Audio: Rubashkin Appeal Oral Arguments

The oral arguments, complete and unedited.

 

Rubashkin Appeal Oral Arguments 6-15-11

[Hat Tips: Burich, Seymour.]

Comments

[effie]

I thought Lewin's rebuttal was BS.

[FirstGenerationBavarianAmerican]

The lead judge questioning the prosecutor about duplicate charges reminds me of the time I worked for a company where my travel expenses were paid by the division we did work for. To keep more money for their own junkets, they kept on accusing me of padding my travel expenses when I didn't.

I have to say that I agree with Norman Pressman that we may expect to see a reduction in the length of the sentence. The judge wouldn't keep harping on this issue of he was sure there was no double-dipping.

[nat lewin]

that is lawyer nat lewin speaking!

[larry]

effie | June 15, 2011 at 09:26 PM

what part of it? The part where he showed the prosecutor to have knowingly misrepresented the supreme court’s decision to the 8the circuit?

[itchiemayer]

I honestly don't remember. When and how did the defense discover the "recusal" issue? If Lewin is truly lying when he says it wasn't until after the trial and that he was "floored" by this finding, then wouldn't that be some sort of violation which would subject him to discipline from the court?

[itchiemayer]

Who would have thunk that my home town would, at least for one day, be the center of the Lubavitch world....and with Storman Norman Pressman right in the middle of it.

For those of you unfamiliar with Norman Pressman, he is known to be quite an eccentric fellow, and I disagree with him 97.75% of the time. Nonetheless, I did enjoy his analysis.

[larry]

itchiemayer | June 15, 2011 at 10:14 PM

what part of it? The part where he showed the prosecutor to have knowingly misrepresented the supreme court’s decision to the 8the circuit?

They asked for the info all along but were denied access to it. Only after the case was over did they obtain some – heavily redacted documents – via FOI suite. At that point they immediately requested a retrial.

Why do you guys always assume that Lewin is lying?

[effie]

Why do you guys always assume that Lewin is lying?

Only when his lips are moving, larry.

[itchiemayer]

Larry - I answered you on the other thread.
I actually don't assume he is lying on the recusal issue.

[larry]

Effie, so you are the type of guy that calls whoever disagrees with you - a liar?

[Shmarya]

what part of it? The part where he showed the prosecutor to have knowingly misrepresented the supreme court’s decision to the 8the circuit?

They asked for the info all along but were denied access to it. Only after the case was over did they obtain some – heavily redacted documents – via FOI suite. At that point they immediately requested a retrial.

Why do you guys always assume that Lewin is lying?

Posted by: larry | June 15, 2011 at 10:22 PM

larry,

Lewin did not show the prosecutor was lying. He alleged the prosecutor misstated a case. The prosecutor obviously disagrees, and will be up to the judges to determine which spin on that case is actually correct.

Past that, if you had ears and a brain, you would have heard the chief judge call Lewin on a truncated quote, showing that at least one of the appellate judges is aware of Lewin's propensity to lie about what Judge Reade said. The judge did this at least one other time.

Lewin also admitted that he has no evidence of bias on the part of Judge Reade.

I have no way to know what will happen, but I would think Lewin's intentional misquotes in the written records and orally, along with his desire to rely on "inferences" that are not actually based in fact, will preclude a new trial.

There is a possibility of a lighter sentence if the appellate court believes the money laundering was inseparable at all times from the fraud.

If they do not believe that, I think it unlikely that 10 years will be taken off the sentence.

Lastly, Lewin's contention that Orthodox and haredi community would never have supported Rubashkin if his crimes were not altruistic is patently absurd.

Those very same communities have a long track record of supporting pedophiles and other criminals whose crimes cannot be construed as altruistic, and indeed, of covering up for those crimes, as well.

Lewin's blatant lying – especially about that – should enrage all honest Jews.

[Shmarya]

Effie, so you are the type of guy that calls whoever disagrees with you - a liar?

Posted by: larry | June 15, 2011 at 10:49 PM

Again, Lewin's lies are documented.

[larry]

Yes you’re right. It is documented. But the only place they are “documented” is in your fantasy world of FM. I’m sure you will produce lings whre the great YOU stated over and over that Lewin always lies. What more proof do we need?

[Aleksandr Sigalov]

larry, Shmaryah is right.

And it is not his fault that you yourself is a victim of rabbinical lies (why else would you defend them?) that they spun to trap and exploit unsuspecting people.

Too bad your little world is crumbling apart - this probably sucks ;)

[OMG]

Folks, after listening to the arguments from both sides I am going out on a limb and predict the following. SMR will not get a new trial, Lewin tried to argue that regardless that he does not have any prove that Judge Reade deliberately ruled against SMR he should get another trial. Furthermore, Lewin was not even able to cite even one instance where during the trial the Judge showed biased to SMR, which could be attributed to the pre raid meetings. Additionally, when asked directly if he has evidence that the Judge know the particulars of the case prior to the raid. Lewin was unable to cite, he said that it was an inference only. Meaning I do not have any facts or prove but I am supposing that Judge lied and knew the particulars before the raid. Therefore, not only he will not get a new trial, they will not even send it to another judge to hold hearings.

Their second major point revolved around the length of the sentence, the money laundering might be the only point that SMR might prevail on. If the court rules the prosecution interpretation is wrong that using the checking accounts of the kosher store and the Yeshiva is part and parcel of the original charged crime then he will prevail and his sentence will be reduced by 10 years.

The next point Lewin tried to make that the loss didn’t exceed the 10M threshold, did not go far enough, the prosecution was able to succinctly explain why SMR’s argument is wrong, he will not prevail on this point.

All in all Lewin did not make any arguments that Judge Reade is an Anti-Semite, which he did when he spoke to the orthodox communities. The bottom line is that this will go on for some time enough money will be squandered before this ends.

[Michael]

just so you know, Nat Lewin has been a lawyer for over 50 years with 30 supreme court appearances under his belt. he is extremely experienced and generally respected in the legal community. show a bit more respect for someone far more knowledgeable than you or me.

[Shmarya]

Yes you’re right. It is documented. But the only place they are “documented” is in your fantasy world of FM. I’m sure you will produce lings whre the great YOU stated over and over that Lewin always lies. What more proof do we need?

Posted by: larry | June 15, 2011 at 11:58 PM

Please.

The lies I have written about were later cited by the judge in her response to Lewin, and WERE MENTIONED BY THE CHIEF JUDGE TODAY.

That you have for the past many months consistently refused to look at the evidence does not mean that evidence does not exist. It just means you are delusional.

You need psychological help. Get it.

[Shmarya]

just so you know, Nat Lewin has been a lawyer for over 50 years with 30 supreme court appearances under his belt. he is extremely experienced and generally respected in the legal community. show a bit more respect for someone far more knowledgeable than you or me.

Posted by: Michael | June 16, 2011 at 01:05 AM

Please.

No one has to respect his lies or his garbage.

Was he once a good lawyer?

Yes.

Was he once ethical?

I think that is highly doubtful.

[WoolSilkCotton]

Even the 'best' lawyers lose cases, too.

If you're willing to pay his fees, he will represent you. Case closed.

[Robert Wisler]

Is Lewin charging Mr. Rubashkin for his legal services or is he doing his soap-opera-tug-at-the-heartstrings act for free?

[george]

I am only part-way through the audio, but I do not understand why the judge is asking about State warrants when this is federal court?

[Shmarya]

I am only part-way through the audio, but I do not understand why the judge is asking about State warrants when this is federal court?

Posted by: george | June 16, 2011 at 08:39 AM

I think there's a lot more than that you do not understand.

Try listening to it again.

[george]

I am up to the prosecution part and (while there are other things as well to mention), I find the following just so weird: the prosecutor first asserts that (the best to his knwoledge) Judge Reade never saw the "executive summary" (which mentions Agriprocessor by name), but then admits openly that he does not even know what the "executive summary" even is. He made assertions about something he admits he knows nothing about?

[Shmarya]

Since you have such a poor grasp of what transpired, I'll point out the following to you.

Early in the proceeding, the chief judge tries to complete a 'quote' Lewin is attributing to the Judge Reade. As he does so, he notes that Lewin has truncated the quote. Lewin says he's referring to something else, so the judge doesn't get to finish his sentence – which is that the 'quote' is not a quote of Judge Reade, and Lewin intentionally mis-attributed the quote to her and truncated it to change its meaning and make her look guilty.

That's just one of several things you 'missed' in the first part of the audio.

Of course, you missed these things because you're a troll with a long history of this type of assholery.

Now if you can manage to listen closely AND honestly, what you'll hear is that the prosecutor is sure Judge Reade didn't see the executive summary. Why? BECAUSE HE KNOWS WHAT SHE DID SEE.

When the prosecutor says he's not even sure what the executive summary is, that means he isn't sure what Lewin is calling the executive summary – BUT HE KNOWS WHAT DOCUMENTS THE JUDGE SAW.

Perhaps one day soon there will be others charged for crimes related to Sholom's. Among them, I think, will be a certain Canadian I believe you are close to.

I look forward to watching him flee to Israel.

[itchiemayer]

Is there no good answer to my question regarding the "recusal" issue and when the defense found out (did they know before they say they knew). Until I hear otherwise I am forced to give the defense the benefit of the doubt on this one.

[george]

Shmarya

I suppose your 9:30 AM post is addressed to me.

Lewin does shortly return to the statement in question and points out through his empahsis of certain words that the sentence in question could be taken to mean "to include" (but not limited to) logistical support.

The prosecutor admitted that even at this late date he does not know how many meetings the trial judge had (about the raid) before the raid, so how could the prosecurot possibly know what transpired (what the trial judge heard and/or saw) at meetings the prosecutor does not even know (or remember) exsited?

[george]

Shmarya

"a certain Canadian I believe you are close to" Is that addressed to me?

"I look forward to watching him flee to Israel." Is that referring to the Canadian or to Rubashkin?

[Shmarya]

You are such a moron.

If you actually LOOK AT THE STATEMENT IN QUESTION, something you have refused to do over an dover again, you would know that Lewin falsely attributes it to Judge Reade and that he truncated the quote to make Judge Reade look guilty. She called him on that in her response. Lewin repeated the lie in the appeal, and the chief judge was calling him on it yesterday.

As for the number of meetings, if you had actually read the FOIA documents you would know there is not list, and what Lewin did is divide up various memos into the most number possible – even when memos are clearly referring to the same meeting.

That, moron, is why the prosecutor says that he doesn't know the exact number of meeting but it is nowhere near 12.

Now why not haul your passive aggressive lying troll ass out of here.

[Shmarya]

Shmarya

"a certain Canadian I believe you are close to" Is that addressed to me?

"I look forward to watching him flee to Israel." Is that referring to the Canadian or to Rubashkin?

Posted by: george | June 16, 2011 at 10:27 AM

That is clearly referring to the Canadian. And, yes, you.

[george]

Seeing as you want me to stop, then after this post I intend to post no more under this news item here.

All you have done was confirm that the prosecution has no idea (or so he claims) how many meetings there were. That has nothing to do with Lewin. It is not from Lewin that the prosecution should have that information. The judge wanted to know what information the prosecution knows from his own internal department, not from Lewin. Thus if the prosecution does not have the information from his own department of how many meetings there were, how can he know what was or not done or shown at those meetings?

About the statement in question, you have added nothing new, just repeated your accusations.

And to make this clear, I have no idea about this alleged Canadian of yours. As I am off this news item , I won't see any reply (assuming you make one).

[Shmarya]

All you have done was confirm that the prosecution has no idea (or so he claims) how many meetings there were. That has nothing to do with Lewin. It is not from Lewin that the prosecution should have that information. The judge wanted to know what information the prosecution knows from his own internal department, not from Lewin.

Again, you're an idiot.

The documents Lewin is basing his appeal on do not have a list of meeings.

Lewin concocted the number 12 and used it in court yesterday.

The prosecution didn't know the exact number of meetings but knew it was significantly less than 12.

As for the Canadian you have "no idea" about, I look forward to watching.

[itchiemayer]

So did Lewin know before he said he did or not. If he did, how do we know that to be true?

[Shmarya]

???

[itchiemayer]

I am talking about the "recusal" issue. When did he discover that Judge Reade had meetings regarding some of the logistics of the raid.

[FirstGenerationBavarianAmerican]

Itchiemayer, that information is somewhere in the archives. Of the top of my head, Lewin announced it after getting the FOIA documents. But for sure, it is in the archives here.