Noted Attorney Nathan Lewin Backs Satmar Gender Segregated Playground, Says Charges Against Convicted Felon Sholom Rubashkin Were "Flimsy"

Speaking on Zev Brenner's radio show tonight, Nathan Lewin also said that no corporate officer of any meatpacker that employed undocumented workers was ever criminally charged  – but Lewin fails to tell listeners that none of these other companies had corporate officers who stole millions of dollars from lenders, laundered money through religious nonprofits and stole money from poor workers. But Sholom Rubashkin did all those crimes – and more.

Speaking on Zev Brenner's radio show tonight, Nathan Lewin said that no corporate officer of any meatpacker that had been caught employing undocumented workers was ever criminally charged.

However, Lewin failed to tell listeners that none of these other companies had corporate officers who stole millions of dollars from lenders, laundered money through religious nonprofits and stole money from poor workers. But Sholom Rubashkin committed all those crimes – and more.

Lewin also repeats the claim that Rubashkin's trial judge was "involved" in the raid on Agriprocessors without telling listeners that involvement was limited to approving warrants and setting up a remote holding facility and trial courts large enough to process up to 1000 people – without ever being told what company was being raided or what town that company was located in.

Lewin then calls the financial fraud charges against Rubashkin "flimsy" – even though he was convicted on those charges, lost every appeal he filed and had the US Supreme Court refuse to hear his case.

Most of the rest of the show was taken up with Kiryas Joel's gender-segregated playground, which Lewin predictably supports through legal reasoning made sound largely by glaring omissions of fact by Lewin. (See, for example, the photos posted below, which illustrates why Lewin's claim that the KJ playground is voluntarily segregated is ludicrous, and explains why the NYCLU and the ACLU are both suing Kiryas Joel to get access to the financial and related records for the park.)

Lewin also backtracks a bit from his previous position that the haredi lawsuit against New York City to stop its informed consent requirement for metzitzah b'peh, the direct mouth-to-penis sucking done by haredi mohels after cutting off the baby's foreskin, was ill advised. He is now – tepidly – supporting the action.

From Zev Brenner's Talkline radio show, Thursday 12-12-2013.

Please click the gray bars to listen.

The Rubashkin clip is in the last 3:37 of the second audio file.

The first audio file is 18:07 long. The second runs 13:04:

Nat Lewin PT 1 12-12-13

Nat Lewin PT 2 12-12-13

Comments

[David]

If that park is on public land, as evidently it is, the sign is very disturbing and confronting.

[Sarek]

Can the attorneys who lurk here tell us if this is legal in New York State?

[Wigmore]

Sarek,

I don't have enough information to give an opinion (not that this is my practice area anyway). Consider this question, though. If I rent 200 acres from the state for use as a golf club, can it be a membership club? Can I decide who can and cannot be a member?

[JekylJ]

Shmarya
You know what's really bothering you; don't you?
Hint: the fact that it was built without government funding (it would've made a much better headline...).

[Shmarya Rosenberg]

JekylJ –

Idiot.

KJ **claims** no **state or federal** money was used.

However:

1. KJ has **not** provided any proof of that and has, in fact, hidden the financial documents related to the park from public view – hence the need for the NYCLU and the ACLU's lawsuit.

2. KJ does **not** claim that no **village** funds were used to build and/or maintain the playground.

3. If village funds were used, the playground is illegal.

4. If state or federal funds were or are being used, the playground is illegal.

Now toddle off.

[Moisheb]

Tale of the tape- in one corner Nathan Lewin a world renowned lawyer who has argued cases in every as appellate federal court in this country and has argued in the supreme court - In this corner we have Shmya.. his credentials are distortion, unethical journalism , hasn't stepped into a law school, I think I will take Nathan word on this Rubashkin debacle

[Shmarya Rosenberg]

If you go back and check, you'll see that I refuted Lewin's claims about Rubashkin and was correct each time.

The courts, in essence, agreed with me and rejected Lewin.

Many people believe Lewin's bad advice made Rubashkin's plight worse than it had to be.

And regardless of all that, the facts in this playground case do not support Lewin's claims – even though it is not yet clear if those facts support the playground's opponents.