seeking a 25-year sentence on those charges. Sentencing is scheduled for June 22.

Iowa’s child labor case was the only criminal action against Mr. Rubashkin arising from the large number of illegal immigrants who were employed at the plant. After winning the financial fraud conviction, federal prosecutors dismissed all immigration-related charges against him.

The trial testimony left no doubt that at least 29 under-age laborers, and probably many more, were working on the slaughter and packing lines at the Agriprocessors plant. Nilda Nuritza Rucal testified that she was put to work without training on the day she was hired, taking feathers off chickens with sharp scissors. She said she was 15 at the time.

Another immigrant, Elmer Isaías López Marroquín, testified that a human resources manager at the plant instructed him to lie about his age to state inspectors. He said he was 16 when he started to work on the plant’s killing floors.

When they were hired, the under-age workers presented false documents showing they were at least 18, the legal age to work in production areas of Iowa slaughterhouses, according to testimony.

The jury foreman, Quentin Hart, a Waterloo councilman, said after the trial that the jurors doubted the young immigrants’ credibility. “Each one of them indicated they didn’t tell the truth and indicated they knew they had to be over the age of 18 to get a job, so they acquired documentation from somewhere,” Mr. Hart said, according to The Associated Press.

Thomas H. Miller, the Iowa deputy attorney general in charge of the criminal bureau, said prosecutors were disappointed with the verdict. “When we had this many minors working on a slaughterhouse floor, we felt this was a fight that needed to be fought,” he said.

F. Montgomery Brown, another defense lawyer, said of the acquittal, “This is a vindication by a courageous jury that Sholom is not the kind of man who would want minors working” in the plant.

The end of the case is likely to be bitter for many of the 29 young immigrants who agreed to testify in the state trial, including seven who were flown back from Guatemala by prosecutors. While a handful of them received special United States visas for victims of abuse, most had temporary immigration status that expires now that the trial is over.

Was there ample evidence of extortion, sexual abuse and other crimes committed against Agriprocessors undocumented workers, as Iowa's Deputy Attorney General told the Des Moines Register yesterday?

Yes, there was.

But the State of Iowa did not charge Agriprocessors or any of its executives, supervisors or employees with those crimes.

Why?

The same reason it would not call witnesses who spoke to Rubashkin about the child laborers in Agriprocessors: money.

As I noted yesterday, the state tried to do this prosecution on the cheap, and that decision is what allowed Rubashkin to skate.

Comments

[JFinNE]

The skanky, misleading headline has nothing remotely to do with the content of the article. Sholom Rubashkin did not, as the headline suggests, "skate."

[Shmarya]

The skanky, misleading headline has nothing remotely to do with the content of the article. Sholom Rubashkin did not, as the headline suggests, "skate."

I changed it to "escapes conviction," even though "skates" is also proper usage.

I hope this helps you come to grips with the evidence that clearly shows that multiple crimes were committed by Agriprocessors supervisors, managers and, yes, even its Vice Presidents and its owner.

[Dr. Moe]

Innocent till proven guilty, Sholom Rubashkin is %100 innocent, the church who tried to get the "dirty Jew" should appologize aswell as rabbi Morris Allen.

[Ber]

Shmarya,

you are such a sorry plight. you are so hurt by the fact that Rubashkin was found innocent.

even animals have more feelings than you.

it is very cowardliness to now start giving excuses for why they found him not guilty.

i am sure that if you happened to be on the jury, you would have found him guilty on ALL the charges, and if you would then be the judge, you would have sentenced him to the Maximum.

Then you would make sure that there is no room for appeal, and he gets locked up right away, because you would consider him a flight risk. I mean, he is a Jew, and might therefore flee to Israel.

Oh, and finally, since you are so kind hearted, and have nothing against him, and you are only following the law and doing what is right for the country, you will make sure that he will be able to have his wife visit once a month for conjugal visits.

summary:
you are delusional, angry, mentally unstable, financially unstable, and should go seek help, instead of constantly preaching to others things which you don't practice yourself.

[Shmarya]

Innocent till proven guilty, Sholom Rubashkin is %100 innocent, the church who tried to get the "dirty Jew" should appologize aswell as rabbi Morris Allen.

Idiot.

As several people explained yesterday, Rubashkin was NOT found "100% innocent." He was found not guilty.

The state needed to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. It did not do that.

But it did present ample evidence – evidence Rubashkin did not refute – that minors worked in the plant and that those minors and other undocumented workers were extorted and sexually harassed by Agriprocessors supervisors and managers.

The issue is whether Rubashkin knew any of this was going on.

And, again, a large part of Rubashkin's defense was that his brother Heshy was responsible for HR and production.

I realize that an Ohelei Torah education doesn't do much for a person's ability to reason or even think, but it is about time you recognized that you are, to say the least, a very ignorant, foolish person.

[former charedi]

The skanky, misleading headline has nothing remotely to do with the content of the article. Sholom Rubashkin did not, as the headline suggests, "skate."

Agreed. I've gotten used to it. When the USDA fines the slaughterhouse, it is "obvious" proof of the heartlessness of Rubashkin. Hey, it's a government agency here.

But when a court of law acquits Rubashkin after the prosecution pares the case down to their strongest 67 counts, then the prosecution didn't put enough money into it! Ha! They buried Rubashkin in paperwork and, had he not gotten together money and talented attorneys, he would have been too overwhelmed to even defend himself, which is obviously what they hoped.

Then these political prosecutors turn it around as a victory anyway, because the rest of Iowa is now on notice! Thugs. And they're tacitly admitting that child labor happens all over Iowa, and is not a Rubashkin issue.

Yes, this blog is hosted by someone who hates the Lubavitchers. That's clear.

[Dr. Moe]

Shmarya,

Lol we are happy you are depressed on the jury decision now you blame it on oholei Torah school :) HAHAHA

Mix out heshy or the Lubavitcher rebbe they were never charged or convincted.

[Dr. Moe]

And yes who cares what your gang points out :) sholom rubashkin is inocent till proven guilty, all you can do is call me and the jury idiot and the jury went to oholie Torah :)

[Shmarya]

Shmarya,

you are such a sorry plight. you are so hurt by the fact that Rubashkin was found innocent.

even animals have more feelings than you.

it is very cowardliness to now start giving excuses for why they found him not guilty.

Lets see:

1. Yesterday I noted there were uncalled witnesses who could testify to Rubashkin's knowledge of children working in his plant.

2. Yesterday I also noted that the state did not call these witnesses in part because of the cost involved in bringing them to Waterloo.

3. Today, the Des Moines Register reported that more than 9000 of the child labor counts were dropped by the state, not because it lacked evidence to support them but because it was unwilling to spend the money to prosecute them.

4. But you accuse me of "making excuses" for why Rubashkin was found not guilty?

Please.

The trial proved the following:

1. At least 20 children worked at Agriprocessors (evidence is that number is really much higher).

2. There were widespread abuses at the plant.

3. Sholom Rubashkin did not pay attention to those problems or try to fix them.

Process that.

[Shmarya]

Mix out heshy or the Lubavitcher rebbe they were never charged or convincted.

Sholom Rubashkin's defense was predicated on the idea Heshy was the person HR reported to, and therefore it was Heshy's fault minors worked at Agriprocessors.

Process that.

[Dr. Moe]

Heshy or oholie Torah were never charged or convicted by a court of law in the United States or by the state of Iowa.

[former charedi]

The trial proved the following:

1. At least 20 children worked at Agriprocessors (evidence is that number is really much higher).

2. There were widespread abuses at the plant.

3. Sholom Rubashkin did not pay attention to those problems or try to fix them.

Process that.

Processing...

The law is that if people come to work for you with phony ID, you are not obligated as an employer to check them out. This is true from an immigration perspective and from an age perspective.

So if the law is screwed up (which I think it is not), even if they were minors, Rubashkin did not break the law.

So he is innocent, if not an innocent. He doesn't have to run his business like Ben and Jerry's. Just to follow the law.

[Dr. Moe]

Shmarya,

no one has to argue with you on the facts of this case, the facts and testimony were already presented to a jury and they said not guilty. You and Morris Allan are a nothing.

And now you are the only one that knows of some invisible witness that no one knows about :)

[Shmarya]

The law is that if people come to work for you with phony ID, you are not obligated as an employer to check them out. This is true from an immigration perspective and from an age perspective.

No it is not.

So if the law is screwed up (which I think it is not), even if they were minors, Rubashkin did not break the law.

Really?

I hate to burst your bubble, but if an employer doesn't respond to no match letters from the feds, and those no match letters are for employees who are underage, the employer is in fact guilty.

That is exactly what Rubashkin did.

But the judge would not allow the prosecution to bring into evidence Rubashkin's behavior vis a vis the no match letters.

In federal court that evidence would have been admissible.

So he is innocent, if not an innocent. He doesn't have to run his business like Ben and Jerry's. Just to follow the law.

Rubashkin's own attorneys admitted that Agriprocessors violated the law. But they claimed Heshy did it or HR did it and that Sholom did not know it was happening.

In other words, the crimes were committed.

[Jose Gonzalez]

The following definition comes from Merriam-Webster

: in·no·cent

1 c : free from legal guilt or fault; also : lawful

Rabbi Sholom Rubashkin is 100% innocent.

[Shmarya]

The following definition comes from Merriam-Webster

: in·no·cent

1 c : free from legal guilt or fault; also : lawful

Please.

Rubashkin was NOT found innocent; he was found NOT GUILTY.

[Jose Gonzalez]

You can write whatever you want, but the fact is that according to the definition of the word innocent by Merriam-Webster, he is innocent.
Anything other interpretations of the words not guilty are personal opinions and not facts. The man is innocent according to the US law. This is a fact!

[Moshe]

You bunch of “idiots”! Don’t you understand, Shmarya is smarter and knows more (info about this tiral and law in general) then the Jury, the Iowa prosecutors and the judge. If they would have only listed to his advice (and spent an exuberant/endless amount of $$$ like federal government did) Rubashkin would have clearly been convicted on all charges!
Shmarya, since you are so smart, I wonder why you spend all your days blogging with your gang of 5 or 8 and not working as a state or federal prosecutor, or at least as a consultant for them? You would make a lot more $$$.
Meanwhile, in this real world, we have the words of the Jury foreman Quentin Hart, a Waterloo city councilman revealed the reasoning for the jury’s acquittal (don’t mix issues with the facts…): “The evidence did not provide a clear line between Rubashkin and the alleged hiring of minors to work at the plant, he said.
“The testimony of the young workers served as a key tipping point, he said. For weeks, fresh-faced Guatemalans and Mexicans told the jury that they had lied about their identities and had presented false documents to get jobs at the slaughterhouse.
"Each one of them indicated they didn't tell the truth, and indicated they knew they had to be over the age of 18 to get a job, so they acquired documentation from somewhere else," Hart said.”
In another article: “In explaining the verdict, Hart noted that all 26 former underage workers who testified said they had submitted false paperwork that made it appear they were over age 18 when they applied. He also noted that company officials had hired underage workers it found in 2007.
“"There never was any clear line of communication between Sholom about him knowing that the 26 on there were underage. That was a little challenging," Hart said.”

[Shmarya]

You can write whatever you want, but the fact is that according to the definition of the word innocent by Merriam-Webster, he is innocent.
Anything other interpretations of the words not guilty are personal opinions and not facts. The man is innocent according to the US law. This is a fact!

No. You're wrong.

Rubashkin was found not guilty, which means not culpable.

It does not mean innocent.

[Shmarya]

Meanwhile, in this real world, we have the words of the Jury foreman Quentin Hart, a Waterloo city councilman revealed the reasoning for the jury’s acquittal

I cited what Hart said several times already and pointed out the witnesses the state chose not to call could have given jury the direct link to Rubashkin they were looking for.

[former charedi]

I hate to burst your bubble, but if an employer doesn't respond to no match letters from the feds, and those no match letters are for employees who are underage, the employer is in fact guilty.

Nonsense. No match letters state that the social security number doesn't match the name. What is done after that is not as cut and tried. Even at this point, the AFL/CIO is arguing it, and prosecution on a law whose legality swings back and forth as it does is considered a grave risk, since any guilty pleas might be overturned at a later date.

http://www.laboremploymentlawblog.com/cat-no-match-letters.html

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:T9DFfWFCEVkJ:www.dhs.gov/ynews/releases/pr_1247063976814.shtm+federal+no+match+letter&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

But the judge would not allow the prosecution to bring into evidence Rubashkin's behavior vis a vis the no match letters.

And for good reason. The judge knows the law.

[Jose Gonzalez]

Do not be emotional.

The truth be said; according to the principle of Presumption of Innocence of the US Law, a man is innocent until proven guilty. Hence, using logic, it is concluded that Rabbi Sholom Rubashkin is INNOCENT.

If you cannot follow this simple logical argument, don't preach to me about intelligence.

[Shmarya]

Nonsense. No match letters state that the social security number doesn't match the name. What is done after that is not as cut and tried. Even at this point, the AFL/CIO is arguing it, and prosecution on a law whose legality swings back and forth as it does is considered a grave risk, since any guilty pleas might be overturned at a later date.

Please.

1. Rubashkin got HUNDREDS of no match letters and he did not respond to them.

2. That means fake IDs were in wide use at Agriprocessors and Rubashkin knew it.

3. Rubashkin knew of two or three child workers who were fired, and he knew each had presented fake green cards.

4. Those points – and the fact that Agriprocessors did not ask these child workers for state driver's licenses for identification purposes – show Rubashkin knew he had a huge number of illegal workers and that some of those illegals were minors.

5. Even though he knew this, Rubashkin did not put into place procedures to weed out child workers or undocumented workers.

6. And this proves Rubashkin knew.

7. And, guess what! Even if the law is eventually changed, it would not provide grounds for appeal.

8. Why? Because the convictions would not have been for hiring undocumented workers. The convictions would have been for hiring minors, and the evidence from the no match letters would stand.

[Shmarya]

The truth be said; according to the principle of Presumption of Innocence of the US Law, a man is innocent until proven guilty. Hence, using logic, it is concluded that Rabbi Sholom Rubashkin is INNOCENT.

The presumption of innocence means a person cannot be punished for a crime until he is convicted. It does not mean that an acquittal is equivalent to innocence.

That is why a jury finds a person not guilty rather than innocent.

Not guilty means the state did not prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt – no more and no less.

[Shmarya]

The truth be said; according to the principle of Presumption of Innocence of the US Law, a man is innocent until proven guilty. Hence, using logic, it is concluded that Rabbi Sholom Rubashkin is INNOCENT.

Perhaps the legal definition of innocent until proven guilty will help you and your Chabad friends understand:
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Innocent+until+proven+guilty

presumption of innocence
(redirected from Innocent until proven guilty)

A principle that requires the government to prove the guilt of a criminal defendant and relieves the defendant of any burden to prove his or her innocence.

The presumption of innocence, an ancient tenet of Criminal Law, is actually a misnomer. According to the U.S. Supreme Court, the presumption of the innocence of a criminal defendant is best described as an assumption of innocence that is indulged in the absence of contrary evidence (Taylor v. Kentucky, 436 U.S. 478, 98 S. Ct. 1930, 56 L. Ed. 2d 468 [1978]). It is not considered evidence of the defendant's innocence, and it does not require that a mandatory inference favorable to the defendant be drawn from any facts in evidence.

In practice the presumption of innocence is animated by the requirement that the government prove the charges against the defendant Beyond a Reasonable Doubt. This due process requirement, a fundamental tenet of criminal law, is contained in statutes and judicial opinions. The requirement that a person suspected of a crime be presumed innocent also is mandated in statutes and court opinions. The two principles go together, but they can be separated.

The Supreme Court has ruled that, under some circumstances, a court should issue jury instructions on the presumption of innocence in addition to instructions on the requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt (Taylor v. Kentucky). A presumption of innocence instruction may be required if the jury is in danger of convicting the defendant on the basis of extraneous considerations rather than the facts of the case.

The presumption of innocence principle supports the practice of releasing criminal defendants from jail prior to trial. However, the government may detain some criminal defendants without bail through the end of trial. The Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states that excessive bail shall not be required, but it is widely accepted that governments have the right to detain through trial a defendant of a serious crime who is a flight risk or poses a danger to the public. In such cases the presumption of innocence is largely theoretical.

Aside from the related requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, the presumption of innocence is largely symbolic. The reality is that no defendant would face trial unless somebody—the crime victim, the prosecutor, a police officer—believed that the defendant was guilty of a crime. After the government has presented enough evidence to constitute Probable Cause to believe that the defendant has committed a crime, the accused need not be treated as if he or she was innocent of a crime, and the defendant may be jailed with the approval of the court.

Nevertheless, the presumption of innocence is essential to the criminal process. The mere mention of the phrase presumed innocent keeps judges and juries focused on the ultimate issue at hand in a criminal case: whether the prosecution has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the alleged acts. The people of the United States have rejected the alternative to a presumption of innocence—a presumption of guilt—as being inquisitorial and contrary to the principles of a free society.

[Dr. Dave]

Wow. These comments sound like those that would be heard at a Tea Party / Acorn get together honoring Obama and Palin.

Everyone talking at each other from their firmly held points of view, interpreting the facts in polar opposite manners.

As I feel myself to be both a dispassionate and disinterested party, I would offer the following observations.

1. Mr. Rubashkin was found not guilty in the State of Iowa prosecution. The state failed to prove their case.
Monday morning quarterbacking is fruitless. If only they had called this witness, if only they had chosen that prosecutorial tack. Fruitless.

2. Mr. Rubashkin was found guilty in the Federal prosecution.
In my opinion he is more guilty of incompetence rather than nefarious intent (I'm not sure he is smart or sly enough) but I hope he receives a sentence geared toward restitution rather than retribution.

[lst]

You lost Shmarya. you losttt!!!!!!!!!!!
looser!!!!!!
the greater halachike crime is this web site
you lost!

[Dr. Dave]

Case in point!

[former charedi]

Please.
1...
2...
3...
...
8...

Doesn't sound like a legal argument to me, and I guess the judge concurs. It would have been amusing to hear you argue those points in front of the judge.

And if that doesn't get you riled enough, how about this:

It is clear that Rubashkin did not break the law in this case, and that the prosecutor used the overwhelming resources of the state in an attempt to overwhelm him.

But what about the moral issues?

Well, child labor laws are in existence to protect children from being exploited by adults. These minors worked in factories, providing themselves and their families back home with a greatly improved standard of living. In some cases, it seems, allowing their families to live.

Grueling work, truancy from school? Yes, for American children. But better than the alternative for these "minors". Look what happened to their home towns after the raid. Abject poverty.

And these minors weren't five years old, either. In countries mired in poverty, those considered minors in the US have already spent years working under harsher conditions when they can. So were these "children" exploited? Not in my opinion.

Taking away their only means of sustenance damaged them far more, again IMO.

Which then left them open to deals encouraging them to lie in return for US residence permits...

[Shmarya]

Doesn't sound like a legal argument to me, and I guess the judge concurs.

It is a legal argument.

As for the judge, you'll have to ask him why this evidence was excluded.

All he said that I know of is that we're only try the child labor case, not an immigration case, so immigration evidence isn't admissible.

Perhaps the prosecution failed to present the no match letters in their proper context.

[former charedi]

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Innocent+until+proven+guilty

I don't understand how you can take a complete definition from another site, the same way you reprint complete online newspaper articles, and post them. My lawyer told me that I can't do that when I post due to copyright infringement laws. That's why I post links or just a sentence or two of content.

Is there some secret here I'm missing?

[Shmarya]

Is there some secret here I'm missing?

Yes.

1. These newspapers take a tremendous amount of source material from me.

2. They also don't keep their links. I just clicked on two Des Moines Register links from 2009. Both articles missing from the Register's website. This is true for many newspapers.

3. Fair Use.

4. I attribute every article I use and provide a hard link (even though that link will eventually be broken by the newspaper).

5. Kind of fun the way you changed the subject once I posted the legal definition of innocent until proven guilty. It's hard to confront the facts, isn't it?

[Successful Messiah]

"Was there ample evidence of extortion, sexual abuse and other crimes committed against Agriprocessors undocumented workers, as Iowa's Deputy Attorney General told the Des Moines Register yesterday?

Yes, there was."

There was no one iota of evidence that Agriprocessors engaged or even allowed sexual abuse or extortion. There is evidence that a certain employee at Agriprocessors engaged in sexual abuse, but no evidence that management sanctioned, new or should have known of that.

"As I noted yesterday, the state tried to do this prosecution on the cheap, and that decision is what allowed Rubashkin to skate."

Like any other prosecutor, they may have done a cost benefit analysis as to what it takes to bring each claim. Once they did that analysis they then picked the charges that they had the best evidence that they thought was most likely to stick. They failed even on those, but you would like to stick your dreams that had the prosecution brought other claims over which they had much weaker evidence they would have prevailed.

"Rubashkin's own attorneys admitted that Agriprocessors violated the law. But they claimed Heshy did it or HR did it and that Sholom did not know it was happening."

Wrong. Rubashkin's attorneys denied that Agriprocessors violated any child labor law. They also raised as a component of their defense, that to the extent labor laws were violated and certain members of management were culpable that Sholom was not the right target. I know it is difficult for you to grasp this simple concept, but if you try hard you may succeed.

"Rubashkin got HUNDREDS of no match letters and he did not respond to them."

Wrong. To the extent the applicable employees were still employed by Agriprocessors at that time (which often was not the case due, in part, to the length of time it takes the IRS to return a no match letter) that employee was fired.

"That means fake IDs were in wide use at Agriprocessors and Rubashkin knew it."

Everyone new it, from Rubashkin, to the Feds to the State of Iowa to the Town of Postville. Everyone new that Postville had a large immigrant population, including many illegals and that the illegals would go to great lengths to obtain false documentation. Agriprocessors job was not to enforce the immigration laws but to comply with the laws as applicable to it - namely not to knowingly hire illegal immigrants or minors. Virtually every expert in immigration laws will tell you that a company is obligated to obtain documentation that on its face looked legitimate and to promptly respond to any no match letters received. Agriprocessors was never required to play detective to try to figure out whose documents were accurate and whose were not.

"and the fact that Agriprocessors did not ask these child workers for state driver's licenses for identification purposes"

That is a BS argument. First of all many immigrants do not have drivers license. Second of all, those that were getting fake IDs could just as easily get fake drivers licenses. In short, the only workers you would net by screening for drivers licenses would be those that were legal and didn't get fake ids but didn't have a driver's license.

[effie]

"If you cannot follow this simple logical argument, don't preach to me about intelligence. Posted by: Jose Gonzalez "

Oh, shut up already. I'm sick of you and others bastardizing legal terms of arts. He was found not guilty. That means that the jury did not find evidence beyond a reasonable doubt of each element of each charge. It is an extremely high burden for the prosecution to meet.

As for the presumption of innocence, it only applies inside a courtroom. If you are not a potential or sitting juror, you don't have to pretend.

Rubashkin knew damn well minors were working illegally in the plant and he didn't give a damn. He didn't care if they got hurt. He's scum.

Enjoy your phony victory because in two weeks he's going to be in a world of hurt.

[Shmarya]

Wrong. To the extent the applicable employees were still employed by Agriprocessors at that time (which often was not the case due, in part, to the length of time it takes the IRS to return a no match letter) that employee was fired.

Please.

1. Agriprocessors got hundreds of no match letters and did not reply to the vast majority of them. It also did not fire these employees.

2. That means Agriprocessors knew it had many illegal workers.

3. It also means Agriprocessors knew the illegals used fake documentation.

4. Rubashkin's attorneys called witnesses who testified that when two or three workers were exposed as minors, they were fired.

5. This means Agriprocessors fully understood that there could easily be many other minors in the plant (no match letter, etc.).

6. Sholom Rubashkin got the no match latters.

7. Therefore, he should have known all green cards were suspect and that some of the workers using those suspect green cards could be minors.

8. But Sholom Rubashkin did not take any steps to weed out minors (or illegals) or prevent their hire.

9. That makes Rubashkin culpable.

[chabadnik attorney]

Bottom line is that Rubashkin has never been proven guilty in a court of law on any of the original reasons or justifications for the harsh raid on hois plant that destroyed his life, the lives of hard working immigrants and a local economy.

If Agri was a Palestinian peace Flotilla the UN would would calling for an international investigation into the raid.

[former charedi]

5. Kind of fun the way you changed the subject once I posted the legal definition of innocent until proven guilty. It's hard to confront the facts, isn't it?

That was not a thread in which I was involved and I find that whole subject off topic.

It might have been on topic before the trial, or even during the trial had someone tried to prove one charge by declaring Rubashkin "obviously" guilty of another unproven charge.

But to bring up presumed innocence after a defendant is acquitted? As you so aptly put it, "Please".

Not everyone who disagrees with you on this thread is on the same "team". There are just so many objections to your point of view, some inclusive and some mutually exclusive.

[Shmarya]

Bottom line is that Rubashkin has never been proven guilty in a court of law on any of the original reasons or justifications for the harsh raid on hois plant that destroyed his life, the lives of hard working immigrants and a local economy.

If Agri was a Palestinian peace Flotilla the UN would would calling for an international investigation into the raid.

Please.

You know damn well the feds conditionally dropped the immigration charges because convictions would not significantly increase Rubashkin's sentence.

That is not the same thing legally or morally as saying "Rubashkin has never been proven guilty in a court of law on any of the original reasons or justifications for the harsh raid on hois plant."

Past the obvious, you of all people should know the preponderance of evidence is against Rubashkin.

And you should also know that Rubashkin admitted many of the crimes happened. He just blames them on other people – his brother, his father, his HR people, etc.

[Shmarya]

But to bring up presumed innocence after a defendant is acquitted? As you so aptly put it, "Please".

I didn't bring it up, 'Jose Gonzalez' did.

All I did was show him he doesn't know what the term means – and, it seems, neither do you.

[chabadnik attorney]

Just saying that I think, and I could be totally wrong, that this makes the Fed govt's handling of the matter look bad. They treated Agri like it was the Wako Texas of human rights and immigration violations. The feds I believe brought the fraud charges first because the immigration case would have been expensive, time consuming, difficult and uncertain. The fraud charges were simple. The acquittals in this case I believe lend credence to that theory.

[chabadnik attorney]

Otherwise yes I agree.

[Shmarya]

The feds I believe brought the fraud charges first because the immigration case would have been expensive, time consuming, difficult and uncertain. The fraud charges were simple. The acquittals in this case I believe lend credence to that theory.

No.

Rubashkin petitioned to separate the fraud charges from the immigration charges because his attorneys felt the immigration charges would prejudice the fraud charges, and the fraud charges carry a much longer prison sentence.

That's why there was two trials, and that is why the fraud charges were tried first.

[Not Shameful Shmarya]

Sister Mary McCauley, who assisted many of the workers at St. Bridget's Catholic Church in Postville.. said the verdict made her heartsick

b"H. Kein Yoivdu kol oyvecho.

[Isa]

The prosecution screwed up

Usually they get some person in the know to point the finger and say " he is the mastermind"

Why they didn't get Billingmeyer up and the stand [with immunity] I don't know...

Maybe the Rubashkin clan promised her a job after her sentence otherwise she is pretty much unemployable.

Maybe they is much winking (wink) with no clear or direct speech (or is hired to KNOW what to do)

Then maybe they are bunch of incompetents who never had to face REAL lawyers before

[chabadnik attorney]

Gotcha, Thanks

[Comment at DMR]

I've seen this canard (the defense blamed Heshy) being pushed online. It's simply a falsehood.

The defense was based on the fact that Sholom did not know that minors were employed, and supported firing them when discovered, and that was the basis for the jury's finding.

The ONLY ways Heshy came into any of this was
A) The defense challenged the minors testimony that they saw Sholom by suggesting he may have been confused with Heshy.
B) The defense underlined the fact that this was a targeted attempt to convict Sholom without any concern for the truth by pointing out that if it was really the state's assertion that he must have noticed the minors on the floor they would have charged people involved in and present at production.

Yes, Heshy is in that group, but it was in no way accusing Heshy of knowingly hiring minors at all - it was evidence of a witch-hunt against Sholom.

Hatred distorts fact.

[Shmarya]

Please.

Defense witnesses testified that Heshy, not Sholom, had responsibility for HR, and Rubashkin's attorneys used this to create reasonable doubt.

[Comment at DMR]

++Defense witnesses testified that Heshy, not Sholom, had responsibility for HR, and Rubashkin's attorneys used this to create reasonable doubt. ++

Not entirely true. Norris, a witness for the defense testified that HR reported to Sholom.

False on significance to the defense. To take this one fact out of its context (proof that Sholom was a illogically and unjustly targeted) is just your attempt at spinning a verdict contrary to your narrative.

Past that (to coin a phrase), this case was defended and won on the "willful" element, and at no point did ANYONE on the defense assert that Heshy willfully employed minors.

Their defense of Sholom is equally valid for Heshy. Nothing they said is remotely akin to blame. Nothing they said would lead a rational person to conclude they were accusing him of a crime.

[Successful Messiah]

Scotty, once again you have proven that you are prepared to blatantly lie and distort the truth if the result is a message that you like better.

[Vindicated]

I just counted 30 comments that disagree with the twisted logic of this blog's owner, compared to one(effie) who agree with him? Interesting!

[Mr. Apikoros]

Here's the bottom line:

1. SMR was found innocent in a court of law. That doesn't mean I believe he's innocent, just that the State of Iowa couldn't prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

2. Shmarya is a crybaby. Beyond a reasonable doubt.

[harold]

The prosecution screwed up

or maybe it was that the defense did their job!

Please.

Rubashkin was NOT found innocent; he was found NOT GUILTY.

True, but that is how our system works. I don't think someone is FOUND innocent - one is PRESUMED to be innocent UNLESS found to be guilty.

[Josh]

You make a series of assumptions, yet you do not provide any evidence of your claims. For example, you state in your comments here that the state tried to do this prosecution on the cheap. No proof given, but you link it to another article where you assert the same claim. Quoting yourself does not prove your point. What law school did you attend? But this has nothing to do with schooling, rather upbringing. I hope your mom is doing well and why not try to give her a bit of nachas in the evening of her life.

[Successful Messiah]

"Shmarya is a crybaby. Beyond a reasonable doubt."

That is not entirely correct. A more accurate statement would be beyond even an unreasonable doubt.

[effie]

Vindicated: Don't hate me because I'm intelligent. Also, it's not a matter of agreement with the blog owner, I stated facts. Don't like it - tough!

[effie]

"one is PRESUMED to be innocent UNLESS found to be guilty. Posted by: harold"

Only in a court of law, harold. The rest of us are entitled to keep our common sense.

"What law school did you attend? by: Josh"

And what law school did you graduate from? While I don't necessary agree with Shmarya on why the prosecution went south, his opinions are always well thought out.

As far as upbringing, your comment tells me a lot about yours. I hear your mom barking...

[Josh]

Effie,

Wow, so this boils down to insulting a person rather than addressing the matter that I raised. Scott quotes himself to prove his point. As far as asking what law school he attended, that is because he always uses disparaging language to put down their education. It is alright then for me to question his background. Apparently you feel that this means it becomes open season on attacking me. You insult my mother, when my question was because Scott's visit to the nursing home was to see his mom.

Back to the law school question. I never made any claims to understand the motivation of the state nor the reasoning of the jury. Although the reasoning of the jury has been publicly reported.

Effie, FU. (and your mother)

[Vindicated]

effie, could you please point to anywhere in my post where I said I hate you? Thanks.

[Dr Moe]

Effie,

You are wrong, the evidence and facts was presented to a jury of his peers, they looked at it examined it and they could not convict Sholom Rubashkin based on the evcidence the state presented to the Jury of Sholom Peers, Effie the Jury saw more facts and evidence then you therefore sholom rubashkin is %100 innocent, only your gang on failed messiah that is mostly under thier pillows and blankets are all depressed now, only you and your gang disagree with the Jury of his peers and all you can say "June 22" " and it is "Ohlie Torah fault" :) we as the good American people listen to a Court of law, not your gang on this blog who are mostly in Hiding such as Bill, Wools, Sandra and few other troll gang members.

Also Rabbi Morris Allan and the church should apologize especially the church calling Sholom Mordechai "a dirty Jew"

[deletethis]

I liked the comment from yesterday, which likened Shmayra's manifesto(s) here, to re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic! Perfect analogy!

[deletethis]

Usually when people resort to name-calling, that is an indication of having no good argument or point! I have told my kids that for years!

[Comment at DMR]

Shmarya,
Any thoughts on my 11:48 AM comments?

[effie]

Josh, why not? It's exactly what you did. And your argument/excuses for doing so are lame. So P-K-B, puppy. Here's a bag of kibble for your mother, now run home.

[effie]

Vindicated: You and your shtick bore the hell out of me.

[effie]

Dr Moe: Wrong about what? The definition of presumption of innocence or the meaning of a not guilty verdict? No, I'm not. No one is in hiding and no one is depressed. We have jobs and can't answer every barely coherent and inane comment by your gang.

The wonderful thing is that come June 22, I'll be home - unlike Rubashkin will be for the next 10-20 years.

Isn't this a great country?

[Vindicated]

"Moby-Jew" also known as Sholom Rubashkin is a novel to be published in 2011. "Moby-Jew" will often be referred to as a "Great American Novel" and will be considered one of the treasures of world literature. The story tells of the adventures of the wandering sailors, Tom Miller & Stephanie Rose and their voyage on the ship "Conservative Jewish Movement," commanded by "Captain Rabbi Morris Allen." Tom Miller & Stephanie Rose soon learn that "Captain Rabbi Morris Allen" seeks one specific "whale," a ferocious, enigmatic, and passionate, "whale".....Sholom Rubashkin. In a previous encounter, the "whale" destroyed "Captain Rabbie Morris Allen's" "ship" and bit off his leg. "Captain Rabbi Morris Allen" intends to take revenge.

"Moby-Jew" will employ stylized language, symbolism, and metaphor to explore numerous complex themes. Through the main character's journey, the concepts of class and social status, good and evil, and the existence of gods are all examined as Tom Miller and Stephanie Rose speculate upon their personal beliefs and their place in the universe.

"Moby-Jew" will be a symbolic work, but wil also include chapters on natural history. Major themes will include obsession, religion, idealism versus pragmatism, revenge, racism, sanity, hierarchical relationships, and politics.

*disclamer: the above is a parody

[yidandahalf]

All this apoplectic crowing and braying by the Rubash-ins and their camp followers is bad luck. Heshy is the interesting one now. Sham Wow is a redundant piece of teflon.

[Shmarya]

You make a series of assumptions, yet you do not provide any evidence of your claims. For example, you state in your comments here that the state tried to do this prosecution on the cheap. No proof given, but you link it to another article where you assert the same claim. Quoting yourself does not prove your point.

I linked to an article from the Des Moines Register. It says that many of the child labor charges were dropped by the state due to the cost of prosecuting them.

[Yoel Mechanic]

A useful legal distinction: The prosecution must prove their case "beyond a reasonable doubt", but *not* "beyond all possible doubt".

[Shmarya]

++Defense witnesses testified that Heshy, not Sholom, had responsibility for HR, and Rubashkin's attorneys used this to create reasonable doubt. ++

Not entirely true. Norris, a witness for the defense testified that HR reported to Sholom.

False on significance to the defense. To take this one fact out of its context (proof that Sholom was a illogically and unjustly targeted) is just your attempt at spinning a verdict contrary to your narrative.

Past that (to coin a phrase), this case was defended and won on the "willful" element, and at no point did ANYONE on the defense assert that Heshy willfully employed minors.

Their defense of Sholom is equally valid for Heshy. Nothing they said is remotely akin to blame. Nothing they said would lead a rational person to conclude they were accusing him of a crime.

The case made by the defense was that HR reported to Heshy.

The defense also claimed workers could not tell Heshy and Sholom apart, and asserted the workers had seen Heshy, not Sholom, on the floor.

As for the definition of willful, it means (among other things) not taking positive steps to weed out minors once realizing minors were working.

Sholom skated on this because the defense created reasonable doubt – by saying Heshy was responsible and that the workers saw Heshy on the floor.

[yeah]

It is not even worth reading the above, the bottom line is that Shlomie is going to a USP for 25 years. Even if he had been convicted on the state charges the Feds would have theirs first. He is done and that is all that matters. a typical black hat ahole

[Comment at DMR]

I hear you. The points of difference are these:

++The case made by the defense was that HR reported to Heshy.++

That is not what the defense says their case is. It was not even mentioned in closing arguments. It was not mentioned by Mr. Hart in explaining the verdict.
By all indications it was a minor element, only going to attack the prosecution's assertion that Sholom was on notice because he saw the workers.
Their larger case makes the matter moot, because their argument was that being on notice is not enough, but they were covering bases.

In other words, claiming that HR reports to Heshy does not equate with blaming him for their presence. Even the prosecution had to go the extra steps to allege specific instances where Sholom was "put on notice."
None of that was implicit in "HR reports to Sholom" and it's not implicit in "HR reports to Heshy."
Without it there is no crime, and without it there is no blame.

++As for the definition of willful, it means (among other things) not taking positive steps to weed out minors once realizing minors were working.++

You state that as fact, but that was a significant point of argument in this case. It was the basis for the prosecution, vigorously rejected by the defense, and the jury found with the defense.

Whether or not that constitutes a agreement with this detail, it was certainly not the defense's definition, and you cannot use it to argue the defense was blaming the crime on Heshy.

According to their definition willful requires intent, 'wanting them to be there' in their words.

By the defense definition of the law the fact that Heshy oversaw HR does not make him criminally culpable. He would have had to express intent to have them there.

In short, their mention of Heshy's role did not include the elements they argued constituted the crime. They did not blame Heshy. Your assertion does not hold up.

[Josh]

If the claim is that many of the charges were not pursued because of cost, that relates to other charges. But the actual prosecution was not cheap, nor was money an issue. check your link on this article, it goes back to your own quote Scott.

[the bottomline]

Dr. Moe
Your an idiot and a blast of hot air ignorance and your comments are disgusting! Shut up already you stupid jerk!!

[Cheskel]

One word: YOU ARE A SORE LOOSER

Spare your explainings about Heshy or whatever

[ansular]

hahahahaha
and he will be acquitted and be set free of the previous charges.

you guys worked hard but no cigar,
so screw you shmarya, effie and the idiot poet, screw you all... hahahahahah

LOLOLOLOLOL

[Shmarya]

That is not what the defense says their case is. It was not even mentioned in closing arguments. It was not mentioned by Mr. Hart in explaining the verdict.

Please.

What the jury foreman said is there was no clear direct link between HR's hiring and Sholom. One major reason for that is because the defense said HR reported to Heshy.

Their larger case makes the matter moot, because their argument was that being on notice is not enough

That may have been their argument but that argument is incorrect. If Sholom knew minors worked in the plant and he did nothing to change the hiring process and weed them out, he would be legally liable.

Willful does not mean that Sholom said for all to hear "Hire minors!" It means he knew minors worked in the plant and did nothing to stop that.

++As for the definition of willful, it means (among other things) not taking positive steps to weed out minors once realizing minors were working.++

You state that as fact, but that was a significant point of argument in this case. It was the basis for the prosecution, vigorously rejected by the defense, and the jury found with the defense.

Please.

The defense can *say* whatever it wants to say.

But the truth is as I noted above.

That's why the defense needed to crate doubt about who HR reported to, and what Sholom could reasonably be expected to know.

By the defense definition of the law the fact that Heshy oversaw HR does not make him criminally culpable. He would have had to express intent to have them there.

Nope. All he had to do is KNOW they were there and then do nothing to weed them out and/or fix the hiring process.

[ansular]

you all depressed and angry now?

the lord of israel does not slumber and and does not sleep and listens not to satan standing to his left accusing the jews of actions... the lord thunders they are but the last surviving embers.

and you, and you all here, who dared to kill and torture to mortify and hurt, to project you own pain and negative energy unto the world, may the lord help you repent of your evil karmic ways.

and may the lord remove your horns of evil and replace them with horns of righteousness

[Shmarya]

If the claim is that many of the charges were not pursued because of cost, that relates to other charges. But the actual prosecution was not cheap, nor was money an issue. check your link on this article, it goes back to your own quote Scott.

No. It related to the entire case made by the prosecution.

And my link goes just where I said it goes.

Try reading.

[Shmarya]

If the claim is that many of the charges were not pursued because of cost, that relates to other charges. But the actual prosecution was not cheap, nor was money an issue. check your link on this article, it goes back to your own quote Scott.

Here's what I noted in a comment above:3. Today, the Des Moines Register reported that more than 9000 of the child labor counts were dropped by the state, not because it lacked evidence to support them but because it was unwilling to spend the money to prosecute them.That Des Moines Register article is posted above. Here's the relevant section:The case was unprecedented in the number of charges brought in a child labor case. In 2008, the state charged five company officials each with 9,311 child labor violations.

The state whittled the list to 83 charges in May, in part to make the cost and length of the trial more manageable.This move to reduce costs carried through to the counts actually tried, as I've noted several times.

You'll also recall the prosecution had to get special permission to spend the money to bring in the few child laborers it used as witnesses.

[Shmarya]

and you, and you all here, who dared to kill and torture to mortify and hurt, to project you own pain and negative energy unto the world, may the lord help you repent of your evil karmic ways.

and may the lord remove your horns of evil and replace them with horns of righteousness

Imagine that!

Opposing child labor, rape and extortion makes one evil, while ignoring or condoning child labor, rape and extortion makes one good!

Chabad theology in a nutshell.

[Comment at DMR]

++Nope. All he had to do is KNOW they were there and then do nothing to weed them out and/or fix the hiring process.++

As I said, you are taking one side of an argument, asserting it is a settled issue, and casting the opposing sides arguments in light of the first sides position. Not a very tenable argument.

Past that, you yourself just admitted there needs to be KNOWLEDGE that they were there. Without that, even according to your definition, there is no blame.

If you have any evidence that the defense claimed Heshy knew there were minors, I will concede your position is at least tenable.

Absent that, in the words of the defense attorney and by your own definition of the law:
Game. Set. Match.

[Shmarya]

As I said, you are taking one side of an argument, asserting it is a settled issue, and casting the opposing sides arguments in light of the first sides position. Not a very tenable argument.

Please.

This has been settled time and time again in cases across the US.

A manager who knows about wrongdoing but does not try to stop it is criminally liable.

There is no real question about this.

That's why the defense needed to show that HR reported to Heshy and that Heshy was on the floor, not Sholom.

If you have any evidence that the defense claimed Heshy knew there were minors, I will concede your position is at least tenable.

The defense did not have to show that Heshy knew there were minors working. All it had to do is show that HR reported to Heshy and that workers who saw Sholom on the floor might really have seen Heshy.

[Successful Messiah]

"I linked to an article from the Des Moines Register. It says that many of the child labor charges were dropped by the state due to the cost of prosecuting them."

And you then ignored the obvious fact that they would have dropped the ones that were most difficult to prove or had the most unreliable witnesses. You then further make a dillusional leap of faith and assert as fact that if the prosecution had brought those other charges those charges would have stuck. To top it all off, you assert that the state found enough dough lying around to fly in a whole bunch of former employees from outside the US but couldn't find the dough dough necessary for Billemeyer to testify.

[John joe]

wow are you un-biased, Kudos!!!!!!

a jury found him not guilty and acquited him, get over it and move on, don't let your personal luv for rubashkin mess with you

[Josh]

Thank you Scott. Now remember, this is the state of Iowa's claim. We don't necessarily have to take it at face value. What you could say is that the state claims or asserts, but that does not make it the fact. The only fact we have is that SMR has been found not guilty of all the charges that were made by the state. Can you agree to that statement?

[Shmarya]

you then ignored the obvious fact that they would have dropped the ones that were most difficult to prove or had the most unreliable witnesses. You then further make a dillusional leap of faith and assert as fact that if the prosecution had brought those other charges those charges would have stuck. To top it all off, you assert that the state found enough dough lying around to fly in a whole bunch of former employees from outside the US but couldn't find the dough dough necessary for Billemeyer to testify.

1. I never mentioned Billmeyer in connection to this.

2. The prosecution needed special permission to spend the $35,000 to fly in some of the child workers.

3. Iowa's courts take unpaid furlough days to save money.

4. I never said – and I clearly did not assume – that all 9,00 plus charges would have "stuck."

5. Many of the charges the state dropped related to witnesses the state could not locate. Some of the problems in locating those witnesses come from not spending adequate money to locate them.

[Shmarya]

Now remember, this is the state of Iowa's claim. We don't necessarily have to take it at face value. What you could say is that the state claims or asserts, but that does not make it the fact. The only fact we have is that SMR has been found not guilty of all the charges that were made by the state. Can you agree to that statement?

It is not the state's claim alone. It is a matter of law with strong precedent.

And we have plenty of facts. Let me list a few for you:

1. Agriprocessors had more than 2 dozen children working on its production line.

2. Agriprocessors had two payrolls, one for legal workers and another for undocumented workers.

3. Undocumented workers were extorted by supervisors and sexually harassed – and even raped – by them.

4. The feds sent Sholom Rubashkin hundreds of no match letters. He did not respond and he did not change the hiring process.

Yes, SMR was found not guilty – but that does NOT mean crimes were not committed and undocumented workers exploited and abused.

[Comment at DMR]

++This has been settled time and time again in cases across the US.++

As far as I know, this is an element which differs from statute to statute and state to state. They also charged specific counts for specific individuals which would mean they needed to show KNOWLEDGE of those individual's status.

The focused very strongly in their arguments on Sholom being put on notice. His place in the hierarchy was not enough.

The fact is, simply being in charge does not equate to KNOWING that minors were on the floor. Absent that knowledge there is zero culpability under this statute. That is undisputed.

NO knowledge was alleged in the defense description of Heshy's role. No Knowledge = No Crime = No Blame.

[Isa]

Shmarya remark above...

I once had a personal doctor Who while volunteering at a woman's clinic was accused of doing touchy feely stuff.

The prosecutor worked out a plea deal-no jail time but pled guilty [I suspect a civil settlement in such a case would be easy to get, hey! a new Corvette would be nice and sooth one's feelings real quick]

Anyway the judge said no plea deal-this is too serious

So the prosecutors went thru the steps of trial and from the comments made in the paper, the prosecutors screwed up really bad [willfully that is]with a verdict of NOT GUILTY [this way they are telling the judge "next time take the deal"]

Well this whole Rubashkin trial stinks!
Why didn't they put Billmeyer on the stand, with the promise of immunity??

[A E ANDERSON]

"Rubashkin Escapes Conviction On Child Labor Charges Even Though Evidence Clearly Shows Crimes Committed

Of course there were crimes committed. Each lying, thieving wetback who lied about work status committed a crime or crimes that imperilled the very viability of Agriprocessors as a business, the Rubashkins as a family and Postville as a community.

These scum admitted under oath to paying human traffickers to transport them to the United States, admitted to deceiving both American authorities and Agriprocessors as to their true work status and age, admitted to procuring false documents, and then have the temerity to try to blame the embattled, inundated meat packers for their woes!

It was the federal government's responsibility, and failure, to stop these scum at the borders before they contaminated the American workforce, thereby driving out higher cost domestic labour.

Then, when push comes to shove, the failed federal government takes a page from other program areas (banks, taxation) and decides to blame industry for the problem government allowed to happen, deputising industry as its gatekeeper and then threatening to criminalise industry if it does not or cannot readily comply as fast as a bunch of General Schedule knucklebrains might have liked for the purposes of their own cosmetology and appearances.

I submit that Agriprocessors located to Iowa precisely because it wanted to employ Iowans. Nice, strong, healthy and probably white Iowans, with long experience in meat packing. That patch of the American Midwest is, after all, the center of meat production for the entire country. Substantial economies of scale were achieved by having both schechitah and distribution nationally centralised.

The federal government's failure to control the border, coupled with its unwillingness to get tough on border states like Mexico that effectively send their nationals here to work in exchange for the billions of dollars of worker remittances that prop up their otherwise sorry economies, was at all times the primary cause for the woes of Postville.

Once the feds dropped the ball, as they seem to do with pretty much everything they touch, there was already an infected workforce with an inseparable admixture of illegals, legals and natives all with ostensibly valid work permits.

Reasonably or not, the feds came up with various new and untested programs (E-Verify) that at the time they targeted Agriprocessors were still the subject of litigation. Over time, as E-Verify became settled law, all of Agriprocessors' workforce would have been sanitised of illegal aliens as a result of the careful, methodical and controlled implementation of SSN matching and E-Verify. There was no need nor reason for raid or prosecution. All would have been settled in the normal, regulatory course of affairs.

Again, these illegals with false papers were only here in the United States because the federal government had dropped the ball and failed in its task of border and population control. Had the feds done their job, the workforce would not have become infected with large populations of false-document-bearing illegals, and industry would have continued to go about its primary task: production.

People, this is what failed government does. It does not, perhaps it cannot forge new deals, conceive great societies, or even get the government off of people's backs. No, it does what it has for years perfected in its war against federalism, namely its methodological hegemony over the states and municipalities by means of the (funded or unfunded) MANDATE.

If the feds can't accomplish a particular task, it mandates that state or local government, typically at its own cost, enforce the new federal desideratum. The typical ad terrorem clause in federal mandates has the state doing such and such (requiring seatbelts) under penalty of withdrawal of all federal highway funds.

The recent Obamacare legislation was yet another brilliant example of how the federal government has become too incompetent to act other than by foisting responsibility on others. In the case of Obamacase, it purported to create a national health system by requiring that all people purchase insurance.. in other words, it created no health system. It appropriated not a single dollar for a single new hospital bed or a single new doctor. It merely foisted the responsibility by mandating that others do so, somehow.

The contamination of the meat packing workforce with illegals and hidden illegals was the direct result of federal government failures. Instead of correcting these, laboriously over time, by providing technical assistance and compliance help, case by case until the workforce was cleaned up, the feds decided to take a page off network TV and stage a ridiculous raid, whose ill effects reverberate to this day.

Perhaps the feds were more astute than we give them credit for. The "bank fraud" irregularities were a godsend that let them have their show trial without having to prove their essential case.

It is fortunate that vestiges of federalism remain in America, and we can see how a local jury, unencumbered by draconian federal anti-free trial rules, set a man free for lack of evidence. As it should have been.

Still, the federal government has persecuted Sholom Rubashkin for naught, except to exonerate itself from its own border control failures and the ineptitude of a work-status system that remains problematic to this day.

I think Sholom Rubashkin deserves a new trial. When and if he is exonerated, I think the feds owe him an apology for what they have done to him, his family and his business. At that stage, I think a private claims bill would be in order to partially compensate the Rubashkin family for the evils perpetrated against it by an incompetent government.

[Dr Moe]

1. Agriprocessors had more than 2 dozen children working on its production line.

DUH!!! the minors lied = NOT GUILTY

2. Agriprocessors had two payrolls, one for legal workers and another for undocumented workers.

Never was charged for such a so called crime

3. Undocumented workers were extorted by supervisors and sexually harassed – and even raped – by them.

Yes by the state witness Derrick the lazy bum.

4. The feds sent Sholom Rubashkin hundreds of no match letters. He did not respond and he did not change the hiring process.

Not Guilty on this charge either

Now blame the not guilty verdict on Oholie Torah and Yitav leiv of Satmar :)

[reality]

Get over it! NOT GUILTY !! Maybe had the prosecution realized that they obtained fake documents and brought credible witnesses, than they may have had a case. Since they brought Alcoholics, lazy supervisor witnesses, etc. it was a clean cut case. I believe the jury really went thru the case very well. They took in the admission of knowing they had some and that Agri fired them. SMR was not on trial for alledged sexual issues with workers. These workers pry on trying to get anything they want. If it was such a bad place to work, why didn't they just walk out and apply at McDonald's, KFC, or go back home!!!

[Shmarya]

As far as I know, this is an element which differs from statute to statute and state to state. They also charged specific counts for specific individuals which would mean they needed to show KNOWLEDGE of those individual's status.

No. All that the state needed to proves is the following:

1. Sholom was in charge.

2. At some point he was told or discovered minors were working in the plant.

3. That Sholom did not take steps to prevent more minors from being hired and/or to seek out and fire any minors currently working.

The state proved 3 and probably 2 (although 2 depends on how the jury viewed Derrick's credibility) but faltered on 1, for the reasons stated many times above.

As for variance between states, I think these issues have already been dealt with federally, which brings a measure of standardization. I'll try to research this and report back.

But the definition of willfully is not simply x ordered y to commit a crime; the definition also includes x knew said crime was committed by personnel that work under him but x did nothing to prevent the crime from being repeated and did nothing to remedy what had already been done.

[Shmarya]

DUH!!! the minors lied = NOT GUILTY

That happened because the state did not bring experts to testify about illegal immigration and about the legal precedents.

And that seems to be because experts cost money.

2. Agriprocessors had two payrolls, one for legal workers and another for undocumented workers.

Never was charged for such a so called crime

And? That doesn't change the facts. But he was charged – it was part of the immigration charges that were conditionally dropped but may be reinstated.

3. Undocumented workers were extorted by supervisors and sexually harassed – and even raped – by them.

Yes by the state witness Derrick the lazy bum.

And by Hosam Amara who led the extortion and rape, and who fled to Israel with Rubashkin's help to avoid prosecution. And by several other supervisors.

4. The feds sent Sholom Rubashkin hundreds of no match letters. He did not respond and he did not change the hiring process.

Not Guilty on this charge either

Idiot. This isn't a "charge," it's a documented fact.

The no match letters are evidence that would be used in the immigration trial.

[Shmarya]

Maybe had the prosecution realized that they obtained fake documents and brought credible witnesses, than they may have had a case. Since they brought Alcoholics, lazy supervisor witnesses, etc. it was a clean cut case.

First of all, everyone, including the prosecution, knew before trial that the minors used fake docs to get work.

Past that, I wrote that there are credible witnesses that told SMR about the child workers, but the state did not call them, in part due to the cost involved and in part due to prosecutorial incompetence.

In other words, you're agreeing with me.

[Comment at DMR]

++2. At some point he was told or discovered minors were working in the plant.++

All the other points aside, the defense statements about Heshy pertained ONLY to #1 of your list. There was no mention of #2, much less #3, making your claims wrong.

There was no crime admitted, there was no blame placed with Heshy.

[Shmarya]

Of course there were crimes committed. Each lying, thieving wetback who lied about work status committed a crime or crimes that imperilled the very viability of Agriprocessors as a business, the Rubashkins as a family and Postville as a community.

These scum admitted under oath to paying human traffickers to transport them to the United States, admitted to deceiving both American authorities and Agriprocessors as to their true work status and age, admitted to procuring false documents, and then have the temerity to try to blame the embattled, inundated meat packers for their woes!

How would you feel if I wrote that these undocumented workers were exploited, abused and raped by kikes?

You'd probably be very upset.

Yet you think it's okay to call illegal aliens "wetbacks" and "scum"?

How pathetic.

[Shmarya]

All the other points aside, the defense statements about Heshy pertained ONLY to #1 of your list. There was no mention of #2, much less #3, making your claims wrong.

Please.

I said the state needed to prove three things:1. Sholom was in charge.

2. At some point he was told or discovered minors were working in the plant.

3. That Sholom did not take steps to prevent more minors from being hired and/or to seek out and fire any minors currently working.The defense used hesy to attack #1, used Derrick's bad check charge to attack #2, and said Sholom was happy when HR fired a couple minors HR recognized to attack #3.

From the comments made by the jury foreman, it seems the jury bought the Heshy story, at least with regard to reasonable doubt.

As for the minors lying about their age, that should have been addressed in the state's closing, and during the testimony stage the state should have called expert witnesses to address this. But the state did not.

[Comment at DMR]

That may be why they acquitted Sholom. The issue here is whether the defense, in defending Sholom, implicated Heshy.

You said "... Rubashkin admitted many of the crimes happened. He just blames them on other people – his brother, his father, his HR people, etc."

You wrote an entire post using this to dismiss the acquittal as meaningless. I weighed in on that point.

By your own list of elements, they did NOT. The only way for them to have done so would require them to have alleged that Heshy KNEW, which they did not.

So, no, as far as the Rubashkin's defense was concerned, no crimes were committed, and no blame was laid. The crime required knowledge and intent. The argument was not that someone else had that knowledge and intent. The argument was that no-one did.

Now you can disagree, but to put it at their feet is a lie.