« Rubashkin Oral Arguments Over | Main | Audio: Rubashkin Appeal Oral Arguments »

June 15, 2011


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


That isn't really true.

Lewin wa an attorney for Agriprocesors for many years, and he advised the Rubashkins during the trial.

And you make an error if you think Rubashkin's defense did a bad job.

Their choice not to ask for recusal was most likely made because they knew if would be rejected, and that they would lose if they applied to the appellate court for relief.

I think the strategy was to wait until after the trial and then 'discover' documents that would be the basis for an appeal.


Was Lewin involved in the original defense.

Everyone seems to be knocking him for the fact tat the defense did a bad job in the original case. I though Lewin came aboard after the verdict.


3 years? Your out of your mind.

But I agree his lawyer hasn't helped him.

Critical minyan

. Good lawyers tell their clients to settle or not be so aggressive in business that the government feels the need to make an example of you.
Rubashkin got a 27 year sentence. He should have got 3 years. It was totally lewins fault, If lewin gets it knocks down to 10 years, it's still a fucking disaster of his creation.
Lewin is a scumbag, regardless of how this turns out for his client. I hope rubashkin gets his sentence reduced regardless.

Dr. Dave

The sentence was too long. This gives the defense the chance to re-argue the case or perhaps come to a more reasonable deal with the prosecutor's office.


Larry - I have my doubts on this issue and want to see proof that Lewin did know. If he did know, then his argument becomes moot, if he did not know, then it is extremely relevant.

Lewis has done some questionable things, like cutting off quotes to change their meaning, however slight. Nonetheless, I am beginning to wonder if it can be said with certainty that he did know. Shmarya claims he did, and probably has posted the details at some point. I can't recall.


Posted by: itchiemayer | June 15, 2011 at 09:38 PM

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 and Mr. Rosenberg always assume that Lewin is lying?


I honestly don't remember. When and how did the defense discover the "recusal" issue?


Lewin apparently had discovered the issue after trial.

No, he didn't.


Posted by: fyge | June 15, 2011 at 04:51 PM

Thank you for this link.

Satmar Rebbe

Either way, he's doing time. He did the crime, he'll do time. Any new news from Skvere?


I think a ten year decrease would sound reasonable it he would apologize and show some remorse.

If not, forget it.

Aleksandr Sigalov

Thanks for the link. I've listened to this nice recording...

I think that the question that is on the table if Sholomo going to behave and be a good goy?! (pun is intended)


He then ended with a statement of how holy Rubashkin is and how the observant Jewish community was all on his side. That's the only part of his presentation that I not only disagreed with substantively but thought was unnecessary.

think this was not needed it makes Judism look bad that we still call him holy even thought he committed fraud


He then ended with a statement of how holy Rubashkin is and how the observant Jewish community was all on his side. That's the only part of his presentation that I not only disagreed with substantively but thought was unnecessary.

this was a mistake since if he was so holy he would not have done any of this


thanks so much for your efforts .


Here you can hear inside the court room



Peter Deegan was the trial attorney, too.


Norm –

I called the US Attorney's office. The attorney who argued for them was Peter Deegan.

You must have misheard his name, or the judges must have mistakenly called him Mr. Dean.


Shmarya or Norm,

Do you have any idea where and when the recording of oral argument will be posted?


Norm –

I added this to your post with a couple small edits, and I fixed the name of the US Attorney.

Thanks, again!


I hurriedly typed the aboves out when I got back to my office and had people waiting.

Let me ad that he case was very well argued by both sides. Judge Riley complimented both sides on their briefs andarguments-this is rarely done and his comments were not gratuitous and were sincere. I can also say that he mostly frum audience behave with decorum and few people were rocking and davening or reacted visually to questions or answers.

For those of you who have posted anti-Lewin comments based on what he has done in this case and others I can tell you he did a superb job arguing this very difficult case. I wanted to shake his hand afterwards but could not find him and had to leave.

Many people complain about our system of justice but anyone atending today's hearing would have to be impressed.

The Government's attorney's name was Dean not Degan.

Son of Chosen

"To those of you in the Rubashkin camp who were there – or who listen to the proceeding when it is posted"

Recordings of the proceeding will be posted where?

The comments to this entry are closed.

Failed messiah was established and run in 2004 by Mr. Shmarya (Scott)Rosenberg. The site was acquired by Diversified Holdings, Feb 2016.
We thank Mr. Rosenberg for his efforts on behalf of the Jewish Community


Comment Rules

  1. No anonymous comments.
  2. Use only one name or alias and stick with that.
  3. Do not use anyone else's name or alias.
  4. Do not sockpuppet.
  5. Try to argue using facts and logic.
  6. Do not lie.
  7. No name-calling, please.
  8. Do not post entire articles or long article excerpts.
***Violation of these rules may lead to the violator's comments being edited or his future comments being banned.***

Search this site with Google:


FailedMessiah.com in the Media