Nathan Lewin Lies For Rubashkin – Again

Three days before the 2008 Agriprocessors raid, a lawyer hired by Rubashkin asked in writing that the local prosecutors and immigration authorities do precisely what is now the “new strategy.” The request was immediately rejected, and the rejection was even acknowledged by a local immigration official in testimony during Rubashkin's recent federal trial.

Op-Ed: One Standard Of Justice?
by Nathan Lewin

A front-page story in The New York Times of July 10 reported that federal immigration authorities in the Obama administration have adopted a “new strategy” to replace the military-style raids that were conducted in the Bush years to find and arrest illegal aliens.

One such raid, carried out in May 2008, destroyed Agriprocessors, the country's largest kosher meat-packing plant, and resulted in criminal charges that culminated in a 27-year sentence for Sholom Rubashkin, the principal manager of the Postville, Iowa, plant. The Rubashkin raid netted 389 Hispanics who had gotten their jobs with false documentation. They were arrested, quickly prosecuted, and then deported.

According to the Times, the “quieter enforcement strategy” is to have federal agents “scour companies' records for illegal immigrant workers” and then tell the employers to fire those who are not properly documented. Three days before the 2008 Agriprocessors raid, a lawyer hired by Rubashkin asked in writing that the local prosecutors and immigration authorities do precisely what is now the “new strategy.” The request was immediately rejected, and the rejection was even acknowledged by a local immigration official in testimony during Rubashkin's recent federal trial.

Apart from not being raided, have the employers of illegal aliens been treated by federal law-enforcement authorities differently from how Rubashkin was treated? The Times reports that a family-owned fruit-grower company in the State of Washington named Gebbers Farms was found in December 2009 to be employing more than 500 illegal Mexican aliens. Gebbers fired these employees just before Christmas.

The federal prosecutors filed criminal charges against Sholom Rubashkin for allegedly knowingly harboring aliens. In the seven months since the Gebbers “audit,” no criminal charges have been filed against any member of the Gebbers family.

The federal prosecutors promptly added to the immigration charges they filed against Rubashkin the claim that he committed bank fraud because the loan agreement he signed with the bank that advanced a line of credit to Agriprocessors represented that he was “in compliance with the law.”

The prosecutors alleged that since he knew that illegal aliens were employed, this representation amounted to bank fraud. (As a result, the prosecutors were permitted to introduce evidence of immigration violations in a trial that was supposed to be limited to bank fraud charges.)

If the United States Attorney for Washington treats the Gebbers the same way Rubashkin was treated, one or more members of the Gebbers family should be arrested and charged not only with immigration violations but, if the Gebbers had any bank loan, with bank fraud as well. The representation that the borrowing company is complying with the law is standard “boilerplate” language in bank-loan documents. The Gebbers' loan papers should be scrutinized to see if they contain a similar representation.

And, of course, if the Gebbers are treated on a par with Rubashkin, one or more members of the family should be released before trial on any criminal charges that may be filed only if they post a one-million-dollar bond and have their freedom to travel limited by an electronic ankle bracelet. If they plead guilty or a jury returns a guilty verdict, they should be immediately imprisoned, as Rubashkin was.

Any potential federal indictments against the Gebbers should, like Rubashkin's, allege that a separate federal crime was committed with each illegal alien and with each draw on a line of credit. If the Gebbers are treated as Rubashkin was treated, their indictment will easily exceed the 163 counts in Rubashkin's indictment.

If a member of the Gebbers family is found guilty of the federal charges, will the federal prosecutor for Washington demand that he or she receive a 25-year prison sentence? Will the sentencing judge add several years to the prosecutor's recommendation, as Judge Linda Reade of the federal court in Iowa did in Rubashkin's case?

Other recent illegal-immigration cases, some described in the Times article, are worth comparing with Rubashkin's. Several restaurant owners who paid their employees in cash and requested little or no documentation of legal status have recently pleaded guilty. George Anagnostou, the owner of two restaurants in Maryland, made a considerable profit from his restaurants, enabling him to purchase two cars, a Harley-Davidson motorcycle, and two homes. His illegal-alien employees were paid in cash and many worked up to 80 hours a week.

Yen Wan Cheng hired aliens from Honduras for her Maryland restaurant. She admitted in a plea agreement that she asked for no proof whatever of proper immigration status. The illegal employees lived together in a house she owned, and she drove them to work each day in a van.

Rubashkin, unlike Anagnostou and Cheng, did have a procedure in which applicants for jobs were screened to weed out illegal aliens. In fact, immigration officials acknowledged in a sworn affidavit that an undercover federal agent was rejected twice for a job at Agriprocessors because his documentation was inadequate. And all the Agriprocessors employees were paid by check, with proper deductions for taxes. Nonetheless, prosecutors threw the book at Rubashkin.

Anagnostou and Cheng have both pleaded guilty and will be sentenced in the fall. Unlike Rubashkin, they were released on bail pending their sentences. The likelihood is that neither will serve any time in prison, and if they do it will surely not exceed one year or two. And there is no indication that prosecutors have scrutinized any bank loan records of either of them to see if false representations were made.

Is this a nation of “equal justice under law”?

Nathan Lewin is a Washington attorney who is the lead appellate counsel for Sholom Rubashkin.

As we all know, the Obama Administration changed the government's enforcement of immigration law. But that change does not mean crimes committed under previous administrations must now be retroactively judged and punished using the new Obama standard.

Past that very obvious point, Lewin omits key pieces of data that undermine his argument.

A brief and by no means inclusive list of these Lewin lies by omission:

• Rubashkin received hundreds of no match notices from the federal government in the months before the May 12, 2008 immigration raid, indication that many of his workers were illegal aliens. But Rubashkin did not act on those no match notices.

• 3 days before the raid, when Rubashkin was suddenly telling the federal government that he wanted to cooperate, he was also involved in a conspiracy to cover up his crimes and another conspiracy to provide his illegal workers with new false IDs and false green cards. No one else mentioned in Lewin's piece is accused of doing anything like this.

• Bank fraud is calculated by 1) the fraudulent statement(s) and, 2) the amount of loss suffered by lenders. If a person made a dozen false statements but the lenders suffered no loss, the crime is punished very lightly. If a person made one false statement but the loss suffered by lenders is $27 million, the person is punished severely. In the cases Lewin mentions, because the banks apparently suffered no loss, any conviction would probably not add to the offenders' sentences for immigration violations.

• Past that, Rubashkin lied about the amount of collateral and inflated its value. This caused a $27 million dollar loss to lenders and is the main part of the bank fraud convictions. No one else mentioned in Lewin's piece is accused of doing anything like this.

• These are all federal crimes and, as such, are sentenced according to the federal sentencing guidelines – guidelines that make Rubashkin's bank fraud a very serious crime.

• The judge added 2 years to Rubashkin's sentence because he perjured himself in her court – not because she simply chose to exceed the sentence prosecutors asked for. Indeed, her 25 year base sentence was at the light end of the sentencing guidelines. Rubashkin could have received as little as 23 years or as many as 30 years under those guidelines, with the extra time for perjury added on top of that.

• Lewin writes: "In the seven months since the Gebbers 'audit,' no criminal charges have been filed against any member of the Gebbers family." But what Lewin doesn't say is that the first indictment against Rubashkin and Agriprocessors was unsealed November 21, 2008 – about 6 1/2 months after the raid, and Rubashkin's arrest took place on October 30, 2008,  5 1/2 months after the raid. In other words, that no criminal charges against Gebbers have yet been unsealed does not mean there are no criminal charges or that there will not be criminal charges, and the 7 month gap between an audit (or a raid) and criminal charges is not unusual and is not much different from the time frame in the Rubashkin case.

What Lewin is doing may help Rubashkin raise money – money that will be used in part to pay Lewin. But it does Rubashkin no favor past that. Indeed, it hurts him.

From at least 2003 onward, every bad decision Rubashkin made seems to have been made in consultation with Nathan Lewin, from his bizarre attacks on PETA that led to PETA's undercover videos of Agriprocessors' repeated and intentional – and horrific – violations of the Humane Slaughter Act, to Rubashkin's attacks on Conservative leaders, Lewin has been there to give Rubashkin bad advice.

While other Orthodox attorneys – Avi Moscowitz and Ben Brafman come readily to mind – have been up front in their warnings to haredim that the law of the land must be followed and respected, Lewin has consistently played the Al Sharpton role, inciting misbehavior rather than acting to stop it, and kashering every Rubashkin misdeed by crying antisemitism where none exists. 

Lewin has done great damage to Rubashkin, and even greater damage to the haredi Jewish community he claims to love.

Comments

[Dr. Clue]

Mr. Lewin's job is to act in the best interest of his client, not the best interest of any community.

His point, that others have not been charged with criminal immigration charges despite most likely knowing does raise a substantial question as to whether Rubashkin is being treated equally, as does the severity of the sentence.

There is no evidence that the government is unsealing an indictment against Gibbers.

None of this absolves Rubashkin; on the other hand, his attorney has the right to question whether he is being treated differently and more harshly than others.

[Shmarya]

Mr. Lewin's job is to act in the best interest of his client, not the best interest of any community.

True. But an officer of the court cannot lie or misrepresent the truth. And Lewin is an officer of the court.

His point, that others have not been charged with criminal immigration charges despite most likely knowing does raise a substantial question as to whether Rubashkin is being treated equally, as does the severity of the sentence.

Please.

Try rereading my post, slowly if necessary.

Rubashkin defrauded lenders of almost $27 million dollars. No one else mentioned in Lewin's piece cost lenders anything.

There is no evidence that the government is unsealing an indictment against Gibbers.

And there was no evidence the government would be unsealing an indictment against Rubashkin until his arrest on October 30, 2008 – more than 5 1/2 months after the raid.

None of this absolves Rubashkin; on the other hand, his attorney has the right to question whether he is being treated differently and more harshly than others.

True – but only if his attorney tells the truth when doing so.

[critical_minyan]

Nat Lewin is keeping this issue alive because its very embarassing for him that Rubashkin lost so badly.
In my opinion, his client is in jail for probably the rest of his life because of Nathan Lewin's bad advice. My friend hired ben brafman when he got in trouble for some white collar crime, he could have gotten 30 years, brafman got him 3 years probation by settling with the government. (It cost him more than 300k)
Lewin should have advised Rubashkin to clean up his act, not take on the government and a well respected animal rights organization.
If you pull out your gun, the other guy will pull out his, and the government's gun is always bigger and they have much more of them. Thats the lesson of this story.

[critical_minyan]

300k in legal fees.

[WoolSilkCotton]

++critical_minyan | July 26, 2010 at 08:00 AM++

Your friend's outcome is how I originally thought SMR's would play out.

My attorney always advises:

Writing a check and paying fines is always better than serving time.

Settling is always better than risking trial.

Arrogance, bombast, and bluster were always the business techniques of SMR, and he thought those would get him off the hook in this disaster, too.
His attorneys should have pressed upon him that he was heading for a sentencing disaster. They probably did, but he wouldn't listen.
SMR's Committee of Idiotic Advisors in Crown Heights were far more influential in SMR's thinking than the attorneys were.

Now Lewin wants to retry the case in the court of public opinion. Maybe he thinks that with enough bluster, he can sway the appeals process. Meanwhile, the cash register keeps ringing.

[steve]

Nathan Lewin Lies For Rubashkin – Again

Isn't that what he gets paid for? Isn't that what the pidyon shvuyim funds go towards?

[neighbor girl]

I was going through withdrawal until I read this article. We haven't had a PR story for several days. Sounds like an elementary student saying, "But teacher! All the other kids are doing it and you didn't punish them."

[WoolSilkCotton]

A high profile, high priced attorney has time to write lengthy articles for crownheights.info? This article was not written for any other magazine or website.

The NY Times article did not mention the Rubashkin issue.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/10/us/
10enforce.html?pagewanted=1&ref=immigration_and_
customs_enforcement_us

Lewin wrote this piece solely to bang the drum for mo' money, mo' money, mo' money.

[Sam]

++and kashering every Rubashkin misdeed by crying antisemitism where none exists.++

Shmarya, a recent interview with Mr. Lewin, which appears in the most recent edition of the charedi Z'man magazine, has Mr. Lewin quoted as saying that he does not know whether or not anti-semitism played a role in the prosecution of Mr. Rubashkin and that he prefers to distance himself from such assertions.

[Shmarya]

a recent interview with Mr. Lewin, which appears in the most recent edition of the charedi Z'man magazine, has Mr. Lewin quoted as saying that he does not know whether or not anti-semitism played a role in the prosecution of Mr. Rubashkin and that he prefers to distance himself from such assertions.

At the very same time Lewin claims Rubashkin was singled out and treated in a disproportionately harsh manner.

And at the same time Lewin makes these claims by lying and distorting the truth.

And at the same time Lewin has spoken before haredi audiences who heard the antisemitism canard from their rabbis, and Lewin failed to condemn that or distance himself from that.

[Cheskel]

How is it that being such a liar (as the Jew haters on this blog are portraying him) would become one of the biggest lawyers in the USA. I suppose the bigger the lie the bigger lawyer you become.

He is probably the only observant Jew who argued cases before the supreme court. He refused dozens of jobs because he didn't want to work on shabbos. Perhaps you looser's are just too jealous and all you can do is blogging.




Anyone believing that Rubashkin getting a life sentence(oops only 27 years) has nothing and i mean nothing to do with antisemitism and being singled out,is dumb and stupid.

[FirstGenerationBavarianAmerican]

Mr. Lewin devotes so much of this piece to employers who hire illegal workers. But the government dismissed immigration charges against Mr. Rubashkin without prejudice.

Everytime I look to see if this is a nation of equal justice under law, I find another plea bargain agreement. In the Howard Industries case, the latest news is that the HR director who entered into a plea bargain agreement is now scheduled to be sentenced July 30th:
http://leadercall.com/local/x1300294212/Going-to-prison

[FirstGenerationBavarianAmerican]

+++Anyone believing that Rubashkin getting a life sentence(oops only 27 years) has nothing and i mean nothing to do with antisemitism and being singled out,is dumb and stupid.+++

Might have something to do with not entering into a plea bargain agreement.

[Cheskel]

Might have something to do with not entering into a plea bargain agreement.

Posted by: FirstGenerationBavarianAmerican

Plea bargain of 12-15 years for "defrauding" 27 million when others who their business was defrauding and bigger amounts got a plea offer way less?

[Shmarya]

Plea bargain of 12-15 years for "defrauding" 27 million when others who their business was defrauding and bigger amounts got a plea offer way less?

You still don't get it, do you?

Rubashkin not only committed bank fraud, he also committed wire fraud, mail fraud, money laundering, and conspiracy along with aggravated identity theft and other immigration violations.

The "others" you talk about did not commit those crimes. Process that.

[mayer]

lewin is a damm liar just google peta debates nat lewin listen carefully he calls peta nazis lewin is a old senile agudanik and is responsibile for smr demise

[Cheskel]

"""You still don't get it, do you?

Rubashkin not only committed bank fraud, he also committed wire fraud, mail fraud, money laundering, and conspiracy along with aggravated identity theft and other immigration violations.The "others" you talk about did not commit those crimes. Process that."""

I do get it and so did Rubashkin get it without mercy.and i can repeat all your arguments which doesn't make any sense in my small mind.

We all heard it a million times how many crimes he committed and what a terrible inhumane person he is.

But still its 27 million compared to much larger amounts is Russian style not the USA

[Shmarya]

all your arguments which doesn't make any sense in my small mind.

A truer statement has never been made.

Even so, try hard to get that small mind of yours to process:

All those crimes I listed above added up to 23 to 30 years according to the US Sentencing Guidelines.

The government offered Rubashkin 12 years.

He turned it down.

This isn't antisemitism – it is Rubashkin stupidity.

[Cheskel]

"""Even so, try hard to get that small mind of yours to process:

All those crimes I listed above added up to 23 to 30 years according to the US Sentencing Guidelines.The government offered Rubashkin 12 years.

He turned it down.

This isn't antisemitism – it is Rubashkin stupidity."""

A prisoner asks a fellow prisoner how long is your stay ,he replies 30 years for financial fraud.the other criminal tells him:stupid you why didn't you kill someone at the same time and you would of gotten 10-15 years.

Other bank robbers who robbed banks for the sole purpose of stealing and larger amounts but were "careful" while doing the crime not to commit other crimes,got sentences that are a joke. Rubashkin who was not careful while doing his "crime" and lesser amount of money got a life sentence.

Is this that you want me to process?

[Shmarya]

A prisoner asks a fellow prisoner how long is your stay ,he replies 30 years for financial fraud.the other criminal tells him:stupid you why didn't you kill someone at the same time and you would of gotten 10-15 years.

Other bank robbers who robbed banks for the sole purpose of stealing and larger amounts but were "careful" while doing the crime not to commit other crimes,got sentences that are a joke. Rubashkin who was not careful while doing his "crime" and lesser amount of money got a life sentence.

Is this that you want me to process?

You are so very foolish.

If you would actually look at the sentencing guidelines, you'd see that committing a murder while committing another crime usually gets life in prison.

You'd also see that bank robbers get very long sentences.

But actually looking at the evidence will prove you wrong – and you can't have that.

So you close your eyes and continue to spew ridiculous garbage.

[Cheskel]

You are so very foolish.

If you would actually look at the sentencing guidelines, you'd see that committing a murder while committing another crime usually gets life in prison.

You'd also see that bank robbers get very long sentences.

But actually looking at the evidence will prove you wrong – and you can't have that.

So you close your eyes and continue to spew ridiculous garbage.

You didn't get my point.

Many people who committed murder got a sentence 8-10-12-15 years for whatever reason how they were found guilty. Point is a person is dead but because of certain reasons in the case they got a low sentence.

When i say bank robbers i meant financial fraud not someone sticking up a bank.

[Shmarya]

Many people who committed murder got a sentence 8-10-12-15 years for whatever reason how they were found guilty. Point is a person is dead but because of certain reasons in the case they got a low sentence.

Not in the federal system.

[IATroutfisher]

Cheskal, what you don't get is Rubashkin destroyed evidence, coerced others to lie, perjured himself on the stand, and showed no remorse for the victims of the crime he was convicted of.

All of those things were factored in his sentencing. The judge threw the book at him. He asked for it.

[True]

Shmaya please clarify this sentence” The prosecutors alleged that since he knew that illegal aliens were employed, this representation amounted to bank fraud” is that what makes him a criminal or did he over stated his assets

Shmaya you failed to clarify by how much he over stated his assets. Did he he over stated his assets by 27,000,000 or by 1,000,000, it make a big difference since you can’t hold him accountable for 27 million if he overstated by 1 and the raid brought down the value by 26 million

Stop using the guidelines for a excuse if the judge would be less anti SMR she would be easier on the defense

[Shmarya]

Shmaya please clarify this sentence” The prosecutors alleged that since he knew that illegal aliens were employed, this representation amounted to bank fraud” is that what makes him a criminal or did he over stated his assets

Both are crimes.

Shmaya you failed to clarify by how much he over stated his assets. Did he he over stated his assets by 27,000,000 or by 1,000,000, it make a big difference since you can’t hold him accountable for 27 million if he overstated by 1 and the raid brought down the value by 26 million

He overstated the loan's COLLATERAL. When the banks called in the loan, the collateral mostly did not exist, and the banks lost $27 million dollars – and that is how the sentence is computed.

Stop using the guidelines for a excuse if the judge would be less anti SMR she would be easier on the defense

You really do not know what you're talking about.

[True]

You once again failed to clarify why the collateral mostly did not exist? Was it over stated by 27,000,000 or did it fall in value sometime in-between
Stop using the guidelines for a excuse if the judge would be less anti SMR she would be easier on the defense
You really do not know what you're talking about.
If she would let the defense present their full case the jury would have convicted him on less counts (for example is they would be able to argue the affect that the raid on the value ect.)

[True]

You once again failed to clarify why the collateral mostly did not exist? Was it over stated by 27,000,000 or did it fall in value sometime in-between

Stop using the guidelines for a excuse if the judge would be less anti SMR she would be easier on the defense
You really do not know what you're talking about.

If she would let the defense present their full case the jury would have convicted him on less counts (for example is they would be able to argue the affect that the raid on the value ect.)

[Shmarya]

You once again failed to clarify why the collateral mostly did not exist? Was it over stated by 27,000,000 or did it fall in value sometime in-between

Stop using the guidelines for a excuse if the judge would be less anti SMR she would be easier on the defense
You really do not know what you're talking about.

If she would let the defense present their full case the jury would have convicted him on less counts (for example is they would be able to argue the affect that the raid on the value ect.)

You really don't understand, I see.

Bank fraud is calculated by the amount of loss to the lenders.

Collateral is used to secure loans.

Lying about the value and/or existence of collateral is bank fraud.

The sentence is determined by the amount of loss.

In Rubashkin's case, his collateral was mostly false and the lenders lost $27 million dollars.

The effect of the raid is not relevant under the law, because if the collateral had been real, the lenders would not have lost money even with the raid.

[true]

Are you saying that if one overstates assets with 10 dollars, and the bank loses 500k, due to property value decreases you consider the entire loss of 500k as bank fraud

[true]

Shmaya can you once and for all explain exactly what SMR did
1. How and by how much did he overstate his assets (the asset type, true value, and how the bank appraised it etc.)
2. Was he allowed to fire workers immediately after getting no match letters or was he required to wait and give them a chance to bring proper identification
3. where a judge ruled that it is unconstitutional to fire a employee that’s here illegally and that’s why SMR didn’t comply with the no match letters
4. http://www.nilc.org/immsemplymnt/ssa_related_info/ssa004.htm

[Shmarya]

Are you saying that if one overstates assets with 10 dollars, and the bank loses 500k, due to property value decreases you consider the entire loss of 500k as bank fraud

What I'm saying is the collateral GUARANTEES the loan.

What Rubashkin did was LIE ABOUT THE COLLATERAL.

When the bank called in the loan, Rubashkin did not have the money and the collateral mostly did not exist.

That is BANK FRAUD.

[Shmarya]

Shmaya can you once and for all explain exactly what SMR did
1. How and by how much did he overstate his assets (the asset type, true value, and how the bank appraised it etc.)

You could read the indictments against him or the judge's sentencing memorandum for the exact figures.

2. Was he allowed to fire workers immediately after getting no match letters or was he required to wait and give them a chance to bring proper identification

Yes.

3. where a judge ruled that it is unconstitutional to fire a employee that’s here illegally and that’s why SMR didn’t comply with the no match letters

You do not even understand what you're reading.

[sage]

True = False

[True]

Can you answer this question? and stop giving statement similar to the press secretary of the white house

Are you saying that if one overstates assets with 10 dollars, and the bank loses 500k, due to property value decreases you consider the entire loss of 500k as bank fraud

What I'm saying is the collateral GUARANTEES the loan.

What Rubashkin did was LIE ABOUT THE COLLATERAL.

When the bank called in the loan, Rubashkin did not have the money and the collateral mostly did not exist.

That is BANK FRAUD.

[True]

When the bank called in the loan, Rubashkin did not have the money and the collateral mostly did not exist.

However what i dont know is, if the lose of $27,000,000 is Primarily due to a recent drop in value and only partially due to overstating assets or the opposite

[Shmarya]

Are you saying that if one overstates assets with 10 dollars, and the bank loses 500k, due to property value decreases you consider the entire loss of 500k as bank fraud

No. Because $10 dollars is trivial.

Rubashkin spent months hiding assets. He intentionally defrauded his lenders. His collateral was was worth millions less than stated.

If Rubashkin had not lied to the bank, his is assets, and committed money laundering, and if the lenders lost money on the loan only because the property value decreased, there would NOT have been a crime, and Rubashkin would not have been charged or tried.

But Rubashkin DID lie to the lenders, hide assets and launder money. And the lenders lost $27 million in that BANK FRAUD, which is why Rubashkin was charged, tried and convicted. It is also why Rubashkin destroyed evidence and obstructed justice to try to escape conviction.

[lou]

Riches cover a multitude of woes.
Menander (342 BC - 292 BC), Lady of Andros

[JUDENJAGR]

FILTHY GYPSY KIKE VERMIN, THIS GODDAMN JEW RAT WAS GUILTY OF SO MANY VIOLATIONS OF CHILD LABOR LAWS, STEALING EMPLOYEES MONIES, FORCED PAYMENTS FOR RENT AND WORK EQUIPMENT, ETC. THAT HIRING SOME MEXICANS WAS THE LEAST OF THIS KIKE JACKALS OFFENSES. HE SHOULD BE BURNED ALIVE ALONG WITH THE REST OF YOU...COMING SOON TO A REPUBLIC YOU SHOULD NEVER HAVE COME TO IN THE FIRST PLACE. AND THIS TIME YOU WON'T BE RESCUED AND YOU WON'T GET UP.