Rubashkin Case: Justice Denied Or Truth Obscured?

It's one thing to pretend your client is innocent or was unjustly sentenced. It is quite another to lie in support of those claims as Rubashkin's attorneys repeatedly do.

This piece is so poorly written I initially decided not to use it. But I received so many emails from people about it that I changed my mind.

I'll note the major errors in the body of the text. My comments will be set off by enclosure in square brackets and by use of a different font.

OPINION
Justice denied
Rubashkin's sentence is wholly inappropriate for the crimes of which he was convicted.
Robert Steinbuch and Brett Tolman • National Law Journal

Sholom Rubashkin was the vice president of America's largest kosher meat plant, Agriprocessors, ­located in Iowa. Rubashkin provided kosher meat to Jews throughout much of the country seeking to comply with biblical dietary rules. In 2008, after Rubashkin contacted U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and offered to cooperate, several hundred federal agents raided Agriprocessors. During the raid, 389 illegal aliens were arrested. Rubashkin was later charged with one violation of immigration law.

[For months, Sholom Rubashkin refused to cooperate with the government. Then, a few days before the raid, he changed his mind and offered to cooperate. As the documents filed with the court two weeks ago by Rubashkin lead appellate attorney Nathan Lewin show, the raid involved extensive planning by the government, planning that took six months. After spending millions of dollars and six months of time, to expect the government to take Rubashkin's last minute offer is ridiculous. Past that, evidence clearly shows that as Rubashkin was offering to cooperate with the government he was also actively procuring fake IDs and fake green cards for his employees, so his offer of cooperation can hardly be viewed as legitimate.]

On the day following Rubashkin's release on bail, federal prosecutors Matt Dummermuth and Peter Deegan Jr. yet again had him arrested. This time, they asserted various financial charges for events that occurred when Rubashkin attempted to keep his business services viable after his first arrest, including a charge that he should have told his bank that he had broken the law on the immigration charge that he vigorously contested — and the prosecutors later dropped.

[Steinbuch and Tolman intentionally mask the date of Rubashkin's first arrest, which took place in September 2008, four months after the raid. They also mask the scope of Rubashkin's bank fraud, which according to trial testimony stretched back into the 1990s, and fail to mention that Rubashkin not only grossly overstated the value of his collateral, he also laundered money through religious nonprofits he controlled to hide it from his lenders. He also took $1.5 million dollars out of Agriprocessors' accounts and put it in his own personal accounts.]

DENIAL OF BAIL

After bringing these new charges, the prosecutors sought to revoke bail, alleging that Jews pose a unique flight risk as a consequence of the laws set up in Israel after World War II allowing Jews to go to Israel after their near extermination. At the time of the bail hearing, Rubashkin was 49 years old, married, the father of 10 and a citizen of the United States with no prior criminal record. Moreover, he is not an Israeli citizen; he has no bank accounts, property or assets in Israel; he does not have an Israeli passport or visa; and his wife, children and parents reside in the United States and are U.S. citizens. Defining Jews as a greater flight risk due to Israel's law of return is repugnant. Even more troubling is that the U.S. magistrate judge handling the matter, Jon Stuart Scoles, accepted the prosecutors' unsavory arguments — denying bail to Rubashkin.

[What Steinbuch and Tolman do not mention is that Sholom Rubashkin urged a senior level manager to flee to Israel and paid for his ticket. That employee, Hosam Amara, is still wanted by the government. Another senior level Rubashkin manager, Zev Levi, also fled indictment and is presumed to be hiding in Israel. Steinbuch and Tolman also do not mention Israel's checkered record of fulfilling extradition requests.]

The prosecutors also baldly claimed that Rubashkin was stashing cash in his house so he could flee the country. In fact, much of the allegedly "stashed" currency was actually money clearly used for charity — including silver coins used by religious Jews on the Feast of Esther (Purim) for special acts of charity and a stack of one-dollar bills used for daily charity.

[The actual amount found was in excess of $10,000. Only a small percentage was $1 bills. The money was found in a travel bag on the floor of Rubashkin's closet. In that bag were the passports of his wife and children.]

After 76 days in jail, the district judge released Rubashkin on bail. Contrary to the assertions of the prosecutors and the belief of the magistrate judge, Rubashkin never even attempted to flee to Israel — or anywhere else for that matter. But at the same time, the prosecutors began increasing the charges against Rubashkin. They did this seven times. Rubashkin was convicted on the financial charges in November 2009. Without Rubashkin, his company went bankrupt, and the line of credit that had been consistently and timely paid went into default.

[Agriprocessors went bankrupt because it could recruit and retain legal employees, not because of Sholom Rubashkin's absence. The reason it could not get and retain legal employees is primarily that Agriprocessors paid far less than the industry standard for that area of the Midwest.]

After conviction, the prosecutors first sought a life sentence. They then reduced their request to one for a 25-year sentence for Rubashkin — a man with no criminal history on charges essentially that he inflated his ability to pay loans that he had been consistently paying. The "reduced" sentencing proposal called for the court to impose a sentence equal to or longer than that for second-degree murder, kidnapping, rape of a child or affording weapons to terrorist organizations. Tragically, the district judge, Linda Reade — a former federal prosecutor in Iowa herself — imposed a sentence of 27 years, two years longer than the already exaggerated one the prosecutors sought. This sentence is drastically disproportionate to those imposed on others convicted of similar crimes and wholly inappropriate for the crimes of which Rubashkin was convicted.

[Steinbuch and Tolman do not mention several things: 1) The US Sentencing guidelines called for a sentence of 23 to 30 years, 2) Rubashkin committed more than simple bank fraud. He also laundered money and headed a conspiracy to defraud. And this does not take into account the immigration-related charges which under US law could have been used during sentencing to add to his sentence. The judge chose not to do this. She sentenced Rubashkin to 25 years – at the lower end of the sentencing guidelines – and then added two years for a crime Rubashkin committed in her courtroom – perjury.]

Frank Bowman — a professor at the University of Missouri School of Law, former federal prosecutor, special counsel to the U.S. Sentencing Commission, co-author of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines Handbook and co-editor of the Federal Sentencing Reporter — rightly distinguishes between "[a] defendant who consciously sets out to steal or cause economic loss" and one "who acts dishonestly but without the desire to steal or cause loss." Rubashkin was never alleged to have pocketed profits; rather he was alleged to have mismanaged moneys to keep his business afloat. His sentence does not reflect this critical distinction.

[The idea that Rubashkin did not personally profit from his fraud is not tenable. His family owned the business and Sholom Rubashkin himself personally benefited financially as I noted above.]

Reade's sentence becomes even more suspect when seen in light of the recent revelations concerning her undisclosed contacts and involvement in the case leading up to Rubashkin's arrest.

In February 2009, prior to Rubashkin's trial, his attorneys made a Freedom of Information Act request to ICE seeking documents concerning Rubashkin and the raid upon the facility. ICE didn't produce the documents. His attorneys sued. More than a year later, they finally obtained redacted documents from ICE. The documents are startling. They show that Reade had ongoing ex parte contacts with the U.S. attorney's office and ICE about the matter beginning six months prior to Rubashkin's arrest. These meetings covered operational and strategic topics that went far beyond the mere "logistical cooperation" that Reade had insisted was the limit of her interaction when she denied a recusal motion from an unrelated defendant in the case. The newly discovered ICE memoranda belie this claim.

[Actually, they do not belie the claim. All the documents show is Reade – the court's chief judge – doing her job, clearing court schedules and making sure defendants would have judges to hear their cases, attorneys, those attorneys would have space to work, and that those attorneys and the court would have computer access and IT backup. After all. the government had to plan for the group arrest, detention, feeding, etc., of 600 people, and the law mandates their arraignment within 24 hours. The documents show this is what Judge Reade dealt with.]

The documents reveal that Rubashkin's arrest appears to have been timed to accommodate Reade's personal vacation schedule;

[The raid was timed to be done when Judge Reade was not on vacation – a perfectly normal, legal choice – especially when my remarks immediately above are taken into account.]

Reade and the U.S. attorney's staff "surveyed" the location where the detainees would be held and their trials conducted; Reade expressed her personal commitment "to support the operation in any way possible";

[Steinbuch and Tolman here misquote the documents in the same way Nathan Lewin misquoted them in his press release. First of all, the quote is not from Judge Reade. The quote is from an ICE agent summarizing Judge Reade's position. And the entire sentence reads as follows, "The court made it clear that they are willing to support the operation in any way possible, to include staffing and scheduling." What Tolman, Steinbuch and Lewin have done with this sentence is reprehensible.]

Reade personally participated in meetings that covered "an overview of charging strategies" to follow the raid; and Reade demanded sua sponte from the prosecutors "a final gameplan in two weeks" and a "briefing on how the operation will be conducted."

[Just like the 'quote' immediately above, if you check the documents themselves you'll see Rubashkin's legal team is grossly misrepresenting the documents.]

Reade never disclosed her attendance at, and active personal participation in, these meetings.

[This is false. She disclosed her participation in planning the logistics of the raid's aftermath – which is exactly what the documents show she did.]

Rubashkin's attorneys have moved to have her retroactively recused. The motion requests that another judge decide the question. We'll see whether she accedes to this request. The attorneys are also considering filing complaints with the U.S. Justice Department against the prosecutors for failing to disclose their contacts with Reade.

TOO MANY FOUL BALLS

Seventy-five years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court stated: "The United States Attorney is the representative not of an ordinary party to a controversy, but of a sovereignty whose obligation to govern impartially is as compelling as its obligation to govern at all; and whose interest, therefore, in a criminal prosecution is not that it shall win a case, but that justice shall be done. As such, he is in a peculiar and very definite sense the servant of the law, the twofold aim of which is that guilt shall not escape or innocence suffer. He may prosecute with earnestness and vigor — indeed, he should do so. But, while he may strike hard blows, he is not at liberty to strike foul ones. It is as much his duty to refrain from improper methods calculated to produce a wrongful conviction as it is to use every legitimate means to bring about a just one." Berger v. U.S. (1935).

Too many foul balls have been struck here. Hopefully, Rubashkin will get the justice he deserves on appeal.

Robert Steinbuch is a law professor at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock Bowen School of Law. Brett Tolman, a former U.S. attorney for the District of Utah, is now in private practice in Utah at Ray Quinney & Nebeker. Tolman has worked on the Rubashkin case.

Nathan Lewin's press release and the entire set of documents he filed in support of his motion.

Comments

[Cheskel]

"""What Steinbuch and Tolman do not mention is that Sholom Rubashkin urged a senior level manager to flee to Israel and paid for his ticket. That employee, Hosam Amara, is still wanted by the government. Another senior level Rubashkin manager, Zev Levi, also fled indictment and is presumed to be hiding in Israel. Steinbuch and Tolman also do not mention Israel's checkered record of fulfilling extradition requests.]"''""

Just wondering,did the prosecution state this reason in not granting bail?

[A E ANDERSON]

The emerging pattern here seems to be:

1. Everything Rubashkin, his lawyers or supporters say is a lie, or is otherwise wrong and distorted.

2. Everything Rubashkin's opponents say is true and accurate, and is merely repeated and recited here as proven fact.

I don't sense that Rubashkin was ever that bad, or his opponents ever that good. The actual truth probably rests in a happy medium between the two extreme positions, as it often does when opinions become polarized.

[Shmarya]

Just wondering,did the prosecution state this reason in not granting bail?

Yes.

[Maverick]

@A E Anderson
>>I don't sense that Rubashkin was ever that bad, or his opponents ever that good. The actual truth probably rests in a happy medium between the two extreme positions, as it often does when opinions become polarized.>1. Everything Rubashkin, his lawyers or supporters say is a lie, or is otherwise wrong and distorted.

2. Everything Rubashkin's opponents say is true and accurate, and is merely repeated and recited here as proven fact.<<

[Monsey Hocker]

Who cares anymore? Enough. Frag his a**. Then there's no debate. Public execution would be cruel and inhuman.

[state of disgust]

Shmarya:

Your analysis is spot on.
I hope you send it to the National Law Review and force them to publish it.

The Steinbuch Tolman screed looks like a plant from the Lewin camp and the NLR has been shamefully used. They should know better then to fall for such nonsense. If you cannot submit this rebuttal perhaps several of the lawyers who participate here could submit something similar.

[harold]

Excellent article (I read it ignoring what was enclosed within the []). Thanks for bringing the Steinbuch and Tolman opinion piece to our attention

[Shmarya]

Excellent article (I read it ignoring what was enclosed within the [])

Of course you did.

The only way to maintain your blind support of Rubashkin is to be blissfully ignorant of the facts.

[Wankele]

Harold,
Your response is sad. The belief that Rubashkin is as pure as the fallen snow has become a matter of eumunah in the chareidi community. Don't bother me with the facts, my mind is devoted to my emunah. That the sentence is excessive is true. But Rubashkin is not a saint, he is not a martyr for the yiddishe velt. And now it has become a matter of big big money. All these lawyers are paid big - not for winning the case or reducing the sentence - but for pandering at various public gatherings of unsere leit and for writing articles. The idea that mayser money is going to these lawyers is horrific. Now I know why שלום מרדכי in gematria is equal to תרום CONTRIBUTE!

[i'm from missouri]

When did Tolman work on the Rubashkin case?
Is he still involved offficially?

[harold]

Excellent article (I read it ignoring what was enclosed within the [])

Of course you did.

The only way to maintain your blind support of Rubashkin is to be blissfully ignorant of the facts.

Nope, I simple read it without the spoon feed spin.

[Shmarya]

Nope, I simple read it without the spoon feed spin.

Yes, 'Harold,' you are simple.

And what you skipped isn't "spoon feed [sic] spin," it is cold, hard fact.

[A E ANDERSON]

Here I go again...

I can't help but see Rubashkin as an underdog who's been undone by an unceasing chorus of rabid haters and opponents, ranging from PETA and organized labor to the various people here who use every opportunity to make him into evil incarnate. What's more, people I know and respect seem to feel Rubashkin was a good fellow.

Few people accused of crimes have a chanting chorus of opponents (i.e., this blog) to ceaselessly pursue them and pick apart their every statement, and make their every action into a crime or act of defiance to the court. It is really rather unprecedented for there to exist an auxiliary corps of volunteers to the prosecution.

When I read the allegations presented against him, what I see are the typical kinds of mistakes, errors and omissions that many secularly-uneducated habadnikim make when opening or operating businesses or institutions. They exist in a different world, where books and records are mostly things that don't exist until the government comes calling for them, and then must be created for the benefit of the government. This is because most reckoning is done in the head or the back of an envelope by the seat of the pants with these folks.

The unceasing litany of accusation here obscures the fact that to create Agriprocessors, the Rubashkins invested many, many millions of their own money over time, and that the business hardly started with the defaulted line of credit about which so much has been made and which formed the basis for the fraud convictions. No matter what the collateral, banks do not loan $35 million to enterprises that are not already ongoing, multi-million dollar operations.

So much was hung in establishing that fraud on arcane technical details of a loan agreement, when in most other cases -- where there didn't exist a lynch mob of prosecutors gunning at them -- these details would at most have been the subject of civil litigation, and would have been settled under the rules of contract (and bankruptcy) law.

Listening to the prosecutors, or to Judge Reade, one would think that the Rubashkins suddenly appeared in Postville one merry day, scammed $35 million and took off with it to the extent that they could before alert feds nabbed them.

The fact that they had invested a like amount, or even more, over the years, seemed not to matter. So every instance of Rubashkin taking relatively small sums ( the largest was $1.2 million out of $35 million) out of his closely-held family business became to them a matter of theft, regardless of the fact that he had put in much more than that in the first place. Small businessman put money in and take money out of their businesses all the time, all day, around the clock, and do not usually get accused of fraud, no matter how well a case might technically be created to establish wire or mail fraud.

I don't have a clear picture, and I wonder if anybody does, of the disposition of the funds Rubashkin took out. We know he paid some credit card bills, and we know he bought his wife some jewelry. But maybe in doing he was paying himself back for funds he advanced to the business? This was not a traded company and all shareholders were apparently acquiescent in those payments.

I think that a jury less ring-fenced than the one empaneled under Judge Reade would have viewed the transactions in a less negative light, and may well have voted to acquit as the state jury did on other charges, but when the defense was permitted greater latitude to present its case.

[KalmenK]

YES, JUSTICE WAS DENIED !!!

You wrote: [For months, Sholom Rubashkin refused to cooperate with the government. Then, a few days before the raid, he changed his mind and offered to cooperate. As the documents filed with the court two weeks ago by Rubashkin lead appellate attorney Nathan Lewin show, the raid involved extensive planning by the government, planning that took six months. After spending millions of dollars and six months of time, to expect the government to take Rubashkin's last minute offer is ridiculous. Past that, evidence clearly shows that as Rubashkin was offering to cooperate with the government he was also actively procuring fake IDs and fake green cards for his employees, so his offer of cooperation can hardly be viewed as legitimate.]

Here is the truth:

Rubashkin was never approached about this by the government, it was the standard in meatpacking places that illegal immigrants where working there, even today in the new Agri Star with all the measures, and they are under the eye of the government, they still have illegal workers there (see this quote (taken off your site) from a worker there: Cobbins is one of a handful of native-born Americans working on the floor. He moved here from Dubuque, soon after the raid. He says the plant's hiring system still has holes -- workers with fake documents are getting through).

And this is the biggest question why spend millions of tax dollars and six months of work when you could have done it the right way and approach them.

And what happened next is this, Because it was apparent from government activity in the neighborhood of Agriprocessors’ Postville plant that ICE might be planning a raid, Agri took the advice of the American Meat Institute and retained the services of Robert W. Kent, Esq., an attorney with the international law firm of Baker & McKenzie. Mr. Kent had represented Swift & Co. – a meat-packer that had been raided by ICE in six states in December 2006, when approximately 1,297 illegal employees were found. When ICE sought to raid Swift again in Texas, Kent persuaded them to proceed without a raid and instead to examine Swift’s employment records and weed out the illegal immigrants. Kent called the Iowa prosecutors on May 9, 2008, and followed up with a faxed letter the same day requesting a meeting and stating that Agri – which was “the largest kosher meat production company in the country” — wished to cooperate with ICE and avoid the dangers and disruption of a raid. Kent’s requests were summarily denied and the raid took place.

This is only ONE example of the gross disparity between usual procedures in federal criminal prosecutions under the immigration and bank-fraud laws and how Iowa federal prosecutors treated the case of Sholom Rubashkin.

And what you write that Sholom Rubashkin was "procuring fake IDs and fake green cards for his employees" is an accusation that was never proved (as was all the other accusations in the affidavit prior to the raid) and thank god we live in America a democratic society, and you are innocent until proven guilty, so don't quote stuff like this, be an American.

[i'm from missouri]

KalmenK
According to you, not only are you innocent until proven guilty but you are innocent even after being proven guilty.

[KalmenK]

i'm from missouri wrote: According to you, not only are you innocent until proven guilty but you are innocent even after being proven guilty.

Not true!

On what was rubashkin found guilty ?? only on the bank fraud charges, all other charges where either dropped or found NOT guilty

Know the facts before you spit out you nonsense and hatred !

[Shmarya]

Posted by: KalmenK | August 17, 2010 at 01:20 PM

Nice fantasy, Kalman.

I'm sure it makes you feel better.

And what's wrong with that, especially when truth is not something you or your community values.

[KalmenK]

Shmarya,

Lets not talk about you, me, or the community

Lets discuss the true facts, which part of my post is fantasy?

[Shmarya]

which part of my post is fantasy?

Pretty much all of it.

[i'm from missouri]

KalmenK
He was found guilty of bank fraud charges and was sentenced for those charges. You just admitted it.
Also to which nonsense and hatred are you referring? I certainly didn't have any hatred toward you when i posted. i guess you are too sensitive . Keep me in mind Yom Kippur when you clop al chait. I forgive you for your comments.

[rebeljew]

In Mesichta Shavuot (lemed tet, sof amud aleph), there is a memra that says:

There is no family that has a criminal (listis), where all of them are not criminals. (Fregt der Gemara, why so harsh to blame the entire family?) Because they protect him. Whatever happened to the fundamentalist understanding of chazal?

[KalmenK]

Shmarya,

First I got to thank you, I won a bet of $500 with your help. I have a friend that reads your blog and comes to me always with all your lies and nonsense, and always tell him don't believe what he writes, he is a self hating Jew, 1 sided against R' Sholom Mordche ben Rivkah and he twist the facts and report only negative against him, yesterday he came to me all excited and showed me your response to the article in the prestige's Law Journal, I explained (as always) him that you are twisting the facts and writing lies, and I told him, I will bet $500 with him, that I will reply "Just to your first comment" with the correct facts, and you will not be able to answer, and you will ignore it or you will just go off subject, and that is exactly what you answered "Nice fantasy, Kalman." or "Pretty much all of it."

Shmarya, thanks for the money, and remember you can twist it right or left, the facts are facts and the truth is the truth, and I have the hard copies of the facts on whatever I wrote.

i'm from missouri

I have to be "dan lekaf zechis" you, or you cant read English or you don't have a clue of the facts, I wrote that the claim that rubashkin was procuring fake IDs and fake green cards for his employees", as was all the accusations in the affidavit prior to the raid, are accusation that was never proved, and he is innocent until proven guilty. Regarding the bank fraud charges that he was found guilty on, I hope you where informed about the Motion 33 that was filed, and I will let the procedures take its course, and am sure justice will prevail, and Sholom Mordche will be found NOT guilty in his next and fair trial (as what happened in the state case)

Remember when you accuse another Yid with lies, you are spitting nonsense and hatred !

[Maverick]

Actually KalmenK, I will have correct you on several facts.

One, you should refund the money, if not only because betting against another Jew is itself very difficult halachicly, but because you controlled the bet to a large degree (you posted the comments). It is a little like betting someone that an the arrow you are going to shoot will not hit the target. (Please do not nitpick the parable I give and ignore the message.)

Two, you bet a very significant amount of money on something. . Although you do not apparently make most of your living from betting (and would therefore be pasul for aidut), this bet can call your character into question. It is therefore not advisable to do such an action.

Three, the principle you brought up of "dan likaf zchut." This principle also means that if someone is a known sinner, you judge all their actions in a negative light. "People I know and respect" have told me firsthand that Rubashkin is, indeed, a sinner.

Four, no one can deny that Rubashkin wantonly broke American law (for example, by illegally employing illegal aliens). This means he had little regard for Dina diMalchuta Dina, which is either a DiOrayta (Rambam) or a DiRabanan. So Rubashkin is therefore a sinner who does not think the Torah is valid (and is therefore a heretic) or disrespects the Rabanan (and is therefore worse than someone who worships idols [Maharal]).

Five, if you continue to defend someone such as this, you also become culpable in his sins. Such action would not be advisable, especially considering the time of year.

Six, by accusing someone of being a "self hating Jew" and of lying, you can be violating many laws, not the least of which Loshon HaRa/Motzie Shaim Ra. Again, such action is not advisable, especially considering the time of year.

Seven, if a person is a wanton sinner it is a Chiyuv to tell everyone you can about him and his sins (Chafetz Chayim). By accusing this proclamation of being false, when it is indeed true (seeThree), you are putting yourself in a bad situation.

[Just the facts]

Shmarya,
How convenient that you choose to present your own version of what 'really' happened as 'fact', while conveniently ignoring the significant evidence that SMR was actually railroaded. It is clear to any impartial observer, which you are clearly not, that SMR did not have a fair trial or anything resembling one. The extent of Linda Reades misdeeds or otherwise will doubtless be revealed during the appeal, at which point honest observers will be able to evaluate the facts. Your relentless jihad against a fellow Jew is disgusting. You sure sound like a Kapo to me.

[OMG]

A E ANDERSON; before I get to your arguments, let me assure you that I am not trying to debate the merits of your writing, because I will probably fail, you are much better then I, but that doesn’t make your view right, debating is an art not reality. The only thing we should take away that you are better than the average guy out there, and I am not nearly as good as you are.

For a change I would like to dissect your view and let’s see how you came to your conclusions. Is it fact of fiction? I say that it is nothing more than fiction or optimism beyond regular rational people. You first post @ August 16, 2010 at 04:52 PM, point is true you wrote, “I don't sense that Rubashkin was ever that bad, or his opponents ever that good. The actual truth probably rests in a happy medium between the two extreme positions, as it often does when opinions become polarized. This is spot on. But @ | August 17, 2010 at 01:07 PM, you took a new tone, one, you wrote,

“I can't help but see Rubashkin as an underdog who's been undone by an unceasing chorus of rabid haters and opponents, ranging from PETA and organized labor to the various people here who use every opportunity to make him into evil incarnate. What's more, people I know and respect seem to feel Rubashkin was a good fellow.”

You are wrong to take a position on the validly of the charges based on the fact that he was a good fellow, I am sure that many fraudsters have friends who will have stories about the convict's honesty and the compassionate endeavors undertaken by the convict. My other point would be that it might be true, that Agriprocessor didn’t have a good relationship with PETA and labor, but that would be a problem if the company didn’t committed fraud, by inflating their receivables.

Your next point is “Few people accused of crimes have a chanting chorus of opponents (i.e., this blog) to ceaselessly pursue them and pick apart their every statement, and make their every action into a crime or act of defiance to the court. It is really rather unprecedented for there to exist an auxiliary corps of volunteers to the prosecution.”

You are probably right that this case brings out detractor more so, then other case, but what you fail acknowledge, that is this case you have defenders who are pouring millions of dollars to the defendant, show me any convict, who is not political, that was able to raise millions of dollars, far and few could muster any money and this guy has raised millions. Therefore if you decry the detractors, then you should also decry the defenders. And your one-sided point tells me that you are a defender at all cost.

Your next argument centers around the ability of a hasidic Jew to run a business, you wrote, “When I read the allegations presented against him, what I see are the typical kinds of mistakes, errors and omissions that many secularly-uneducated habadnikim make when opening or operating businesses or institutions. They exist in a different world, where books and records are mostly things that don't exist until the government comes calling for them, and then must be created for the benefit of the government. This is because most reckoning is done in the head or the back of an envelope by the seat of the pants with these folks.”

Point one is, that you’re willing to besmirch, every Chasidic Jew organization and business leadership ability, just so you will be able to argue that SMR wasn’t familiar with simple bookkeeping procedures. Point two is, not only SMR familiar with the companies bookkeeping, but the record shows that Agriprocessor had two sets of books, one reflecting the real receivables, and the others set was for the banks auditors. The show boxes description doesn’t reflect the actual trial record.

Your next argument revolves around the issue raised by the prosecution, that SMR took out 1.5M dollars from the company you wrote, “The unceasing litany of accusation here obscures the fact that to create Agriprocessors, the Rubashkins invested many, many millions of their own money over time, and that the business hardly started with the defaulted line of credit about which so much has been made and which formed the basis for the fraud convictions. No matter what the collateral, banks do not loan $35 million to enterprises that are not already ongoing, multi-million dollar operations.”

Your point is a fallacy; the fact is that when any entity, personal or company, files for bankruptcy protection. It is the duty of the trusty to go back and study the books to see if, one- any principal drained money from the company, two, the other area where the trusty would look, if any personal loan was paid back in the last 24 months, and to make the decision if the claw-back rules should apply. And this is the point, a secured creditor is first in line, and the unsecured creditor is ahead of a insider creditor, so regardless how much a business owner loans the company he cannot take it out ahead of the secured and none-secured creditor, and one more point, if the owners invested money in the company then according accounting rules, this investment is equity, and you are legally not allowed to take that equity, without reporting it to the IRS and one needs to pay taxes. Your question, ultimately, how was the 1.5M dollars used; the issue is not how SMR used the money, it was illegal to take the money and if my memory serves me right, at the trial the prosecution did show precisely how he used the funds, and it was all personal.

Finally all the pontificating, what should, could have happened, is nothing more than sounding off, in their fantasy.

[Shmarya]

How convenient that you choose to present your own version of what 'really' happened as 'fact', while conveniently ignoring the significant evidence that SMR was actually railroaded. It is clear to any impartial observer, which you are clearly not, that SMR did not have a fair trial or anything resembling one.

Please.

I presented the facts as they are, as the documents (even the documents Lewin released) document.

The extent of Linda Reades misdeeds or otherwise will doubtless be revealed during the appeal, at which point honest observers will be able to evaluate the facts.

Lewin released documents he claimed proved the judge's misdeeds.

The problem is, those documents do not support Lewin's claims.

Unlike Rubashkin's team, I actually posted all those documents, and I clearly show where Lewin lies or misrepresents them.

Your relentless jihad against a fellow Jew is disgusting. You sure sound like a Kapo to me.

And you sure sound like a Chabadnik to me.

[Wankele]

Dear KalmenK,
I was much impressed by the following words at the end of your long response on Aug 17: "thank god we live in America a democratic society, and you are innocent until proven guilty." The context was the matter of fake ID's and fake green cards. But your general statement still stands. However, I gather from what you write that you do not believe that SR was "proven guilty" on the bank fraud charges. So I have a question: If his appeal is turned down as to guilt or innocence (not as far as sentence length) will you then accept the fact that SR has been "proven guilty"? Or do you reserve for yourself the right to determine when someone is "proven guilty" rather than relying on the procedure used in "America a democratic society" which you so grandly praise? Hence I want to make you an offer to test if you really accept the American system of democracy and justice. I remember in some post you talked about a $500 bet you made and won. My Litvak cultural background does not permit me to make straight bets. So this is the deal: If the guilty verdict is overturned I make a $500 donation to the charity of your choice, if the guilty verdict is affirmed you make a $500 donation to the charity of my choice. I'll trust you in this matter, you trust me (as far as carrying out the payment). A deal? As my rebbe always said: S**t or get off the pot.

[FirstGenerationBavarianAmerican]

This is the first time I have heard of the "prestigious" National Law Journal. I wondered how this poorly written, clearly-labeled opinion article was published. It turns out the National Law Journal is not a scholarly journal, but a business publication, just like Food Engineering and InformationWeek are business publications. There does not appear to have been any peer review of this article.

This morning, Justice Denied is listed as the #1 most popular story on the homepage of the National Law Journal. Is the nation's legal community really THAT interested in this case? A little googling reveals that lots of other Jewish websites and blogs posted links to the story. That will increase the number of "hits" for this story.

This story is also referenced by the "Sentencing Law and Policy" blog:

http://sentencing.typepad.com/sentencing_law_and_policy/2010/08/potent-opinion-piece-asserting-justice-denied-in-the-rubashkin-case.html

This blog owner discloses that he has performed work for some persons involved in the Rubashkin case. In turn, other blogs posted references to the Sentencing Law and Policy blog story, which again drives more traffic to the original National Law Journal Op-Ed piece.

Until the prosecutors and Judge Reade respond to the motion for a new trial, these unsubstantiated charges of partiality on the part of the judge will go unabated to the general public.

[s]

off the subject: the Peter/Jack DeCoster family whose Wright County, Iowa egg productions facilities were the site of scandals in how undocumented workers were treated, are in the news again. Massive egg recall due to salmonella.

[Jose Gonzalez]

“Justice Denied” by Robert Steinbuch
Read it. It will shed some light on the terrible anti-semitic acts conducted by Judge Linda Reade.

The time has come for justice to be served. Rubashkin will be a free man, and Morris will look like the opportunist he is.

[Shmarya]

Read it. It will shed some light on the terrible anti-semitic acts conducted by Judge Linda Reade.

Moron.

1. It's posted above.

2. One of the authors is a Rubashkin attorney.

3. As anyone who looks at the original documents can see, these two goons lied.