The most interesting point made by Judge Reade effectively says Nathan Lewin lied.
You should recognize this because I showed this when Lewin filed his motion (please see the 3:00 pm update on this post).
You'll also note the judge says in footnote seven that Lewin's hired experts relied on Lewin's "mischaracterizations" rather than the actual facts or the documents, something I pointed out, as well.
Here's that section of today's ruling:
Defendant fails to make any novel arguments based on the ICE memoranda that he could not have raised based on what was clearly available to him before trial. For instance, the exhibits attached to De La Rosa-Loera’s Motion to Recuse plainly state the fact that law enforcement agencies through USAO contacted the undersigned months before the enforcement action. It is immaterial for purposes of this motion if the contact was made in October or December of 2007. Defendant’s argument that the ICE memoranda detail evidence of the undersigned’s personal “support” for the enforcement action are likewise without merit. Throughout the Motion, Defendant misstates and mischaracterizes the memoranda.7 The undersigned did not pledge to “support the operation in any way possible.” Def. Brief at 14. The very exhibits to which Defendant cites confirm this fact. Any reference to the undersigned’s “support” of the operation clearly appears in the context of the court’s duty to logistically prepare for the arrest of hundreds of persons.
7 Defendant’s Reply Exhibits 6 and 7 are affidavits from legal ethics experts. The court notes that these experts draw upon the same mischaracterizations as Defendant to arrive at their opinions. For instance Mark Harrison’s Affidavit (docket no. 957-6) states that “Judge Reade indicated full support for the initiative[.]” Def. Reply Ex. 6 at 3. Stephen Gillers’s affidavit also states that “Chief Judge Reade is also quoted as having expressed her ‘support’ for the raid[.]” Def. Reply Ex. 7 at 4. Given these experts’ proclivity to rely on defense counsel’s mischaracterization of the facts, the court declines to credit their affidavits.
Here is the entire ruling as a PDF file:
Update 7:35 pm CDT – For his part, Nathan Lewin seems undeterred – and unchastized – by the ruling. Lewin told the AP that:
… Reade refuses to admit she did anything wrong. He also noted Reade issued her ruling without holding a hearing.
"For a judge to brush it all away and say it's not even worth a hearing when there is clear conflict is nothing short of outrageous," Lewin said.
He said he would appeal.
"The law is clear that what she did was wrong," Lewin said.
If the law was "clear" that what the judge did was wrong, Lewin would have cited the case law to prove it in his court filing. But he did not do so.
This should serve as a lesson to all of you who drank the Rubashkin-Lewin Kool-Aid.
Lewin and Rubashkin's defense team and fundraising team are often, for want of a better term, lying to you, and it is your contributions to Rubashkin's pidyon shevuyim fund that are paying for those lies.
Is that what you want "Torah" Judaism to be identified with? Lies? Was God a liar? Did God shade the truth to smear people? Did God make up quotes or "mischaracterize" the words of others? Or, as the Talmud says, is the seal of God truth?