Prosecutors: Rubashkin Judge Did Not Know Agriprocessors Was Raid Target

The judge who presided over Sholom Rubashkin’s fraud trial did nothing improper when she met with federal agents prior to the massive 2008 immigration raid at Agriprocessors, Inc., prosecutors say.

Prosecutors: Rubashkin judge didn’t know Agriprocessors was their target
Blog post by Grant Schulte • Des Moines Register

The judge who presided over Sholom Rubashkin’s fraud trial did nothing improper when she met with federal agents prior to the massive 2008 immigration raid at Agriprocessors, Inc., prosecutors argued Tuesday.

U.S. District Judge Linda Reade was only told about a planned raid that would involve hundreds of illegal immigrant arrests, Assistant U.S. Attorney Peter Deegan Jr. wrote in court papers.

The chief federal judge for Iowa’s northern district was not privy to where the raid would take place, who would be targeted, or other details before the raid was underway, Deegan said.

The federal court filing came in response to defense claims that Reade did not disclose all of her conversations before the May 2008 raid. Rubashkin’s lawyers have asked for a new trial on grounds Reade took an improper role in helping plan the raid.

Reade has said she had limited “logistical cooperation” with law enforcement in advance, to ensure that the detained immigrants were given attorneys and interpreters. The massive raid also required her to move the immigrant hearings to the National Cattle Congress in Waterloo because of the number of arrests.

“In order to plan for hundreds of criminal prosecutions, the Court needed to be contacted at the earliest opportunity to determine whether the Court could handle so many prosecutions at once and, if so, when,” Deegan Jr. wrote. “The Court needed several months to plan for its role in the operation. There is nothing about the timing of the notification to suggest anything nefarious.”

Defense lawyers say Reade participated in a series of meetings with immigration agents and prosecutors that went beyond that limited role.

Reade has said she does not comment on pending cases.

Deegan said statements attributed to Reade about her “support” for the operation were taken out of context. Even if she had known that Agriprocessors was the target, he said, the allegations still would not lead a reasonable person to question her impartiality. He noted that the prosecutions immediately after the raid focused on the plant workers and not the management.

Rubashkin was sentenced to 27 years in prison in June for his leadership in the massive financial fraud scheme at Agriprocessors Inc. A jury convicted Rubashkin of 86 fraud-related charges in November.

Nearly 400 illegal immigrants were arrested at the Postville plant during the raid. The plant later filed for bankruptcy, and has since emerged under new ownership as Agri Star.

First of all, there is no question that Nathan Lewin's team took quotes out of context. They also attributed quotes to Judge Reade that were, in fact, not quotes, and in one especially egregious case took a part of of a sentence and used it as a quote without indicating the sentence was truncated. The part Lewin omitted modified the part he used, and made the sentence completely banal.

While I was the first to report this, others – including Avi Moskowitz, a former Deputy Assistant US Attorney who is now a defense attorney – pointed this out, as well.

But if a reporter doesn't check the quotes, all he can do is report it as a he said, she said situation. And that is what the Des Moines Register does.

Past that, the government's brief filed today points out other defense tactics that it says are less than fully above board, including the title of and content of the defense's press release, made public only minutes after Lewin's motion for a new trial was filed. The claims made in the Lewin press release are not supported by the court documents Lewin filed, as I have noted several times previously.

The government says Judge Reade was not told which company was the target of the raid, but even if she had been, that would not disqualify her from judging the case (as I also noted previously):

Chief Judge Reade was not privy to the location of the place to be searched on May 12, 2008, or who the potential targets of the investigation might be. (Murphy Affidavit ¶ 13 (Gov. Exb. 3)). Accordingly, her involvement in the pre-search logistical coordination of Court operations could not have exposed her to any facts about defendant, his family’s business, or the evidence gathered prior to the search. However, even if Chief Judge Reade had been apprised of the evidence gathered prior to the search, recusal would not be warranted. Judges are routinely privy to such information in the form of, for example, Rule 41 search warrant applications, Title III wiretap applications, criminal complaints, and pen register applications.

It also says that the executive who the government sought to arrest on May 12, 2008 was not Sholom Rubashkin. While the government does not name this executive, he apparently is Hosam Amara, who fled to Israel with Sholom Rubashkin's help to avoid arrest:

The arrest warrant referred to in the April 2, 2008, e-mail was for another person and was returned un-executed. (See Murphy Affidavit ¶ 15 (Gov. Exb. 3)). It was signed by a judicial officer other than Chief Judge Reade, (see Murphy Affidavit ¶ 15 (Gov. Exb. 3)), and there is no evidence to suggest Chief Judge Reade was ever made aware of it.

And the government notes:

[Sholom Rubashkin] was not charged with any criminal charges until October 30, 2008; after other Agriprocessors mangers and office personnel had been prosecuted and cooperated.    Defendant’s first financial charges were not brought until November 14, 2008. Even then, additional criminal conduct (such as the fake invoice scheme) was not discovered until several weeks later. Indeed, the evidence at trial showed defendant was still committing an array of crimes long after the May 12, 2008, search.…The evidence gathered on May 12, 2008, was only a discrete part of the mountains of evidence used to convict defendant.

The bottom line is that all parties agree it was proper for Judge Reade to be involved in logistical planning for the aftermath of the raid. The defense alleges the judge's involvement went beyond that. The government claims it did not, and points out that Lewin has brought no evidence to the contrary. And this is what I have noted several times, beginning the day Lewin's motion was filed.

The government also notes that Rubashkin's defense team chose not to ask for Judge Reade's recusal before the trial, and alleges Lewin's "new evidence" is not, in fact, new or evidence. This is explained in depth in the brief.

You can read the full brief and related material on my morning post.

All this said, we won't know what will happen until the judge rules, and that should take several days or even more.

The Lewin Press Release and Motion For A New Trial.

Lewin Equating Judge Reade With Haman.

The Government's Full Brief.

Comments

[harold]

The chief federal judge for Iowa’s northern district was not privy to where the raid would take place, who would be targeted, or other details before the raid was underway, Deegan said.

Sounds a little fishy to me. It seems bizarre why they would feel that the chief federal judge wouldn't be "privy" to the details of the raid. Is it because she would tip SMR off? I see nothing in her past to warrant such a fear. I also find it hard to believe that she would not have asked just who was being raided, considering the size of the raid – but then again I could be wrong.

[Shmarya]

Sounds a little fishy to me. It seems bizarre why they would feel that the chief federal judge wouldn't be "privy" to the details of the raid. Is it because she would tip SMR off? I see nothing in her past to warrant such a fear. I also find it hard to believe that she would not have asked just who was being raided, considering the size of the raid – but then again I could be wrong.

She wouldn't be privy to the target of the raid because she did not have need to know.

The warrants were issued by a magistrate judge, not her.

[effie]

People always need to read critically and look for original sources. For example: The case where the census taker was found dead a year ago. The local media interviewed law enforcement and quoted them. The national media - instead of using the direct quotes from the law enforcement, paraphrased the statements which gave them an entirely different meaning than what the original statement conveyed. It was so blatantly dishonest. I could only conclude that this was done deliberately. It certainly blew up in their faces as this will in Lewin's face.

[state of disgust]

" ...but then again I could be wrong."

Your wrong.

In fact the speculation just before the raid was that there were at least two possible targets: Agriprocessors and a very large poultry processor northwest of Postville. There was also a huge hog farm that had gotten a lot of bad publicity and some speculated they would be raided.

Most of us feared it would be Agriprocessors because they had done everything to make themselves a target short of painting a bulls-eye on Postville. Remember: a) Supervisors regularly told workers that if they complained, the boss would call ICE and have them deported - word gets around; b) There was a walk-out of workers from the plant in March that made it into the statewide papers when workers feared that ICE was on its way to raid the plant.

[Monsey Hocker]

Why confuse Harold and the other chabad teat suckers with facts when they can bury their heads in the proverbial sand? Rubashkin is as guilty as the pope is a goy. Wait, it's Elul, let me be dan lekaf zchus...he turned to stealing to help people. OK, got it, so he didn't gamble and buy hookers like Shulem Weiss did, but a gonif is a gonif. Look, Shmarya, you expect normal from people who still give Rabbi Schneerson a chair. The man is six feet under but he still has a chair in 770. WTF? Hey, if they really believed he was alive let them give him hagbah this shabbos. Chabad has seen more a**holes than a toilet seat, they are a dead sect and now that they have sanctified a crook they have zero credibility. Nada. And that lunatic Depends wearing senile bag of bones Lewin might as well become a carpenter because he is really good at nailing coffins. The feds made him look like a first year law student with their reply and they rightfully made him out to be a kinniving mediawhore. Rubashkin will be lucky if by the time Lewin is done he doesn't get ten more years added to his sentence just for his lawyer being a class A jagoff.

[the Real Joe]

Degen can't seem to make up his mind if Judge reade did or didn't know

[OMG]

No need to say anything, the prosecution made mince meat out of Lewin’s appeal.

Monsey Hocker; thanks for the smile you brought to my face, noting better than a smile @ 2:30 AM

[Wankele]

Dear Monsey Hocker,
I strongly object to your saying that the Rebbe Shlita is "six feet under". This violates "lo telech bechukotehem". It should be "daled amot under".

[Robert Wisler]

Ha ha! The "rebbe shlita"!!!

[Monsey Hocker]

OMG, Shaul in Monsey would be proud. Maybe we can convince him to come out of retirement.

[FirstGenerationBavarianAmerican]

The Brooklyn courthouse alone of the Eastern District of NY has 11 active judges and 7 senior status (semi-retired) judges. So it is easy to sell Rubashkin's Brooklyn supporters a bill of a biased judge. The Cedar Rapids courthouse only has two active judges in total.

I find this attempt to smear Judge Reade offensive. And some people are noticing. Rabble rousers had been telling people to go a web site called The Robing Room to smear Judge Reade. After the Lewin press release went out, there were 94 posts made to Judge Reade's page on The Robing Room. I looked at the site this morning, and Linda Read's name was removed from the alphabetical index. A Google cache dated August 16th still has her name listed. A Google cache from July 29th shows Linda Reade in second place on the list of "Bottom 10 Judges". The owners of The Robing Room website must have figured out most of the posts were fraudulent. Google
site:http://www.therobingroom.com Linda R. Reade
for links to all these pages, including cache.

I hope Judge Reade just sucks up the smear campaign, denies the requests, and sends them off to St. Louis. The prosecutors put enough midwestern code words into their response that the appeals judges will immediately spot that the motion is without merit.

[OMG]

Monsey Hocker;
I to, was wondering if all is well with Shaul in Monsey, hope to hear from him one day.

FirstGenerationBavarianAmerican; you are so right; the prosecution literally took apart every syllable in the Lewin’s motion, and showed the nonsense, purported by team Lewin. They really don’t need any code words, it is all there in the open, like any taulmudic mind they covered every angle a person could come up with, noting less than a master piece.

Usually I like to drill down and explore the details, but this motion is so rich with intelligent arguments, that after the fact, the fair and impartial person would understand that the Lewin’s notion was written and produced by a neophyte, it is just impossible that the great Nat Lewin wrote this motion, or is this motion the beginning of senility? If yes, what an end to the great mens career, a man degrades right in front of our eyes, and it seems noting could help him.
By the way did you notice on VIN they are hiding in their rats holes.

[KalmenK]

This is total nonsense, and any normal (non bias) Judge will rule in favor of Rule 33 and throw out the case and order a new one.

Do you believe that Judge Linda Reid sat with Prosecutors and ICE for 7 Months and discussed a raid and they never told her which place they are going to raid ?

Answer me, who was the person that they had a arrest warrant, that was not executed ? if not Sholom Mordche ?

And last, (this is the best) the ICE agent didn't express him self well, when he wrote, that they discussed "charging strategies" he meant something else, this is nonsense

Don't be 1 sided and just look at the facts, and you will see the truth

[Shmarya]

Answer me, who was the person that they had a arrest warrant, that was not executed ? if not Sholom Mordche ?

I 'answered you' in my post. Perhaps if you actually read it before commenting on it you would know that answer.

It was Hosam Amara, the man Sholom Rubashkin helped flee to Israel.

And last, (this is the best) the ICE agent didn't express him self well, when he wrote, that they discussed "charging strategies" he meant something else, this is nonsense

I've read a lot of FOIA documents over the years and I can tell you that very few of them are well written. These people are not writers, they are bureaucrats and law enforcement.

That said, "charging strategies" means just that, and it was used with regard to the undocumented workers who were the target of the raid, not Rubashkin.

[KalmenK]

Shmarya,

This, that the arrest warrant was for Hosam Amara is you assumption, but there is no prove, so basically its a 50/50, and at least we need an investigation on it.

And again, what the ICE agent meant when he wrote that they discussed "charging strategies" is also a 50/50, and at least we need an investigation on it.

And as your beloved scholar Avi Moskowitz, a former Deputy Assistant US Attorney who is now a defense attorney – pointed out, that there was a cover up her, and the Judge never disclosed the 6 or 7 meetings she had with the prosecutors and ICE, and the question is WHY ?

So we the undecided people, that don't have any agenda, and are looking for justice to be served, just asked for a few simple and reasonable request:

1) Give the motion to another Judge (NOT Judge Reid), so people will have faith in our justice system

2) The Justice Dept should investigate the case and get the all the facts

3) Please send us the un redacted documents (35 % of the info, we didn't get yet) so we can prove and see the truth what the meetings was and who saw the power point presentation, and what was discussed there, because we believe there is still a lot to uncover here, as we saw until now, that it took so long (and a lawsuit) to get the FOIA documents (and there was for sure a reason behind this)

[Shmarya]

This, that the arrest warrant was for Hosam Amara is you assumption, but there is no prove, so basically its a 50/50, and at least we need an investigation on it.

Actually, there is a lot of proof the warrant was for Hosam Amara. Part of that evidence is the fact that Sholom Rubashkin gave Amara money to flee to Israel right before the raid.

But you really don't care about evidence. All you care about is that you want your meat messiah to be innocent.

And as your beloved scholar Avi Moskowitz, a former Deputy Assistant US Attorney who is now a defense attorney – pointed out, that there was a cover up her, and the Judge never disclosed the 6 or 7 meetings she had with the prosecutors and ICE, and the question is WHY ?

Avi Moskowitz did not say that.

What he said is that, if the contact was limited to court logistics, the judge did nothing wrong.

Please send us the un redacted documents (35 % of the info, we didn't get yet) so we can prove and see the truth what the meetings was and who saw the power point presentation, and what was discussed there, because we believe there is still a lot to uncover here, as we saw until now, that it took so long (and a lawsuit) to get the FOIA documents (and there was for sure a reason behind this)

That won't happen.

Why?

Because it would reveal agents names, undercover agents names, cooperating witnesses names, and other information relevant to ongoing investigations.

But what you do not understand is that the defense is in no way entitled to those documents.

What you also do not grasp is that the Justice Department that you want to investigate this already has the documents and knows their contents.

Past all of this, the evidence against Rubashkin – collected, by the way, months AFTER the raid – is irrefutable.

He broke the law.

And no amount of spin or outright lies from Nathan Lewin will ever change that fact.

[WoolSilkCotton]

Kalmen, if your reading skills are on par with your writing skills, it is obvious that you are incapable of understanding anything in the documents being discussed.

[OMG]

KalmenK | August 25, 2010 at 11:23 AM Do you believe that Judge Linda Reid sat with Prosecutors and ICE for 7 Months and discussed a raid and they never told her which place they are going to raid ?
No, you are wrong!!! She slept with the prosecution and fornicates every minute of each day for full seven months, and the only reason why Rubashkin was found guilty is because the Judge was busy fornicating. I think the next motion for a retrial would be based on newly discovered evidence that the judge was busy fornicating with the prosecution and therefore she couldn’t be fair and impartial. One more thing before I go, get together another million dollars for Lewin’s next crazy motion.

[WoolSilkCotton]

OMG, what you said sarcastically at 2:24 sounds like a typical serious conversation among the frumma at 770.

[FirstGenerationBavarianAmerican]

Linda Reade - she works hard for the money.

You see, the other judge in Cedar Rapids, Edward J. McManus is 90 years old. He is in senior status, i.e. semi-retired. I decided to look it up after Mr. Lewin said he had no idea why Linda Reade was assigned the Rubashkin financial fraud trial. Basically Cedar Rapids is a one-horse active district judge town.

If you look at the list of cases filed in the Northern District of Iowa on Justia, Judge Reade had 29 cases assigned and Judge McManus had 13 cases assigned since May 1, 2010 (assuming I counted correctly).

I could just imagine that scene: "Hey Eddie, I have to recuse myself. You are going to have to schlep out to Sioux Falls, SD to try this case because of pretrial publicity. Eddie, what do you mean you are retiring and moving to Miami?"

[KalmenK]

Shmarya,

Actually, there is a lot of proof the warrant was for Hosam Amara. Part of that evidence is the fact that Sholom Rubashkin gave Amara money to flee to Israel right before the raid

This are all accusations, that was never proven, and besides the point, this makes me laugh, the Judge Linda Reid sat with prosecutors for 7 months, had numerous meetings with them, but didn't know which plant they are going to raid and who they are planning to charge, and SMR knew in advance that they are going to raid his plant, and new they are planning to charge Hosam Amara who left for Israel months before the raid.

Avi Moskowitz did not say that

Not worth to argue on what he said, just listen to the tape (I just listened again) and that is exactly what he said.

That won't happen. Why? Because it would reveal agents names, undercover agents names, cooperating witnesses names, and other information relevant to ongoing investigations

Wow! Names, what ? 35% of the documents are redacted, and for the second excuse, which investigation is still ongoing ?

What you also do not grasp is that the Justice Department that you want to investigate this already has the documents and knows their contents

False, they never looked at it, hopefully, now they will

_______

WollSilkCotton,

Sorry about my writing skills (I am a school dropout, as all of the bloggers on this site, no?), but do you have anything to say about the facts of this case ?

________

OMG,

Well said (but a little corny), I would do the same when someone confronts me with the facts that I don't like, and try to twist the truth

[Shmarya]

This are all accusations, that was never proven, and besides the point, this makes me laugh, the Judge Linda Reid sat with prosecutors for 7 months, had numerous meetings with them, but didn't know which plant they are going to raid and who they are planning to charge, and SMR knew in advance that they are going to raid his plant, and new they are planning to charge Hosam Amara who left for Israel months before the raid.

Rubashkin knew about the potential for a raid on his business because he received a huge number of no match communications from the government and ignored them at a time when rumors of a raid in N.E. Iowa were rampant.

He knew the government was on to him.

Avi Moskowitz did not say that

Not worth to argue on what he said, just listen to the tape (I just listened again) and that is exactly what he said.

Like usual with haredi supporters of Rubashkin, you're ability to comprehend seems damaged.

Moskowitz said exactly what I told you. I quoted him in a post and posted the entire audio.

Wow! Names, what ? 35% of the documents are redacted, and for the second excuse, which investigation is still ongoing ?

Several, including those targeting Hosam Amara and Zev Levi.

False, they never looked at it, hopefully, now they will

I realize simple facts are difficult for you but try to process:

The DOJ had full access to those documents as soon as ICE decided to raid Agriprocessors.

They also have access to much more material you don't know about, including material that will one day likely lead to the indictment and arrest of other Rubashkin family members.

But facts and logic mean nothing to you.

So we can all prepare for the next Rubashkin-related arrest, and your shouts of antisemitism in response.

[rebeljew]

My biggest concern is the treatment of Rubashkin in prison as reported on COL. I read that in order to carry him, because he would not walk 4 amos without a yarmulke, they took two perpendicular boards and nailed his hands and feet to them. In order to keep him from headbutting in resistance, they put a circular device with thorns on his head.

[OMG]

Well said (but a little corny), I would do the same when someone confronts me with the facts that I don't like, and try to twist the truth Posted by: KalmenK | August 25, 2010 at 03:04 PM
Definitely it is corny, but regardless, you failed to grasp, that you are the corny one, whose original point is ridicules, your claim that Judge Reade “sat with Prosecutors and ICE for 7 Months and discussed a raid”, you are the one who just plainly without any shame made up a story which convey that Judge Reade has *continuous* meetings for 7 months, but I know that you know, that is a blatant lie, they had a few meetings. Additionally, you are making a big deal about the 35% redacted pages, get a grip the names on the e-mails were redacted in accordance the law, read the freaking letter accompanying each batch of the information received under the FOIA, it clearly explains why and under which authority, names were redacted. So what is the problem even if 100% of all names on e-mail were redacted? That is what irks us, how can a Jew and probably a Talmudic schuler to boot, be so stupid.

Posted by: WoolSilkCotton | August 25, 2010 at 02:28 PM
You are right definitely in the Mikvah, but I am not sure if it is before or after they molest the child next to them.

[Cheskel]

Judge Reade had over six meetings before the raid.

""You are right definitely in the Mikvah, but I am not sure if it is before or after they molest the child next to them.
Posted by: OMG | August 25, 2010 at 04:16 PM "'""

It was while molesting and not one child but many children. Every day and in every mikvah there is child molestation going on beyond imagination. OK i didn't mean every mikvah but in most mikvahs.

[OMG]

Cheskel, Wow, on average less than one meeting a month. So let’s get the stones ready for Judge Reade’s Sekila, stop being dimwitted, don’t bring shame on the Jewish people, readers might judge every Jew based on your inability to process simple information.

[larry]

see this story

www.yated.com/content.asp?categoryid=7&contentid=181

"Despite 40 pages of legal argument, “there is not one word justifying the “cover-up” - meaning Reade’s failure, and that of the prosecutors, to tell the defense lawyers about a single one of the weekly meetings she had privately with prosecutors and immigration officials,” attorney Nathan Lewin said in a phone conversation with the Yated.

"Those conferences, described in an April 11, 2008 document as “weekly operational/planning meetings,” included top ICE officials, the U.S. attorney’s office, the U.S. Marshall’s Service, and none other than Chief Judge Linda Reade.

"These regular meetings are themselves sufficient under Supreme Court precedents to invalidate Reade’s participation in the trial, Lewin stressed.

"“I think we are on very strong legal ground in seeking to invalidate the trial, although the prosecution and the judge will fight that to the bitter end,” he said...."

see full article

[Shmarya]

see full article

Better yet, read the full documents I posted.

Then you can see where Maimon lies.

Of course, 'larry' doesn't want you to see that, now do you, 'larry.'

[larry]

Shmarya,

Why do you feel the need to (almost) always personal attack each and every person who dose not see things the way you see them... many times you seem very hostile...

[Shmarya]

Why do you feel the need to (almost) always personal attack each and every person who dose not see things the way you see them... many times you seem very hostile...

Lets see.

You link to an article by a person who is a proven liar while you at the same time ignore the documents that prove her to be a liar.

That does not engender a kind response from me or from many people concerned with the truth – especially because this is what you do over and over and over again, and no facts ever change your behavior.

[larry]

usually, an honest, intelligent person is able to put forth his/her arguments without resorting to personal attacks or name calling

[Shmarya]

usually, an honest, intelligent person is able to put forth his/her arguments without resorting to personal attacks or name calling

Please.

You IGNORE all the facts, 'larry.'

Usually, an "honest, intelligent person" does not do that.

Got it?

[state of disgust]

at 3:04 KalmanK said: "...Hosam Amara who left for Israel months before the raid."

Wrong.

Mohammed Amara left Postville months before the raid. He left because he feared being charged with assault on a worker he had physically abused. Mohammed had a terrible temper and had previously been warned for striking a worker. Hosam on the other hand was addicted to the money he was making - both legally and illegally (extortion), and stayed until after the raid. When the feds served papers on SMR they then asked to see Hosam Amara and were told he wasn't working that day. SMR then contacted Hosam and told him to get out of the country, that the Feds were looking for him and would probably indict him. SMR gave Hosam cash to get out of the country and Hosam ran to Canada and then to Israel before he could be served.
Everyone in Postville knows that Hosam is in Kfar Kana in the Galil. We don't know however, if the Feds have requested his extradition.

[OMG]

Posted by: larry | August 25, 2010 at 05:46 PM

The problem with Lewin is not what he wrote in the motion, but what he tells the at large religious Jewish community, no amount of exaggerating of the truth, on these conference calls; it will not change an iota. What counts is what he argued in his motion for a new trial. The fact is that Lewin never made any claim that the *judge* actually met every week with ICE or the prosecution, or alternatively Lewin has evidence that the Judge corrupted the process, actually he looking to open discovery, and hopefully find the bloody gun. The fact is if there was an operational meeting week, but nowhere in that exhibit did it state that the Judge participated in those meeting.

Additionally I went back to the affidavit from Cook and Brown it seems that they base their argument on information relayed via telephone conversation with Lewin not any personal knowledge from the exhibits. Because of the way they came to a conclusion that Judge Reade had ex-parte meetings with the prosecution and ICE, therefore upon reliance on Lewin representations they swore under oath. Otherwise they could be held accountable.

The fact is that the only reason why Lewin would say that he would take it all the way to Supreme Court, and he has a good chance to succeed, is to keep the fundraising going, if for one second, he said, I am not sure that we can prevail, all the fundraising will dry out. Additionally, the prosecution claims, might I say persuasively, in their motion that the defense always knew about the interaction between the Court, and the prosecution, and as a matter of fact, the government submitted as an exhibit the 2008 De La Roza motion for recusals, and the courts responds, which discuses the Courts interaction with the prosecution prior to the arrest. And because of that ruling by court the defense decided not to put in a motion for recusal; therefore they missed the filling dateline.
Finally don’t listen to any side just take the two motions with all the accompanying affidavits and exhibits, if you are honest to yourself, you will concluded that the prosecution made mince meat of Lewin’s motion. It is one of the better motions I ever read, but are you?

[FirstGenerationBavarianAmerican]

I don't think we should be attacking 'larry', for he refers us to laugh-out-loud journalism for our entertainment. I think the piece 'larry' referred us to was only written after the government's resistance to the motion for a new trial was filed. In the piece, Mr. Lewin is reported to have said there were Supreme Court precedents for granting a new trial. Only trouble is, the cases were not cited in the article. For all we know, he is blowing smoke.

Then Debbie asks why Judge Reade set up shop in Waterloo out of consideration of the families of the defendants if she didn't know who was going to be raided. Well, according to the government's response, Waterloo was the location of the only suitable field court site. The consideration of the families of the defendants had to do with the fact the existing courthouse could not accomodate families. A large temporary location offered the ability to have families attend the trials. This amenity is location-independent.

[OMG]

Posted by: FirstGenerationBavarianAmerican | August 25, 2010 at 09:52 PM
More to your point, if Lewin really has Supreme Court precedents, he would have cited it in his motion, the case on which he relies, but he didn’t, the reason is simple there are none.

[state of disgust]

" ... More to your point, if Lewin really has Supreme Court precedents, ..."

What Lewin has is an old friend who sits on the Supreme Court and is counting on him to sway the other members of the court to hear his case.

[OMG]

Posted by: state of disgust | August 26, 2010 at 08:13 AM

If that is the case, isn’t that “The pot calling the kettle black” talking about corrupting the justice system. If that comes to fruition I will change my pseudonym to State of Disgust II.

[D.]

Wow, this sure is a disgusting website. Reviewing it, it seems like all you do is hunt around looking for anything that you think will discredit religious Jews. This includes posting even accusations, charges individuals asking someone to file charges, etc., commonplace events in the legal world which signify nothing. It is apparent you dont believe in God or divine retribution, I get it. But on a human level, I wonder what could have gone so wrong in your development? Most thinking religious Jews are aware our society isnt perfect, but none of us sink to this type of filth. Perusing this webite is like reading Der Sturmer, so vile are the attacks. It's weird, what's happened to you . . . .

In any event, with regard to the Rubashkin case, the details of the prosecution you seek to defend is irrelevant. It's irrefutbale that some average people would find Reade's involvement, and her unexplained failure to disclose this involvement, enough to raise questions of impropriety. When you add the inexplicable addition of 2 more years than the prosecution aksed for, for a first offender, it almost makes the case airtight. Forget the Jews and antisemites that make up this site - if you presented the facts here with no names at all to an average American jury, some members of it [at a minimum, maybe all] would have problems with it. To think otherwise is to let irrational hatred of Jews cloud your thinking.

(As to why a Jew would offer a knee-jerk defense of the prosecutors, of all things rather than a brother Jew, is beyond me. No one says you have to defend him if you dont like, bu why on Earth join prosectors? Just dont say anything!)

[state of disgust]

D:
Your "knee-jerk defense" of "a brother Jew" is beyond me. Are you offering a defense of Madoff as well?
I suggest before responding to anyone on this list, you first review the evidence presented at trial and spend some time learning how the US judicial system really works. After that if you have anything substantial to offer you're welcome to contribute. But ignorance and stupidity add nothing to this discussion.

[D.]

I just read the articles yourself in the New York Times you've proudly posted up top. Good Lord. I just wasted five minutes of my time to comment on a bachelor in his fifties, who lives like a slob in an apartment. Worse, your whole life history . . . that's why you do this, because you converted to chabad and have now converted out again?

I've often thought that a lot of young people who make drastic life changes like you did did so because there's something off about them. Not just becoming ballei teshuvah, but a massive swing from conservative jew to Chabad Chassid. Most normal people, who have friends, dont do such things. I'm not saying all of this by itself ipso facto disqualifies whatever it is you may have written, but it sure as heck colors it.

[rebeljew]

"It's irrefutbale that some average people would find Reade's involvement, and her unexplained failure to disclose this involvement, enough to raise questions of impropriety. When you add the inexplicable addition of 2 more years than the prosecution aksed for, for a first offender, it almost makes the case airtight."

Reade's involvement was all routine according to the documentation presented. How do you call it "unexplained"? It is absolutely proper procedure for the justice system to organize with law enforcement to protect the rights to a speedy trial and legal representation for 300-600 defendants. It would have been unconscionable legally to leave the workers under arrest without the means to give them representation, adequate housing or having to wait long periods in holding before pleading their defense. That is how Bill of Rights works. Now that it has been explained, please withdraw "unexplained".

Also, the judge clearly stated during sentencing and recording in court documents that she gave SMR 25 years that the prosecution asked and 2 more for perjury during the trial. Now please withdraw "inexplicable" as it has been fully explained.

[D.]

State of defense - Nowhere do I suggest a defense of Madoff. The point is there is no reason to jump and pile on. It's pathetic for Jews to pile on another Jew. Like we have prove we're more American than the Americans. You dont have to defend, you can just keep your mouth shut.

(And I'll tell you, even to defend a guy like Madoff, were a defense possible, is not so bad. This is America. Every special interest group looks after it's own.)

Regarding the legal procedure here, I'm quite familiar with it, thanks, and go back and read what I wrote.

[OMG]

D. you finally admitted, that the gist of your argument is because Rubashkin is a Jew; therefore, we should not pile on him, as you so eloquently wrote.
“It's pathetic for Jews to pile on another Jew. Like we have prove we're more American than the Americans. You dont have to defend, you can just keep your mouth shut.”
You see we didn’t pile on, Rubashkin; we are the ones who smell the feces he used for soap. Why should we keep quite when a Jew besmirches our name? SMR is the one who claims that he did all these illegalities for my sake, so we would have meat/chicken for a few cents less. I didn’t ask him to get financing laden with fraud. So you see, he brought me into his illegalities, and I just don’t want to be a silent partner. There is an old saying “if I pay for this hooker, I would f..k this hooker”, the same could be said here, you use me as an excuse, I will f..k you.

[OMG]

Shmarya, did you take down “Just the facts” post, and my reply, I cannot find it.

[george]

To rebeljew (August 26, 2010 at 03:23 PM) I never heard of the "perjury" before. Was perjury one of the charges that the prosecution charged the defendant with? What perjury was it? (If the prosecution did not charge the defendant with perjury, how did it show up in sentencing?)

[george]

Following is why I see as very important the question of whether the judge was informed before the raid about the intended targets:

1. The prosecutor presented in court documents that the judge was never informed before the raid about the intended target

2. therefore, if it can be shown that the prosecutor lied in the court document, and that the judge was informed before the raid about the intended target, then the prosecutor would be shown to be a liar and everything that the prosecution says is suspect

3. the judge certainly must know whether or not she herself was informed before the raid

4. Therefore, if it is shown that indeed the truth is that the judge was informed about the intended target befre the raid, and the judge never contested the prosecutor's mis-representation of the facts, the judge is obviously complicit with the prosecutor's mis-representaion of facts to a court, and as such, no reasonable person could believe she is not going to be bias in any case where this prosecutor is involved (note the double-negative in the last sentence)

[george]

re: FirstGenerationBavarianAmerican ( August 25, 2010 at 09:52 PM)

According to the prosecution document:

To ensure defendants’ rights were protected and ensure a proper handing of the
expected cases, the Court decided to temporarily relocate Court operations to the site
of ICE’s temporary processing facility in Waterloo. The Court also noted that moving
court to Waterloo would “make it easier for arrestees’ families to attend court
proceedings.“ (DLR Exb. D). Further, there was “inadequate space in the Cedar
Rapids and Sioux City courthouses to hold and process those arrested.”

The way I read those sentences, the problem of "inadequate space" had nothing to do with room for families. The space was inadequate just to hold the defendants even without the families. Thus the families were a seperate consideration, at least the way the text reads. Though it is possible that the text is not written properly and means something different than is written, the fact remains the text is all I have. The simplest English language inferrance of the words used to construct that text means that the space problem was because of the number of defendants and that the families consideration was distinct and seperate from the space problem (thus implying a distance problem).

[george]

re: Shmarya (August 25, 2010 at 01:48 PM)

You state to someone else "But what you do not understand is that the defense is in no way entitled to those documents."

Pehaps you meant "in no way entitled to those names"? I thought that under the Freedom of Information Act every citizen is entitled, as a default position, to government documents. The onus is on the government to justify withholding it.

[george]

Seems that indeed the prosecution document makes it clear. The document quotes the stated operation requirements as follows:

The U.S. District Court will need to have an established courtroom near the
processing facility for the purposes of initial appearances, plea hearings, and
possible sentencing proceedings.

How clear does it have to be. The initial requirements themselves state that the new clocation was to be near the site of the plant to be raided.

[george]

I do not understand why some claim that the judge cannot recuse herself because there are not enough judges to go around. The prosecution document itself noted that:

In addition, the USAO stated that
extensive planning and preparation will be required to bring additional U.S.
District Court Judges into the Northern District of Iowa to preside over potentially
hundreds of judicial proceedings.

That is, now (or even then in Oct 2008) that these judges are freed after the immigrant trials are over, how about using one of these "additional" judges mentioned by the prosecution?

[FirstGenerationBavarianAmerican]

About the families, on page 3 of Richard Murphy's affadavit is written "In addition, there were concerns that the antiquated public courthouse may not be able to efficiently accomodate the potentially large number of family or public that may wish to attend the court hearings."

About the processing facility: are they talking about a slaughterhouse, or a temporary jail built for holding a huge number of accused persons? From page 5 of the same document that George quoted, "To ensure defendants’ rights were protected and ensure a proper handing of the expected cases, the Court decided to temporarily relocate Court operations to the site of ICE’s temporary processing facility in Waterloo."

Any time a judge recuses himself or herself, it costs the government money to bring in a judge from another courthouse. There are travel expenses, court calendars that have to be rearranged, etc.

[Shmarya]

Seems that indeed the prosecution document makes it clear. The document quotes the stated operation requirements as follows:

The U.S. District Court will need to have an established courtroom near the
processing facility for the purposes of initial appearances, plea hearings, and
possible sentencing proceedings.

How clear does it have to be. The initial requirements themselves state that the new clocation was to be near the site of the plant to be raided.

The "processing facility" refers to the facility where the hundreds of arrested Agriprocessors workers were to be processed.

But, of course, no matter how clear the context and how irrefutable the facts, Rubashkin supports will continue to live their fantasy.

[george]

Seems I read the document too fast as it seems a little ambiguous to me. The normal (though not always) phrase is the previous excerpt ("processing and holding"):

"The United States Attorney’s Office and the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Iowa have agreed to hold onsite U.S. District Court proceedings at the processing and holding area."

As is seen, the agreement to hold the court in the "processing and holding area" is taken as given. Then, in the very next excerpt it states "The U.S. District Court will need to have an established courtroom near the
processing facility" (without the phrase "holding") which is now treated as a requirement rather than as a given and is thus superfluous. That is a very confusing sequence of statements. The order should have been reversed.

[Shmarya]

That is a very confusing sequence of statements. The order should have been reversed.

It's not confusing.

I've read thousands of pages of government documents and one of the first things I realized is that most people don't write very well.

These are ICE agents and immigration bureaucrats, not professional writers.

But past that, it isn't at all confusing.

It is absolutely clear – unless someone takes the second sentence out of context and does not mention the first sentence.

Now who would do that?

[george]

Shmarya ( August 27, 2010 at 06:33 PM)

As you seem to be referring to me in your barb, I would point out that the problem lies in the prosecutor who seems to make strange interpretations (and in my opinion even strange use) of words, at least according to the Supreme Court of the United States according to this article:

http://iowaindependent.com/14786/us-supreme-court-slaps-postville-prosecutions

[Shmarya]

Please.

The problem lies with Rubashkin supporters who misquote, mis-attribute, and lie.

What the IA article is talking about, 'george,' is misinterpretation of law.

And it happens to be that the US Attorney who did that – A Bush appointee, BTW – is no longer a US Attorney.

But, as always, don't let those pesky facts get in the way…

[george]

Shmarya (August 28, 2010 at 09:56 PM)

You may have read thousands of documents of this type, but I have not. I expected something more logically ordered. It is very strange for me to see a "given" followed by a request for that very same "given".

The order of the presentation and the order of excerpts are determined by the prosecutor (or whoever on the staff) who wrote the government response. So it is not fair to blame the "ICE agent" for this. The two portions, the "given" followed by the "requirement" were split by a comment from the narrator (the prosecutor) of "The memorandum discusses in detail the logistical requirements of the planned operation" distracting from the continuation.

[george]

Shmarya ( August 28, 2010 at 10:12 PM)

"A Bush appointee" is relevant how? no longer being a "US Attorney" is relevant how? Do not interpret my questions as agreeing that those assertions are facts, it is just that I do not know. But whether or not they are facts, how are they relevant?

I don't know what "IA" stands for, but the article seems clear that in the opinion of the writer (of the writer's source) the Supreme Court was stating that the plain meaning of the words of the statute are the plain meaning. The inference seems clear - that the prosecutor used something other than the plain meaning of the words.

[Shmarya]

You may have read thousands of documents of this type, but I have not.…Posted by: george | August 28, 2010 at 10:15 PM

The point, 'george,' is that prosecutors are NOT writing for you.

They are writing a legal document for a judge to review.

Past that, following your 'logic' about order, the entire Supreme Court ruling you linked to would make no sense.

"A Bush appointee" is relevant how? no longer being a "US Attorney" is relevant how? Do not interpret my questions as agreeing that those assertions are facts, it is just that I do not know. But whether or not they are facts, how are they relevant?

Because, your objections to English language usage apply to more than one US Attorney.

the Supreme Court was stating that the plain meaning of the words of the statute are the plain meaning. The inference seems clear - that the prosecutor used something other than the plain meaning of the words.

The argument is over interpretation of the law.

Justice Byer said that the first sentence used the word knowingly and therefore knowingly applied to all subsequent senteces.

The prosecutors contended that unless knowingly was specified, it was not part of each clause.

In other words, the law was poorly drafted – which is not rare – and the Supreme Court clarified it.

I don't know what "IA" stands for

Iowa.

[george]

Shmarya ( August 28, 2010 at 10:43 PM)

1. Correct, they are not writing for me. As such, there will be plenty that I do not understand. The point being, it is improper to intimate that I "misquote, mis-attribute, and lie" just because I do not understand something.

I did not link to a Supreme Court ruling. I linked to a news article and I know (somewhat) what to expect from its writing style, and I do not expect a legal document style to match a news writing style.

2. So, it applies to more than one writer.

3. I finally managed to find the ruling http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/08pdf/08-108.pdf

Still seems to me that it is basically an argument of language. But what gets to me is the way the court characterizes the prosecutor (sorry, the italics and such I have problems reproducing):

> Or consider the Government’s own example, “‘John knowingly discarded the homework of his sister.’” Brief for United States 9. The Government rightly points out that this sentence “does not necessarily” imply that John knew whom the homework belonged to. Ibid. (emphasis added). But that is what the sentence, as ordinarily used, does imply.

So the prosecutor has taken a sentence which, by its own admission, could mean either way, and decides to interpret it in a such a way as to expand its meaning. So one is prosecuted on a "possible" meaning of a vague law? In fact, the court writes:

> But the Government has not provided us with a single exam-ple of a sentence that, when used in typical fashion, would lead the hearer to believe that the word “knowingly” modi-fies only a transitive verb without the full object

While one may expect a defense attorney to try that stunt, the common lay-person's understanding is that the defence is suppose to get the benefit of the doubt.

[Shmarya]

The point being, it is improper to intimate that I "misquote, mis-attribute, and lie" just because I do not understand something.

I was lumping you in with all the other Rubashkin supporters.

As for the rest, I believe Justice Bryer is correct about the law's intent, but wrong about the grammar.

This sentence, “‘John knowingly discarded the homework of his sister,’” means that the narrator has previously shown the reader that the homework belongs to John's sister, or it means the speaker believes the homework belongs to John's sister.

The problem is, when it comes to law, we must be very precise. The drafters of this particular law were not precise.

But the Government has not provided us with a single exam-ple of a sentence that, when used in typical fashion, would lead the hearer to believe that the word “knowingly” modi-fies only a transitive verb without the full object

I'm sure there are many examples in common usage that prove Justice Bryer wrong.

In fact, I think if you watch the original Law and Order long enough, you'll find a few there.

As I said above, I think Justice Breyer is correct about the law's intent and, as such, the Court's ruling was correct.

But in terms of language usage, I think he is wrong.

All one can say is Justice Breyer's understanding of the usage is the most common way language is used here. But it is not the only way or even the way of the vast majority of English speakers.

While one may expect a defense attorney to try that stunt, the common lay-person's understanding is that the defence is suppose to get the benefit of the doubt.

I don't know where you would have learned that, because it is not true.

Innocent until proven guilty is meant to protect the accused from premature punishment while at the same time putting the burden of proof on the prosecution rather than the defense.

[george]

Shmarya (August 29, 2010 at 11:05 AM)

Perhaps the main point of the judges was that the prcedents in interpreting these type of phrases are almost all in one direction and contrary to the prosecution.

"I don't know where you would have learned that, because it is not true." Grade school. Seriously. The teacher told us (and I paraphrase) that the modern system of justice (here) is superior to the ancient system because in the modern system there is a law that is known to the citizen in advance before action can be taken against an offender. That is how the law is touted as being fair. So to me, a law that is too vague to know what it means cannot be operative if the system really is "fair".

And the problem here is that you are right. That is not the way the system works. Thus, in my opinion, this is not "fair". In fact, there is some concept in the U.N. Declaration of Human Rights (or some such similar document, I don't remember exactly) that maks it a violation of human rights to create a retro-active law that is used to punish. I do not see any significant difference between a retro-active law and a retro-active interpretation of a law.

[Shmarya]

I do not see any significant difference between a retro-active law and a retro-active interpretation of a law.

That is because you do not have any experience with the law and certainly and demonstrably you have no legal education.

Again, what the prosecution did is read the law one way.

Justice Breyer and SCOTUS ruled against that interpretation.

The problem primarily lies with the people who drafted the law, because they were not specific enough with the language they chose to use.

Justice Breyer's standard is basically that an average person reading the law for the first time would ASSUME knowingly applied to the entire law.

As I said above, while I believe this was the intent of the laws sponsors, Justice Breyer's formulation is not an automatic truth by any means.

Now, on to you.

If your understanding of how law works was correct – and it is not and never will be correct – there would be no interpretation of law.

That means most laws would never be used.

Past that obvious point, in now way does any recognized international body agree with your understanding.

Ask judges on the Inter-American Court of Human Rights or the World Court.

Better yet, just read their decisions and you'll see there is plenty of interpretation.

Your meat messiah broke many laws.

The evidence against him was collected for the most part after the raid, not during it.

The raw evidence against him is overwhelming.

His only defense was that others did crime and the he was too ignorant to understand crimes were being committed.

His ignorance is no excuse under the law and is no defense under the law.

And the evidence showing Rubashkin was the leader of a conspiracy to defraud his lenders is massive.

No ruling made by Judge Reade during the trial in any way changes that.

But Rubashkin supporters went from saying he's innocent to saying the evidence that convicted him is tainted – not by its truthfulness, but by the claim the judge was too much involved in raid planning.

What Nat Lewin, Lipschutz and Chabad have done is to make a mockery out of dina d'malchuta dina and several dozen halakhot.

Their standard of 'justice' is that no fruma yid no matter his crimes belongs in prison – prisons are for goyyim.

An entire generation of Jewish children has been brought up to idolize a common criminal and to believe the laws of our country can be broken at will.

And people like you have done nothing to disabuse these children of those very dangerous notions.

[george]

Shmarya (August 30, 2010 at 09:54 AM)

I have to start with the middle of your post. You have commented on the Rubashkin case, but we have long veered off to the immigration cases, which is where the topic of interpreting law came from. In reponse to the latter issue, I would remark:

(a) My education was in the sciences (with a little accounting).

(b) You seem to misunderstand what I said. Every law (unless it is pure gibberish) has a basic English language meaning. Until that law is interpreted, any expanded meaning beyond its basic meaning cannot "fairly" be used to punish an offender. The case before us is a good example. It cannot be argued that the identity theft law has no meaning. It has a "least common demonitor" meaning, and anyone violating that is punishable. But, the first time a ruling is made to expand the meaning (or take a maximalist reading instead of a minimalist reading), the offender cannot be "fairly" punished. However, any violator of the law after the interpretation has been rendered is subject to punishment using the interpretation. Thus while there is a "delay" in its application, "interpretation" is still functional.

That the law does not function in this manner does not change what I consider to be the self-evident unfairness.

So much for the topic, which was not about Rubashkin. As this is already a long post, I save Rubashkin for later.

[Shmarya]

Every law (unless it is pure gibberish) has a basic English language meaning. Until that law is interpreted, any expanded meaning beyond its basic meaning cannot "fairly" be used to punish an offender.

How in the world do you think interpretation happens?!?!

It happens through enforcement of the law and then through court decisions and the appeals process.

The same is true with halakha.

You clearly have no idea how law works, be it secular or Jewish.

[george]

Each Rubashkin point requires a post by itself. But I start with this, not directly related to Rubashkin at all.

My problem with the legal system started long before there even was an "Agriprocessors" at all. The closest thing I came to taking a course in secular law is driving instruction school. The instructor informed us that when a police officer gives the driving test (so they did at the time, but police officers no longer give the driving test here today) he (or she) is in the car with you. He (or she) may tell you do an illegal driving act (such as making a left turn in violation of a "no left turn" sign). Then they have you, because if you do make a left turn, he (or she) fails you for violating a traffic sign. If you don't make the left turn, you can be failed for refusing to obey the traffic instructions of an officer of the law. It was only when sufficient outrage was voiced by the citizenry did the government stop that practice (police officers no longer give the driving tests). You are talking about the "law". I am talking about "the system" being "fair" (or "not fair").

The other thing I require is that "the system" have acceptable standards. Thus, I have never accepted the notion that a confession is evidence. For example, where a "cell mate" of a suspect can convict the suspect based on an un-recorded alleged confession is truly bizarre. This has nothing to do with Rubashkn directly, but is has to do with how I see the problems with the system.

[Shmarya]

The problem is, you don't even begin to understand the system you reject.

[george]

Shmarya (August 30, 2010 at 05:34 PM)

I do not see what you wrote is any different than what I said. I simply added that punishment ahould not be administered during the first cycle of any interpretation that changes the status quo.

And as I remember halacha, punishment cannot be administered unless a warning is given in advance of the violation to the perpetrator, so it is hardly possible that the judge is introducing a new interpretation.

[Shmarya]

I simply added that punishment ahould not be administered during the first cycle of any interpretation that changes the status quo.

Please.

Society has to function and people need the protection of law.

But you want all punishment withheld until after an appeals process?

So a murderer would walk free until years worth of appeals are finished?

You might ask yourself why no country or society ever has done what you ask for.

And as I remember halacha, punishment cannot be administered unless a warning is given in advance of the violation to the perpetrator, so it is hardly possible that the judge is introducing a new interpretation.

I realize you are serious. But you really have no grasp at all of the halakhic process.

Each situation is individual, meaning each has the potential for different interpretation or implementation of halakha.

The same holds true with secular law.

Anyway, the bottom line is, what you write makes no sense. It cannot be implemented and it never has been implemented and it never will be implemented.

Think about that.

[george]

Just so people do not think I have stopped responding because there are no arguments, I reamrk that it makes no sense to re-hash items that have been argued endlessly elsewhere (as example http://failedmessiah.typepad.com/failed_messiahcom/2010/08/rubashkin-attorneys-ask-for-new-trial-567.html)

As far as your remark "you really have no grasp at all of the halakhic process" is concerned, I find it irrelevant. I mentioned a standard rule, that punishment cannot be meted out unless a warning is given in advance to a violation. Are you asserting that his rule does not exist?

[Shmarya]

Your understanding of the halakhic process is on the level of a 5 year old's.

That is what I'm telling you, along with the fact that your understanding of American law is at about the same level.

When a criminal did not have proper warning but preponderance of evidence was against him, the beit din locked him in a cell.

If it was a capital crime, the beit din withheld food and water, too, until the criminal starved to death.

I realize you probably don't like this fact but this is how it worked.

[george]

You are confusing the difference between punishment and protecting society. In terms of punishment, there could be no punishment. If the person was deemed a danger to society (in which case there is no need for a prior warning) then all options are open. This includes a person who is a "spiritual" danger to society. Thus a "rebel" against a rabbinic decreee could be flogged to death if the "rebelliousness" persisted. Murder (and to some extent certain sexual crimes) is a seperate category as by its nature is considered both universal and self-evidently a danger to society in both the physical and spiritual sense.

[george]

In terms of understanding the secular process, I do have difficulty undestanding something that cannot even be presented in a consistant manner. As I happen by chance to have the following at hand, I use the following as example. Who determined what charges to lay and what strategy to use? Was it "Washington" or was it "the local office"? See the end of http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/17/us/17attorney.html?_r=1&ref=agriprocessors_inc

[Shmarya]

You are confusing the difference between punishment and protecting society. In terms of punishment, there could be no punishment. If the person was deemed a danger to society (in which case there is no need for a prior warning) then all options are open. This includes a person who is a "spiritual" danger to society. Thus a "rebel" against a rabbinic decreee could be flogged to death if the "rebelliousness" persisted. Murder (and to some extent certain sexual crimes) is a seperate category as by its nature is considered both universal and self-evidently a danger to society in both the physical and spiritual sense.

No, george, I'm not confusing anything.

The problem is you have only cursory knowledge of the halakhic system and its history, and you misunderstand the little you know.

A beit din could and did pasken on an umdena, meaning that the circumstantial evidence was enough to find the defendant guilty even though there was no warning.

That meant in financial crimes, the criminal was ordered to repay what he stole plus the normal penalty.

It was only in capital cases that a roundabout method was used.

But you really don't care about the facts, just as you don't care that your fantasy version of Jewish law never existed.

All you care about is getting Rubashkin out of prison, facts, morality, tryth and justice be damned.

[Shmarya]

In terms of understanding the secular process, I do have difficulty undestanding something that cannot even be presented in a consistant manner. As I happen by chance to have the following at hand, I use the following as example. Who determined what charges to lay and what strategy to use? Was it "Washington" or was it "the local office"? See the end of http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/17/us/17attorney.html?_r=1&ref=agriprocessors_inc

You refer to this:In the Postville cases, Mr. Harkin said, officials in Washington made the strategic decisions about what charges to bring and what pleas to offer. “Within the powers she had, she bent over backwards to make sure justice was done,” he said.

But at a hearing before the House Judiciary immigration subcommittee in July 2008, Deborah J. Rhodes, then senior associate deputy attorney general, testified that “all of the charging decisions were made by career prosecutors in the local office.” Whether the decisions were made in Washington or whether that were made by the US Attorney in Iowa, Stephanie Rose was not the person who made the decisions.

As I reported previously, Rose is credited with many defense attorneys for bending over backward to do everything possible to help the undocumented workers arrested at Agriprocessors.

Past that, where the decisions were made has NO bearing on the law.

The laws existed and Rubashkin, Agriprocessors, several of its managers and hundreds of its workers broke them.

But that doesn't concern you, 'george.'

All you care about is freeing Rubashkin – facts, truth, honesty, logic and morality be damned.

[george]

Let me be clear (or at least let me try). Just because the secular law classifies certain acts as "criminal", that does not transfer into the same meaning into the traditional Jewish laws. Technically, "stealing" is financial and is treated as such, and in financial matters the rules are considerably different. That the person who steals also violates a Biblical prohibition is not relevant, because it is not the Biblical prohibition for which the thief is brought to court. It is for the financial repayment. Even in secular law a criminal offense of assault, for example, could still result in a civil suit for damages and pain and suffering, and the rules in the secular court for the two (even though they are for the very same act) are different.

I never claimed that there was no action taken against a criminal offender just because an advance warning was not given. I claimed that the action does not constitute "punishment", though I suppose "punishment" is a rather obscure wording, so I will elucidate a little.

There are philosophical and religious (sometimes even kabbalistic) underpinnings behind the differences between them. Thus, once a valid "punishment" is given, then (according to certain systems) there can be no added punishment from G-d for the matter at hand. If action is taken against a person so as to protect society but not as a "punishment", then the person may yet be "punished" by G-d for the same item.

In any case, as I mentioned before, there can be action taken against a person even if there was no prior warning before the offense. But that is a different philosophical and religious action than the otherwise and function under different rules.

And just because I saw your line "it was only in capital cases", I must differ. It was for any corporeal punishment (that includes "lashes") of a Biblical nature. As I mentioned earlier, for the sake of protecting society the rules did not apply.

Finally, I have no idea what this really has to do with Rubashkin per se, as I do not expect (nor is it required) that secular law follow the dictates as applied by Jewish law to Jews. In fact, in many cases traditional law prefers the secular law (meaning as applied by non-Jews to non-Jews) to actualy be different.

But I am enjoying the exchange.

[Shmarya]

Let me be clear (or at least let me try). Just because the secular law classifies certain acts as "criminal", that does not transfer into the same meaning into the traditional Jewish laws. Technically, "stealing" is financial and is treated as such, and in financial matters the rules are considerably different. That the person who steals also violates a Biblical prohibition is not relevant, because it is not the Biblical prohibition for which the thief is brought to court. It is for the financial repayment. Even in secular law a criminal offense of assault, for example, could still result in a civil suit for damages and pain and suffering, and the rules in the secular court for the two (even though they are for the very same act) are different.

You make no sense, probably because you have little grasp of the halakhic process or the rules of batei din or secular law.

Past that, dina d'malchuta dina means that secular laws – even if the punishment for them is much greater than the Torah prescribes – must be followed, and the punishment is not an excuse to avoid following the law or to 'ransom' someone who violated it.

Rubashkin violated secular law and he violated Jewish law.

The punishment for the secular law violations are more severe than the Torah prescribes.

But that is no excuse for Rubashkin's conduct and it is no excuse to keep him out of prison.

[george]

The rules about dina d'malchuta dina are not nearly as simple as you make them out to be, but dina d'malchuta dina was not my topic.

[george]

I was not commenting on Stephanie Rose, I do not remember bringing up that name, and I do not see why that one person alone so matters. The topic is the prosecution as a team.

But the matter of "where" the decision was made is relevant for two reasons that come to mind.

First, it really looks suspicious when someone (the prosecution "team", individual names not important) keeps changing their story. One wonders why. Maybe it is just ignorance. Maybe something more. If I were to conjecture (and this is only a conjecture) it looks like this. Before the raid (or at least the charges brought against the defendants) was tainted by the Supreme Court decision the "local" prosecution team took credit. After the Supreme Court decision, this shifted to "Washington". Too much politics and wavering with the wind, beyond the normal "expected" amount.

Second, and this seems rather important to me, the interpretation of documents and statements requires context. Certainly, part of that context is who and where the "decision" was made as to the charges et al. Following as an example:

There is a document that states that the judge attended a meeting where an overview of "charging strategies" was "discussed" by the "parties" (does not state specifically who discussed it). The prosecutor asserts that the phrase "charging strategies" "can be read no more broadly than the discussion of potential charges the Court might be presented with in Waterloo". Well, seeing as the date 17 maarch 2008 (five months since the judge was already involved and just two months before the raid well all final documents were ready) the phrase "potential" already seems a rather forced interpretation. But if the "final decision" was made in "Washington", then the interpretation makes no sense. There are no "potential" charges to discuss. It would have been written in stone from "Washington". That clearly seems to me, that in such as case, the judge was there in the meeting where prosecution strategy was related. I leave it to the readers to decide for themselves what the implications are.

Now, while one could use some pseudo-Talmudic arguments and assert that both are true, that "potential charges" were being discussed at the same time, or before, or after, "Washington" had carved it in stone, that would clearly be a forced interpretration of events and an unacceptable interpretation as such was never claimed (as far as I could find) by any of the parties. If someone comes up with that claim now, it too late, as it not within a reasonable timeframe to be convincing.

[Shmarya]

First, it really looks suspicious when someone (the prosecution "team", individual names not important) keeps changing their story.

Please.

Tom Harkin is a US Senator. He was not part of the prosecution "team."

There is a document that states that the judge attended a meeting where an overview of "charging strategies" was "discussed" by the "parties" (does not state specifically who discussed it). The prosecutor asserts that the phrase "charging strategies" "can be read no more broadly than the discussion of potential charges the Court might be presented with in Waterloo". Well, seeing as the date 17 maarch 2008 (five months since the judge was already involved and just two months before the raid well all final documents were ready) the phrase "potential" already seems a rather forced interpretation. But if the "final decision" was made in "Washington", then the interpretation makes no sense. There are no "potential" charges to discuss. It would have been written in stone from "Washington". That clearly seems to me, that in such as case, the judge was there in the meeting where prosecution strategy was related. I leave it to the readers to decide for themselves what the implications are.

Really, now. Is simple English this difficult for you in real life?

Past that, a judge can (and in cases like this should) know what charges will be brought.

It is the prosecution's prerogative to bring charges and it is the judge's responsibility to oversee the trial on these charges or to dismiss them.

To tell a judge, "We're going to charge 400 to 700 John Does with X felony and Y misdemeanor" does not in any way prejudice those John Doe's trials – let alone the trial of someone who is not mentioned even in Jon Doe form.

Lastly, as I've already noted, your entire claim here is based on viewing a siting US Senator as part of the prosecution team, which is absurd.

And, past that, it is entirely possible the US Attorney (not Stephanie Rose, the woman that your foolishly cited article referred to, and which is the source of your ridiculous Tom Harkin quote) discussed charging strategies with his boss at the DOJ.

There is nothing wrong with this.

Both parties may have agreed or, perhaps, there was disagreement.

But none of this matters in terms of the people charged or the fairness of their trials.

And you would know all this if you had once ounce of common sense or an understanding of the American legal system.

But, as you continue to prove, you lack both.

[george]

Part 1. Perhaps I "lack both". And English is far from my first language. And perhaps me using "prosecution team" so loosely may confuse a reader, but it does show how a simple phrase can be understood so differently. Either the good Senator (whose biography indicates a law background) made up his assertion from thin air, or else his information came from "prosecution team" sources (where the latter could be either "Washington" or "local" or both). In either case, it leaves one to consider what the significance is. In the former case, a politician interfering in the judicial process by trying to manipulate public opinion by publicly spreading lies, or at least assertions that have no source except his own self-interest. Does not sound proper. In the latter case, as I had intimated, contradictory versions of stories.

[george]

Elucidation to part 1. When I mention the option of "interfering in the judicial process" it does not necessarily mean there was an "intention" to interfere with the Rubashkin or immigration case. I was pointing out that it is a de facto side-affect of his opening his mouth like that. In any case, my real point is that it must be assumed that the second option (he learned his facts from the "prosecution team") is the only reasonable option.

[george]

Part 2. As far as the name "Stephanie Rose" is concerned, it may be true that her name is mentioned elsewhere in the article, but clearly the specific portions I was referring to in the article were the contradictory assertions by two individuals as to where the "decision" was made. The individual person or persons making those decisions was clearly not my topic, nor does it make any difference as to my point.

[george]

Part 3. The first and foremost problem is that presentation was made both by the prosecution and by the judge that only "logistical" matters were discussed. The prosecution itself (in its response to the defense motion for a new trial) explicitly interprets the "charging strategies" discussed in the presence of (if not actually with) the judge, as follows:

"can be read no more broadly than the discussion of potential charges the Court might be presented with in Waterloo".

Note the word "potential"? Why is it needed? While I am not a lawyer (plus whatever disparaging remarks you want to throw at me), it certainly sounds like the prosecutor is worried that if the word "potential" was missing there may be at least some basis to at least investigate the possibility of judicial misconduct.

In-and-of-itself simply hearing the charges at that "stage in the game" might not have been a legal problem (I do not know, maybe it is?). But having implicitly (if not explicitly) denied that such an event took place would then make it a serious problem if it can be shown that the event did indeed take place.

[george]

Part 3 addition. More opportunity to show me how stupid I am.

As far as I could find, the fact that the judge met face-to-face in meetings with the prosecution team seems to have been kept under wraps. Clearly I have read only a small portion of the literature, and probably do not completely understand the little I have read, so does anyone out there have any source showing that the face-to-face meetings between the judge and the prosecution was publicly available knowledge (as opposed to rumour or a lawyer's instinctive feeling) before the freedom-of-information documents were released by the defense?

So, for example, the "Third Branch" article reads like something from TV (as someone mentioned TV previously, I feel I may use the term). The "Magistrate Judge" who had to sign warrants is different and seperate from the other judges involved.

http://www.uscourts.gov/News/TheThirdBranch/08-06-01/The_Third_Branch_-_June_2008.aspx

Then, the Chief Judge is quoted: "I was advised informally last December that a major law enforcement initiative was being contemplated". Someone made a mistake, as it was two months earlier. The wording, though, seems careful. "Advised". Really does not sound like a meeting of the sort described by the freedom-of-information documents. "I talked with my fellow judges about how best to handle the cases. We developed ...." Clearly any mention of a meeting with the prosecution is absent. Sounds like the judges did this all by themselves. Of course, that could just be the result of editing by the journalist (or is it my bad reading)? "A week earlier, Clerk of Court Robert Phelps had prepared the infrastructure." Sounds like the judges clerical staff handled matters (and co-ordinated with the prosecution) and the judge simply oversaw them. As far as the article is concerned (and this could just be journalist editing) the only prosecution contact was with the same judge (Magistrate Scoles) and with "staff", thus implying (at least to me) that all others were segregated.

So, this is not a court document (even if it is from the judicial system) and there is no need for a full disclosure. But is there any disclosure anywhere in any other source?

The only source I have seen for the Senate hearings on the matter is the prosecution response, and it quotes the Senator's question as follows:

"I would like to know what information was provided by ... to the Federal court"

Interesting that the phrasing makes it sound like the Senator is assuming there was no meeting, just "information". Just like the "Third Branch" article makes it sound. The response was:

"it is not uncommon to give the court a head’s up"

A "head's up". Still does make it sound like the judge was "advised informally".

So, anyone out there with more information (like the rest of the Senate record) that show that meetings between the judge and prosecutor were made public knowledge?

[Shmarya]

You are a deceitful person, George.

The entire article you quotes from the Times is about Stephanie Rose's nomination – her picture is featured prominently and the title refers to her nomination – yet you feign surprise at her mention.

You tried to pass of US Senator Tom Harkin as a member of the prosecution team.

You misquote and misrepresent other sources.

Past that, your rambling about judicial procedure and the legal system – both Jewish and secular American – are wrong, are not fact based, and are either more examples of your deceit or examples of some mental defect you have.

Now let me help your deceitful addled brain process.

The Northern Iowa Federal Court has 3 judges: Linda Reade, the chief judge; John Stuart Scoles, the magistrate judge; and an elderly judge who works part time.

In order to follow the law and arraign every arrestee within 24 hours, the court need to be informed that there would be a raid, that as many as 700 people may be arrested, and the nature of the potential charges.

From that notification the court had to:

1. Clear its calendar.

2. Make sure any of the three judges were not on vacation.

3. Bring in judges from nearby districts.

4. Arrange space to conduct the arraignments and to try the cases.

5. Make sure there were a large number of defense attorneys available, which included asking them to keep their schedules open for those days.

6. Arrange workspace for all of those defense attorneys.

7. Arrange computer access for the court and for the defense attorneys.

8. Arrange IT support and set up.

9. Bring in extra bailiffs and court reporters.

10. Make sure the detention facilities for the arrestees were safe, clean and legal.

11. Arranging translators for the arrestees.

That's a short list, George, and is by no means complete.

In order to know how many judges would be necessary, the court needed to know what type of trials it would be running.

If the charges would be felonies, more judges would be necessary.

If the charges would be misdemeanors, far fewer judges would have been necessary.

If fast track prosecution would be used, providing the court approved, even fewer judges would be necessary.

The job description of the chief judge includes logistical matters of the court and ensuring correct and safe operation of the court.

So informing the chief judge of the logistical needs, potential charges and the like is completely legal and completely normal.

What Rubashkin's attorneys deceitfully claim is that, because the prosecution's contact with the chief judge about these potential arrests spanned a 6 month period of time, more than simple logistical issues were discussed.

But this is absolute hogwash.

The court extended that 6 month period from 4 months to 6 months because the chief judge was out of the country for in March, and because other aspects of the court's calendar could not be cleared any earlier.

And setting up the arraignment and trial of hundreds of people in a remote location with arraignment having to take place within 24 hours of arrest is not a simple process.

That's why the government's target date was in March.

All of this logistical work was obvious to anyone even remotely familiar with the law.

Rubashkin's attorneys knew all of it had to be done and approved before any arrests were made, and they knew it was Judge Reade's responsibility to do it.

Martin De La Rosa's attorney tried for a recusal, and lost. In that proceeding, Judge Reade said her contact with the prosecution and with ICE was limited to logistical matters.

This means Rubashkin's attorneys knew the judge dealt with logistical issues, yet they attorneys dropped their try for recusal after De La Rosa lost his.

Legally, this means that Rubashkin cannot get a new trial based on his current motion – unless it can be proven the judge lied about her involvement.

But none of the documents Rubashkin's attorney Nathan Lewin released prove the judge lied.

In fact, they all deal with logistical issues.

Additionally, Nathan Lewin lied about the content of those documents and intentionally misquoted parts of them in the press release he approved that was released moments after he filed the documents with the court.

The Third Branch article you cite explains much of this, and shows how judges worked 16 hour days during the process.

It also notes that when a Ukrainian detainee need an interpreter, the court had one for him in 20 minutes because, even though the detainees were all supposed to be Spanish-speakers, the court had prepared for the possibility of other language needs.

But you, George, the deceitful, the lying, the smarmy, you ignore all of this.

You make much of the work done by the Clerk of the Court but do not mention that the Clerk of the Court works under the direction of the chief judge, who is ultimately responsible to make suree the constituional rights of the detainees are protected and that the court operates smoothly.

You lie. You make Tom Harkin a member of the prosecution team. You ramble on about "potential" charging strategies. And you feign innocence when exposed.

The game's over, George.

You can pack up your lies, your deceit, and your smarmy personality and hit the road.

[george]

I do not feign surprise at her mention. I ask why you brought up the name when it was irrelevant to anything I was saying.

[george]

I try to "pass him off"? The article was there and I did not even bother quoting just so that everyone could read it for themselves.

[Shmarya]

Stop lying, George.

[george]

The remainder of your post (ignoring the barbs against me) boils down to repeating the prosecution assertions made in the response to the defendant's motion. It does not address what I asked. Nor does it give any reason to believe one interpretation over the other of such phrases as "charging strategies".

[Shmarya]

What you call "prosecution assertions made in the response to the defendant's motion" are points I made long before the prosecution's response was written, let alone filed with the court.

Those points are fact, not assertions.

And as noted above, "charging strategies" were necessary for the court to know because it had to have enough judges and personnel to handle them.

As for my "barbs" against you, I dislike liars. And you, George, are one.

[george]

This time I am going a different route and showing (just using a minor example) the lack of rationality in your barbs against me. Your barbs against me are as logical and meaningful as me calling Judge Reid those names (I won't repreat them, anyone can read what you call me) because she is quoted as saying that her first contact was in December when in reality it was two months earlier according to documents. Nit-picking like that is easy, and is of no substance. Except that in her case her statement should have been well prepared and thought-out ahead of time and here I am just "blogging" (or blurting) thoughts out which can hardly be expected to measure up to pristine journalism.

[george]

Just to be clear, I am not going to bother running through everything I have already pointed out just because you assert I am a liar et al. I stand by my most recent posts until a logical challenge shows them wrong. But I will re-hash one thing. While you are at liberty to believe that the prosecutor's assertion are fact, such things as the meaning of "charging strategies" is a matter of interpretation.

[Shmarya]

Except that in her case her statement should have been well prepared and thought-out ahead of time and here I am just "blogging" (or blurting) thoughts out which can hardly be expected to measure up to pristine journalism.

Please.

A journalist writing a Courts newsletter asked her a question.

She answered it.

It was not a "prepared" statement.

Did the journalist get the month wrong? Did the judge misspeak?

It doesn't matter.

Four months or six months does not in any way impact Rubashkin's motion or the court's actions and it has no legal bearing.

While you are at liberty to believe that the prosecutor's assertion are fact, such things as the meaning of "charging strategies" is a matter of interpretation.

As I noted above, the prosecution's "assertions" you mention were written and filed AFTER I made them – in other words, George, I said it first. And what I said is FACT, not assertions.

And, as for the interpretation of language, the language means what its users said it means, unless there is proof to the contrary.

But there is no proof and there are no facts to support your lies.

[george]

Somehow I doubt that Judge Reid was taken by a surprise visit. One expects that she was well informed ahead of time as to the interview and its topic. And perhaps, that events were, or should have been, still "fresh in her mind"? And that this does not mean anything was my point.

Next topic. While you may have formulated your ideas well before this document was written, that proves nothing about whether these ideas are fact or opinion.

[Shmarya]

Somehow I doubt that Judge Reid was taken by a surprise visit. One expects that she was well informed ahead of time as to the interview and its topic. And perhaps, that events were, or should have been, still "fresh in her mind"? And that this does not mean anything was my point.

Please.

Do you think she was given weeks notice and then spent time preparing a "statement"?

If you do, you're an idiot.

The way things work is the judge's clerk is called, asked for brief appointment, and then the interview is done – usually all in the span of a day or two.

And is is highly unlikely any judge would prepare for such an interview let alone write a prepared statement.

While you may have formulated your ideas well before this document was written, that proves nothing about whether these ideas are fact or opinion.

Yes, you're correct. All it proves is that I did not rely on the prosecution to write my posts and comments.

But the information is FACT, George, not because I say so, but because it is.

Now haul your lying smarmy ass out of here.