Details:
First of all, let me state clearly that I do not mean to say that Sholom M. Rubashkin should be denied bail. I'm not writing here about that.
I'm writing about the government's case for denial of bail, the judge's decisions and the Rubashkin reaction.
Let's start with the basics.
No one supporting the government's representation is quoted in this piece. Further, no evidence supporting the government's claims is cited, either.
But, there are misleading and false statements from Rubashkin defenders. Here is the most egregious:
Jonathan Edelstein, a New York lawyer who co-authored a 2002 legal journal article about Israeli extradition law, called the government's argument “98 percent bogus” and said Rubashkin would quickly be returned if he did end up in the Jewish state.
“[Rubashkin] is neither a citizen or a resident,” Edelstein said. “He would have no protection if he flees to Israel. They would send him right back."
Avrohom Mondrowitz. Arnold Zaler. Samuel Scheinbein.
These a three cases that immediately stand out as cases that contradict what Edelstein said. And none of them are mentioned by the JTA.
Mondrowitz is still fighting extradition after more than 20 years in Israel.
Zaler has been living openly in Israel for months now. The US Embassy knows. So does the State Department. So do Israeli police. Yet, somehow, Zaler still walks free.
Scheinbein's case is somewhat different because his father, a dual citizen who is still wanted in the US and is probably hiding in Israel, conferred that citizenship on his son.
That allowed Scheinbein to claim Israeli citizenship. And that kept him from extradition.
He was tried in Israel, agreed to a plea deal, and is eligible for parole in another 4 1/2 years, after serving 14 years in prison.
Samuel Scheinbein and a friend killed a man and then dismembered his body in order to cover up the murder.
Israel's Supreme Court has moved to do the same for Mondrowitz, who was not an Israeli citizen when he fled arrest in Brooklyn more than 20 years ago.
To say Rubashkin would be sent "right back" to the US is not supported by the evidence.
Additionally, there is the problem of finding fugitives in haredi areas of Israel. Police have great difficulty working in these areas and haredi criminals are very difficult for police to find.
No one gets extradited without first being found.
You can read the government's case, the judge's ruling and the Rubashkin filing to see what each party really said.
Here are the documents: Part 1, Part 2.
Lastly, the JTA does mention Chabad's fundraising for Rubashkin's defense. But it does so without mentioning those dollars are tax deductible and are being used not only for Rubashkin's defense, but also for PR for Rubashkin and for Agriprocessors, a private business, and for legal help for that private business.
The JTA again does not tell its readers that Chabad's national prisoner outreach ministry, the Aleph Institute, is also raising tax deductible money for Rubashkin and Agriprocessors – and that it tried to hide this from the public and from the Bureau of Prisons and the IRS.
The JTA also fails to note that Chabad has done nothing to speak of for Rubashkin's victims, even when they were homeless and starving on the streets of Postville, and the JTA does not mention Rabbi Shea Hecht, quoted at the bottom of the piece, has advocated violating US Law to protect Jewish criminals.
Should the prosecution have used the Law of Return against Rubashkin?
I don't think it was necessary. But, sadly, it is neither wrong or, at least in this case, antisemitic.
Denial of bail to Rubashkin fueling legal controversy
By Ben Harris · January 6, 2009
NEW YORK (JTA) -- Nearly from the moment federal immigration agents raided the Agriprocessors kosher meat plant in Postville, Iowa, on May 12, supporters of the company alleged that it was being unfairly singled out by the government and unjustly excoriated in the media.
Nearly eight months later, a judge's denial of bail to the plant's former manager, Sholom Rubashkin, has drawn the attention of several national Jewish organizations and provided those who see anti-Semitic motives in the government's behavior with their best ammunition.
At a hearing Nov. 19 in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Iowa, federal prosecutors argued that Rubashkin was a flight risk in part because Israel grants automatic citizenship to Jews. In a subsequent filing with the court, the government claimed that Rubashkin has “de-facto dual citizenship.”
In two separate rulings, Magistrate Judge Jon Scoles sided with the prosecution and ordered that Rubashkin, who faces an array of charges related to his management of the packing plant, be detained until trial. An appeal is pending before the chief justice of the Iowa court, Linda Reade.
“It really boils down, if you are a Jew, special rules apply to you,” said Rubashkin attorney Guy Cook.
The prosecution's argument, and Scoles' endorsement of it, has prompted the Anti-Defamation League and Agudath Israel of America, a fervently Orthodox umbrella group, to appeal directly to the U.S. attorney general, Michael Mukasey, a practicing Orthodox Jew.
In letters last month, the groups argued that by invoking the Law of Return, prosecutors effectively claimed that all Jews are inherently a greater risk of flight. Both groups warned that Scoles, in ruling against Rubashkin, had set a dangerous precedent with profound implications for American Jews.
“The most troubling aspect here is that the government does not appear to have alleged, nor does the Detention Order conclude, that Defendant Rubashkin has any particular ties to Israel (he is alleged to have visited Israel in December 2007),” the ADL's national director, Abraham Foxman, wrote to Mukasey. “Instead, the government and the Detention Order appear to conclude that simply because Defendant Rubashkin is Jewish, and because Jews may have a claim on Israeli citizenship, his religion is relevant to a bail hearing.”
Though American Jews have long been sensitive to the charge of dual loyalty, invoking the Law of Return as grounds for detaining a Jewish defendant is believed to be unprecedented in the annals of American justice.
“Although prosecutors have, to my knowledge, occasionally skirted close to an argument singling out Jews and Israel in past cases in New York, I've never seen it expressed or applied as blatantly as in the Rubashkin case,” Nathan Lewin, a prominent Washington attorney and former counsel to Agriprocessors, told JTA.
Prosecutors had cited other evidence arguing against releasing Rubashkin, including the discovery of a travel bag with thousands of dollars of cash and travel documents for family members at Rubashkin's home at the time of his arrest. They also noted that two other former Agriprocessors workers suspected of crimes are believed to have fled to Israel.
Rubashkin's attorneys countered that he has deep ties to his family and community, several members of which agreed to put up the equity value of their homes as a guarantee that Rubashkin would not flee. Rubashkin told the court he was willing to put up millions of dollars in bail money and consent to round-the-clock security monitoring at his own expense.
Jonathan Edelstein, a New York lawyer who co-authored a 2002 legal journal article about Israeli extradition law, called the government's argument “98 percent bogus” and said Rubashkin would quickly be returned if he did end up in the Jewish state.
“[Rubashkin] is neither a citizen or a resident,” Edelstein said. “He would have no protection if he flees to Israel. They would send him right back."
In his first ruling in the case, Scoles cited the Law of Return in deciding that no combination of factors could reasonably guarantee Rubashkin's appearance at trial. In a subsequent ruling on Dec. 22, in which he denied Rubashkin's request for reconsideration of the original detention order, Scoles seemed to back away from the Law of Return argument.
“Much of the Defendant's argument is directed to the Court's reference to Israel's Law of Return,” Scoles wrote in denying the request. “Defendant attaches too much significance to that single reference. At the time of hearing, [Rubashkin attorney Baruch] Weiss made it clear that if Defendant attempted to seek refuge in Israel, he would be subject to extradition. Mr. Weiss served as an assistant United States Attorney for 18 years, and the Court accepted his representation.”
In the second of two letters to Mukasey, Agudah's executive vice president for government and public affairs, David Zwiebel, acknowledged that Scoles apparently had rejected the government's claim about the Law of Return. Nevertheless, the organization remained concerned that prosecutors had even resorted to such an argument. Zwiebel asked Mukasey for a meeting with Jewish leaders to address their concerns.
A Department of Justice spokesperson said the letters are being reviewed.
Meanwhile, Chabad-Lubavitch, the Brooklyn-based Chasidic group with which Rubashkin is associated, has begun raising money for his legal defense with the express purpose of helping win his release. Neither the ADL nor Agudath expressed a view on Rubashkin's guilt or innocence, or whether he ought to be released on bond.
“We are a group of guys who, No. 1, are looking to help Rubashkin get out on bail and, No. 2, to voice our concern because we believe that much of this attack is not just an attack on the Rubashkin family and Agriprocessors, but it's really an attack on kosher food.,” committee member Rabbi Shea Hecht told JTA. "And it's questionable if it's one step beyond that -- an attack on Jews.”
(Staff writer Eric Fingerhut in Washington contributed to this report.)