Congressman Writes Letter To AG About Rubashkin

Like many Americans, not just those of us who serve as Members of Congress on the Judiciary Committee, I am committed to see that justice is served fairly for all who come before our courts.  In the vast majority of cases, defendants are afforded fair process and, if found guilty, are sentenced fairly. But this is not always true. One particular case that has come to my attention illustrates clearly and tragically that injustice happens, and that grossly disparate sentences are sometimes imposed.  I refer to the criminal prosecution of Sholom Rubashkin.

This is the fourth or fifth congressperson to speak out on behalf of Sholom Rubashkin. Like most that came before him, Delahunt is simply wrong on most of his facts.

For example, he clearly does not understand the federal sentencing guidelines and does not know how they impacted Rubashkin's sentence – or he is lying.

There are many federal white collar prisoners with sentences as harsh as Rubashkin's.

Why?

Because federal sentencing guidelines call for these harsh sentences.

In Rubashkin's case, the guidelines called for 22 to 30 years in prison. The judge gave him 25, which is actually at the low end of the guidelines' range.

Why did Rubashkin have two more years added on so his full sentence is 27 years?

Because he lied on the witness stand, and federal courts are allowed to add extra time for crimes related to those charged if the original charges lead to a conviction.

Past this, Rubashkin refused to cooperate with federal investigators and prosecutors, and he lied to them repeatedly. He also concealed evidence and destroyed evidence, tampered with witnesses and bribed the mayor of Postville. He induced a key witness (who is now under indictment) to flee to Israel and paid for his plane tickets. And this is not a complete list of his crimes.

That pervasive criminal activity and the fact that the existence of Agriprocessors was largely dependant on illegal labor – the plant could not have functioned without it.

Why?

Because hiring legal workers in enough numbers to fully staff the plant meant paying those workers a living wage. If Agriprocessors had done that, it would have lost its price advantage over honest glatt kosher meat producers, and that would have made Agriprocessors a small-time operation, if it even survived.

All that, along with evidence of even more as yet uncharged criminal activity, caused the feds to threaten forfiture. Agriprocessors was – rightly, I think – viewed as proceeds of criminal activity, much as a drug dealer's Lexus might be. Delahunt mentions none of this, either becase he is ignorant of the facts or because he is too dishonest to mention them.

As I've noted before, I think Rubashkin's sentence is too harsh. But the reason for that harshness is the sentencing guidelines, which need to be modified, and Rubashkin's own behavior.

The problem with Delahunt and other Rubashkin supporters is that they ignore the scope of Rubashkin's crimes and behavior, ignore the role of the federal sentencing guidelines, and try to make it seem as if Rubashkin is being singled out. The implication these ommissions impart is that Rubashkin is being discriminated against and that discrimination is because he is a hasidic Jew.

At the release of the Rubashkin "Unity" music video last week, one of the performers, Y-Love, came with a sign calling for the federal sentencing guidelines to be reformed. The event's organizers would not let him hold the sign or display it. Y-Love wanted to make a brief one or two minute statement calling for the federal sentencing guidlines to be reformed at the event's press conference. Again, the event's organizers – the Chabad w that run Rubashkin's defense committee / Pidyon Shevuyim Fund – would not allow it.

Why?

Because a problem with the federal sentencing guidelines won't necessarily help Rubashkin get a sentence reduction, but antisemitism might.

So Rubashkin's backers have spent months carefully crafting the appearance of antisemitism in Rubashkin's prosecution and sentencing, mostly through omitting the facts that would, if included, put Rubashkin's sentence and his prosecution in context.

The federal sentencing guidelines need to be changed. All of us should support that.

But we should not support the lies and of omission and commission of Rubashkin's supporters and attorneys – even when those lies are promulgated by a US Congressman.

Here is Congressman Delahunt's letter:

Dear Mr. Attorney General:

Like many Americans, not just those of us who serve as Members of Congress on the Judiciary Committee, I am committed to see that justice is served fairly for all who come before our courts.  In the vast majority of cases, defendants are afforded fair process and, if found guilty, are sentenced fairly. But this is not always true. One particular case that has come to my attention illustrates clearly and tragically that injustice happens, and that grossly disparate sentences are sometimes imposed.  I refer to the criminal prosecution of Sholom Rubashkin.

Rubashkin is the former manager of the Agriprocessors kosher meatpacking plant in Postville, Iowa that was raided by the government in May 2008. Although initially arrested on immigration-law violations, all such charges were subsequently dismissed by the government; and Rubashkin was tried and found guilty of bank fraud and related white-collar crimes in November 2009. He was sentenced in June 2010 to 27 years in prison; two years beyond what even the government recommended.

This case raises very serious issues of judicial and prosecutorial misconduct, resulting in an unfair and grossly disparate sentence.  I believe these allegations are sufficiently serious to warrant an investigation by you.

Rubashkin’s harsh, 27-year sentence raises a number of troubling concerns.  He is a first-time offender and was found guilty of white-collar violations with no hint of violence or physical harm to anyone. The federal judge — the Honorable Linda Reade of the Northern District of Iowa — gave what amounts to a life sentence for a 51-year-old man.  The sentence has been criticized by many lawyers and legal scholars, including six former U.S. attorneys general who publicly called on the trial judge to impose a fair sentence consistent with other, similar cases.  Instead, the judge imposed a sentence greater than even the prosecutors were seeking.  This 27-year sentence is far greater than many sentences imposed on other defendants convicted of far more serious white-collar crimes.

The process by which the government and the judge arrived at and justified such a disproportionate sentence is troubling as well.

For example, after the Agriprocessors firm went into bankruptcy as a result of the May 2008 raid, the government deliberately hampered the ability of the trustee to sell the company’s considerable assets (including the good will of the Rubashkin name) at a fair price in order to minimize any loss to the Iowa bank that had extended the company credit.  Moreover, the government unnecessarily included a forfeiture clause in the initial, immigration-based indictment; this also dramatically reduced the marketability of the plant’s assets.

The government also substantially reduced the value of Agriprocessors after it went into bankruptcy, by preventing potential purchasers from having any association with members of the Rubashkin family, including those not accused of any crime. The government trustee further lowered the value of Agriprocessors by mishandling inventory at the Postville plant. The resulting decrease in the value of Agriprocessors significantly inflated the “loss” for Sentencing Guidelines purposes.

In short, these deliberate steps by the government had the effect of significantly boosting Rubashkin’s Sentencing Guideline numbers, in order to provide justification for the judge to impose an excessive and disproportionate sentence.

There are other troubling aspects of this case, Mr. Attorney General, such as the fact that the federal judge who presided over the trial of Rubashkin improperly engaged in numerous and detailed, ex parte discussions in the six months preceding the May 2008 raid with the Office of the United States Attorney and immigration officials. None of this was disclosed by either the judge or the prosecutors to the lawyers representing Rubashkin. They discovered it only recently in reviewing a large quantity of documents received post-sentencing as a result of an earlier FOIA inquiry.

These facts seem to raise some of the same concerns that caused you to take the extraordinary but commendable step of dropping charges last year against former Sen. Ted Stevens as a result of government misconduct.  In my view, withholding information relating to possible recusal of a judge is as serious as withholding exculpatory evidence.

To date, however, the Department of Justice has been unwilling to inquire into the Iowa prosecutors’ handling of the Rubashkin case.  Lanny Breuer, Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division, has responded to requests to engage the Department in at least reviewing these serious allegations, by dismissively passing the buck back to the U.S. Attorney’s office for the Northern District of Iowa.

This complete lack of interest in following up serious allegations of systemic improprieties in sentencing and government-judicial contacts is itself distressing.

You have recently and publicly expressed a desire to ensure that all federal prosecutions and sentencing procedures are conducted in a fair and even-handed manner.  This is what all Americans demand, and it is all that I seek.

I therefore request that you expressly and formally inquire into the manner in which Sholom Rubashkin was sentenced, and into what appears to have been a tainted and secret relationship between the trial judge and the government leading to the prosecution of Rubashkin.

I look forward to hearing from on this matter, Mr. Attorney General.  Let me take this opportunity also, to thank you for your outstanding service as our nation’s 82nd Attorney General.

Bill Delahunt

Comments

[sage]

This and all other future efforts, if any, will fail.

[harold]

One particular case that has come to my attention illustrates clearly and tragically that injustice happens, and that grossly disparate sentences are sometimes imposed. I refer to the criminal prosecution of Sholom Rubashkin.

Like I have said before, you may give all the talking points you want, from today to tomorrow, about things like Federal Guidelines" and the such. Bottom line, it is clear that there is a man (I am sure MANY such people) where justice was incorrectly applied. To let it stand because "thats the way it is" is wrong, immoral and in my eyes criminal.

This issue must be pressed until the problems in the systems get corrected and the way to do it is to continue to press to correct the injustice. The Rubashkin case is a good one since 27 years on the surface for a first offender would ordinarily to the "average Joe" be associated to rapists amd murders so if a case can be made, and which is clearly happening, just look at this story, that the system is flawed and need to be fixed then by continuing the momentum and pressing the point that a person (really people) are being unduly punished may yield the necessary changes. Again, this is something that lots of people feel is wrong but is not being addressed because the government is HUGE and moves ever so slowly, needing to be pushed and pulled like a giant sloth to get anything done.

[Shmarya]

Posted by: harold | October 10, 2010 at 08:35 AM

Idiot.

1. Rubashkin's people are NOT working to change the sentencing guidelines.

2. Rubashkin's sentence falls at the low end of those guidelines even for a fist time offender.

[harold]

Idiot.

1. Rubashkin's people are NOT working to change the sentencing guidelines.

2. Rubashkin's sentence falls at the low end of those guidelines even for a fist time offender.

I am sure that the issue of the guidelines will be brought up as the calls to correct this injustice mounts. Hopefully a SIDE EFFECT will be a change to the guidelines since everyone seems to be pointing that this is the reason for the harshness of the sentence (as well as an s.o.b of a judge).

[FirstGenerationBavarianAmerican]

++++++at a fair price in order to minimize any loss to the Iowa bank that had extended the company credit.++++

It was a Missouri bank.

[WoolSilkCotton]

These letters from AG's and congressmen read like the letter of recommendation my congressman sent for me when I was applying for medical school.
His secretary asked me "just tell us what you'd like the letter to say".

The recipient is always well aware of 'where the letter is coming from'. It's what politicians call 'constituent service'.

[Shmarya]

I am sure that the issue of the guidelines will be brought up as the calls to correct this injustice mounts. Hopefully a SIDE EFFECT will be a change to the guidelines since everyone seems to be pointing that this is the reason for the harshness of the sentence (as well as an s.o.b of a judge).

Please.

As I pointed out – and as you studiously ignore – the fact is Rubashkin's team forbade Y-Love from talking about the issue of reforming the sentencing guidelines and they clearly did that for the reason I mentioned above.

But you are so very intellectually dishonest, harold.

[effie]

Any modifications of sentencing guidelines has to be done by congress. So, it's sort of funny that the congress critter is whining to Holder.

[Monsey Hocker]

Harold, quite the machir you are. Rubashkin dug his own grave. Period. What don't you get?

The judge was fair, lawful and not the least bit antisemitic. She is known as a tough judge, and she was just as tough in this case as in every other. She wasn't involved in the pretrial prosecution or raid - but for logistics which is perfectly legal and normal, despite what Nag Lewin says.

Rubashkin failed, refused and defied the government at every turn. Was the prosecution overzealous. Hell yeah! That's their job.

The defense Rubashkin put up was more impotent than Yidi Kolko in a room with a naked woman. And you know why? Because he did what they said he did.

All the bullshys about the cattle laws never being applied? Chabad spin. Total nonsense.

He was found not guilty at the state trial because of the burden, not because he was innocent. And the feds withdrew their immigration charges because he was facing a boatload of years - 27 is what it came out to be - and there was no value in another trial.

You don't know the law, only what the beards vomit to you, and you drink the vomit. Go to matzav and vinnews, yeshiva world where you can drink the vomit with a bracha and no one will try to disprove the garbage.

I feel bad for Rubashkin's family, and for him. But I refuse to tolerate the nonsense and you can make 100 songs its all meaningless. The PR machine will fail. We are a land of laws, and if you don't like the laws pick your sorry pasty white ass up and leave.

[Menachem Mendel lll]

If congressman Delahunte was from Mississippi or Alabama and penned a letter on behalf of The Hebraic-Judaic criminal and felon who cheated the US government and destroyed peoples lives that would very admirable.

It would be even more or dare I say UBER admirable is if the good congressman had the KKK, The Aryan Nation and His Worship Sir Dovid Duke on board as co-signers.

But when it comes to election time and the shmoozing Jewish voters so he can keep his job reminds of a classic Rubashkin move that is taught in scammery school.

Moshiach Uber Alles!

[WoolSilkCotton]

Monsey Hocker 9:52, you summarized it all perfectly. Kudos.

[Hometown Postville]

Apparently, if you're an SMR groupie, you are expected to overlook the fact he committed criminal acts and focus only on his charitable acts. Let me get this straight- So there is no crime if the person used ill-gotten money to help others and not for personal gain? How many politicians did SMR contribute to? How many politicians have stood up on his behalf? Food for thought.

[Shmarya]

How many politicians did SMR contribute to?

A lot.

How many politicians have stood up on his behalf?

Far fewer.

[Ben Chosen]

Scot,

I don’t understand you.

1) You agree that Rubashkin doesn’t deserve such a long a sentence but you’re upset that the lawyers are distributing dishonest press releases.

So the family is doing good marketing,big whoop. You rather have Rubashkin sit for 27 years even though he doesn’t deserve it.

2) You deny there was selective prosecution yet you provide no explanation why the government did not release the documents before the case.

3)Why have some of the documents still not been released by the government.

[Shmarya]

1) You agree that Rubashkin doesn’t deserve such a long a sentence but you’re upset that the lawyers are distributing dishonest press releases.

So the family is doing good marketing,big whoop. You rather have Rubashkin sit for 27 years even though he doesn’t deserve it.

He deserves it in the sense that the long sentence is caused by the sentencing guidelines and by Rubashkin's own conduct, not by antisemitism or other form of bias.

Past that, smearing a sitting federal judge and lying is corrosive and damages our legal system. And that hurts all of us.

2) You deny there was selective prosecution yet you provide no explanation why the government did not release the documents before the case.

Because they never do, no matter who the defendant is.

3)Why have some of the documents still not been released by the government.

Because those documents pertain to open cases and ongoing investigations – like the ones built around Hosam Amara, the man Rubashkin told to flee to Israel and gave the money for that flight.

[Monsey Hocker]

Stop the semantic crap. Deserves? When does deserve come in to play? I've watched truly honorable men whither away and die from cancer ravaging their body before they were old enough to enjoy their grandkids. Ravaged by chemo, demolished. No one deserves that. Yet in reality it happens every day. This isn't Alice in Wonderland. This is life. This is real. Deserves? Who the hell are you? The law says Rubashkin gets 27 years. Deserves? You punk.

[Cheskel]

+++This is the fourth or fifth congressperson to speak out on behalf of Sholom Rubashkin. Like most that came before him, Delahunt is simply wrong on most of his facts. For example, he clearly does not understand the federal sentencing guidelines and does not know how they impacted Rubashkin's sentence – or he is lying.++++

Is it possible that we live in such a corrupt world that five former AG,couple of congress-persons,national law journal ,list is to long were all fall for the Rubashkin lies and non are reading the documents?

What did the world come to were the only truth is spoken on this fine blog.
No one besides the few Jew haters who post here would come out and say stop with the lying and read the documents.

[What kind of goyishe name is Harold?]

Posted by: Shmarya | October 10, 2010 at 08:42 AM

Every time you reply to him, you call him Idiot. Now, I don't know his Yiddishe name since he is too ashamed to use it but he goes by the goyishe name of Harold, not Idiot.

[Shmarya]

Posted by: Cheskel | October 10, 2010 at 02:26 PM

The former AG's were commenting based on the problems of the sentencing guidelines and their often longstanding opposition to those guidelines.

But as I've said many times before, no amount of fact, truth or logic will dissuade frum Rubashkin supporters from their lies.

[al Farabi]

the amount of string pulling that these lubos are capable of is truly fucking scary. they are a mafia, nothing more and nothing less.

[Cheskel]

+++The former AG's were commenting based on the problems of the sentencing guidelines and their often longstanding opposition to those guidelines+++

One is lying the other doesn't read the documents others are opposing the guidelines all the non sense we heard a million times but nothing changes the fact.
I might be wrong.But is there one noted person such as in law or noted columnists,politician or anyone with clout who agrees that Rubashkin should be in prison for the rest of his life? He got two years more for whatever reason that's all non sense the two years wont make it or break it. Fact is he was sentenced to life.

Besides the prosecutor and the judge, what would drive any sane person that Rubashkin should be in prison for the rest of his life?

[Shmarya]

Posted by: Cheskel | October 10, 2010 at 03:50 PM

So if Rubashkin committed exacly the same crimes, but was 78 years old, you'd want him not to get any prison time because any times served would amount to life?

Past the very obvious, Rubashkin's father is several years older than now than Rubashkin will be on release if he serves the entire 27 years – so how is this life?

The only argument Rubashkin really has is that the guidelines are too severe.

They are.

But that is not the argument he is making because that argument won't whip up his base and won't raise millions of dollars and won't make him a folk hero to the uneducated.

Process that.

[Cheskel]

If he is this age or his father is that age your argument is silly and hypothetical.

Rubashkin is now 51 and if cas vasholem nothing happens he will be out when he is 79 that means life.

Let me try to repeat my question again and if you cant answer an accepptable answer besides name calling,no problem.

Is there one noted person such as in law or noted columnists,politician or anyone with clout who agrees that Rubashkin should be in prison for the rest of his life?

Besides the prosecutor and the judge, what would drive any sane person that Rubashkin should be in prison for the rest of his life?

Is it possible that we live in such a corrupt world that five former AG,couple of congress-persons,national law journal ,list is to long were all fall for the Rubashkin lies and non are reading the documents?

[Shmarya]

You are an absolute shoteh.

There are many noted legal experts who think Rubashkin's sentence is fair and there are many who think it is unfair.

But those who think it unfair largely think so because they believe the sentencing guidelines are unfair, not because he was singled out in any way.

Is it possible that we live in such a corrupt world that five former AG,couple of congress-persons,national law journal ,list is to long were all fall for the Rubashkin lies and non are reading the documents?

Moron.

1. They signed that letter long before the FOIA documents came into play.

2. Secondly, as any educated person would know, people like Congressmen often sign letters advocating for things based on their relationship with the person who asked them to sign or based on their preexisting positions.

In this case, the people who signed that letter or who wrote their own letters clearly based their action on what they were told by Rubashkin's team, not on any independent evaluation of the facts.

[Cheskel]

++You are an absolute shoteh++


As i said,you cant answer logically you go to name calling.



+++There are many noted legal experts who think Rubashkin's sentence is fair+++

Name one besides Avi Moskowitz which you twisted his words.

+++But those who think it unfair largely think so because they believe the sentencing guidelines are unfair, not because he was singled out in any way.+++

Maybe. I don't claim to know everything. Some one who knows everything,knows nothing.

++Moron.++

Name calling again which you do good.

+++They signed that letter long before the FOIA documents came into play+++

Let them come out and say it.

++Secondly, as any educated person would know, people like Congressmen often sign letters advocating for things based on their relationship with the person who asked them to sign or based on their preexisting positions.
In this case, the people who signed that letter or who wrote their own letters clearly based their action on what they were told by Rubashkin's team, not on any independent evaluation of the facts.+++

So it is as i said before:

Is it possible that we live in such a corrupt world that five former AG,couple of congress-persons,national law journal ,list is to long were all fall for the Rubashkin lies and non are reading the documents? What did the world come to were the only truth is spoken on this fine blog.
No one besides the few Jew haters who post here would come out and say stop with the lying and read the documents.

[Monsey Hocker]

Cheskel, refuah shleimah. PLease post your full hebrew nam and that of your mother, presuming she's Jewish, so we can add you to our prayers.

The 5 former AGs had a very simple thesis. Their letter said one thing. One thing only. All they said was that a life sentence for Rubashkin was inappropriate, even though the guidelines could have justified same. That's all they said.

As it turns out, the feds outjewed the Jew, and revised their sentencing recommendation from life to 25 years, effectively rendering the AG letter meaningless.

If Rubashkin's defense had demonstrated 1/100th of the savvy as that single move by the guvment, he might be doing a stretch that would allow him to get out of jail with maybe a little lead left in his pencil. Instead they paraded a bunch of morons whose testimony helped dig that ever-so-deep 27 year hole. Oh well.

[Monsey Hocker]

MM3, be help us gedaven for yenem choileh chazkel ben whoknowswhat. Der Aybishter tzigehelfen dorton mitt aleh nachas fun de kinder yehei shmei rabah UMMEIN!!!

[True]

Shmaya, You seem to keep on ignoring the fact that the judge decides what evidence is allowed to be presented to the jury and she did her best to block the defense from proving
1. That the government deliberately hampered the ability of the trustee to sell the company
2. The government unnecessarily included a forfeiture clause in the initial, immigration-based indictment
3. preventing potential purchasers from having any association with members of the Rubashkin family
4. mishandling inventory at the Postville plant

However she allowed the prosecution to bring things like illegal immigration etc. (that he was acquitted in the state case) to the jury.
Sentencing guidelines are not binding, and is only here as a suggestion (to be used where it makes sense) there is no reason for a judge to sentence someone like this for more than 10 years

The only way to explain this is that she took this case personal and was out to get him

[Monsey Hocker]

"You seem to keep on ignoring the fact that the judge decides what evidence is allowed to be presented to the jury"

Wrong! Sorry loser! You make this up as you go along? You finish too soon and embarass yourself while intimate with wifey? Need the pill to keep it up and your self esteem is in the crapper so you come on here and spout your idiocy?

The LAW decides what evidence is to be presented to the jury, not the judge, not the feds, not the boogey man. The LAW.

The Rubishclan hampered the ability to sell the company by cooking the books and creating phoney sales where there were none. Like, remember in Training Day when Alonzo tells Smiley to get the tub ready? Hoyt thinks he's just going to chill while Alonzo bows out to drop a deuce, remember? But it was a set up. That Alonzo, he's one ruthless vato. That's Rubashkin. The sales were fake, so how could the trustee make a good faith effort at selling what he had no idea what the reality was. The balance sheets and operating statements were as bogus as a third nipple. As are all of your kool aid fed nonsense.

[Shmarya]

1. That the government deliberately hampered the ability of the trustee to sell the company
2. The government unnecessarily included a forfeiture clause in the initial, immigration-based indictment
3. preventing potential purchasers from having any association with members of the Rubashkin family

I clearly deal with this in my post. You might try to reread what I wrote slowly and carefully.

You might also check earlier posts because I reported on this extensively.

The Rubashkins business was both the vehicle for and the proceeds of lawbreaking and federal law allows prosecutors to move for forfeiture.

That you don't like that does not change the law.

[harold]

and if you don't like the laws pick your sorry pasty white ass up and leave.

If you will note the subject of this post, a Congressman as well as many other high ranking people also feels that justice was not served fairly and they are not picking up their sorry pasty white asses and leaving.

[Shmarya]

Is it possible that we live in such a corrupt world that five former AG,couple of congress-persons,national law journal ,list is to long were all fall for the Rubashkin lies and non are reading the documents? What did the world come to were the only truth is spoken on this fine blog.

Shoteh.

The people who wrote in the National Law Journal are paid members of Rubashkin's legal team and the piece – which was rife with "errors" (or lies, depending on how you view it) was an op ed. It in no way reflects the view of the National Law Journal.

I realize you don't know very much and I realize after months of dealing with you that your ignorance is largely willful.

No fact, no amount of evidence or proof ever changes your opinions.

You fit the classic definition of a shoteh – which is what you are.

Go shove some greasy Williamsburg kugel down your throat and congratulate yourself on your self-inflicted stupidity.

[Mr. Apikoros]

Here's my position, which I'm restating:

SMR was unfairly sentenced, particularly the two years extra (beyond 25) which were tacked on by the judge.

SMR was convicted of fraud, and was guilty as hell. Most people convicted of similar frauds get 5 - 10 years, not 27.

My point is that SMR was sentenced for stuff he wasn't convicted of, and in fact he was acquitted, like the labor violations, or stuff he wasn't tried for.

I believe he's guilty as hell of those crimes, so I'm not mourning for SMR. I'm mourning for justice, because in my naive and simplistic view of the world, one should only be sentenced for stuff for which one is found guilty.

O.J. Simpson is doing 17 years for stealing his own stuff, and on trumped-up charges of robbery, kidnapping, etc. Of course, he's doing 17 years for a double homicide, for which he was acquitted, and everybody knows that. I followed the 1994-95 Simpson trial very closely, originally believed he was guilty as hell, then changed my opinion as the evidence piled up that he was framed. But even if I believed Simpson was guilty, he shouldn't have been sentenced for stuff which in my book doesn't even constitute a crime.

[Monsey Hocker]

That congressman is doing what he should be doing - cowtowing to constituents. His opinion in a court of law is as relevant as a chabadskers fart in the middle of 770.

[Mr. Apikoros]

The idea of all this, MH, is to get Obama to mitigate part of SMR's sentence.

Hey, Bill Clinton did just that with the New Square 21, or whatever. Not to mention pardoning that stinking SOB Marc Rich.

[Monsey Hocker]

Apikores, you're on the right track but still somewhat farklempt. The sentencing was completely lawful. The 2 years were added on because the judge found SMR (gasp) lies in open court (shock) (fart) (burp) (look of disbelief) (shake hoshanos) which I know is hard to believe but it's true. Perfectly within her realm to add on the two years for him lying. Now she could have added more years for other no-no's but she reserved those.

If you find the 27 years harsh blame the guidelines not the judge. Lobby for guideline reform.

You are wrong as far as years also. FOr the number of counts Rubashkin was not singled out. I and SR have posted the case law. Go check it out.

He was not sentenced for anything other than the bank fraud. What the dandruff-riddled and shiny as mirrors asspants want you to believe is this was some sort of witch hunt. Even I don't believe SMR is a witch so that's not possible.

The immigration charges were relevant to the fraud case because every time Rubashkin made a draw on his line, part of the terms of the loan - which he agreed to - was that he had to provide a validity guarantee that AGRI was in full compliance with all fed, state and local laws. The testimony was relevant not insofar as they were violations of the law, but violations of the terms of the loan.

Your OJ comparisons are flakey but your a cool dude so we'll let them slide. Keep apikorusing!

[WoolSilkCotton]

Shmarya, the lukshen kugel to be found at Greenwald's on Lee Ave. in Williamsburg is superb. Not terribly greasy, sweet, just the right amount of raisins, and a fresh batch every time I've been there.
Their potato kugel likewise is terrific. You must try their knishes and kreplach, too.

What's fair is fair. Please don't insult Williamsburg kugels.

Rubashkin is a piece of drek who will rot in prison for another 26.5 years, no matter how apoplectic the frumma get. Let them keep annoying every politician and pissing away all their money on lawyers and music videos. It will have the same effect as with Grossman, whose case I considered to be a rehearsal for Rubashkin.

The net effect will be that Chabad will lose all credibility with the nonreligious Jewish community, they will deplete all their political capital, and remain looking like a gang of horrible stereotypes of frumma crooks. And their hero Rubashkin will remain in prison.

[Oregano Wilkenson Taylor]

Stop all the silly posturing, name-calling make-believe, smoke and mirrors. The simple fact is had SMR stood up like a man and said: "I did it. I am guilty. I realize what I did was wrong. I promise I will never do it again. My family is organizing a program to send speakers to synagogues and yeshivas to tell my fellow Yidden to not do bank fraud," then he - like his brother Moishe who is also a criminal, would have gotten 5-7 years and that would have been that. But no, they made him into a cult-figurte, a victim of Antisemitism. His family members go around with their hands out, collecting money from high school girls to pay for Nat Lewin and Co. and guess what? It hasn't worked and it won't.SMR will sit until he admits he did wrong, does tshuvah and promises to never do it again.

[Successful Messiah]

"Like most that came before him, Delahunt is simply wrong on most of his facts."

Of course, neither Delahunt, nor any of the congressman that came before him, nor any member of their staff, nor any of the former AGs, US Attorneys and others who have questioned the sentence understood the facts. In fact, the only person who understand the facts is some over-the-hill fellow, with no job, sitting in his underwear in his mother's basement.

"There are many federal white collar prisoners with sentences as harsh as Rubashkin's."

There are no federal white collar prisoners who are first time offenders, with no violent background (and certainly not those convicted of a crime with no intent to cause financial harm to others) with sentences as harsh as Rubashkin.

"Because federal sentencing guidelines call for these harsh sentences."

No they don't. The federal sentencing guidelines are to be treated as advisory and the judge is "required" (not just permitted) to use her own judgement in evaluating whether the sentence is fair. Virtually everyone, even Rubashkin haters such as you, admit that his sentence is unfair. In short, Judge Reade didn't do her job. In addition, the federal sentencing guidelines is easily manipulated by how the prosecuting attorneys pursue the case. Any first year litigator understands that but you apparently can't seem to grasp the concept.

"and bribed the mayor of Postville"

This is a lie you keep on repeating even though everyone in the know this is a lie. He was shaken down by the mayor of Postville.

"So Rubashkin's backers have spent months carefully crafting the appearance of antisemitism in Rubashkin's prosecution and sentencing"

No - they spent months carefully crafting the appearance of unfairness. In this regard the US Attorney's office and Judge Reade made their job quite easy.

[Shmarya]

Of course, neither Delahunt, nor any of the congressman that came before him, nor any member of their staff, nor any of the former AGs, US Attorneys and others who have questioned the sentence understood the facts. In fact, the only person who understand the facts is some over-the-hill fellow, with no job, sitting in his underwear in his mother's basement.

I've repeatedly brought the facts that prove these people are wrong, and I've shown that is so largely because they relied on Rubashkin attorneys for their information.

There are no federal white collar prisoners who are first time offenders, with no violent background (and certainly not those convicted of a crime with no intent to cause financial harm to others) with sentences as harsh as Rubashkin.

Absolutely false.

The federal sentencing guidelines are to be treated as advisory and the judge is "required" (not just permitted) to use her own judgement in evaluating whether the sentence is fair. Virtually everyone, even Rubashkin haters such as you, admit that his sentence is unfair. In short, Judge Reade didn't do her job.

Idiot.

The guidelines call for 22 to 30 years. The judge is required to use the guidelines and, if she chooses to deviate from them, she must show her reasons for doing so.

So you invert the law to make your case. In other words, you lie – again.

He was shaken down by the mayor of Postville.

Please.

How interesting it is that Rubashkin never mentioned that "shakedown" until the feds told him they caught him bribing the mayor.

When you realize giving the feds the mayor would have helped Rubashkin get a better plea deal and other possible considerations, you can see the import of Rubashkin's silence – unless, of course, you are an idiot, which you most assuredly are.

they spent months carefully crafting the appearance of unfairness. In this regard the US Attorney's office and Judge Reade made their job quite easy.

Rubashkin's lied. They cheated. And they And I believe it will be shown attorneys like Nathan Lewin violated their profession's ethical code and will be be held accountable for that.

As for that crack about my mother's basement and the other lies about me that you tell, process this: any short term gain you may have from those lies will only be short term. And the long term blowback will be much worse than anything your little mind can imagine. Hamayvin yavin, prick.

[Yerachmiel Lopin]

It bothers me that Rubashkin's sentence is so long. But it bother's me more when large groups have the chutzpah to think they can get away with anything. He could have pled guilty and we wouldn't be having this discussion. Chabad could have said we will help your family and do as much as possible for you in jail.

But I find it disgusting that a Jewish organization is rationalizing criminality and ruining the reputations of honest Jews.

The Congressman's letter proves nothing about the case. It just demonstrates Chabad's political clout. You can be sure the Congressman will back out of this letter if the case gets any more embarrassing.

Rubashkin got a few years for being guilty of multiple crimes. He got most of his 27 years for not saying he was sorry. But of course, being Chabad means never having to say I am sorry."

Reluctantly, I have concluded that I hope he does not get a sentence reduction because it will only encourage Chabad arrogance and intransigence.

I completely agree with Shmarya that American sentencing guidelines are absurdly severe. We have a higher proportion of our population in jail than any other advanced industrial society.

Until American sentencing guidelines are changed Rubashkin should sit out his term in the slammer. Perhaps he might even consider thsuvah.

[itchiemayer]

His roomates in DC are none other than Richard "Dick" "Turbin" Durbin, and Schmuckie Schumer. Just as he surely votes on bills he does not read, he comments on cases he does not know.

[effie]

Rubashkin's best bet is to seek a presidential pardon in about 10-15 years.

[Judah]

Shmarya, anti-Semitism has been an effective motivator--perhaps the only effective motivator-- of "the base".

The world-girdling omni-cultural magical "2000 year old hate" (more than 2000 years, really, if you count the Romans, Amalek, Pharaoh, et al.).

As Jewish politicians and leaders, how CAN they walk away from that kind of power? And they DO walk away from it and lose it if they don't dangle the specter in front of every single generation. The tribe is the only MDMs (market dominant minority) that has a global tool like this.

[Shmarya]

Shmarya, anti-Semitism has been an effective motivator--perhaps the only effective motivator-- of "the base".

The world-girdling omni-cultural magical "2000 year old hate" (more than 2000 years, really, if you count the Romans, Amalek, Pharaoh, et al.).

To view the Romans pre-1 CE as antisemitic is, I think, wrong. And what took place further in antiquity appears to be largely national myth – meaning we're the good guys and every enemy is Hitler.

[WoolSilkCotton]

Election Day is less than a month away. Politicians will write whatever drek they think will get them a few more votes, even if from just one smelly neighborhood.

The recipients of these letters know full well to put them in the circular file.

[WoolSilkCotton]

Speaking of politicians pandering to the frumma crowd, with ELection Day coming up:

http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2010/10/10/
2010-10-10_carl_paladino_in_blast_at_gays_nothing_to_be
_proud_of_in_being_a_dysfunctional_h.html

[Jose Gonzalez]

Like most that came before him, Delahunt is simply wrong on most of his facts.

Chuspah! Who made you the "keeper" of facts and truth? This Congressman has more information in his hands than anyone reading this blog will ever have. The truth be said: Rabbi Sholom Rubashkin was treated unfairly!

This claims of Justice in this website reminds me of the claims made by the Spanish Inquisition - they place iron boots full of blades to get the truth out of their victims. The Inquisition had guidelines that were follow when conducting their "trials": that didn't make these trials fair.

Woe to the Goishe nations that have spilled Jewish blood!

[Shmarya]

Chuspah! Who made you the "keeper" of facts and truth? This Congressman has more information in his hands than anyone reading this blog will ever have. The truth be said: Rabbi Sholom Rubashkin was treated unfairly!

Idiot.

The facts are the facts and Delahunt clearly doesn't know them.

Being a Congressman gives him no more access to those facts than I have or you have.

All Delahunt had to do is spend several hours reading the documents and then several more asking good questions.

But he did neither.

Now run along and bow down to your dead rebbe and meat messiah.

[Taj]

Anywho who fails to pay cattlemen within 24 hours deserves a life sentence.

-Shmarya (or so his agruments are best summed up)

[Shmarya]

Anywho who fails to pay cattlemen within 24 hours deserves a life sentence.

-Shmarya (or so his agruments are best summed up)

Moron.

The convictions for not paying cattle growers did not add a day to his sentence.

[Chsekel]

So besides commenting on the greasy kugel you cant really answer the question that i asked:
Is there one noted person such as in law or noted columnists,politician or anyone with clout who agrees that Rubashkin should be in prison for the rest of his life?

Your answer before was that there are MANY

Please name ONE only,besides Avi Moskowitz which you twisted his words in your favor. But if you cant name that's ok.

[FirstGenerationBavarianAmerican]

I don't think anyone yet brought up the fact that Delahunt is retiring and his successor will be elected next month. Except for Weiner in NY, I don't think any of the congressmen we know about are from NY or IA.

[Shmarya]

Please name ONE only,besides Avi Moskowitz which you twisted his words in your favor. But if you cant name that's ok.

Moron.

Have you noticed the large number of legal experts who oppose the sentencing guidelines but who are completely silent about Rubashkin?

Now why do you think that might be?

Can your little brain come up with any reasons?

Shoteh.

[WoolSilkCotton]

Nobody besides the frumma looney world gives a shit about Rubashkin. Politicians don't, either.

Those who want to do a favor for some pestering Chabadnik in their state or district will send the perfunctory letter, as Delahunt did.

Rubashkin is just another greasy crook. The rest of the USA recognizes that. Only the frumma velt is excited about him. Nobody else gives a shit, and that's why you're not reading anything one way or another about the matter.

[Chsekel]

You would probably make a good politician.

Notice when they are being asked a question and don't have an answer they go around in circles with long blabbling speeches but no answer.

I accept anything,shoteh,moron,idiot,greasy kugel but you still cant answer.

In plain English so i can understand:

Can you name ONE noted person such as a legal expert,politician,columnist etc? ONE only.....can you name ?

[Shmarya]

Idiot.

Can you name ONE of these hundreds of legal experts who, although silent, supports Rubashkin's claims?

I realize that you are an ill-educated idiot who has no interest in the truth.

Even so, attempt to have what passes for your mind grasp the following:

No one who has come forward for Rubashkin speaks for the legal community. They speak for no one but themselves.

In other words, shoteh, they are individual exceptions.

What logic and halakha expects is that the status quo remains unless it is viably changed – meaning that exceptions to the rule have no bearing on the rule itself, especially when those exceptions have been paid for their opinion.

Now run along.

[FirstGenerationBavarianAmerican]

Yeah, I can. While they are highly biased, the do qualify as legal experts: the federal prosecutors in Iowa!

In his article, Edwin talked about:
"Those who have always wanted Rubashkin locked away for the rest of his days list his crimes as numerous and odious. Charges by bloggers, Jewish media reporters, and prosecutors include a heinous track record of mistreating illegal alien workers; tolerating drug dealing and gun smuggling in the plant; money laundering; obstruction of justice; perjury; and the painful ritual slaughter of cattle, all in the process of creating arguably the most successful kosher meat business in America."

The fact of the matter is that no independent legal expert who is not on the payroll has found this case of interest.

[FirstGenerationBavarianAmerican]

Sorry- that did not come out right. Try this:
The fact of the matter is that no independent legal expert who is not on the payroll has found this case and commented that a life sentence is warranted. All the charges of unfairness apparently do not reasonate with true independent legal experts.

[Chsekel]

++Can you name ONE of these hundreds of legal experts who, although silent, supports Rubashkin's claims?++

Answer with a question,good politician.

Name one ONLY. I guess there isn't any besides the posters on this blog.

[Shmarya]

I guess there isn't any besides the posters on this blog.

Shoteh.

A lawyer runs naked down the street screaming that public nudity should be legal. He did so at the request of a well-known nudist who paid him to do it.

Does that mean the Bar Association has to issue a statement condemning public nudity?

If it does not, does it mean that all lawyers support the nudist?

Or does the norm remain true?

But you're not smart enough to answer that question, now are you?

[אנט]

Chsekel: You just got burned. And you deserved it. I worked on Capitol Hill for many years and corruption is the name of their game. They are ALL a network of crooks who have each others backs. So if the only dissent comes from the bloggers on this site, Mr. Rosenberg in particular, than maybe you have hit the nail on the head. Maybe he is perhaps the only one with the guts to say it.

[Cheskel]

++But you're not smart enough to answer that question, now are you?+++

I don't claim to be smart and neither do i know everything.

But you do know everything, how is it then that you cant dig up ONE noted person who comes out and say that this whole Rubashkin screamers is built on lies and he deserves to be in prison for life?

++A lawyer runs naked down the street screaming that public nudity should be legal. He did so at the request of a well-known nudist who paid him to do it.++

This is not A lawyer.Its FIVE that is 5 former AG of the USA wrote letters against the sentencing.

A couple of congress persons

A former presidential candidate

Law journal

and many more.

And you compare it with A lawyer who is paid to run down the street naked. That's the best you can come up with?

[Shmarya]

Posted by: Cheskel | October 11, 2010 at 02:30 PM

MORON. LIAR. SHOTEH.

A former presidential candidate

Paid by Rubashkin.

Law journal

An op-ed, NOT the position of the journal, written by an attorney paid by Rubashkin.

5 former AG of the USA wrote letters against the sentencing.

They are opposed to the sentencing guidelines and were approached by a Rubashkin attorney who asked them to sign a letter he wrote saying the sentence is too extreme. They signed. None of them studied the case or saw the original documents.

I could go on but no fact, no evidence and no truth ever penetrated that tiny pebble that passes for your brain.

Go look in a mirror. What you'll see is an ignoramus made so by his rabbis and by the failed religious school system you attended.

Shoteh.

[Successful Messiah]

"And the long term blowback will be much worse than anything your little mind can imagine. Hamayvin yavin, prick."

Sounds like someone here gets a little testy when he is the subject of some criticism. Here is a novel idea that you may want to consider, if you want some civilty on your blog, try introducing some in your comments. You never know - maybe some of your commenters will respond in kind.

[Shmarya]

Posted by: Successful Messiah | October 11, 2010 at 03:05 PM You repeatedly lie about me and smear me and now you object to my response to your lies and smears?

Hamavin yavin, prick.

[Successful Messiah]

"You repeatedly lie about me"

Which part of my statement was a lie?

"and now you object to my response to your lies and smears?"

Object? No objections - just pointing out some facts.

"Hamavin yavin, prick."

Guess that you are still testy. A vallium might help.

[Successful Messiah]

"They signed. None of them studied the case or saw the original documents."

Liar. All of them objected to the sentence as applied to the Rubashkin case. Yes, they are opposed to the sentencing guidelines, but they viewed the Rubashkin case as a prime example of the unfairness of those guidelines.

[Shmarya]

"They signed. None of them studied the case or saw the original documents."

Liar. All of them objected to the sentence as applied to the Rubashkin case. Yes, they are opposed to the sentencing guidelines, but they viewed the Rubashkin case as a prime example of the unfairness of those guidelines.

Idiot.

What I wrote is true. They were, pre-Rubashkin, opposed to the sentencing guidelines and were approached by Rubashkin's attorneys through an attorney (who may not even made it clear he was working for Rubashkin) to sign the letter.

They were given minimal information about the case from that attorney, and that is what they acted on.

The former AGs are elderly men, relying on the word of a younger friend.

[Shmarya]

"You repeatedly lie about me"

Which part of my statement was a lie?

Please.

I've pointed out the lies several times in direct response to you uttering them, but you keep on repeating them anyway.

And for that you will pay.

[Successful Messiah]

"And for that you will pay."

Gee, that sounds like a threat. I wonder if that gives me a legal basis for suing you?

[Shmarya]

"And for that you will pay."

Gee, that sounds like a threat. I wonder if that gives me a legal basis for suing you?

Please do.

Of course, to sue you'd need to use your real name, and that will allow me to counter-sue you for defamation.

And rest assured, that is exactly what I plan on doing, one way or another.

[Successful Messiah]

"And rest assured, that is exactly what I plan on doing, one way or another."

Before you waste your time and money, I would suggest that you first research what the elements of defamation are.

[Shmarya]

Before you waste your time and money, I would suggest that you first research what the elements of defamation are.

Did that already.

I think you should research criminal conspiracy.

Hamavin yavin, prick.

[Successful Messiah]

"I think you should research criminal conspiracy."

Now you are really reaching. Saying that you blog from your mother's basement in your underwear is criminal conspiracy? You are dillusional.

[Shmarya]

Now you are really reaching. Saying that you blog from your mother's basement in your underwear is criminal conspiracy? You are dillusional.

It all depends on who your friends are and what they may have done.

And I think a subpoena or two should clear that up nicely.

[Successful Messiah]

"And I think a subpoena or two should clear that up nicely."

It would, but it wouldn't clear it up in the manner you would like.

[Shmarya]

It would, but it wouldn't clear it up in the manner you would like.

Time will tell, Dull One.

[a yid]

Shmarya
U have called people in this post the following names: Shoteh, prick, moron, Liar, idiot.
Time to; learn some more curse words.
Or better yet, learn to disagree with people without calling then names.
BTW, it seems each time someone proves u wrong, it hurts, so u curse.

[Shmarya]

BTW, it seems each time someone proves u wrong, it hurts, so u curse.

Not at all.

What sets me off are people who repeatedly or blatantly lie.

Of course, knowing your history here, I'd guess lies and really stupid attempts at logic don't bother you at all.