Welcome, Guest! - or
Easy to remember!  »  VinNews.com

New York - OpEd: Rubashkin Child Labor Charges Collapse Like a House of Cards

Published on: June 7, 2010 04:01 PM
By: VIN News Editorial By Rabbi Aryeh HaKohen Katz
Change text size Text Size  

New York - There were sixty eight counts of child labor law violations left against Shalom Rubashkin.  And there were innumerable critics of Shalom Rubashkin.  And it is sad to say, that some of those critics were some of his own brethren.  Brethren that gleefully attacked, criticized and lambasted.  The critics ranged from Conservative Rabbi Morris Allen to the Orthodox Tav HaYosher  supervision to newspaper editors and pundits across the nation.

And now, thank heaven, he was found innocent of all sixty eight counts.  Every single one of them.  But there is something that must be said.  It must be said so that it will not happen again in the future, because what needs to be said is both a fundamental principle of Judaism as well as something that lies at the core of what America is all about. 

It is the legal principle known in Latin as, “ei incumbit probation qui dicit, non qui negat.”  The principle states that the burden of proof rests upon who asserts, not on who denies.  Lehavdil, in the language of the Torah it is “Havei dan kola dam lekaf z’chus.”

Advertisement:

The Talmud (Sabbath 127a) tells us that it is one of the six items that we can enjoy benefit from both in this world and in the future world to come. But it is more than noble practice.  Indeed, according to Rashi, the foremost commentator on the Torah, it is a biblical imperative:  Leviticus 19:15 states, “Betzedek tishpot es amisecha – in righteousness shall you judge your fellow man..” Rashi tells us to assume his innocence before you judge him.  It is right there for anyone and everyone to look up. 

So we see that it is both a Biblical imperative and lehavdil a fundamental of our system of justice here in America – the land of the free.  In the gleeful attacks and indictments , the media and some of our brethren seem to have forgotten this fundamental principle.  Indeed, the governor of Iowa in his op-ed in the Des Moine Register forgot it as well.

He wrote:  “Alarming information about working conditions at the Postville plant - including allegations ranging from the use of child labor in prohibited jobs to sexual and physical abuse by supervisors; from the nonpayment of regular and overtime wages to the denial of immediate medical attention for workplace injuries .. forces me to believe that.. this company’s owners have deliberately chosen to take the low road in its business practices.”

Did the governor actually pen these words – that allegations have forced him to believe that the company’s owners have taken the low road?  Since when do we convict a person or a company based upon allegations?

And, even more sad to say, our own President was guilty of the very same thing – assuming and declaring Rubashkin’s guilt.

On the campaign trail on August 25, 2008, Presidential candidate Barak Obama remarked,
“We’ve got to crack down on employers who are taking advantage of undocumented workers. When you read about a meatpacking plant hiring 13-year-olds, 14-year-olds – that is some of the most dangerous, difficult work there is. … They have kids in there wielding buzz saws and cleavers? It’s ridiculous. And the only reason they’re hiring these folks is because they want to avoid paying people decent wages and providing them decent benefits.”

What?  From the president?

And now that Rubashkin was found completely innocent of these charges will an apology be forthcoming?  From anyone?  Sadly, there will probably be no apology – because in the minds of the Des Moine County Register, the governor of Iowa, Mr. Barak Obama, and the gleeful crowds so hateful of Rubashkin, he was already convicted of these counts too.

And a conviction it surely was.  By the governor’s own admission he acted on these allegations, punishing the company without trial. Governor Culver wrote:  “I directed Iowa Workforce Development Director Lis Buck to prevent Agriprocessors from listing open positions on state job-listings services..”  The governor also explicitly stated that he directed state agencies to single out this company in aggressively pursuing violations of Iowa’s state laws to Agriprocessors.  Enforcing the law is an admirable endeavor; enforcing laws selectively, however, is a travesty and mockery of the very idea of law and justice.

All this pre-conviction talk and assumptions of guilt is reminiscent of the 2006 Duke University Lacrosse Team scandal- the accused were suspended – even though they had not been convicted.  Ultimately, they were exonerated and proven innocent.  Just like Rubashkin was proven innocent of the child labor law accusations.

To quote from the court’s landmark ruling in Coffin vs. The United States, ” The principle that there is a presumption of innocence in favor of the accused is the undoubted law, axiomatic and elementary, and its enforcement lies at the foundation of the administration of our legal system..”  The presumption of innocence lies at the heart of the fifth, sixth, and fourteenth amendments of our nation’s constitution.

In 1894 there were accusatory articles published against Dreyfuss in France as well by La Croix, France’s leading Roman Catholic newspaper.  In 1998, a century and four years later, that newspaper finally apologized.

One of the hallmarks of this wonderful nation is fair play.  Thankfully, in this court case, fair play was practiced and the court found Rubashkin innocent.  The question is will those who blamed, attacked, and lambasted poor Shalom Rubashkin apologize now? Or will it take them another 104 years as well? 

Aryeh HaKohen Katz is a Rabbi and teacher at a Yeshivah in Brooklyn. He can be reached at aarikatz@aol.com  



More of today's headlines

New York, NY - Jihadists are waging a psychological war against Americans -- planting suspicious, but harmless, bags in public places to create fear and tie up police... Be’er Sheva, Israel - The Magistrates Court in Be’er Sheva has ruled against a Messianic congregation that sued the city’s Chief Rabbi and Yad L’Achim. The...

 

Total233

Read Comments (233)  —  Post Yours »

1

 Jun 07, 2010 at 04:03 PM Anonymous Says:

Wow! yasher Koach for a powerful article!

2

 Jun 07, 2010 at 04:11 PM Anonymous Says:

great op-ed, can you post more of the details from court today,
thanks bracha & hatzlacha

3

 Jun 07, 2010 at 04:11 PM punch Says:

we should petition the white house for an official apology

4

 Jun 07, 2010 at 04:12 PM Anonymous Says:

Fantastic!

5

 Jun 07, 2010 at 04:13 PM What? Says:

Nobody's claiming the kids didn't work there. They're claiming that Rubashkin didn't know. So the President was right.

Lay off. You're lucky he managed to fool a jury.

6

 Jun 07, 2010 at 04:19 PM Anonymous Says:

Reply to #3  
punch Says:

we should petition the white house for an official apology

the white house, you will get an apology faster if you were some kind of muslim!

7

 Jun 07, 2010 at 04:20 PM Anonymous Says:

why just an apology - as soon as SM is declared INNOCENT ON ALL CHARGES a multi-billion $ suit should follow.

8

 Jun 07, 2010 at 04:22 PM Anonymous Says:

#5 - KEEP your comments to yourself. Al tidon as chaveruch ad sheyagiah limkomo.

9

 Jun 07, 2010 at 04:22 PM Anonymous Says:

Dear # 5 - World War One was filled with kid soldiers too. The president was wrong. But you are right to lay off - it may strike back in the face.

10

 Jun 07, 2010 at 04:23 PM Anonymous Says:

Achdus of all klal yisroel is what brought this not guilty verdict. Whenever we had achdus the Ribbono Shel Oilem always helped us, and so it is now as well. B"H.

11

 Jun 07, 2010 at 04:27 PM There's more! Says:

This child labor and worker abuse charges was the ones they kept on referring to, to demonstrate the supposed "evil" of Mr. Rubashkin.

"Oh, it is not just this, it is that. It's not just illegal immigrants, it's the worker abuse, it's the child labor, etc."

It was all a house of cards. The bottom one was pulled out. They all must come crashing down.

12

 Jun 07, 2010 at 04:28 PM Why? Says:

Reply to #3  
punch Says:

we should petition the white house for an official apology

What exactly did he say wrong? Do we now support child labor? What is wrong with you? He was right. Whether or not SMR knew or was guilty, what the president said is 100% valid.

Gee, we used to be into the Torah. Now we're into doing whatever we want for money. Nice.

12

 Jun 07, 2010 at 04:28 PM Anonymous Says:

I believe he lost his entire livelihood due to these charges! He is owed a lot more than just an apology!

13

 Jun 07, 2010 at 04:31 PM Anonymous Says:

Boruch Hashem, thank you.

14

 Jun 07, 2010 at 04:32 PM Anonymous Says:

Reply to #5  
What? Says:

Nobody's claiming the kids didn't work there. They're claiming that Rubashkin didn't know. So the President was right.

Lay off. You're lucky he managed to fool a jury.

you are right we are lucky that the Jury saw the big picture, and voted with there good heart and not with the hate and venom that the prosecutors exhibited

15

 Jun 07, 2010 at 04:34 PM logic Says:

Reply to #5  
What? Says:

Nobody's claiming the kids didn't work there. They're claiming that Rubashkin didn't know. So the President was right.

Lay off. You're lucky he managed to fool a jury.

so you're saying he did hire minors?
what proof do you have?
every manager except one who hated smr, testified there were no minors , and if they hired one by mistake they were fired right away as it would only hurt the company.
where do you have your facts from?

16

 Jun 07, 2010 at 04:35 PM reply to #5 Says:

You're a sick man. Had the jury found him guilty you would be gladly be posting how just the American legal system is and how could anybody question it. But now that SMR was proven innocent (dare I say much to your dismay) you say he fooled the jury. Its so very sad how some can hate so very much. May H-shem cure and forgive you.

17

 Jun 07, 2010 at 04:40 PM Anonymous Says:

Reply to #5  
What? Says:

Nobody's claiming the kids didn't work there. They're claiming that Rubashkin didn't know. So the President was right.

Lay off. You're lucky he managed to fool a jury.

how unfair of you to say that. i'd like to know how you do business.

18

 Jun 07, 2010 at 04:41 PM Anonymous Says:

While I share in the euphoria of the findings, to be perfectly honest, he was not found to be innocent. He was found to be "not guilty". A criminal jury is not given the charge to determine innocence. They only determine whether the prosecution has proven there case beyond a reasonable doubt. This is a much higher standard than that of a civil case which only has to be proven by a preponderance of the evidence (more than 50% likely).

19

 Jun 07, 2010 at 04:42 PM Cheney Says:

Reply to #12  
Why? Says:

What exactly did he say wrong? Do we now support child labor? What is wrong with you? He was right. Whether or not SMR knew or was guilty, what the president said is 100% valid.

Gee, we used to be into the Torah. Now we're into doing whatever we want for money. Nice.

No, what Obama said was NOT valid.

He said that they intentionally employed minors so that they could "avoid paying decent wages and providing them decent benefits".

That was an out and out LIBEL.

What the trial showed (if you followed the testimony), that there was NO reason or benefit for Agri to WANT to employ minors. Plus they got paid the same as anyone else. Hello, they presented themselves as adults with their fake IDs.

Plus, when Agri found out about minors they fired them immediately. But they could not simply fire people because they looked young (illegal, by the way). Every worker presented IDs.

20

 Jun 07, 2010 at 04:43 PM ??? Says:

Reply to #15  
logic Says:

so you're saying he did hire minors?
what proof do you have?
every manager except one who hated smr, testified there were no minors , and if they hired one by mistake they were fired right away as it would only hurt the company.
where do you have your facts from?

We must have watched different trials. They were not fired right away. That's hogwash. Be happy he got away with it. Maybe he can open a sweatshop when he gets out of prison.

21

 Jun 07, 2010 at 04:48 PM Anonymous Says:

lets hope that the federal judge is not going to want to show that she could punish

22

 Jun 07, 2010 at 04:48 PM Anonymous Says:

They didn't say he was completely innocent though, in fairness, they were never asked to determine that (and no jury ever is). They were asked to determine whether his guilt was beyond a shadow of a doubt.

23

 Jun 07, 2010 at 04:49 PM Benny Says:

VIN Editor - I hate to rain on your parade but being found "not guility" does not mean "innocent." It simply means that the prosecution was unable to prove the charges beyond a "reasonable" doubt. I am delighted that he has been cleared of the charges and hope that this favorable verdict will influence the judge that will soon be sentencing him on his federal convictions.

24

 Jun 07, 2010 at 04:50 PM Anonymous Says:

"The question is will those who blamed, attacked, and lambasted poor Shalom Rubashkin apologize now? Or will it take them another 104 years as well?
You need to relax and NOT FORGET that this man is guilty of many crimes. Just because he was FOUND innocent of THESE PARTICULAR charges does not mean he was clueless to the kids working there, and he is STILL guilty of fraud.....so NO, he deserves no apology.

25

 Jun 07, 2010 at 04:50 PM Low on Money Says:

Reply to #10  
Anonymous Says:

Achdus of all klal yisroel is what brought this not guilty verdict. Whenever we had achdus the Ribbono Shel Oilem always helped us, and so it is now as well. B"H.

Since you seem G-D's right hand man, I can use some help on some funding for a house that I am looking to buy. Can you send me $500,000??

26

 Jun 07, 2010 at 04:50 PM To Judge Reade Says:

Reply to #12  
Why? Says:

What exactly did he say wrong? Do we now support child labor? What is wrong with you? He was right. Whether or not SMR knew or was guilty, what the president said is 100% valid.

Gee, we used to be into the Torah. Now we're into doing whatever we want for money. Nice.

To the Honorable Judge Reade,

It is now plainly obvious that Mr. Rubashkin is not at all the devil he was made out to be. We heard the Federal Prosecutors asking your for an outrageous sentence and referred to these child-labor and worker-abuse allegations as back up. They wanted to show that he is just "an all around bad guy".

Now Mr. Rubashkin has been completely exonerated of these ugly charges.

He has certainly learned the lesson in the financial case he was convicted of. We know he did those acts under terrible duress, mostly due to the boycotts and bad press that were fueled by these "child-labor and worker abuse" allegations.

Please do not sentence him to anything longer than *time served*. This is a broken man who has learned his lesson.

Respectfully,

Countless Fair Minded Citizens of the USA

27

 Jun 07, 2010 at 04:54 PM logic Says:

Reply to #20  
??? Says:

We must have watched different trials. They were not fired right away. That's hogwash. Be happy he got away with it. Maybe he can open a sweatshop when he gets out of prison.

why are you such a bitter person, this is what management said (except one person)
1) smr was told they fired an underage employee , smr responded with "good we don't want that"
2) we didn't want minors because insurance will not cover them
3) they had so many applications from ppl, there was no reason to hire anyone underage
4) from underage employees them self, we were turned away, because we were too young!
4) we had one girl 17 9which is legal to work) we put her in a separate area so others don't bother her, till she turned 18
if someone lies about they're age what should smr do? get your facts right, then comment

28

 Jun 07, 2010 at 04:56 PM Anonymous Says:

Reply to #18  
Anonymous Says:

While I share in the euphoria of the findings, to be perfectly honest, he was not found to be innocent. He was found to be "not guilty". A criminal jury is not given the charge to determine innocence. They only determine whether the prosecution has proven there case beyond a reasonable doubt. This is a much higher standard than that of a civil case which only has to be proven by a preponderance of the evidence (more than 50% likely).

WRONG, WROMNG, WRONG
he is assumed innocent unless proven guilty! he wasn't proven guilty so he REMAINS INNOCENT, not, guilty but they didn't prove it.

29

 Jun 07, 2010 at 04:58 PM JS Says:

An intelligent and thought provoking editorial. The "rush to judgment" by the the secular Jewish media, political figures and some elements of the religious leadership (within every branch) is sad and tragic. I believe that it reflects a bias aganist the persona of the most overtly (frum) observant (the "other" whom we may distain). Many need to do a repair (a tikkun).

30

 Jun 07, 2010 at 04:59 PM Anonymous Says:

The President can get away with a lot, and he already has. In this case, he neglected to mention SMR by name, technically freeing him from liability. However, his implication is grave, and it smacks of his ignorance and his bias. I am the commenter who is waiting on the sidelines for BHO to make the one move that justifies impeachment. I can't wait. He deserves it more than anyone else (though WJC and JEC more than earned that distinction).

31

 Jun 07, 2010 at 05:00 PM Authentic Londoner Says:

I am afraid that the Rabbi's arguments are weak.
Weinhardt the defense lawyer said the case is solely about what Rubashkin actually knew, not about what he should have known. That is of course correct when it comes to Iowa law. However in most jurisdictions, child labor as well as other Health and Safety legislation are offenses of strict liability and for good reason. When it comes to such matters, negligence and ignorance should not be allowed as a defense. If someone engages in a potentially harmful activity then he should know what he is doing or otherwise not engage in that activity in the first place.
It is for that reason that Rubashkin is not deserving of an apology unlike Dreyfus who finally proved a competent and loyal French Army officer

32

 Jun 07, 2010 at 05:00 PM Anonymous Says:

Wow mazal tov, he was found innocent of a number of incidents of kids working at his plant, is everyone forgetting the 86 charges he was found guilty of for financial fraud? And how the government even threw out the 72 immigration charges to save time? This isn't the miracle of achdus, this is just a guy getting lucky the full force of law didn't come down on him.

33

 Jun 07, 2010 at 05:03 PM Avi Says:

RABOSAI there is a HUGE huge eis ratzon now, as there are litterally thousands of Jews thanking Hashem for this yeshuah and rejoicing for a yid they never met or saw and is maybe even of different ideology than their own and so it is really a very suspicious time to daven so grab a tehilim give some tzedakah and ask your hearts desire for you your family and klal yisroel and ask for a easy and quick geulah please pass on as the heavens are rejoicing in this great joy of achdus unity and simcha by many yidden

34

 Jun 07, 2010 at 05:17 PM Anonymous Says:

#5 You are a shem
if one newspaper from the western states could change your mind, then you need to go for help

35

 Jun 07, 2010 at 05:17 PM Kogan Says:

Reply to #18  
Anonymous Says:

While I share in the euphoria of the findings, to be perfectly honest, he was not found to be innocent. He was found to be "not guilty". A criminal jury is not given the charge to determine innocence. They only determine whether the prosecution has proven there case beyond a reasonable doubt. This is a much higher standard than that of a civil case which only has to be proven by a preponderance of the evidence (more than 50% likely).

Ever heard of the concept "Innocent until proven guilty"? For all intents and purposes Sholom Mordechai Rubashkin is innocent on all 67 counts.

36

 Jun 07, 2010 at 05:18 PM correction Says:

The article only forgot to mention the twelve Jewish congressman who felt it necessary to write a letter expressing their concerns 6 months after the raid about "allegations" from everything including improperly slaughtered (nonkosher meat) an allegation that none of the supervising agencies on site had ever made, to weapons and drug allegations mentioned in the original gov't complaint used to get a warrant to raid Agri and never mentioned again thereafter by any Gov't agency ever again. and BTW neither DEA or ATF were involved in the raid as they surely would have been if weapons or drugs were really suspected. This shows the gov't knew the complaint was false when they first submitted it.

37

 Jun 07, 2010 at 05:19 PM moshe der g Says:

Reply to #23  
Benny Says:

VIN Editor - I hate to rain on your parade but being found "not guility" does not mean "innocent." It simply means that the prosecution was unable to prove the charges beyond a "reasonable" doubt. I am delighted that he has been cleared of the charges and hope that this favorable verdict will influence the judge that will soon be sentencing him on his federal convictions.

mr benny
in america "innocent until proven guilty" that is the foundation of the law so being found not guilty makes him innocent in the eyes of the law.

and to all the other nay sayers this was a great op ed

and thank you to VIN for seeing the light in this whole mess with agri

had we (all the jewish media) seen this for what it is from the begining and realized that this was an attack on kosher slaughter from peta and a union fight we all might jave been able to prevent it but bh that now all see what kind of malicous and zealous prosecution this was

may gd bless shalom for a complete victory in all the cases and may he be zoche to kimu vekiblu .... asher hechielu laasois (megilah)

38

 Jun 07, 2010 at 05:19 PM Anonymous Says:

Reply to #32  
Anonymous Says:

Wow mazal tov, he was found innocent of a number of incidents of kids working at his plant, is everyone forgetting the 86 charges he was found guilty of for financial fraud? And how the government even threw out the 72 immigration charges to save time? This isn't the miracle of achdus, this is just a guy getting lucky the full force of law didn't come down on him.

Only achdus sir

39

 Jun 07, 2010 at 05:20 PM Anonymous Says:

Reply to #32  
Anonymous Says:

Wow mazal tov, he was found innocent of a number of incidents of kids working at his plant, is everyone forgetting the 86 charges he was found guilty of for financial fraud? And how the government even threw out the 72 immigration charges to save time? This isn't the miracle of achdus, this is just a guy getting lucky the full force of law didn't come down on him.

You seem to be the only one who has not jumped into the parade and misreading this verdict. He was convicted on multiple federal felony charges including bank fraud and this verdict changes nothing nor does it deal with the substance of those allegations whatsovever. Under our system of justice, prosecutors bring their case and the judge/jury decide innocent or guilty. Prosecutors should not appologize when juries or judges disagree with their indictments and charges.

40

 Jun 07, 2010 at 05:21 PM Anonymous Says:

Reply to #5  
What? Says:

Nobody's claiming the kids didn't work there. They're claiming that Rubashkin didn't know. So the President was right.

Lay off. You're lucky he managed to fool a jury.

The only fool is u a jury can't be fooled its against the law like the law they should come out with against STUPIDISM!!!

41

 Jun 07, 2010 at 05:22 PM Anonymous Says:

Reply to #18  
Anonymous Says:

While I share in the euphoria of the findings, to be perfectly honest, he was not found to be innocent. He was found to be "not guilty". A criminal jury is not given the charge to determine innocence. They only determine whether the prosecution has proven there case beyond a reasonable doubt. This is a much higher standard than that of a civil case which only has to be proven by a preponderance of the evidence (more than 50% likely).

All these "kids" if they worked there were doing it so willingly. The only way they were hired if they had high quality fake documents as was testified by the agent who could not get hire without a high quality id. We are happy he was found not guilty, which is drastically different from getting away.

42

 Jun 07, 2010 at 05:22 PM Anonymous Says:

Reply to #32  
Anonymous Says:

Wow mazal tov, he was found innocent of a number of incidents of kids working at his plant, is everyone forgetting the 86 charges he was found guilty of for financial fraud? And how the government even threw out the 72 immigration charges to save time? This isn't the miracle of achdus, this is just a guy getting lucky the full force of law didn't come down on him.

They only threw out the immigration charges bec then it would affect their whole case. They not only threw out the charges "to save time" but they needed to convict him on something in order to get the image of a convicted felon who is above the law!! As everyone knows it is much easier to convict on financial crimes then on immigration charges especially when they had offered countless times to go through, with the government, the plant and rectify if any immigration laws were being broken. Learn your facts and stop hating the man!

43

 Jun 07, 2010 at 05:22 PM Anonymous Says:

ki godol atoh veoseh niflo'os ato elokim levadecha.

44

 Jun 07, 2010 at 05:24 PM Anonymous Says:

Reply to #18  
Anonymous Says:

While I share in the euphoria of the findings, to be perfectly honest, he was not found to be innocent. He was found to be "not guilty". A criminal jury is not given the charge to determine innocence. They only determine whether the prosecution has proven there case beyond a reasonable doubt. This is a much higher standard than that of a civil case which only has to be proven by a preponderance of the evidence (more than 50% likely).

And a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty. He was not proven guilty, hence he is innocent.

You frail logic would mean that anytime someone is falsely accused and is judged not guilty, there remains a taint on him, no matter that the charges are false. And we should assume that he really did something wrong. Your thinking shows us what a dishonest person you are.

45

 Jun 07, 2010 at 05:26 PM Dave Says:

As bibi just said about the flotilla case about the sonei yisrael we are guilty until found innocent seems some yidden feel the same about a fellow Jew rochmono lizlon nebech on them when they will be judged
הוה דן כל אדם לכף זכות

46

 Jun 07, 2010 at 05:31 PM Anonymous Says:

Reply to #23  
Benny Says:

VIN Editor - I hate to rain on your parade but being found "not guility" does not mean "innocent." It simply means that the prosecution was unable to prove the charges beyond a "reasonable" doubt. I am delighted that he has been cleared of the charges and hope that this favorable verdict will influence the judge that will soon be sentencing him on his federal convictions.

Well it seems highly unlikely that he was guilty at all. The prosecution started out with over 9,000 charges of violation of labor law, which they pared down to 86 and then further to 68. They could not even prove one. That's right, not even one charge out of the original thousands. None of the evidence was credible at all apparently. Its much more probable that he was innocent if the prosectors, with their limitless resources, could not even prove one out of the thousands of violations alleged.

You too owe an appology to SMR as well as to all klal Yisroel. As far as the chilul hashem that you are perpertrating, I cannot say whther there ever will be a kapporah for that.

52

 Jun 07, 2010 at 05:34 PM Hoody M Says:

Reply to #5  
What? Says:

Nobody's claiming the kids didn't work there. They're claiming that Rubashkin didn't know. So the President was right.

Lay off. You're lucky he managed to fool a jury.

Clearly you haven't been following the case in detail, nor been reading transcripts of witness testimony. Shame on you for your eagerness to discredit your brother. More useful, and fitting to direct your disdain at the religious and laity of St. Bridget, and others in media and organizations who were engaged in a very unreligious, uncivic and unabashed effort to destroy Rubashkin and Co. This man and his family lost their livelihood, the children lost access to their father, they all were humiliated and made to suffer as if they'd committed dreadful crimes. Why do you not celebrate this victory of justice over iniquity?

53

 Jun 07, 2010 at 05:39 PM Anonymous Says:

Reply to #1  
Anonymous Says:

Wow! yasher Koach for a powerful article!

Please, it is too soon for pointing fingers .

54

 Jun 07, 2010 at 05:40 PM Anonymous Says:

even the guard is smileing in the photo

55

 Jun 07, 2010 at 05:41 PM gop2010 Says:

Good news for all of you,the govonor is in dire trouble in his reelection bid

56

 Jun 07, 2010 at 05:44 PM Anonymous Says:

The President's statement was accurate. There were several minors working there. Even Mr. Rubashkin's lawyers never claimed there were no minors working around dangerous equipment. The issue was whether Mr. Rubashkin knew that there were underaged workers. The state put on a very weak case and the jury reached the correct result but that does not change the ages of the children found working in the plant.

57

 Jun 07, 2010 at 05:47 PM yankee Says:

Reply to #5  
What? Says:

Nobody's claiming the kids didn't work there. They're claiming that Rubashkin didn't know. So the President was right.

Lay off. You're lucky he managed to fool a jury.

Oooohhhh, but he ain't fooling you, right? You know better, you were there and saw everything with your own eyes.....you can't be fooled.....

58

 Jun 07, 2010 at 05:48 PM not so Says:

Reply to #52  
Hoody M Says:

Clearly you haven't been following the case in detail, nor been reading transcripts of witness testimony. Shame on you for your eagerness to discredit your brother. More useful, and fitting to direct your disdain at the religious and laity of St. Bridget, and others in media and organizations who were engaged in a very unreligious, uncivic and unabashed effort to destroy Rubashkin and Co. This man and his family lost their livelihood, the children lost access to their father, they all were humiliated and made to suffer as if they'd committed dreadful crimes. Why do you not celebrate this victory of justice over iniquity?

I've read each and every word of the trial. I know, you'd believe he was innocent even if there were pictures of him whipping Guatemalan babies. Sorry, I'm not Lubavitch.

Oh, and he's not my brother. My brother doesn't violate laws of kashrut, nor does he exploit children.

59

 Jun 07, 2010 at 05:50 PM Anonymous Says:

Aryeh Katz has to be hired to work for Klal Yisroel. Anyone second this motion?

60

 Jun 07, 2010 at 05:51 PM Anonymous Says:

i thing its an insult to include such as morris allen as brethern' the gemmorah stayes few places 'achicha' is only when its 'bemitzvos'..as a minimum notsomeone who is maisi and mdiach. even though this is poshitbut for back up see igros moshe regarding conservative and reform clergy

61

 Jun 07, 2010 at 05:51 PM Anonymous Says:

Reply to #21  
Anonymous Says:

lets hope that the federal judge is not going to want to show that she could punish

the other way around lets hope she will see that the original issues were hocus pocus and the "FRAUD" only came about as a second generation from the hocus pocus ones Let's repeat the words of Zeresh Haman's wife "IM Mizerah Hayehidim asher hachiloso linpol lefonov..............................."

He's on the way up! His mazal is shining!!

62

 Jun 07, 2010 at 05:53 PM OMG Says:

I is ok to celebrate a finding by the jury of not guilty, as a matter of fact this not guilty verdict, should actually open the eyes of the lopsided majority on this site, nothing better than saying, I feel good for SMR, but to write an editorial by a Rabbi and call for apologies, for what for abusing minors in illegal jobs? How would you feel if, Al Sharpton and company after the Lemrick Nelson first State trial, demanding apologies, the same should be said in this case, the fact children were employed by Agri with or without the direct knowledge of SMR and his family. It is time for Management of Agri to apologize to the people who were directly affected.
Finally I challenge everyone who is celebrating this jury outcome they should evaluate their views about the outcome in the federal case. If you celebrate one you must except the other one.

63

 Jun 07, 2010 at 06:01 PM Anonymous Says:

The author might want to actually consider thinking before he runs off to hurriedly pen this nonsense. The fact is that the Rubashkin defense admits that Agriprocessors hired underage labors, they only contest who actually did the hiring. So on that point Obama was correct in his assertion that underage laborers were being hired. Additionally, there are numerous meat-packing plants throughout Iowa, most of which were engaging in the same behavior (hiring illegals -- often underage), so how it is you conclude that Obama was exclusively targeting Agriprocessors when he makes no mention of them by name is baffling.

It's safe to say, that like many of the people who comment on this site, you're hate for Obama runs so deep, you can't bring yourself to admit that the only people who should be apologizing for anything is Agriprocessors. Hiring illegal aliens is a crime in the United States, and worse, hiring underage illegals is immoral.

64

 Jun 07, 2010 at 06:03 PM Leib Says:

Rabbi Katz, Shalom Rubashkin had not been found innocent of all charges as you state. No court in these United States can find a person to be innocent. Courts say guilty or non-guilty. Non-guilty merely means that the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. OJ Simpson's case comes to mind. Do you think he is owed apology too.

65

 Jun 07, 2010 at 06:07 PM Anonymous Says:

Dear 62, we do accept the other. But you have to realize that it should be a fair punishment. Thgis type of bank fraud is very wrong, but it happens all the time. The punishment should be what is normally given for such a crime. Not more. Also keep in mind that he was desperately trying to keep his buisness. He did wrong, but there were some mitigating factors - especially now that we see this verdict..

66

 Jun 07, 2010 at 06:10 PM Anonymous Says:

"It is the legal principle known in Latin as, “ei incumbit probation qui dicit, non qui negat.” The principle states that the burden of proof rests upon who asserts, not on who denies. Lehavdil, in the language of the Torah it is “Havei dan kola dam lekaf z’chus.”"


The correct term is "hamotzi mechaverav alav haraya"

67

 Jun 07, 2010 at 06:12 PM Liberalism is a Disease!!! Says:

Reply to #12  
Why? Says:

What exactly did he say wrong? Do we now support child labor? What is wrong with you? He was right. Whether or not SMR knew or was guilty, what the president said is 100% valid.

Gee, we used to be into the Torah. Now we're into doing whatever we want for money. Nice.

Obama was NOT right! He has NEVER been right! He has no right to mish zich arayn in something like that even if he was/is/will always be a rabble rouser.

68

 Jun 07, 2010 at 06:14 PM Rifka Says:

Reply to #26  
To Judge Reade Says:

To the Honorable Judge Reade,

It is now plainly obvious that Mr. Rubashkin is not at all the devil he was made out to be. We heard the Federal Prosecutors asking your for an outrageous sentence and referred to these child-labor and worker-abuse allegations as back up. They wanted to show that he is just "an all around bad guy".

Now Mr. Rubashkin has been completely exonerated of these ugly charges.

He has certainly learned the lesson in the financial case he was convicted of. We know he did those acts under terrible duress, mostly due to the boycotts and bad press that were fueled by these "child-labor and worker abuse" allegations.

Please do not sentence him to anything longer than *time served*. This is a broken man who has learned his lesson.

Respectfully,

Countless Fair Minded Citizens of the USA

You wrote the best comment of all
I wish Judge Reade would read it
Make sure to forward it to her, you might just be the one to topple the scale.

69

 Jun 07, 2010 at 06:14 PM Liberalism is a Disease!!! Says:

Reply to #12  
Why? Says:

What exactly did he say wrong? Do we now support child labor? What is wrong with you? He was right. Whether or not SMR knew or was guilty, what the president said is 100% valid.

Gee, we used to be into the Torah. Now we're into doing whatever we want for money. Nice.

I am amazed by how many people - and I use that term quite loosely - are sticking to their prejudice of this case. Seemingly they dont want HKBH to be dan them l'kaf z'chus either. SHAME ON THEM!

70

 Jun 07, 2010 at 06:17 PM Nar Says:

Reply to #64  
Leib Says:

Rabbi Katz, Shalom Rubashkin had not been found innocent of all charges as you state. No court in these United States can find a person to be innocent. Courts say guilty or non-guilty. Non-guilty merely means that the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. OJ Simpson's case comes to mind. Do you think he is owed apology too.

According to you a person can never be innocent if he has ever been on trial.

That is contrary to the law of the land and is contrary to the Torah's approach to legal cases. If you are found "not guilty" then you are innocent.

Otherwise a person can never be cleared if he has ever been accused of anything.

Such ignorance.

71

 Jun 07, 2010 at 06:31 PM Anonymous Says:

Reply to #70  
Nar Says:

According to you a person can never be innocent if he has ever been on trial.

That is contrary to the law of the land and is contrary to the Torah's approach to legal cases. If you are found "not guilty" then you are innocent.

Otherwise a person can never be cleared if he has ever been accused of anything.

Such ignorance.

So I guess you believe OJ Simpson was "innocent"? You might very well be the only one left standing.

72

 Jun 07, 2010 at 06:32 PM Ari Says:

B”H

Does of you who had all bad to say about the American justice system, also need to apologize

73

 Jun 07, 2010 at 06:33 PM Anonymous Says:

Reply to #5  
What? Says:

Nobody's claiming the kids didn't work there. They're claiming that Rubashkin didn't know. So the President was right.

Lay off. You're lucky he managed to fool a jury.

You are a true Rasha!! How can you speak this way when everyone is begging for more Ahavas Yisroel in light of the terrible tragedies that are happening in Klal Yisroel r'l? He is your brother!!!

74

 Jun 07, 2010 at 06:46 PM Anonymous Says:

Reply to #5  
What? Says:

Nobody's claiming the kids didn't work there. They're claiming that Rubashkin didn't know. So the President was right.

Lay off. You're lucky he managed to fool a jury.

Shame on you!!! You're ignorant and a self centered moron. The court just proved him innecent of the charges. This is not enough for you? Shame on you!!!

75

 Jun 07, 2010 at 06:51 PM unbelvbl Says:

A Boruch Hatov V'Hamieti AND SH'hecheuni is in place here.

76

 Jun 07, 2010 at 06:58 PM Correction Says:

Reply to #74  
Anonymous Says:

Shame on you!!! You're ignorant and a self centered moron. The court just proved him innecent of the charges. This is not enough for you? Shame on you!!!

Nobody proved him innocent. He was simply not proven guilty. Learn the difference.

77

 Jun 07, 2010 at 06:58 PM Anonymous Says:

Reply to #72  
Ari Says:

B”H

Does of you who had all bad to say about the American justice system, also need to apologize

No. The fact that it had the right outcome once doesn't excuse its many failings.

78

 Jun 07, 2010 at 07:01 PM correction Says:

Reply to #36  
correction Says:

The article only forgot to mention the twelve Jewish congressman who felt it necessary to write a letter expressing their concerns 6 months after the raid about "allegations" from everything including improperly slaughtered (nonkosher meat) an allegation that none of the supervising agencies on site had ever made, to weapons and drug allegations mentioned in the original gov't complaint used to get a warrant to raid Agri and never mentioned again thereafter by any Gov't agency ever again. and BTW neither DEA or ATF were involved in the raid as they surely would have been if weapons or drugs were really suspected. This shows the gov't knew the complaint was false when they first submitted it.

Here is the article and the names of the 12 congressman that condemned Rubashkin based on allegations before he came to trial on any of them. The writers bring up the issue of weapons and drugs six months after the raid, when the prosecutors themselves never mentioned such issues ever again after the initial complaint. Senior Special Agent David Hoagland who signed the complaint should be brought up on purjury charges.

http://www.vosizneias.com/20734/2008/09/24/washington-12-jewish-congressman-criticize-agriprocessors/

79

 Jun 07, 2010 at 07:02 PM HH Says:

Reply to #18  
Anonymous Says:

While I share in the euphoria of the findings, to be perfectly honest, he was not found to be innocent. He was found to be "not guilty". A criminal jury is not given the charge to determine innocence. They only determine whether the prosecution has proven there case beyond a reasonable doubt. This is a much higher standard than that of a civil case which only has to be proven by a preponderance of the evidence (more than 50% likely).

Couldn't agree with you more.
Does anybody honestly believe he was clueless to what was going on his business? He chose not to get involved so he could claim he was unaware. No case doesn't not equal no crime.

80

 Jun 07, 2010 at 07:07 PM Anonymous Says:

Reply to #58  
not so Says:

I've read each and every word of the trial. I know, you'd believe he was innocent even if there were pictures of him whipping Guatemalan babies. Sorry, I'm not Lubavitch.

Oh, and he's not my brother. My brother doesn't violate laws of kashrut, nor does he exploit children.

Well you excluded your self from SMR's family. There was NO exploitation of kashrus or children by SMR. The exploitation of kashrus was attempted by Morris Allen and his ilk and the Forward. And the jury ruled that there was no exploitation of children by SMR.

You are a sorry piece of work.

81

 Jun 07, 2010 at 07:14 PM Anonymous Says:

Reply to #63  
Anonymous Says:

The author might want to actually consider thinking before he runs off to hurriedly pen this nonsense. The fact is that the Rubashkin defense admits that Agriprocessors hired underage labors, they only contest who actually did the hiring. So on that point Obama was correct in his assertion that underage laborers were being hired. Additionally, there are numerous meat-packing plants throughout Iowa, most of which were engaging in the same behavior (hiring illegals -- often underage), so how it is you conclude that Obama was exclusively targeting Agriprocessors when he makes no mention of them by name is baffling.

It's safe to say, that like many of the people who comment on this site, you're hate for Obama runs so deep, you can't bring yourself to admit that the only people who should be apologizing for anything is Agriprocessors. Hiring illegal aliens is a crime in the United States, and worse, hiring underage illegals is immoral.

Wrong, Wrong , wrong.
First off, why was the case brought against SMR? Apparently they said he was the violator, which was disproved. In addition, the charge was that the company knowingly and willingly hired minors. This too was disproved. There was evidence that the company would fire employees who turned out to be illegal or underage when they could. (They were precluded by law and lawsuits from doing so for a period of time).

You whole pile of bunk is just that. You must be among those who were quick to judge (wrrongly as was proven) and cannot face trhe fact that you were wrong.

Well face it buddy, just as you are wrong in this, you are wrong in so much else. This should be an epiphany to you.

82

 Jun 07, 2010 at 07:15 PM Anonymous Says:

"Apology Due" gimme a break be quiet and happy that he got so lucky, with Hashem's will. you're calling for more detailed reveiw by demanding an apology, ask Mr. Rubashkin if he wants another review of his case?

83

 Jun 07, 2010 at 07:21 PM Michoel in London Says:

So many expressions of jubilation, I just wanted to add mine, just for the Malochim in Shomayim to see and report.

My prayer is for a refuoh shleimoh to all those self hating Jews who have a persistent need to demonize others whom in their eyes were having a good time making money, unlike themselves. I am convinced 95% of them are stuck in a cubicle 9-5 and from there they either go home to a miserable marriage or to their parents, as still single in their 40s. May Hashem grant them some relief from whatever nags at them, thus the Yidden who are going thru tremendous yissurim, will be relieved from the extra unnecessary negative energy and Keetrughim these people are generating.

May we all soon rejoice in the great upcoming news that Sholom Rubashkin will be found NOT GUILTY on all charges.

Yidden, let’s prepare ourselves to mark our calendars with that date, commemorating the great achievement Klal Yisroel realized by uniting in prayer for one Yid, no matter to what group he belonged. A Yid is a Yid, and we shall be unashamedly biased and always judge every Yid in a favourable light.

MOSHIACH, you can come now, we are ready and we proved it!

84

 Jun 07, 2010 at 07:24 PM Think first Says:

Reply to #71  
Anonymous Says:

So I guess you believe OJ Simpson was "innocent"? You might very well be the only one left standing.

There's a big difference. Did oj really commit the crime? From all the evidence he was the perpetrator. Unfortunately, they couldn't convict him because one minor issue didn't fit, the glove. Will he get punished for the crime he probably commited, yes. Smr didn't commit any crime as you can see from the testimony which said he didn't want minors working there. That's your major difference.

85

 Jun 07, 2010 at 07:24 PM Genug Shoin! Says:

Judging by some of the commentators, I must paraphrase Bibi's eloquent defense of Israel:

Rubashkin is guilty until proven guilty.

And may I add, even when he is found not-guilty, he is still guilty, because he's guilty until proven guilty.

Long live bias and prejudice, hatred and close-mindedness, lynching and lies.

86

 Jun 07, 2010 at 07:34 PM Anonymous Says:

While I am relieved that SMR was acquitted of all of the STATE charges against him, people seem to forget that he was convicted of numerous FEDERAL charges, for which he will be sentenced on June 22nd. Therefore, before we give each other high five's, we should pray for a lenient sentence on June 22nd. Unfortunately, SMR is not out of the woods yet.

87

 Jun 07, 2010 at 07:36 PM Thanking HKB"H Says:

BORUCH HASHEM!
THANK YOU HASHEM for your brochos and yeshuah!!!

Tracht Gut Vet Zain Gut! Think Good and it will be good!!!

now that there is an excellent foundation, we will see a great continuation in the same victorious way!

Bezras Hashem, he will be completely freed from all the opposers attempts to hurt him - Kosher - and Yidden in general!

Moshiach Now!!!

Let's all say a Kapitel Tehillim in Thanks to Hashem and in Bitochoin that he will continue his Brochos!!!

Let's not forget that it will be a tremendous Kiddush Hashem and Kiddush Am Yisroel... (whereas the opposite Ch"v would be terrible for all of us! Ch"v v'cha"v!)

88

 Jun 07, 2010 at 07:39 PM Anonymous Says:

there is one and only one judge in the world - and lets keep on davening - all our tefillos are being heard..... everyone please continue to daven for SMR so that his sentencing on 6/22 be a very easy one - davening is our only lawyer, weapon.... hashem is the only judge.

89

 Jun 07, 2010 at 07:44 PM OMG Says:

Reply to #65  
Anonymous Says:

Dear 62, we do accept the other. But you have to realize that it should be a fair punishment. Thgis type of bank fraud is very wrong, but it happens all the time. The punishment should be what is normally given for such a crime. Not more. Also keep in mind that he was desperately trying to keep his buisness. He did wrong, but there were some mitigating factors - especially now that we see this verdict..

Yes I do agree with everything you wrote, I pray that God would anointed Judge Reade and open her eyes and instill mercy into her heart to see all the mitigating facts and understand that his wife and children need him in particular his child who is relying on his for fatherly love. That said I would also pray that all these people who wrote after verdict, that Judge, Prosecutors and the Jury’s were pure anti-Semitic, that God should gave them the brains to write the following Dear Judge Reade, since the verdict in the current State case was announced, I came to the conclusion that, the jury systems is fair and you and the prosecutor and the jury are not anti-Semitic, I deeply apologies and I pray that you will not punish SMR harshly because I was wrong and I didn’t help SMR at all.
As you could see I have prayers available for all the sides.

90

 Jun 07, 2010 at 07:56 PM formally Says:

Reply to #28  
Anonymous Says:

WRONG, WROMNG, WRONG
he is assumed innocent unless proven guilty! he wasn't proven guilty so he REMAINS INNOCENT, not, guilty but they didn't prove it.

WRONG, WROMNG, WRONG, OJ Simpson is innocent innocent as per your argument. After John Gotti first trail according to you was INNOCENT INNOCENT

You are 100% incorrect. The jury verdict only says not guilty the jury does not say innocent. Prove is, that even when one is found not guilty one can be sued civilly. If what you claim is true how could one be sued civilly?

I am surprised VIN does not know that simple fact.

91

 Jun 07, 2010 at 08:06 PM formally Says:

Reply to #28  
Anonymous Says:

WRONG, WROMNG, WRONG
he is assumed innocent unless proven guilty! he wasn't proven guilty so he REMAINS INNOCENT, not, guilty but they didn't prove it.

Obama

Obama did not lie there where minors working there even SMR own defense admitted that. The question was did SMR know, or did the kids fool the company that they where older and he did his best to make sure minors did not work for him.

By finding him not guilty, even to those who have no idea that not guilty does not mean innocent minors still worked there.

92

 Jun 07, 2010 at 08:07 PM bigwheeel Says:

This is what makes my heart swell. This is what gives me a thrill. Not winning (or losing boxing championship games.) Maybe the Yankees winning the World series, too. (Just kidding.)!!! הודו לה' כי טוב כי לעולם חסדו!!! This trial (and the collapse of part of the charges.) stands on par with the Beilis Process in old Czarist Russia. The road is still long and hard till we will see ר' שלום מרדכי רובאשקין נ"י בעז"ה completely acquitted and back home safely with his family and community. May all the מבקשי רעתו of R' Sholom Mordechai Rubashkin (including that גלח ימ"ש ) suffer a complete and comprehensive humiliation. Let the tables be turned and let them get the punishment (and then some) that they wished (and still do) upon this good and kind man who brought them economic prosperity.

93

 Jun 07, 2010 at 08:12 PM Anonymous Says:

Reply to #90  
formally Says:

WRONG, WROMNG, WRONG, OJ Simpson is innocent innocent as per your argument. After John Gotti first trail according to you was INNOCENT INNOCENT

You are 100% incorrect. The jury verdict only says not guilty the jury does not say innocent. Prove is, that even when one is found not guilty one can be sued civilly. If what you claim is true how could one be sued civilly?

I am surprised VIN does not know that simple fact.

Filthy liar you are.When he was foung guilty,you said he was found guilty,period.It's nice to see the hater bawling like babies.

94

 Jun 07, 2010 at 08:12 PM DizzyIzzy Says:

Reply to #19  
Cheney Says:

No, what Obama said was NOT valid.

He said that they intentionally employed minors so that they could "avoid paying decent wages and providing them decent benefits".

That was an out and out LIBEL.

What the trial showed (if you followed the testimony), that there was NO reason or benefit for Agri to WANT to employ minors. Plus they got paid the same as anyone else. Hello, they presented themselves as adults with their fake IDs.

Plus, when Agri found out about minors they fired them immediately. But they could not simply fire people because they looked young (illegal, by the way). Every worker presented IDs.

I'm shocked that you're shocked. Only one thing that has proven certain in a most uncertain past year and a half, and that is that this President is a total creep.

Divide and conquer tactics for personal gain -- such as twisting partial facts about a pending case to evoke Dickensian images of enslaved children hacking carcasses in a meatpacking plant -- are his trademark.

It almost seems to be part of a larger goal to divide every possible aspect of American society until we have nothing left but endless jealousy, suspicion, fear, and resentment. At the very least, he has no class and no clue of what menschlichkeit is as a concept or practice.

95

 Jun 07, 2010 at 08:14 PM formally Says:

Reply to #28  
Anonymous Says:

WRONG, WROMNG, WRONG
he is assumed innocent unless proven guilty! he wasn't proven guilty so he REMAINS INNOCENT, not, guilty but they didn't prove it.

as a Jew I apologize for Jews to OJ and Nelson for accusing you of horrible crimes. The court system found you innocent. we are truly sorry from the bottom of our hearts manly Nelson who was vilified by the Jewish community. The jury found you innocent as per many on this board so innocent you are

So does not guilty mean innocent, really?

BTY this is why the verdict is not guilty. The verdict is not innocent.

It is true that the state must look at the party as innocent since they did not prove the case, so legally they are innocent. but the verdict does not say innocent, that is why OJ can be sued civilly and Nelson have another trail under the civil rights act.

96

 Jun 07, 2010 at 08:17 PM Anonymous Says:

Reply to #5  
What? Says:

Nobody's claiming the kids didn't work there. They're claiming that Rubashkin didn't know. So the President was right.

Lay off. You're lucky he managed to fool a jury.

you piece of junk, those kids lied their way in to working there. I.E. it was not his fault, no fooling the jury involved

97

 Jun 07, 2010 at 08:19 PM bigwheeel Says:

Reply to #84  
Think first Says:

There's a big difference. Did oj really commit the crime? From all the evidence he was the perpetrator. Unfortunately, they couldn't convict him because one minor issue didn't fit, the glove. Will he get punished for the crime he probably commited, yes. Smr didn't commit any crime as you can see from the testimony which said he didn't want minors working there. That's your major difference.

There's a different reason OJ was acquitted. (Even though in my court of opinion he should have been acquitted on different grounds. Not racial.) The color of his skin and the color of the jury's skin matched. And the "judge" was a typical product of a "Hollywood Wannabee". Or Dreamabee!

98

 Jun 07, 2010 at 08:21 PM hear nur Says:

OMG and Shaul in Monsey asked the same question on a different thread regarding SMR's acquital. Why the supposedly double standards from the heimishe oilem which bashes the government for anti-Semitism because of their persecution of SMR and yet when he is found not guilty we still believe he was/is hatefully targeted?
Here's why:
What if the witnesses were savvy liars and when questioned knew how to fib well? There are numerous cases where people were found to be innocent many years later because the witnesses were found to be lying.
In this case the witnesses were very clearly lying and any person could see through their lies so he was found not guilty. After all, not everyone is so blind to justice as some cruel posters here.
The question here is really this; what prompted the state to spend millions of dollars to prosecute an innocent person, without any shred of hard evidence other than the presumed illegality the prosecutors alleged Rubashkin was guilty of?
And just because the prosecutors where able to present a more solid case in the Federal trial, does not mean that that case is not hyped up by the Feds as this one was.
Sinas chinum and anti-Semitism were the cause.

99

 Jun 07, 2010 at 08:24 PM Anonymous Says:

Reply to #95  
formally Says:

as a Jew I apologize for Jews to OJ and Nelson for accusing you of horrible crimes. The court system found you innocent. we are truly sorry from the bottom of our hearts manly Nelson who was vilified by the Jewish community. The jury found you innocent as per many on this board so innocent you are

So does not guilty mean innocent, really?

BTY this is why the verdict is not guilty. The verdict is not innocent.

It is true that the state must look at the party as innocent since they did not prove the case, so legally they are innocent. but the verdict does not say innocent, that is why OJ can be sued civilly and Nelson have another trail under the civil rights act.

Ha,ha.the baby is crying loudly,can't take he lost.Please in the trial,the prosecution didn't bring 10 policemen like in the nelson case.

100

 Jun 07, 2010 at 08:24 PM formally Says:

Reply to #28  
Anonymous Says:

WRONG, WROMNG, WRONG
he is assumed innocent unless proven guilty! he wasn't proven guilty so he REMAINS INNOCENT, not, guilty but they didn't prove it.

True people should be happy SMR was found not guilty (I apologize I was one who thought he was guilty, and even the fruad case he should get a year or two) I really think people are missing a much bigger reason to be happy.

It seems a Jew even a frum black hat Jew can be found not guilty in the middle of rural USA.

And that my friend is something to really cheer about and be proud and happy that you live in this great country.

I think many people really need to apologize to the people of this country. They are not that antisemitic as you feel. It seems your hate for them is greater than their hate for you

101

 Jun 07, 2010 at 08:25 PM bigwheeel Says:

Reply to #58  
not so Says:

I've read each and every word of the trial. I know, you'd believe he was innocent even if there were pictures of him whipping Guatemalan babies. Sorry, I'm not Lubavitch.

Oh, and he's not my brother. My brother doesn't violate laws of kashrut, nor does he exploit children.

The next moron (we all know who the first one is) will accuse Mr. Rubashkin of "Whipping Guatemalan Babies. Quoting "Nut Soo". He heard it from him. Now, he's so scrupulous he wouldn't be lying".

102

 Jun 07, 2010 at 08:27 PM Anonymous Says:

"And now, thank heaven, he was found innocent of all sixty eight counts."

NO. He was found "not guilty." He was not "found innocent."

That means they couldn't PROVE him guilty BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. In other words, he might have been most likely guilty, or pretty darn guilty, but there was a doubt so he was found not guilty. That is a far cry from being "found innocent."

103

 Jun 07, 2010 at 08:29 PM bigwheeel Says:

Reply to #76  
Correction Says:

Nobody proved him innocent. He was simply not proven guilty. Learn the difference.

No American (or Canadian?) Court will stand up and say; Mr. So and So is innocent. In the American way of Justice, the prosecutor has to prove his charges to a Unanimous Jury of 12. There is a hung Jury. And there is an acquittal. Mr. Rubashkin was resoundingly ACQUITTED!

104

 Jun 07, 2010 at 08:29 PM formally Says:

Reply to #97  
bigwheeel Says:

There's a different reason OJ was acquitted. (Even though in my court of opinion he should have been acquitted on different grounds. Not racial.) The color of his skin and the color of the jury's skin matched. And the "judge" was a typical product of a "Hollywood Wannabee". Or Dreamabee!

that means nothing, it only proves the point that not guilty does not mean innocent.

true one can look into the trial and say wow that killer OJ Nelson got away with murder
and that same person can look into the SMR trial and say wow that guy is really innocent he really got railroaded.

All I am saying and others is that do not make a claim that not guilty means innocent, since that is factually incorrect

105

 Jun 07, 2010 at 08:33 PM formally Says:

Reply to #98  
hear nur Says:

OMG and Shaul in Monsey asked the same question on a different thread regarding SMR's acquital. Why the supposedly double standards from the heimishe oilem which bashes the government for anti-Semitism because of their persecution of SMR and yet when he is found not guilty we still believe he was/is hatefully targeted?
Here's why:
What if the witnesses were savvy liars and when questioned knew how to fib well? There are numerous cases where people were found to be innocent many years later because the witnesses were found to be lying.
In this case the witnesses were very clearly lying and any person could see through their lies so he was found not guilty. After all, not everyone is so blind to justice as some cruel posters here.
The question here is really this; what prompted the state to spend millions of dollars to prosecute an innocent person, without any shred of hard evidence other than the presumed illegality the prosecutors alleged Rubashkin was guilty of?
And just because the prosecutors where able to present a more solid case in the Federal trial, does not mean that that case is not hyped up by the Feds as this one was.
Sinas chinum and anti-Semitism were the cause.

while I do not agree with your analysis I would like to remind the crowd here all this started with BUSH so stop bashing Obama and bash bush

106

 Jun 07, 2010 at 08:34 PM Anonymous Says:

Reply to #95  
formally Says:

as a Jew I apologize for Jews to OJ and Nelson for accusing you of horrible crimes. The court system found you innocent. we are truly sorry from the bottom of our hearts manly Nelson who was vilified by the Jewish community. The jury found you innocent as per many on this board so innocent you are

So does not guilty mean innocent, really?

BTY this is why the verdict is not guilty. The verdict is not innocent.

It is true that the state must look at the party as innocent since they did not prove the case, so legally they are innocent. but the verdict does not say innocent, that is why OJ can be sued civilly and Nelson have another trail under the civil rights act.

Formally, you unmitigated piece of crap, do not presume to do anything in the name of any Jew.
No one needs or wants you. You are the lowest piece of vile filth. So often you were spouting your PETA nonsense. You cannot tolerate that the whole case was shown to be nonsense.

About you it is said vshem reshoim yirkav.

107

 Jun 07, 2010 at 08:36 PM Anonymous Says:

Freedom of speech is a wonderful thing. But the Torah doesn't give us the
"freedom of speech". There are Laws of Loshon Horah, Dan Lkaf Zechus,
Rechilus, etc. etc.etc.
Its about time that "VIN" abides by our Laws and omits any post that
is against the Torah.
It is disgusting to see how many vicious people exist out there, I honestly
feel that these are Gentiles and Anti Semites that want to besmirth
our Holy Nation. They are green with envy, when they see the Achdus of
Klall Yisroel, and how a stranger in Staten Island could give his heart and
money to a fellow Jew in Iowa whom he never met. We are all brothers, and
when even one finger hurts, the body is in pain.
This makes us the envy of the Nations.
We are indeed a sheep amongst 70 wolves, but let us continue to make a
Kiddush Hashem, for this is our true Tafkid in Galus, and may we be zoche to
bring the Geula.
Once again to the staff of Vos Iz Neias, please don't post the nasty comments,
you never know who reads them and they may give the wrong ideas about us.

108

 Jun 07, 2010 at 08:38 PM Anonymous Says:

In over 100 posts I've read on today's verdict, only a small number seem to comprehend what really happened. He was acquitted on state charges which were nowhere as strong as the Federal charges of which he has alredy been found guilty and is awaiting sentencing. Judge Reade cannot reverse the jury verdict now. That is for the appeals courts. She will decide for how many years he will go to jail and he will remain in jail until his appeals have been heard. Hopefully within the next year the federal convictions may be reversed but that is a long shot. Our best hope is that he gets a reduced sentence (maybe 5-10 years) which is much better than the life sentence he had originally faced.

109

 Jun 07, 2010 at 08:40 PM I am sure Says:

That there will be many new organizations forming as of early tomorrow morning, with a mission of judging innocent until proven guilty. Right! A nechtiger tog!

110

 Jun 07, 2010 at 08:43 PM formally Says:

Reply to #99  
Anonymous Says:

Ha,ha.the baby is crying loudly,can't take he lost.Please in the trial,the prosecution didn't bring 10 policemen like in the nelson case.

not guilty legal definition

n

1. A determination by a jury that the evidence is insufficient to convict the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt.

end of story.

no one is saying SMR is not innocent all people are saying is that the verdict does not say innocent

111

 Jun 07, 2010 at 08:45 PM Sham and Shame Says:

From the legal experts. If the defense can prove neglegence on behlaf of the govt can they sue for all that has happened to the Rubashkins?

112

 Jun 07, 2010 at 08:47 PM Anonymous Says:

It would be absurd for anyone to apologize for a jury's verdict--either innocent or an acquittal. If an federal appeals court find prosecutorial error in bringing the charges than maybe some apology is due. Hopefully, SMR will show remorse and seek forgiveness from the court at his federal sentencing hearing in a few weeks and plead for mercy so he can get of jail sooner and be back with his family.

113

 Jun 07, 2010 at 08:55 PM Shaul in Monsey Says:

Reply to #98  
hear nur Says:

OMG and Shaul in Monsey asked the same question on a different thread regarding SMR's acquital. Why the supposedly double standards from the heimishe oilem which bashes the government for anti-Semitism because of their persecution of SMR and yet when he is found not guilty we still believe he was/is hatefully targeted?
Here's why:
What if the witnesses were savvy liars and when questioned knew how to fib well? There are numerous cases where people were found to be innocent many years later because the witnesses were found to be lying.
In this case the witnesses were very clearly lying and any person could see through their lies so he was found not guilty. After all, not everyone is so blind to justice as some cruel posters here.
The question here is really this; what prompted the state to spend millions of dollars to prosecute an innocent person, without any shred of hard evidence other than the presumed illegality the prosecutors alleged Rubashkin was guilty of?
And just because the prosecutors where able to present a more solid case in the Federal trial, does not mean that that case is not hyped up by the Feds as this one was.
Sinas chinum and anti-Semitism were the cause.

SMRs defense was NOT that minors did not work in the plant. The defense agreed that minors did work there. SMRs defense was clear - that he himself was not responsible for the minors being there, in fact, his brother was. While it is clearly reason to be happy that SMR was acquitted, there is no reason to feel good at all about how AGRI was run. It is wrong to hire and employ minors, and it is ossur mitzad dina dmalchusa. It is simply not a way to run a business. The Rubashkins should be thankful Heshy was not indicted based on the evidence presented against Sholom.

You can't have it both ways. You can't cry antisemitism when he is convicted and claim that the trial in which he was acquitted was completely fair and unbiased. If anything, this acquittal only reinforces SMRs guilt in the federal trial inasmuch as he was convicted on evidence of wrongdoing and not because he has a beard and wears a yarmulka. If he was convicted in the federal trial because he is a Jew, then he would have been convicted in the state trial also - he's the same Jew. The answer is simple. Being Jewish is not why SMR was convicted in the federal trial.

114

 Jun 07, 2010 at 09:13 PM OMG Says:

Reply to #98  
hear nur Says:

OMG and Shaul in Monsey asked the same question on a different thread regarding SMR's acquital. Why the supposedly double standards from the heimishe oilem which bashes the government for anti-Semitism because of their persecution of SMR and yet when he is found not guilty we still believe he was/is hatefully targeted?
Here's why:
What if the witnesses were savvy liars and when questioned knew how to fib well? There are numerous cases where people were found to be innocent many years later because the witnesses were found to be lying.
In this case the witnesses were very clearly lying and any person could see through their lies so he was found not guilty. After all, not everyone is so blind to justice as some cruel posters here.
The question here is really this; what prompted the state to spend millions of dollars to prosecute an innocent person, without any shred of hard evidence other than the presumed illegality the prosecutors alleged Rubashkin was guilty of?
And just because the prosecutors where able to present a more solid case in the Federal trial, does not mean that that case is not hyped up by the Feds as this one was.
Sinas chinum and anti-Semitism were the cause.

I know that sooner or later I will run into you, exactly my point, that neither the federal nor the state cases had anything to do with Anti-Semitism, in both case the system did what it suppose to do, in the federal the government prevailed because they prevail over 90% of the time. They know how to put on a case and usually their summations are to the point and articled. It’s totally disingenuous to celebrate one trial and point to its outcome as the model jurisprudence but the other trial, were SMR was found guilty as unjust, Anti-Semitic, anti Jewish Slaughter rituals, all the rest of your arguments are all boiler made excuses, without any logical foundation. I will not second-guess the prosecution ability, but I will tell you that in our judicial everybody has a part to play, the state is just doing what it suppose to do, to prosecute people who allegedly broke the law.

115

 Jun 07, 2010 at 09:13 PM iish emmes says Says:

Reply to #113  
Shaul in Monsey Says:

SMRs defense was NOT that minors did not work in the plant. The defense agreed that minors did work there. SMRs defense was clear - that he himself was not responsible for the minors being there, in fact, his brother was. While it is clearly reason to be happy that SMR was acquitted, there is no reason to feel good at all about how AGRI was run. It is wrong to hire and employ minors, and it is ossur mitzad dina dmalchusa. It is simply not a way to run a business. The Rubashkins should be thankful Heshy was not indicted based on the evidence presented against Sholom.

You can't have it both ways. You can't cry antisemitism when he is convicted and claim that the trial in which he was acquitted was completely fair and unbiased. If anything, this acquittal only reinforces SMRs guilt in the federal trial inasmuch as he was convicted on evidence of wrongdoing and not because he has a beard and wears a yarmulka. If he was convicted in the federal trial because he is a Jew, then he would have been convicted in the state trial also - he's the same Jew. The answer is simple. Being Jewish is not why SMR was convicted in the federal trial.

Shaul- what are you talking about. ? The question is not of guilt in the fraud case. The question (supported by six former US justice dept atty Generals) is whether the prosecutors were overly zealous such as "no bail due running away to Israel" despite extradition treaty and previous bail.
Asking for a "life sentence"? that is what the anti-Jewish attitude came from. Did you read what the congressmen signed prior to his trial or Pres. Obamas comments during his campaign> Do u know how many illegal workers work in the Agricultural field in California and no one has said a word. The conduct ofthe trial is at issue here not his guilt. Read the paper signed by the congressmen. Where are the drugs? guns? that is at issue!

116

 Jun 07, 2010 at 09:19 PM ish emmes Says:

Reply to #108  
Anonymous Says:

In over 100 posts I've read on today's verdict, only a small number seem to comprehend what really happened. He was acquitted on state charges which were nowhere as strong as the Federal charges of which he has alredy been found guilty and is awaiting sentencing. Judge Reade cannot reverse the jury verdict now. That is for the appeals courts. She will decide for how many years he will go to jail and he will remain in jail until his appeals have been heard. Hopefully within the next year the federal convictions may be reversed but that is a long shot. Our best hope is that he gets a reduced sentence (maybe 5-10 years) which is much better than the life sentence he had originally faced.

Your comments show you are a true mentsch -discussing the facts as they are and having a heart of rachmonis. May Hashem grant your predictions in the case and arichas yomim

117

 Jun 07, 2010 at 09:28 PM Anonymous Says:

Legal innocence is the same as genuine innocence? Doe sthat mean we have to believe OJ was innocent?

118

 Jun 07, 2010 at 09:31 PM PMO Says:

One must not forget that it was BUSH, yes BUSH who brought the charges against Rubashkin and set this whole thing in motion. It was BUSH's justice department who is responsible for starting all of this.

The analysis in the article is pretty good. However, blaming OBAMA for this is like blaming Obama for the Mabul. He was in no position to have ANYTHING to do with starting either of them. This action was publicly supported by countless people in Bush's justice department, the FBI and many members of Congress (all Republican by the way).

It is simply amazing how short the memories of some people really are.

119

 Jun 07, 2010 at 09:46 PM Anonymous Says:

Reply to #106  
Anonymous Says:

Formally, you unmitigated piece of crap, do not presume to do anything in the name of any Jew.
No one needs or wants you. You are the lowest piece of vile filth. So often you were spouting your PETA nonsense. You cannot tolerate that the whole case was shown to be nonsense.

About you it is said vshem reshoim yirkav.

Thank you VIN for letting a sensible rebuke against this vile menace. Only now after an acquittal has MR formerly a somewhat, twisted, let's say a nice word to say. Mr formerly: if you are of the Jewish faith, may g-d heal your self-hating nature.

120

 Jun 07, 2010 at 10:06 PM ST Says:

Reply to #113  
Shaul in Monsey Says:

SMRs defense was NOT that minors did not work in the plant. The defense agreed that minors did work there. SMRs defense was clear - that he himself was not responsible for the minors being there, in fact, his brother was. While it is clearly reason to be happy that SMR was acquitted, there is no reason to feel good at all about how AGRI was run. It is wrong to hire and employ minors, and it is ossur mitzad dina dmalchusa. It is simply not a way to run a business. The Rubashkins should be thankful Heshy was not indicted based on the evidence presented against Sholom.

You can't have it both ways. You can't cry antisemitism when he is convicted and claim that the trial in which he was acquitted was completely fair and unbiased. If anything, this acquittal only reinforces SMRs guilt in the federal trial inasmuch as he was convicted on evidence of wrongdoing and not because he has a beard and wears a yarmulka. If he was convicted in the federal trial because he is a Jew, then he would have been convicted in the state trial also - he's the same Jew. The answer is simple. Being Jewish is not why SMR was convicted in the federal trial.

If my memory doesn't fail me, it was you that said with a lot of confidence that SMR would sit for employing minors..
That the prosecuter did a great job presenting the case..
That the defense wouldn't be able to tackle the case so easily.. That its not so simple.
You even had commenters praising your so called logic.

Please hold your logic to yourself.

121

 Jun 07, 2010 at 10:12 PM Anonymous Says:

Reply to #90  
formally Says:

WRONG, WROMNG, WRONG, OJ Simpson is innocent innocent as per your argument. After John Gotti first trail according to you was INNOCENT INNOCENT

You are 100% incorrect. The jury verdict only says not guilty the jury does not say innocent. Prove is, that even when one is found not guilty one can be sued civilly. If what you claim is true how could one be sued civilly?

I am surprised VIN does not know that simple fact.

Your argument is less than weak

The Difference between Simpson and this case is:

By Simpson was a lot of compelling evidence. There was a "habeas corpus" by the prosecution, there was a lot of real evidence, however Johnny Cochran and Co were able to 'install' reasonable doubt. They weren't even able to ask the judge to throw out the case. By OJ they were not able to even ask to throw out the case.

Over here the judge doubted a lot of the witnesses and the defense showed that Mr Rubashkin had no wrong doing on his hand. There was no habeas corpus on the govt side. This was a house of cards, as the author writes.

There were no authentic documents showing the workers age. The government was not successful in proving that even one worker was under age. They did not prove hazardous working conditions. NOTHING! If there was, than I can see some comparison.

Bottom line this case was no different then Beilis, Dreyfus or Rosenberg. It was a LIBEL!

122

 Jun 07, 2010 at 10:23 PM Anonymous Says:

Reply to #91  
formally Says:

Obama

Obama did not lie there where minors working there even SMR own defense admitted that. The question was did SMR know, or did the kids fool the company that they where older and he did his best to make sure minors did not work for him.

By finding him not guilty, even to those who have no idea that not guilty does not mean innocent minors still worked there.

a) As has been pointed out already, Obama DID libel him, as he said they wanted minors to work there so that they could pay them less and not give them benefits. That's just a total lie, as those minors who worked there (by lying to the HR) got paid like everyone else. Agri would have had nothing to gain by hiring minors.

So yes, Obama libeled them. (But he was in the company of many: Morris Allen, Hekkksher "tzedek", little wannabe Shmully from NY, the Forward, the Backward, etc.

b) Not Guilty = Innocent. Read your jurisprudence.

123

 Jun 07, 2010 at 10:29 PM Anonymous Says:

Reply to #5  
What? Says:

Nobody's claiming the kids didn't work there. They're claiming that Rubashkin didn't know. So the President was right.

Lay off. You're lucky he managed to fool a jury.

"fool the jury" are you saying he know????
the jew is guilty till proven guilty!

you missed the whole point of this op-ed, if you say he know then YOU have to prove it, if you cant SHUT UP!

124

 Jun 07, 2010 at 10:29 PM hear nur Says:

Reply to #113  
Shaul in Monsey Says:

SMRs defense was NOT that minors did not work in the plant. The defense agreed that minors did work there. SMRs defense was clear - that he himself was not responsible for the minors being there, in fact, his brother was. While it is clearly reason to be happy that SMR was acquitted, there is no reason to feel good at all about how AGRI was run. It is wrong to hire and employ minors, and it is ossur mitzad dina dmalchusa. It is simply not a way to run a business. The Rubashkins should be thankful Heshy was not indicted based on the evidence presented against Sholom.

You can't have it both ways. You can't cry antisemitism when he is convicted and claim that the trial in which he was acquitted was completely fair and unbiased. If anything, this acquittal only reinforces SMRs guilt in the federal trial inasmuch as he was convicted on evidence of wrongdoing and not because he has a beard and wears a yarmulka. If he was convicted in the federal trial because he is a Jew, then he would have been convicted in the state trial also - he's the same Jew. The answer is simple. Being Jewish is not why SMR was convicted in the federal trial.

So what you are trying to say is that SMR should need to pay because some of his employees (that he could easily replace-he did not need them) lied to him? Is that it? Your brother needs to pay for others crimes? Man, what a perverted way of thinking!
You, as usual will not answer my main point of why did the STATE pursue a case WHEN THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE THAT HE COMMITED A CRIME ? For heaven sakes, can't you comprehend a simple question if it runs contrary to your preconceived version of justice?
The federal trial is a hyped up sham of which I have posted the facts numerous times and there's no point in going over it again now for you because you willfully are not open to accepting the facts.
Suffice to say were the "hechsher tzeddek" chayoh raohs not tripping over each other to gefel the goyim by defiling SMR about the supposedly "mistreatment" of the "poor " workers, the "inhuman shechting" (pun intented) of beheimos and "dirty conditions" in the plant, the anti-Semites would not feel empowered to come out of the woodwork.
Not all goyim act in an anti-Semitic fashion so what is your point by comparing it to how the federal trial is being conducted?

125

 Jun 07, 2010 at 10:31 PM Sentence Says:

Reply to #108  
Anonymous Says:

In over 100 posts I've read on today's verdict, only a small number seem to comprehend what really happened. He was acquitted on state charges which were nowhere as strong as the Federal charges of which he has alredy been found guilty and is awaiting sentencing. Judge Reade cannot reverse the jury verdict now. That is for the appeals courts. She will decide for how many years he will go to jail and he will remain in jail until his appeals have been heard. Hopefully within the next year the federal convictions may be reversed but that is a long shot. Our best hope is that he gets a reduced sentence (maybe 5-10 years) which is much better than the life sentence he had originally faced.

Just because the Federal Prosecutors are cruel sadists and asked for life and then 25 years, it doesn't mean that "5-10 years" is a "reduced" sentence.

He must be sentenced fairly. The judge should not give him anything more than "time served."

We all know that if the order of these events were different, ie, if they first dropped the immigration case, and then he was unanimously acquited of a very tough state labor trial, you can bet that the Federal prosecution would have NEVER asked for such a long sentence. They were riding on the coattails of all the bad press and ugly allegations of child labor. They even said as much during the sentencing hearing.

126

 Jun 07, 2010 at 10:34 PM Anonymous Says:

Reply to #110  
formally Says:

not guilty legal definition

n

1. A determination by a jury that the evidence is insufficient to convict the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt.

end of story.

no one is saying SMR is not innocent all people are saying is that the verdict does not say innocent

Formally, Let's put in simple terms for you:

Every human being's *default* state is "innocent". If they are charged with a crime and then they win the case, they remain in their *default state* which as you recall is... INNOCENT!

Yay, you passed the test.

127

 Jun 07, 2010 at 10:34 PM Anonymous Says:

Reply to #113  
Shaul in Monsey Says:

SMRs defense was NOT that minors did not work in the plant. The defense agreed that minors did work there. SMRs defense was clear - that he himself was not responsible for the minors being there, in fact, his brother was. While it is clearly reason to be happy that SMR was acquitted, there is no reason to feel good at all about how AGRI was run. It is wrong to hire and employ minors, and it is ossur mitzad dina dmalchusa. It is simply not a way to run a business. The Rubashkins should be thankful Heshy was not indicted based on the evidence presented against Sholom.

You can't have it both ways. You can't cry antisemitism when he is convicted and claim that the trial in which he was acquitted was completely fair and unbiased. If anything, this acquittal only reinforces SMRs guilt in the federal trial inasmuch as he was convicted on evidence of wrongdoing and not because he has a beard and wears a yarmulka. If he was convicted in the federal trial because he is a Jew, then he would have been convicted in the state trial also - he's the same Jew. The answer is simple. Being Jewish is not why SMR was convicted in the federal trial.

Liar,that was not the defense.You probaly picked up that rubbish from some anti rubashkin blog.Heshy was never even a major point,let alone the whole case.

128

 Jun 07, 2010 at 10:41 PM Anonymous Says:

Reply to #62  
OMG Says:

I is ok to celebrate a finding by the jury of not guilty, as a matter of fact this not guilty verdict, should actually open the eyes of the lopsided majority on this site, nothing better than saying, I feel good for SMR, but to write an editorial by a Rabbi and call for apologies, for what for abusing minors in illegal jobs? How would you feel if, Al Sharpton and company after the Lemrick Nelson first State trial, demanding apologies, the same should be said in this case, the fact children were employed by Agri with or without the direct knowledge of SMR and his family. It is time for Management of Agri to apologize to the people who were directly affected.
Finally I challenge everyone who is celebrating this jury outcome they should evaluate their views about the outcome in the federal case. If you celebrate one you must except the other one.

you most definitely do not have a job!

129

 Jun 07, 2010 at 10:43 PM Yid Says:

Reply to #113  
Shaul in Monsey Says:

SMRs defense was NOT that minors did not work in the plant. The defense agreed that minors did work there. SMRs defense was clear - that he himself was not responsible for the minors being there, in fact, his brother was. While it is clearly reason to be happy that SMR was acquitted, there is no reason to feel good at all about how AGRI was run. It is wrong to hire and employ minors, and it is ossur mitzad dina dmalchusa. It is simply not a way to run a business. The Rubashkins should be thankful Heshy was not indicted based on the evidence presented against Sholom.

You can't have it both ways. You can't cry antisemitism when he is convicted and claim that the trial in which he was acquitted was completely fair and unbiased. If anything, this acquittal only reinforces SMRs guilt in the federal trial inasmuch as he was convicted on evidence of wrongdoing and not because he has a beard and wears a yarmulka. If he was convicted in the federal trial because he is a Jew, then he would have been convicted in the state trial also - he's the same Jew. The answer is simple. Being Jewish is not why SMR was convicted in the federal trial.

Dear Sheol,

a) You are wrong, that was just a small part of it. The defense demonstrated that there was no desire at all to employ minors, how it would be bad for them if they did. They stood nothing to gain from having minors. These people came with false documents like everyone else.

b) As SMR is arguably the most unjustly vilified person today, and he was given the gift of bad press from all sides, his likelihood of winning any case would not be high. Yes, bias and hate could easily have played a role in the Federal case.

When despite the odds he wins the state case, that doesn't mean there is no prevailing bias out there. He won it DESPITE all the negative press, etc.

130

 Jun 07, 2010 at 10:46 PM Anonymous Says:

Reply to #102  
Anonymous Says:

"And now, thank heaven, he was found innocent of all sixty eight counts."

NO. He was found "not guilty." He was not "found innocent."

That means they couldn't PROVE him guilty BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. In other words, he might have been most likely guilty, or pretty darn guilty, but there was a doubt so he was found not guilty. That is a far cry from being "found innocent."

So lets assume he was only found "NOT GUILTY" but not "found innocent".
On what bases are you now implying that he IS not innocent ??
Do you KNOW for a fact that he knew about minors working in his plant ?
Didi he even know to point out who the minors are ?
Dont you think that the prosecution layed out everything they had but it was not convincing evidence ?
So stop this nonsense bashing of an innocent man for no reason.

131

 Jun 07, 2010 at 10:56 PM hear nur Says:

Reply to #114  
OMG Says:

I know that sooner or later I will run into you, exactly my point, that neither the federal nor the state cases had anything to do with Anti-Semitism, in both case the system did what it suppose to do, in the federal the government prevailed because they prevail over 90% of the time. They know how to put on a case and usually their summations are to the point and articled. It’s totally disingenuous to celebrate one trial and point to its outcome as the model jurisprudence but the other trial, were SMR was found guilty as unjust, Anti-Semitic, anti Jewish Slaughter rituals, all the rest of your arguments are all boiler made excuses, without any logical foundation. I will not second-guess the prosecution ability, but I will tell you that in our judicial everybody has a part to play, the state is just doing what it suppose to do, to prosecute people who allegedly broke the law.

Okay, sharpen those swords, the dual is starting!
You are saying that "It’s totally disingenuous to celebrate one trial and point to its outcome as the model jurisprudence but the other trial, were SMR was found guilty as unjust..." So I shouldn't make comparisons, but you are doing the same thing when you write" in both case the system did what it suppose to do..."
In addition, you have not answered the simple question of how the state can bring a case against someone without having proof of crimes the defendant committed?! The state cannot prosecute people for allegedly breaking the law if they don't have any proof of the alleged crime.
You keep on dredging up the fact that the prosecution is putting up a good case. Of course, if the judge is steering the trial in one direction then they have a strong case. The defense cannot put up a strong case if the judge repeatedly is derailing their chances of a fair trial.
You look at everything in a logical fashion and can't comprehend illogical reasoning. Well, baseless hatred against another Jew and anti-Semitism is illogical! But whether you comprehend it or not, it still exists!

132

 Jun 07, 2010 at 10:59 PM OMG Says:

Reply to #120  
ST Says:

If my memory doesn't fail me, it was you that said with a lot of confidence that SMR would sit for employing minors..
That the prosecuter did a great job presenting the case..
That the defense wouldn't be able to tackle the case so easily.. That its not so simple.
You even had commenters praising your so called logic.

Please hold your logic to yourself.

No it was not Shaul in Monsey, it was me, and yes I tried to use logic but I failed, and I have the ability to sit back and say the jury had all the facts presented and they came to a different conclusion, hence I don’t cry or complain, but on the other hand, you and your ilk, didn’t have that ability in the fraud trial, you cried anti-Semitism all the way till today and starting on the 26th you will be back to same coarse excuses.

133

 Jun 07, 2010 at 11:13 PM Anonymous Says:

Reply to #108  
Anonymous Says:

In over 100 posts I've read on today's verdict, only a small number seem to comprehend what really happened. He was acquitted on state charges which were nowhere as strong as the Federal charges of which he has alredy been found guilty and is awaiting sentencing. Judge Reade cannot reverse the jury verdict now. That is for the appeals courts. She will decide for how many years he will go to jail and he will remain in jail until his appeals have been heard. Hopefully within the next year the federal convictions may be reversed but that is a long shot. Our best hope is that he gets a reduced sentence (maybe 5-10 years) which is much better than the life sentence he had originally faced.

There is a very small chance he will be released pending the outcome of his appeals but that seems very unlikely given the concerns about "flight" to EY. Maybe he could offer to wear a special radio device around his neck or ankle and hire private guards like Madoff did while he remained free living in his penthouse but again, they have asked for release pending sentencing previously with no success.

134

 Jun 07, 2010 at 11:14 PM Anonymous Says:

Reply to #85  
Genug Shoin! Says:

Judging by some of the commentators, I must paraphrase Bibi's eloquent defense of Israel:

Rubashkin is guilty until proven guilty.

And may I add, even when he is found not-guilty, he is still guilty, because he's guilty until proven guilty.

Long live bias and prejudice, hatred and close-mindedness, lynching and lies.

easy does it, the 1st case ended witht he jury finding S.R. guilty.. therefore he is, nbow lets put him away

135

 Jun 07, 2010 at 11:19 PM Anonymous Says:

Reply to #118  
PMO Says:

One must not forget that it was BUSH, yes BUSH who brought the charges against Rubashkin and set this whole thing in motion. It was BUSH's justice department who is responsible for starting all of this.

The analysis in the article is pretty good. However, blaming OBAMA for this is like blaming Obama for the Mabul. He was in no position to have ANYTHING to do with starting either of them. This action was publicly supported by countless people in Bush's justice department, the FBI and many members of Congress (all Republican by the way).

It is simply amazing how short the memories of some people really are.

You do have a point. BUT , did you hear how Helen Thomas put her foot into her mouth and effectively eneded her career? Mr obama on his campaign trail indicted rubashkin, I don't remember his exact words. This is a fact no one can deny.

136

 Jun 07, 2010 at 11:22 PM izzy Says:

thank you Hashem! Please bring the geulah now!

137

 Jun 07, 2010 at 11:24 PM Anonymous Says:

Reply to #113  
Shaul in Monsey Says:

SMRs defense was NOT that minors did not work in the plant. The defense agreed that minors did work there. SMRs defense was clear - that he himself was not responsible for the minors being there, in fact, his brother was. While it is clearly reason to be happy that SMR was acquitted, there is no reason to feel good at all about how AGRI was run. It is wrong to hire and employ minors, and it is ossur mitzad dina dmalchusa. It is simply not a way to run a business. The Rubashkins should be thankful Heshy was not indicted based on the evidence presented against Sholom.

You can't have it both ways. You can't cry antisemitism when he is convicted and claim that the trial in which he was acquitted was completely fair and unbiased. If anything, this acquittal only reinforces SMRs guilt in the federal trial inasmuch as he was convicted on evidence of wrongdoing and not because he has a beard and wears a yarmulka. If he was convicted in the federal trial because he is a Jew, then he would have been convicted in the state trial also - he's the same Jew. The answer is simple. Being Jewish is not why SMR was convicted in the federal trial.

Absolutely unfounded!
The defense did not admit that minors worked there. They proved that if they knew someone was a minor, they were immediately fired. And all others were thought to be adults. Even the government had no actual documents proving ages of the workers.
Please state facts. There are other websites for fiction.

138

 Jun 07, 2010 at 11:25 PM beautiful Says:

Reply to #113  
Shaul in Monsey Says:

SMRs defense was NOT that minors did not work in the plant. The defense agreed that minors did work there. SMRs defense was clear - that he himself was not responsible for the minors being there, in fact, his brother was. While it is clearly reason to be happy that SMR was acquitted, there is no reason to feel good at all about how AGRI was run. It is wrong to hire and employ minors, and it is ossur mitzad dina dmalchusa. It is simply not a way to run a business. The Rubashkins should be thankful Heshy was not indicted based on the evidence presented against Sholom.

You can't have it both ways. You can't cry antisemitism when he is convicted and claim that the trial in which he was acquitted was completely fair and unbiased. If anything, this acquittal only reinforces SMRs guilt in the federal trial inasmuch as he was convicted on evidence of wrongdoing and not because he has a beard and wears a yarmulka. If he was convicted in the federal trial because he is a Jew, then he would have been convicted in the state trial also - he's the same Jew. The answer is simple. Being Jewish is not why SMR was convicted in the federal trial.

It is so nice to see SRM happy with his son. A real Mazel Tov!!!

139

 Jun 07, 2010 at 11:29 PM Groiser Chochom Says:

Reply to #110  
formally Says:

not guilty legal definition

n

1. A determination by a jury that the evidence is insufficient to convict the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt.

end of story.

no one is saying SMR is not innocent all people are saying is that the verdict does not say innocent

Are you saying that he is guilty. There is no proof that he willfully hired youngsters. Do you have evidence that was not shown?
If you have no point don't push it.

140

 Jun 07, 2010 at 11:29 PM T from Monsey Says:

To all the idiots who insist that the verdict isn't "innocent" : actually, there is no need for such verdict since foundation of US legal system is that the defendant is presumed innocent until court finds otherwise. And here the court has astoundingly upheld SMR's innocence - and they were given ample opportunity to do otheRwise. So the verdict does mean that he is innocent, just as he were when he walked into the courtroom. Down with the fascism.

141

 Jun 07, 2010 at 11:34 PM ich shaym zich nisht Says:

Reply to #18  
Anonymous Says:

While I share in the euphoria of the findings, to be perfectly honest, he was not found to be innocent. He was found to be "not guilty". A criminal jury is not given the charge to determine innocence. They only determine whether the prosecution has proven there case beyond a reasonable doubt. This is a much higher standard than that of a civil case which only has to be proven by a preponderance of the evidence (more than 50% likely).

"he was not found to be innocent". since when did you become a lawyer. ? A yid iz bchezkas kashrus where did you go to yeshiva? Instead of being happy that a father of ten children might sit less in jail , u take the oyber chuchem comments of legality. guess u were born with stones instead of blood in your veins. less chillu hashem is also an important factor. shame on u , hide your face in shame! no ahavas yisroel like helen thomas

142

 Jun 08, 2010 at 12:03 AM Leah Says:

# 7- that is such a stupid thing to say. Realize how ridiculous u sound. If a rapist gets off on a rape charge it just means that he has a good lawyer/ignorant jury. He doesnt deserve any amount of money, he should just feel lucky he got off. Same with Rubashkin... My god, comments like these make me feel ashamed to be Jewish. Please attempt to sound educated

143

 Jun 08, 2010 at 12:06 AM Leah Says:

Reply to #20  
??? Says:

We must have watched different trials. They were not fired right away. That's hogwash. Be happy he got away with it. Maybe he can open a sweatshop when he gets out of prison.

Thank you!!!! my god, some people are so ignorant!

144

 Jun 08, 2010 at 12:10 AM Leah Says:

Reply to #5  
What? Says:

Nobody's claiming the kids didn't work there. They're claiming that Rubashkin didn't know. So the President was right.

Lay off. You're lucky he managed to fool a jury.

Couldnt agree more!!!!! Thank you for being an educated member of society!

145

 Jun 08, 2010 at 12:11 AM Anonymous Says:

Reply to #140  
T from Monsey Says:

To all the idiots who insist that the verdict isn't "innocent" : actually, there is no need for such verdict since foundation of US legal system is that the defendant is presumed innocent until court finds otherwise. And here the court has astoundingly upheld SMR's innocence - and they were given ample opportunity to do otheRwise. So the verdict does mean that he is innocent, just as he were when he walked into the courtroom. Down with the fascism.

Don't bother arguing logic to these people,hate blinds them

146

 Jun 08, 2010 at 12:14 AM Anonymous Says:

Reply to #132  
OMG Says:

No it was not Shaul in Monsey, it was me, and yes I tried to use logic but I failed, and I have the ability to sit back and say the jury had all the facts presented and they came to a different conclusion, hence I don’t cry or complain, but on the other hand, you and your ilk, didn’t have that ability in the fraud trial, you cried anti-Semitism all the way till today and starting on the 26th you will be back to same coarse excuses.

Bluffer,you lied throughout,praising the prosecution,and ignoring all the lies in the testimony.

147

 Jun 08, 2010 at 12:26 AM formally Says:

Reply to #130  
Anonymous Says:

So lets assume he was only found "NOT GUILTY" but not "found innocent".
On what bases are you now implying that he IS not innocent ??
Do you KNOW for a fact that he knew about minors working in his plant ?
Didi he even know to point out who the minors are ?
Dont you think that the prosecution layed out everything they had but it was not convincing evidence ?
So stop this nonsense bashing of an innocent man for no reason.

I never said anything of the sort all I am trying to say and it is clearly written in the USA law that the jury does not say proclaim innocence all the jury say is not guilty. That is why the jury does not say innocent.

For all of you who claim that you learned Talmud I have my doubts. It isd a simple proclamation that the state did not have enough evidence to proclaim guilt. The jury is not saying the person is innocent. Of course that person is innocent since that is the way he walked into the court before the trail and the jury is saying nothing has changed. But the jury did not and does not say "innocent"
Look at any law book and ask any criminal lawyer what not guilty means.

As I have said that is why even is someone is found "not guilty" one can be sued like OJ in civil court. If the jury verdict would mean Innocent than one could not sue civily.

148

 Jun 08, 2010 at 12:33 AM formally Says:

Reply to #139  
Groiser Chochom Says:

Are you saying that he is guilty. There is no proof that he willfully hired youngsters. Do you have evidence that was not shown?
If you have no point don't push it.

I am just pointing out an error of logic than some have, simply that not guilty is not saying innocent. i say this in general terms.

Just because one thinks a Jew is guilty of a crime does not make one a self hating Jew. Because of such nonsense some Jew take advantage of other Jews whether fraud and molesting children since they know many people are living in fantasy land that frum Jews can never due crime. They did they do and will do in the future just like every other group of people.

PS My comments on this article never ever said or claimed SMR was or is guilty all I said to those who say the jury proclaimed him innocent are wrong a jury never proclaims that, it just says that the evidence is insufficient to convict the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt.

149

 Jun 08, 2010 at 12:36 AM formally Says:

Reply to #126  
Anonymous Says:

Formally, Let's put in simple terms for you:

Every human being's *default* state is "innocent". If they are charged with a crime and then they win the case, they remain in their *default state* which as you recall is... INNOCENT!

Yay, you passed the test.

you are absolutely correct, nevertheless the jury just says "not guilty" the jury does not say innocent s big difference and that goes for every single criminal case in the USA

150

 Jun 08, 2010 at 12:46 AM DK Says:

You haredim owe the American public an apology for making a criminal -- a convicted criminal -- a hero.

Shame on all of you!

151

 Jun 08, 2010 at 12:53 AM formally Says:

Reply to #119  
Anonymous Says:

Thank you VIN for letting a sensible rebuke against this vile menace. Only now after an acquittal has MR formerly a somewhat, twisted, let's say a nice word to say. Mr formerly: if you are of the Jewish faith, may g-d heal your self-hating nature.

I am Jewish and from your attack and others I see you really have nothing to say or you would say it instead of attacking.
Buy your comments and maybe a few others 2 or 3 (I do not mind people refuting my comments intelligently) I case say with full confidence i am much closer to true Torah Judaism than you can even strive for. same goes to 106.
Again I will say look at my comments where did I say in these post a bad word about SMR. All I have been saying is that people who say the jury proclaimed him innocent are wrong according the laws of the country you live in. The verdict was not guilty. If you want to argue and say look at the evidence or none evidence it is clear that he is innocent, no problem I might even agree. However, the jury still only said not guilty.
To bad you cannot stand to hear other with views opposed to. That most likely means you are not sure about your own believes and just spew hate against me.
Thinking based of information that a frum yid is a criminal is not a self hating Jew. I guess I am a self hating Jews since I think Kolco, Montrowitz and the other molesters are guilty of horrible crimes. I do not live in fantasy land frum= innocent

152

 Jun 08, 2010 at 01:15 AM Genug Shoin, already! Says:

Reply to #85  
Genug Shoin! Says:

Judging by some of the commentators, I must paraphrase Bibi's eloquent defense of Israel:

Rubashkin is guilty until proven guilty.

And may I add, even when he is found not-guilty, he is still guilty, because he's guilty until proven guilty.

Long live bias and prejudice, hatred and close-mindedness, lynching and lies.

I think I need to repeat this until I am blue in the face:

Judging by some of the commentators, I must paraphrase Bibi's eloquent defense of Israel:

Rubashkin is guilty until proven guilty.

And may I add, even when he is found not-guilty, he is still guilty, because he's guilty until proven guilty.

Long live bias and prejudice, hatred and close-mindedness, lynching and lies. ”

153

 Jun 08, 2010 at 01:23 AM Anonymous Says:

Reply to #151  
formally Says:

I am Jewish and from your attack and others I see you really have nothing to say or you would say it instead of attacking.
Buy your comments and maybe a few others 2 or 3 (I do not mind people refuting my comments intelligently) I case say with full confidence i am much closer to true Torah Judaism than you can even strive for. same goes to 106.
Again I will say look at my comments where did I say in these post a bad word about SMR. All I have been saying is that people who say the jury proclaimed him innocent are wrong according the laws of the country you live in. The verdict was not guilty. If you want to argue and say look at the evidence or none evidence it is clear that he is innocent, no problem I might even agree. However, the jury still only said not guilty.
To bad you cannot stand to hear other with views opposed to. That most likely means you are not sure about your own believes and just spew hate against me.
Thinking based of information that a frum yid is a criminal is not a self hating Jew. I guess I am a self hating Jews since I think Kolco, Montrowitz and the other molesters are guilty of horrible crimes. I do not live in fantasy land frum= innocent

You sound like a real fool.In american law your innoccent till proven guilty(which in this case you did not follow),so by not finding him guilty,he's innoccent.

154

 Jun 08, 2010 at 01:25 AM Time to Boycott Tav Hayashar Says:

The so called ethical Kashruth, Tav Hayashar that persecuted Rubashkin is attempting to spread their "Ethical Heksher". Its time for Jews who care about Halacha to boycott them. If you see a restaurant with there endorsement tell the owner you will not eat there as long as they carry the symbol of these hypocrites.

155

 Jun 08, 2010 at 02:15 AM Anonymous Says:

Reply to #5  
What? Says:

Nobody's claiming the kids didn't work there. They're claiming that Rubashkin didn't know. So the President was right.

Lay off. You're lucky he managed to fool a jury.

Who the heck are you? Who fooled the jury? What are you talking about? The truth is the President fooled the country. He made people believe he was interested in helping the American people and forging change for the good of the country. HE FOOLED EVERYONE, every single person that voted for him! He is only interested in promoting his own agenda and that includes his only personal vendettas, anti-semitism and anti-Israel propaganda.

156

 Jun 08, 2010 at 02:18 AM Anonymous Says:

Reply to #7  
Anonymous Says:

why just an apology - as soon as SM is declared INNOCENT ON ALL CHARGES a multi-billion $ suit should follow.

I believe there should be a class action law suit brought against ICE to demand accountability for the debacle they caused and the millions of dollars they spent to finance it. The public needs to know exactly WHO was behind it and WHO approved it.

157

 Jun 08, 2010 at 02:26 AM Anonymous Says:

Reply to #12  
Why? Says:

What exactly did he say wrong? Do we now support child labor? What is wrong with you? He was right. Whether or not SMR knew or was guilty, what the president said is 100% valid.

Gee, we used to be into the Torah. Now we're into doing whatever we want for money. Nice.

The president was wrong and it wasn't the first time he spoke out of turn. It is not proper for the president of the United States to make statements on assumptions before he has the facts. Just as he had jumped to conclusions before and tried to make amends with a "beer party" among "friends" to straighten things out. Well is he going to invite SMR over for a beer or is he going to meet him in his cell to talk things over? He had no business making comments on the case without have one hundred and fifty percent proof positive of what he was speaking about, which by the way turned out to be rumor and not fact! That is one of the reasons he should never have been elected president. He didn't have the experience necessary to do the job. He is wet behind the ears and others suffer for his mistakes!

158

 Jun 08, 2010 at 02:31 AM Anonymous Says:

Reply to #12  
Anonymous Says:

I believe he lost his entire livelihood due to these charges! He is owed a lot more than just an apology!

"his" entire livelihood? How about the entire Rubashkin family as well as the family's entire life savings? How about their good name? How about ALL the other families in Postville, Iowa jew and non-jew alike? How about all the immigrants legal or not who were rounded up like animals and treated like murderers in a chain gang, do they not deserve an apology as well?

How about all the Jews in America who have undergone continued anti-Semitism increased due to the wrong messages sent forth from this case???

159

 Jun 08, 2010 at 02:37 AM Anonymous Says:

Reply to #18  
Anonymous Says:

While I share in the euphoria of the findings, to be perfectly honest, he was not found to be innocent. He was found to be "not guilty". A criminal jury is not given the charge to determine innocence. They only determine whether the prosecution has proven there case beyond a reasonable doubt. This is a much higher standard than that of a civil case which only has to be proven by a preponderance of the evidence (more than 50% likely).

To be perfectly honest with you, in no case is the defendant found "innocent". The verdict is read either "guilty" or "not guilty". Get with the program will you please? So why are you trying to twist the facts. According to the Jury foreman they found him not guilty or rather "innocent" of not hiring minors for a few reasons. The first is because the workers lied about their ages and they brought forth false documents. And secondly because he fired a minor when he found one. And third because he refused to hire minors when they tried to apply for jobs when he knew of such cases.

160

 Jun 08, 2010 at 02:40 AM Anonymous Says:

Reply to #20  
??? Says:

We must have watched different trials. They were not fired right away. That's hogwash. Be happy he got away with it. Maybe he can open a sweatshop when he gets out of prison.

Yeah we must have, you must have been reading only what the prosecution said without regard to what the defense or the judge and jury had to say. What exactly are you doing on a Jewish website? Shouldn't you be planning to bust the Gaza blockade?

161

 Jun 08, 2010 at 02:42 AM Anonymous Says:

Reply to #22  
Anonymous Says:

They didn't say he was completely innocent though, in fairness, they were never asked to determine that (and no jury ever is). They were asked to determine whether his guilt was beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Can YOU please explain then what the definition of "beyond a shadow of a doubt" means?

162

 Jun 08, 2010 at 02:51 AM Sherree Belsky Says:

Reply to #24  
Anonymous Says:

"The question is will those who blamed, attacked, and lambasted poor Shalom Rubashkin apologize now? Or will it take them another 104 years as well?
You need to relax and NOT FORGET that this man is guilty of many crimes. Just because he was FOUND innocent of THESE PARTICULAR charges does not mean he was clueless to the kids working there, and he is STILL guilty of fraud.....so NO, he deserves no apology.

Really? Lets turn the tables a bit on you. Maybe YOU can put your thinking cap on for a minute and let your thoughts flow in the other direction. If the truth is that he is not guilty of hiring minors, nor is he guilty of the abuse of employees that was claimed as well then maybe the prosecutors also lied when they charged him with 86 other counts of bank fraud and other issues. After all doesn't this trial prove that the prosecutors had a vendetta against him? They flew in all these immigrants who couldn't tell their "a" from their elbows and couldn't get their lies straight enough to give a plausible testimony, yet they were so desperate to validate their raid they brought them in anyway.

In the Fed trial, the judge had a horse in the race since she herself was in on the raid and she was biased in her rulings. The jury voted according to the judge's temperaments. And please don't forget even though this was a case from Postville, it was moved to Cedar Rapids where the Judge herself resides. These jurors were here own homies.

163

 Jun 08, 2010 at 03:15 AM Anonymous Says:

Reply to #62  
OMG Says:

I is ok to celebrate a finding by the jury of not guilty, as a matter of fact this not guilty verdict, should actually open the eyes of the lopsided majority on this site, nothing better than saying, I feel good for SMR, but to write an editorial by a Rabbi and call for apologies, for what for abusing minors in illegal jobs? How would you feel if, Al Sharpton and company after the Lemrick Nelson first State trial, demanding apologies, the same should be said in this case, the fact children were employed by Agri with or without the direct knowledge of SMR and his family. It is time for Management of Agri to apologize to the people who were directly affected.
Finally I challenge everyone who is celebrating this jury outcome they should evaluate their views about the outcome in the federal case. If you celebrate one you must except the other one.

I would agree with you that an apology would be necessary only if Billmeyer and the other HR supervisors who actually hired these employees and are responsible for this fiasco admitted it and apologized first. Then the Rubashkin family can apologize for trusting the wrong people and for the outcome of that trust.

164

 Jun 08, 2010 at 04:12 AM Anonymous Says:

I am surprised that the Tav Yosher is defined in this article as an orthodox institution. It is Modern Orthodox at best, and apparently not even that. The pathetic attempts at describing the modern approaches to social justice through Torah are ridiculous and immediately reveal that the writers have no knowledge of basic Torah principles - the first one being that Torah does not change according to the whims of society. In fact that single principle define the Conservative and MO movement better than any other. The abuses of workers in the food industry of legend; the revelation is not new. But to single out Jewish establishments and to ignore the huge conglomerates is nothing short of meseerah. This is the second principle of the above movements. Thank G-d they don't have 13.

165

 Jun 08, 2010 at 04:23 AM Anonymous Says:

Reply to #12  
Why? Says:

What exactly did he say wrong? Do we now support child labor? What is wrong with you? He was right. Whether or not SMR knew or was guilty, what the president said is 100% valid.

Gee, we used to be into the Torah. Now we're into doing whatever we want for money. Nice.

What he said wrong was his responding to this particular case. Much larger companies - all food processors - are flouting the law with impunity or at worst being fined token amounts. World governments turn a blind eye in order to keep down the price of food. It was no secret at the time that Rubashkin was targeted because he produced kosher meat. Every possible accusation was thrown at him to shut down the plant. If the President didn't understand that, his political judgement is severely lacking.

166

 Jun 08, 2010 at 04:38 AM Anonymous Says:

Reply to #30  
Anonymous Says:

The President can get away with a lot, and he already has. In this case, he neglected to mention SMR by name, technically freeing him from liability. However, his implication is grave, and it smacks of his ignorance and his bias. I am the commenter who is waiting on the sidelines for BHO to make the one move that justifies impeachment. I can't wait. He deserves it more than anyone else (though WJC and JEC more than earned that distinction).

I would like to hear legal opinion on that. If everyone knows whom he is talking about, why should it not be libel? At all events is demonstrates extremely poor political judgement, knee-jerk reaction to press allegations, trying to ingratiate himself with certain elements of society at others' expense - in short: not the sort of character one should seek in a president.

167

 Jun 08, 2010 at 05:25 AM professor Says:

Reply to #12  
Why? Says:

What exactly did he say wrong? Do we now support child labor? What is wrong with you? He was right. Whether or not SMR knew or was guilty, what the president said is 100% valid.

Gee, we used to be into the Torah. Now we're into doing whatever we want for money. Nice.

Explain yourself. What did Rabashkin do to his employees for money? He had hundreds of workers. Some fooled his underlinks with bogs paperwork. He gained nothing in that area.

168

 Jun 08, 2010 at 06:06 AM PETA protestor Says:

Philip Schein, that low-life from PETA, must be devastated SMR didn't get another 50 years tacked on to a projected 50 year+ sentence.

Oh wait! Schein doesn't care about PEOPLE...he cares about rats & roaches. Like to like, I suppose.

169

 Jun 08, 2010 at 06:08 AM Anonymous Says:

Do any of you geniuses recall OJ Simpsons first trial? He was also found Not Guilty. Was everyone then demanding apologies and saying that the Govt had a vendetta against him? Surely not! Just because one receives a verdict of not guilty doesn't mean that he didn't do the crime and can now sue for back-pay and everything else. All it means is that the jury didn't feel there was enough evidence to convict. This may or may not be the case here - none of us knows if SMR actually committed the crime or not and neither does the jury. Before you all jump to conclusions - remember: Better to keep your mouth shut and let people think you're a fool than open it and prove you're a fool.

170

 Jun 08, 2010 at 07:39 AM Anonymous Says:

Reply to #151  
formally Says:

I am Jewish and from your attack and others I see you really have nothing to say or you would say it instead of attacking.
Buy your comments and maybe a few others 2 or 3 (I do not mind people refuting my comments intelligently) I case say with full confidence i am much closer to true Torah Judaism than you can even strive for. same goes to 106.
Again I will say look at my comments where did I say in these post a bad word about SMR. All I have been saying is that people who say the jury proclaimed him innocent are wrong according the laws of the country you live in. The verdict was not guilty. If you want to argue and say look at the evidence or none evidence it is clear that he is innocent, no problem I might even agree. However, the jury still only said not guilty.
To bad you cannot stand to hear other with views opposed to. That most likely means you are not sure about your own believes and just spew hate against me.
Thinking based of information that a frum yid is a criminal is not a self hating Jew. I guess I am a self hating Jews since I think Kolco, Montrowitz and the other molesters are guilty of horrible crimes. I do not live in fantasy land frum= innocent

Mr formerly; humor me , find a nice thing to say about frum Jews! Why do you bring up molesters now? The answer is -- because the hate for frum Jews is so blatant , that you can't stand the idea that frum Jews are seen in a good light -- and so you dredge up a dark issue that the frum community is unfortunately dealing with. Start seeing your brothers in a good light.

171

 Jun 08, 2010 at 07:58 AM Anonymous Says:

Reply to #163  
Anonymous Says:

I would agree with you that an apology would be necessary only if Billmeyer and the other HR supervisors who actually hired these employees and are responsible for this fiasco admitted it and apologized first. Then the Rubashkin family can apologize for trusting the wrong people and for the outcome of that trust.

There is no ecidence of wrong doing. The same defense as Rubashkin can be applied to Billmeyer as well. And if the state were to cooperate with Agriprocessors, the whole incident could have been avoided. And Postville would not suffer.

172

 Jun 08, 2010 at 08:32 AM Anonymous Says:

Reply to #23  
Benny Says:

VIN Editor - I hate to rain on your parade but being found "not guility" does not mean "innocent." It simply means that the prosecution was unable to prove the charges beyond a "reasonable" doubt. I am delighted that he has been cleared of the charges and hope that this favorable verdict will influence the judge that will soon be sentencing him on his federal convictions.

The "point" is, that he was not found "Guilty"!

173

 Jun 08, 2010 at 08:40 AM Anonymous Says:

Reply to #164  
Anonymous Says:

I am surprised that the Tav Yosher is defined in this article as an orthodox institution. It is Modern Orthodox at best, and apparently not even that. The pathetic attempts at describing the modern approaches to social justice through Torah are ridiculous and immediately reveal that the writers have no knowledge of basic Torah principles - the first one being that Torah does not change according to the whims of society. In fact that single principle define the Conservative and MO movement better than any other. The abuses of workers in the food industry of legend; the revelation is not new. But to single out Jewish establishments and to ignore the huge conglomerates is nothing short of meseerah. This is the second principle of the above movements. Thank G-d they don't have 13.

One word:

Ribbit. The Torah she b'chtav prohibits it in three places. And I've not read anywhere that the Torah Sheh b'al peh permits it.

So, here we are. Charging interest Jew to Jew. Explain this to an objective Reform Jew.

174

 Jun 08, 2010 at 09:21 AM hear nur Says:

formally finds compassion in his heart for a "poor girl who didn't know any better". "Poor, poor" girl lost her eyes as a result of siding with those who openly call for our nation's destruction.
And yet his evil heart is full of hate for a Jew who has not hurt a fly.
I wonder why.

175

 Jun 08, 2010 at 09:39 AM Shaul in Monsey Says:

Reply to #137  
Anonymous Says:

Absolutely unfounded!
The defense did not admit that minors worked there. They proved that if they knew someone was a minor, they were immediately fired. And all others were thought to be adults. Even the government had no actual documents proving ages of the workers.
Please state facts. There are other websites for fiction.

Read the in court reports available online. You are wrong. The defense was that SMR had no knowledge or responsibility for the employees, that it was Heshy's job. I am stating fact. You are stating what you wish. There was no question that minors were employed illegally - the state was unable to convince the jury that SMR "intentionally, deliberately and knowingly" was involved in the process. The legal bar was too high, which is why Iowa has revised the law. Don't get me wrong, I'm glad he was acquitted, he certainly has enough on his plate - but in no way does this vindicate SMR or AGRI. If this trial was fair, so was the first.

176

 Jun 08, 2010 at 10:18 AM Anonymous Says:

Reply to #175  
Shaul in Monsey Says:

Read the in court reports available online. You are wrong. The defense was that SMR had no knowledge or responsibility for the employees, that it was Heshy's job. I am stating fact. You are stating what you wish. There was no question that minors were employed illegally - the state was unable to convince the jury that SMR "intentionally, deliberately and knowingly" was involved in the process. The legal bar was too high, which is why Iowa has revised the law. Don't get me wrong, I'm glad he was acquitted, he certainly has enough on his plate - but in no way does this vindicate SMR or AGRI. If this trial was fair, so was the first.

Shaul,

A very clear response was made to your same foolish argument on the other thread last night. So you posted it here. Posting a flawed argument a second time does not prove a point or make the argument any better.

And no matter what you are saying, I am sure that you, like the dishonest people at the Forward, Heksher Tzeddek and PETA ,as well as your addled friend Formally or formelly (if he can remember how he mispells it) are devestated that Mr. Rubashkin was found not guilty. You would have been so happy to crow about a guilty plea.

And for the record, of the more than 9,000 charges originally leveled against SMR regarding this matter, and they were leveled against him personally, they could not even get one to stick? If that is not proof of innocence, what is?

It is time for you to bury your head in shame and slink back to the slop puddle you wallow in with formelly and just be quiet while you play with each other.

177

 Jun 08, 2010 at 10:21 AM Jani Says:

Reply to #83  
Michoel in London Says:

So many expressions of jubilation, I just wanted to add mine, just for the Malochim in Shomayim to see and report.

My prayer is for a refuoh shleimoh to all those self hating Jews who have a persistent need to demonize others whom in their eyes were having a good time making money, unlike themselves. I am convinced 95% of them are stuck in a cubicle 9-5 and from there they either go home to a miserable marriage or to their parents, as still single in their 40s. May Hashem grant them some relief from whatever nags at them, thus the Yidden who are going thru tremendous yissurim, will be relieved from the extra unnecessary negative energy and Keetrughim these people are generating.

May we all soon rejoice in the great upcoming news that Sholom Rubashkin will be found NOT GUILTY on all charges.

Yidden, let’s prepare ourselves to mark our calendars with that date, commemorating the great achievement Klal Yisroel realized by uniting in prayer for one Yid, no matter to what group he belonged. A Yid is a Yid, and we shall be unashamedly biased and always judge every Yid in a favourable light.

MOSHIACH, you can come now, we are ready and we proved it!

Beautiful! I couldn't agree with you more. Any Jew that goes against another Jew is trangressing the mitzvah of loving every Jew like ourselves. Great job Michoel

178

 Jun 08, 2010 at 10:30 AM Anonymous Says:

Reply to #5  
What? Says:

Nobody's claiming the kids didn't work there. They're claiming that Rubashkin didn't know. So the President was right.

Lay off. You're lucky he managed to fool a jury.

So you were on the jury? You examined the evidence they did, or did you get your evidence from op-ed pieces?

179

 Jun 08, 2010 at 10:59 AM Anonymous Says:

Reply to #58  
not so Says:

I've read each and every word of the trial. I know, you'd believe he was innocent even if there were pictures of him whipping Guatemalan babies. Sorry, I'm not Lubavitch.

Oh, and he's not my brother. My brother doesn't violate laws of kashrut, nor does he exploit children.

And you would believe each and every piece of garbage written about him just as long as it is garbage. BUT if there is an ounce of truth that is a decent piece of truth, that you would not believe. Go back into your dark corner your sinas chinam is showing.

180

 Jun 08, 2010 at 11:16 AM Anonymous Says:

Reply to #79  
HH Says:

Couldn't agree with you more.
Does anybody honestly believe he was clueless to what was going on his business? He chose not to get involved so he could claim he was unaware. No case doesn't not equal no crime.

Yes, the hiring was handled by his human resources department who were given strict instructions about hiring practices which were explained not only by one but by many witnesses. This is normal operating procedures for companies with hundreds and up to thousand or more employees. People who asked him for "personal" favors knowing what the rules were about hiring underage workers were turned down unequivocally by SMR. In addition, not only underage workers but illegal immigrants were hired by the same people who mishandled and continued to mishandle the hiring of employees according to the rules of employment and proof of legal status. Although the buck may stop at the top, which would actually be with the father and not the son, it has to start somewhere and that would be first the responsibility with the decisions of the person in charge of hiring. That person or group of people lied through their teeth and did not admit any responsibility at all in public. They cut themselves deals and lied for the prosecution to get off easy.

Anyone who knows anything about business or how this business was run knows that SMR did not get involved, it was not his headache.

181

 Jun 08, 2010 at 11:50 AM OMG Says:

Reply to #146  
Anonymous Says:

Bluffer,you lied throughout,praising the prosecution,and ignoring all the lies in the testimony.

Why would call me *bluffer*, I am the one who said that it was me, not Shaul, and since when someone is giving an opinion called a lie, get your arguments straight and then come to the table.

182

 Jun 08, 2010 at 12:02 PM OMG Says:

Reply to #163  
Anonymous Says:

I would agree with you that an apology would be necessary only if Billmeyer and the other HR supervisors who actually hired these employees and are responsible for this fiasco admitted it and apologized first. Then the Rubashkin family can apologize for trusting the wrong people and for the outcome of that trust.

If your scenario is true, then why didn’t the defense put up these people and cross exam them until they admit on the stand? Past that, in my view it is not going to make a difference to SMR sentencing hearing what Billmeyer and the others would be saying, therefore, I would save my prayers on what I believe could help SMR, in the mean time you could still argue for the next 25 years (SMR’s potential incarceration) why you are right and Billmeyer should apologies.

183

 Jun 08, 2010 at 12:14 PM Anonymous Says:

Reply to #175  
Shaul in Monsey Says:

Read the in court reports available online. You are wrong. The defense was that SMR had no knowledge or responsibility for the employees, that it was Heshy's job. I am stating fact. You are stating what you wish. There was no question that minors were employed illegally - the state was unable to convince the jury that SMR "intentionally, deliberately and knowingly" was involved in the process. The legal bar was too high, which is why Iowa has revised the law. Don't get me wrong, I'm glad he was acquitted, he certainly has enough on his plate - but in no way does this vindicate SMR or AGRI. If this trial was fair, so was the first.

Liar again,you are remorseless.Heshy was perhaps 1% of the case,heshy barely made it if at all in the summary at the conclusion.That was not the defense case presented..

185

 Jun 08, 2010 at 12:20 PM Anonymous Says:

Reply to #181  
OMG Says:

Why would call me *bluffer*, I am the one who said that it was me, not Shaul, and since when someone is giving an opinion called a lie, get your arguments straight and then come to the table.

I'm calling you a bluffer for good reason,You always claimed rubashkin's case was weak,while you cheered on the prosecution,while it was so obvious in this case what a sham the prosecution created.You never pointed ou any weaknesses in the prosecution even when it was obvious.Because you were deseprate he should get convicted.Of course like all the other bluffers,you later claimed you were happy about it.Don't worry you fooled no one.

187

 Jun 08, 2010 at 12:36 PM Anonymous Says:

Reply to #150  
DK Says:

You haredim owe the American public an apology for making a criminal -- a convicted criminal -- a hero.

Shame on all of you!

Take your hatred back to Israel! In Israel one can understand a bit the hatred (the army) But here it has no room and no place. GO AWAY!!!

190

 Jun 08, 2010 at 01:55 PM OMG Says:

Reply to #185  
Anonymous Says:

I'm calling you a bluffer for good reason,You always claimed rubashkin's case was weak,while you cheered on the prosecution,while it was so obvious in this case what a sham the prosecution created.You never pointed ou any weaknesses in the prosecution even when it was obvious.Because you were deseprate he should get convicted.Of course like all the other bluffers,you later claimed you were happy about it.Don't worry you fooled no one.

First of all you are the making up stories, just to confirm your point, that I am a bluffer, the fact is in the 3 week of the trial, I maybe wrote a handful of post regarding this trial, and I never ever claimed that I have legal training as matter of fact Shaul called me on my view and I wrote that I purposely wrote in two separate posts that I am only pontificating, and I cited to Shaul the meaning of pontificating
“to speak about something in a knowing and self-important way, especially when not qualified to do so”
So it was there always what I said, what kind of bluff is that, what do you want me to do? Go to 770 and do a kozak dance?

191

 Jun 08, 2010 at 02:57 PM OMG Says:

Reply to #131  
hear nur Says:

Okay, sharpen those swords, the dual is starting!
You are saying that "It’s totally disingenuous to celebrate one trial and point to its outcome as the model jurisprudence but the other trial, were SMR was found guilty as unjust..." So I shouldn't make comparisons, but you are doing the same thing when you write" in both case the system did what it suppose to do..."
In addition, you have not answered the simple question of how the state can bring a case against someone without having proof of crimes the defendant committed?! The state cannot prosecute people for allegedly breaking the law if they don't have any proof of the alleged crime.
You keep on dredging up the fact that the prosecution is putting up a good case. Of course, if the judge is steering the trial in one direction then they have a strong case. The defense cannot put up a strong case if the judge repeatedly is derailing their chances of a fair trial.
You look at everything in a logical fashion and can't comprehend illogical reasoning. Well, baseless hatred against another Jew and anti-Semitism is illogical! But whether you comprehend it or not, it still exists!

Part # 1
Before I start I must say that I didn’t notice you reply that is why it took some time to reply, now let me try to explain to you the system and hopefully you will understand that there is no contradiction in my views about both trials. Our adversary legal system is set up that if a person commits a crime against another person or society; it is the job of the prosecutor to bring charges against the person or entity, it is the job of the prosecutor to decide if there is enough evidence to go forth, the threshold is much lower than the beyond a reasonable doubt which you need for a conviction, evidence of the crime is the fact that children did indeed work in Agri, regardless if SMR personally know that children are working in the plant, that is enough to bring charges . On the other hand the defense job is to argue and use cross examination to show that the prosecution didn’t meet their legal burden. The jury decided who met their burden, based on my understanding of the system I would say that in both cases the system worked, the jury did what they perceived to be the right verdict. I see myself only as an opinionated, they see all the evidence and they rely of facts, not hyperbole. But you are a Monday morning quarterback.

192

 Jun 08, 2010 at 02:57 PM OMG Says:

Reply to #131  
hear nur Says:

Okay, sharpen those swords, the dual is starting!
You are saying that "It’s totally disingenuous to celebrate one trial and point to its outcome as the model jurisprudence but the other trial, were SMR was found guilty as unjust..." So I shouldn't make comparisons, but you are doing the same thing when you write" in both case the system did what it suppose to do..."
In addition, you have not answered the simple question of how the state can bring a case against someone without having proof of crimes the defendant committed?! The state cannot prosecute people for allegedly breaking the law if they don't have any proof of the alleged crime.
You keep on dredging up the fact that the prosecution is putting up a good case. Of course, if the judge is steering the trial in one direction then they have a strong case. The defense cannot put up a strong case if the judge repeatedly is derailing their chances of a fair trial.
You look at everything in a logical fashion and can't comprehend illogical reasoning. Well, baseless hatred against another Jew and anti-Semitism is illogical! But whether you comprehend it or not, it still exists!

Part # 2
Now let’s look at the next process in the fraud case, from what I see Judge Reade, is a pro prosecution Republican conservative law and order type judge, definitely not my type, I am progressive, but SMR has the hand which was dealt him. The only hope he has is in the Appellate Court, were the Court will take a second look at the Judge Reade’s legal rulings, and if they find that your argument is right and Judge Reade rulings were so egregious that SMR couldn’t have a fair trial, the Court would send it back for a new trial, is that possible yes, probable no, and I would still say, as I said now, that the system worked again, even with totally different results, the results is not what makes a system, it is the checks and balances that needs to work to make it fair. And the Appellate Court is another check and balance, all the way to the Supreme Court. For all the research I did on Judge Reade, it seems she knows what she is doing. Only time will tell.

193

 Jun 08, 2010 at 03:56 PM Anonymous Says:

Reply to #190  
OMG Says:

First of all you are the making up stories, just to confirm your point, that I am a bluffer, the fact is in the 3 week of the trial, I maybe wrote a handful of post regarding this trial, and I never ever claimed that I have legal training as matter of fact Shaul called me on my view and I wrote that I purposely wrote in two separate posts that I am only pontificating, and I cited to Shaul the meaning of pontificating
“to speak about something in a knowing and self-important way, especially when not qualified to do so”
So it was there always what I said, what kind of bluff is that, what do you want me to do? Go to 770 and do a kozak dance?

A handful?! wow,that's news! you wrote quite a few and you tried to argue from a legal point of view.Always cheering on against rubashkin.And you did it last time to.You didn't even bother to correct yourself to dave's correction's .And he was right and you were totally ignorant with your "educating us" nonsense posts.

194

 Jun 08, 2010 at 05:05 PM Shaul in Monsey Says:

Reply to #183  
Anonymous Says:

Liar again,you are remorseless.Heshy was perhaps 1% of the case,heshy barely made it if at all in the summary at the conclusion.That was not the defense case presented..

There isn't a Rubashkin on this planet who will ever be giving business ethics and morals shiurim. Heshy was 1%? What a joke. HE WAS AN OWNER. He was management. Whatever Billmeyer did was on his watch. SMR wasn't acquitted because there were no minors working at AGRI, he was acquitted because there was no proof he knowingly participated in the employment of minors. The defense admitted that every witness that testified was a minor - only that they were smart liars who fooled the Rubashkins. Yeah, the Guatemalans outsmarted the chabadnicks, that was the defense. Sure. Bottom line is this acquittal was not a vindication of AGRI - who plead guilty to the violations - or SMR - who is a convicted felon.

195

 Jun 08, 2010 at 05:44 PM Anonymous Says:

Reply to #63  
Anonymous Says:

The author might want to actually consider thinking before he runs off to hurriedly pen this nonsense. The fact is that the Rubashkin defense admits that Agriprocessors hired underage labors, they only contest who actually did the hiring. So on that point Obama was correct in his assertion that underage laborers were being hired. Additionally, there are numerous meat-packing plants throughout Iowa, most of which were engaging in the same behavior (hiring illegals -- often underage), so how it is you conclude that Obama was exclusively targeting Agriprocessors when he makes no mention of them by name is baffling.

It's safe to say, that like many of the people who comment on this site, you're hate for Obama runs so deep, you can't bring yourself to admit that the only people who should be apologizing for anything is Agriprocessors. Hiring illegal aliens is a crime in the United States, and worse, hiring underage illegals is immoral.

the defense did not admit anything of the kind. They said "IF" there were underage workers it would have been due to the fact that workers "LIED" on applications and provided false proof of age and legal status. Furthermore it is impossible to tell from appearance alone how old anyone was. To top even that they proved that in safety gear hat, coat and possibly glasses, it was impossible not only to determine age but who any employee was.

In addition, the defense proved that SMR was not responsible for the hiring and that it was also possible that any employee who saw SMR walk through the plant could have easily mistaken him for his brother and vis a versa. Just as he could not recognize one employee for another or determine age because of their work gear.

Obama has been digging his own grave since he began his presidency by jumping to conclusions, siding with terrorists and forming opinions on innuendoes, rumors and assumptions rather than facts. This man is a bigot and not a president of ALL of the people rather some of the people. He is also not a friend of the jews or of Israel who have been America's greatest ally for decades. Those who voted for him have to validate!

196

 Jun 08, 2010 at 05:50 PM Anonymous Says:

Reply to #91  
formally Says:

Obama

Obama did not lie there where minors working there even SMR own defense admitted that. The question was did SMR know, or did the kids fool the company that they where older and he did his best to make sure minors did not work for him.

By finding him not guilty, even to those who have no idea that not guilty does not mean innocent minors still worked there.

Really, what is wrong with you people. Show me the quote where the defense admits to anything??????? Show me where the defense admits "agri did have minors working there, we admit that". Show me, OK! If you can't show it, then shut up already!

197

 Jun 08, 2010 at 05:52 PM Anonymous Says:

Reply to #97  
bigwheeel Says:

There's a different reason OJ was acquitted. (Even though in my court of opinion he should have been acquitted on different grounds. Not racial.) The color of his skin and the color of the jury's skin matched. And the "judge" was a typical product of a "Hollywood Wannabee". Or Dreamabee!

OJ was acquitted because it was a circus and not a courtroom. They were playing to the cameras and not to true justice. That is why he was acquitted.

198

 Jun 08, 2010 at 06:00 PM Anonymous Says:

Reply to #98  
hear nur Says:

OMG and Shaul in Monsey asked the same question on a different thread regarding SMR's acquital. Why the supposedly double standards from the heimishe oilem which bashes the government for anti-Semitism because of their persecution of SMR and yet when he is found not guilty we still believe he was/is hatefully targeted?
Here's why:
What if the witnesses were savvy liars and when questioned knew how to fib well? There are numerous cases where people were found to be innocent many years later because the witnesses were found to be lying.
In this case the witnesses were very clearly lying and any person could see through their lies so he was found not guilty. After all, not everyone is so blind to justice as some cruel posters here.
The question here is really this; what prompted the state to spend millions of dollars to prosecute an innocent person, without any shred of hard evidence other than the presumed illegality the prosecutors alleged Rubashkin was guilty of?
And just because the prosecutors where able to present a more solid case in the Federal trial, does not mean that that case is not hyped up by the Feds as this one was.
Sinas chinum and anti-Semitism were the cause.

I'll tell you why. Because the ICE agents and the prosecutors had a vendetta. Somebody started the ball rolling. No doubt some politicians in Iowa or Washington connected to the Union who wanted to bring SMR down. It had nothing to do with illegal immigration and everything to do with destroying SMR. And once it was put into place and the lies of illegal weapons and drugs that was made up in order to get the raid started was proved false and all the millions of tax dollars were spent for nothing and the horrendous, humiliating army like invasion of innocent people and the destruction of the economy and humanity of the entire town they had to find a reason for doing what they did and they still needed to bring SMR down. So they kept at and until they closed him down and forced him into bankruptcy, confiscated all his paperwork and computers and caused him, his employees, family and the entire community unimaginable hardships.

If it wasn't for the false accusations, the unnecessary and unwarranted raid, the vendetta against an innocent man, the undue pressure heaped upon him, the interference in running the business there wouldn't have been any fraud charges or anything else.

199

 Jun 08, 2010 at 06:02 PM Anonymous Says:

Reply to #194  
Shaul in Monsey Says:

There isn't a Rubashkin on this planet who will ever be giving business ethics and morals shiurim. Heshy was 1%? What a joke. HE WAS AN OWNER. He was management. Whatever Billmeyer did was on his watch. SMR wasn't acquitted because there were no minors working at AGRI, he was acquitted because there was no proof he knowingly participated in the employment of minors. The defense admitted that every witness that testified was a minor - only that they were smart liars who fooled the Rubashkins. Yeah, the Guatemalans outsmarted the chabadnicks, that was the defense. Sure. Bottom line is this acquittal was not a vindication of AGRI - who plead guilty to the violations - or SMR - who is a convicted felon.

Lies spew from you.Heshy ws 1% of the defense,i made that clear.And you ignored that.And the owner claim doesn't even start herein this case,that's why the charges against the father was dropped.without any deal.Your lies continue,the defense proved minors were thrown out.And your line about chabad shows only your sick hatred(and i am a missnnaged),continue hating saul.Your making a real fool out of yourself,oh you accept the conviction means he's guilty,no room for error there.But here?it means nothing.

200

 Jun 08, 2010 at 06:02 PM Anonymous Says:

Reply to #115  
iish emmes says Says:

Shaul- what are you talking about. ? The question is not of guilt in the fraud case. The question (supported by six former US justice dept atty Generals) is whether the prosecutors were overly zealous such as "no bail due running away to Israel" despite extradition treaty and previous bail.
Asking for a "life sentence"? that is what the anti-Jewish attitude came from. Did you read what the congressmen signed prior to his trial or Pres. Obamas comments during his campaign> Do u know how many illegal workers work in the Agricultural field in California and no one has said a word. The conduct ofthe trial is at issue here not his guilt. Read the paper signed by the congressmen. Where are the drugs? guns? that is at issue!

No why should Shaul care about that? Do you expect him to back down and admit he was wrong? Do you expect him to retract what he has said and admit that maybe some of the things he read in the paper or even in the court documents were false accusations agains an innocent man?

201

 Jun 08, 2010 at 06:04 PM Anonymous Says:

Reply to #114  
OMG Says:

I know that sooner or later I will run into you, exactly my point, that neither the federal nor the state cases had anything to do with Anti-Semitism, in both case the system did what it suppose to do, in the federal the government prevailed because they prevail over 90% of the time. They know how to put on a case and usually their summations are to the point and articled. It’s totally disingenuous to celebrate one trial and point to its outcome as the model jurisprudence but the other trial, were SMR was found guilty as unjust, Anti-Semitic, anti Jewish Slaughter rituals, all the rest of your arguments are all boiler made excuses, without any logical foundation. I will not second-guess the prosecution ability, but I will tell you that in our judicial everybody has a part to play, the state is just doing what it suppose to do, to prosecute people who allegedly broke the law.

Are you saying that when a prisoner is hurt they always wait till infection and fever sets in before they are seen and treated? Especially if the infliction is caused at the prison by the guards themselves? This is normal operating procedures for ALL prisoners?

202

 Jun 08, 2010 at 06:07 PM Anonymous Says:

Reply to #190  
OMG Says:

First of all you are the making up stories, just to confirm your point, that I am a bluffer, the fact is in the 3 week of the trial, I maybe wrote a handful of post regarding this trial, and I never ever claimed that I have legal training as matter of fact Shaul called me on my view and I wrote that I purposely wrote in two separate posts that I am only pontificating, and I cited to Shaul the meaning of pontificating
“to speak about something in a knowing and self-important way, especially when not qualified to do so”
So it was there always what I said, what kind of bluff is that, what do you want me to do? Go to 770 and do a kozak dance?

I never claimed you had legal training.But somehow that never stopped you from your attacks against SMR.And your a liar 10 times over,you only called yourself that,after someone called you out.And you posted at least 16 posts just on the article,state rests case against rubashkin.And you went at length to trie to show maybe maybe the ceo is guilty in such a case.This is probaly going to be my last post to ou.I don't like dealing with liars.

203

 Jun 08, 2010 at 06:08 PM Anonymous Says:

Reply to #118  
PMO Says:

One must not forget that it was BUSH, yes BUSH who brought the charges against Rubashkin and set this whole thing in motion. It was BUSH's justice department who is responsible for starting all of this.

The analysis in the article is pretty good. However, blaming OBAMA for this is like blaming Obama for the Mabul. He was in no position to have ANYTHING to do with starting either of them. This action was publicly supported by countless people in Bush's justice department, the FBI and many members of Congress (all Republican by the way).

It is simply amazing how short the memories of some people really are.

As President of the United States, he has an obligation to ALL his constituents and he has a responsibility to behave like a leader. This means he needs to know the facts before he mouths off. The proper answer for the President of any country is "I can't comment until I have verified the facts". This president is in to sensationalism. He likes getting his name in the paper. He likes to see himself on TV. He goes by the old adage, any press is good press. He is a foolish as Dinkins when he said in regard to the Crown Heights riots "let them vent". Yes Obama is as ineffective and inappropriate as a president as Dinkins was as a mayor. He should be impeached for the problems he is causing.

204

 Jun 08, 2010 at 06:15 PM PMO Says:

Reply to #135  
Anonymous Says:

You do have a point. BUT , did you hear how Helen Thomas put her foot into her mouth and effectively eneded her career? Mr obama on his campaign trail indicted rubashkin, I don't remember his exact words. This is a fact no one can deny.

Actually, he never mentioned Rubashkin by name. He only mentioned that there were underage and illegal workers in meat packing jobs.

205

 Jun 08, 2010 at 06:24 PM Anonymous Says:

Reply to #169  
Anonymous Says:

Do any of you geniuses recall OJ Simpsons first trial? He was also found Not Guilty. Was everyone then demanding apologies and saying that the Govt had a vendetta against him? Surely not! Just because one receives a verdict of not guilty doesn't mean that he didn't do the crime and can now sue for back-pay and everything else. All it means is that the jury didn't feel there was enough evidence to convict. This may or may not be the case here - none of us knows if SMR actually committed the crime or not and neither does the jury. Before you all jump to conclusions - remember: Better to keep your mouth shut and let people think you're a fool than open it and prove you're a fool.

For all of you sick people who have the utmost audacity to compare this case with that of OJ Simpson who committed cold blooded murder of not only his wife's friend but also his wife, the mother of his children, when oh when are you going to stop!!!!!

There is no comparison, ok? Do I need to say it again???? THERE IS NO COMPARISON!!!! OJ is a murder, a thief and a monster. He committed murder. He stole the life of two innocent people. THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO COMPARISONS HERE.

SMR is guilty of running a slaughterhouse and providing kosher meat and reasonable prices. He is also guilty of not allowing a Union to bust into his business. Those are his sins! He has not committed murder and he does not deserve to be compared in any way, shape or form to a murderer. Got it? Lets move on.

206

 Jun 08, 2010 at 06:28 PM Anonymous Says:

Reply to #175  
Shaul in Monsey Says:

Read the in court reports available online. You are wrong. The defense was that SMR had no knowledge or responsibility for the employees, that it was Heshy's job. I am stating fact. You are stating what you wish. There was no question that minors were employed illegally - the state was unable to convince the jury that SMR "intentionally, deliberately and knowingly" was involved in the process. The legal bar was too high, which is why Iowa has revised the law. Don't get me wrong, I'm glad he was acquitted, he certainly has enough on his plate - but in no way does this vindicate SMR or AGRI. If this trial was fair, so was the first.

Sorry shaul but you are wrong. The judge himself said that the witnesses were not convincing because of their common practice of lying all the time. So there is a "question" whether minors were employed illegally since there was a huge question of who were the minors and there was also a huge question of whether or not SMR knew about it. It is a shame that you can't admit you were wrong.

207

 Jun 08, 2010 at 07:24 PM OMG Says:

Reply to #193  
Anonymous Says:

A handful?! wow,that's news! you wrote quite a few and you tried to argue from a legal point of view.Always cheering on against rubashkin.And you did it last time to.You didn't even bother to correct yourself to dave's correction's .And he was right and you were totally ignorant with your "educating us" nonsense posts.

II seems that regardless what I say you will come back with the same discredited arguments, therefore, I will reframe from a back and forth shouting match, because you are either not able, or willing to have an gentleman’s debate, the fact is that during the trial in 3 different posting I wrote that I am *pontification* meaning that I am speculating without any legal training as to the outcome, but you are now saying that I was macerating my views, that is a boldface lie.
P.S. far from it, I am trying to educate you, you the knower all, how stupid of me.

208

 Jun 08, 2010 at 08:01 PM Anonymous Says:

A request: For every five minutes spoken or writing about Rubashkin, can we type one line that says: A Tefillah to Hashem - Please free Gilad Shalit soon!
I think this would be very productive.

209

 Jun 08, 2010 at 08:29 PM hear nur Says:

Reply to #192  
OMG Says:

Part # 2
Now let’s look at the next process in the fraud case, from what I see Judge Reade, is a pro prosecution Republican conservative law and order type judge, definitely not my type, I am progressive, but SMR has the hand which was dealt him. The only hope he has is in the Appellate Court, were the Court will take a second look at the Judge Reade’s legal rulings, and if they find that your argument is right and Judge Reade rulings were so egregious that SMR couldn’t have a fair trial, the Court would send it back for a new trial, is that possible yes, probable no, and I would still say, as I said now, that the system worked again, even with totally different results, the results is not what makes a system, it is the checks and balances that needs to work to make it fair. And the Appellate Court is another check and balance, all the way to the Supreme Court. For all the research I did on Judge Reade, it seems she knows what she is doing. Only time will tell.

This whole case against Rubashkin was unprecented! And you keep on repeating that the system worked! Give me a break!
The outcome of both trials depends/depended on a number of issues that make/ made the final sentence possible. However that has nothing to do with those who were responsible for SMR's downfall . You will not be able to show me one case where the state assumed that an employer willingly hired minors and spent millions of dollars to bring them from a different country to testify. But you probably don't see anything wrong with that. I'm not even going to talk about the unprecedented actions the federal gov. took. It doesn't mean that the case isn't full of baloney like the state's case was. It just means that it was harder to prove the truth because the prosecutors were given a lot of leeway by the judge who didn't allow that for the defense.
Therefore, if you continue to say Judge Reade seems to know what she is doing, then I'm right about you CONCERNING YOURSELF WITH THE PROSECUTION and therefore PONTIFICATING and don't fool yourself into thinking you are a neutral observer of this case. You as neutral an observer of this case as the UN is of Israel.

210

 Jun 08, 2010 at 09:12 PM PMO Says:

Reply to #203  
Anonymous Says:

As President of the United States, he has an obligation to ALL his constituents and he has a responsibility to behave like a leader. This means he needs to know the facts before he mouths off. The proper answer for the President of any country is "I can't comment until I have verified the facts". This president is in to sensationalism. He likes getting his name in the paper. He likes to see himself on TV. He goes by the old adage, any press is good press. He is a foolish as Dinkins when he said in regard to the Crown Heights riots "let them vent". Yes Obama is as ineffective and inappropriate as a president as Dinkins was as a mayor. He should be impeached for the problems he is causing.

So what statement was Bush making when he rounded up Rubashkin with half his employees and threw them in prison? What statement was Bush making when they levied HUNDREDS of charges against Rubashkin? Was that not the same thing?

Secondly, Obama never mentioned Rubashkin or Agriprocessors by name.

As for Obama being ineffective. This shows that you get your news from infortainers and nowhere else. Obama has accomplished all of the (horrible) things he set out to do. He passed his stimulus package, he passed his health insurance bill, he is about to repeal "don't ask don't tell" easily. To say he has a liberal agenda is true. To say he is ineffective is a lie.

212

 Jun 08, 2010 at 10:05 PM OMG Says:

Reply to #209  
hear nur Says:

This whole case against Rubashkin was unprecented! And you keep on repeating that the system worked! Give me a break!
The outcome of both trials depends/depended on a number of issues that make/ made the final sentence possible. However that has nothing to do with those who were responsible for SMR's downfall . You will not be able to show me one case where the state assumed that an employer willingly hired minors and spent millions of dollars to bring them from a different country to testify. But you probably don't see anything wrong with that. I'm not even going to talk about the unprecedented actions the federal gov. took. It doesn't mean that the case isn't full of baloney like the state's case was. It just means that it was harder to prove the truth because the prosecutors were given a lot of leeway by the judge who didn't allow that for the defense.
Therefore, if you continue to say Judge Reade seems to know what she is doing, then I'm right about you CONCERNING YOURSELF WITH THE PROSECUTION and therefore PONTIFICATING and don't fool yourself into thinking you are a neutral observer of this case. You as neutral an observer of this case as the UN is of Israel.

Up to now I did have respect for position, even though I sometimes robustly disagree with your position, because by and large when challenge, you would comeback with an explanation or even an apology, and that is appreciated, but this time you lost me, because I wrote that it seems that Judge Reade knows what she is doing, that was not a compliment that was my speculation that she decided to forgo the normal sentencing structure i.e. get the department of parole report, hear the defendant statement and dish it out. She decided to hold a formal hearing, and the defense could put on whoever they want, and after the mini trial, she decided to push off the sentencing for two more months, why all this, because one of the items the Appellate Court would look at is, was the sentencing fair, did it show bias, so in my uneducated view Judge Reade, is crossing the T’s and doting the I’s. But by no means am I punishing the prosecution side, I hope and pray that somehow Judge Reade, finds in her heart to do the right thing, and see all the mitigating factors, and take that into her account. But as a pessimist I don’t see it that way because she is know in the field as a hardcore law and order Judge. However instated of being a realist you are advocate for SMR and may I say, proudly so, therefore, I don’t expect you to be unbiased and see it my way. But don’t say that I am biased to the prosecution. I believe that myself and maybe a handful are actually totally unbiased, but praying for the best.
Finally your claim that Federal prosecution was unprecedented, you are wrong there are dime a dozen fraud cases going on every day all over the country, you are just dancing yourself into frenzy, with a few thousand radical right-wingers who see some type conspiracy, against Jews. Sorry I am not one of those.

213

 Jun 08, 2010 at 11:16 PM Anonymous Says:

Reply to #212  
OMG Says:

Up to now I did have respect for position, even though I sometimes robustly disagree with your position, because by and large when challenge, you would comeback with an explanation or even an apology, and that is appreciated, but this time you lost me, because I wrote that it seems that Judge Reade knows what she is doing, that was not a compliment that was my speculation that she decided to forgo the normal sentencing structure i.e. get the department of parole report, hear the defendant statement and dish it out. She decided to hold a formal hearing, and the defense could put on whoever they want, and after the mini trial, she decided to push off the sentencing for two more months, why all this, because one of the items the Appellate Court would look at is, was the sentencing fair, did it show bias, so in my uneducated view Judge Reade, is crossing the T’s and doting the I’s. But by no means am I punishing the prosecution side, I hope and pray that somehow Judge Reade, finds in her heart to do the right thing, and see all the mitigating factors, and take that into her account. But as a pessimist I don’t see it that way because she is know in the field as a hardcore law and order Judge. However instated of being a realist you are advocate for SMR and may I say, proudly so, therefore, I don’t expect you to be unbiased and see it my way. But don’t say that I am biased to the prosecution. I believe that myself and maybe a handful are actually totally unbiased, but praying for the best.
Finally your claim that Federal prosecution was unprecedented, you are wrong there are dime a dozen fraud cases going on every day all over the country, you are just dancing yourself into frenzy, with a few thousand radical right-wingers who see some type conspiracy, against Jews. Sorry I am not one of those.

In addition to your illusions about neutrality you also have comprehension problems because I have repeatedly pointed out that it's not the fraud charge itself that's the problem, but the fact that they have distorted the truth and are not prosecuting him only for the fraud that he commited but also charged him for stealing money (when is stating the wrong amount of assets one has considered stealing? Never, only in this case), they originally called for a lifetime sentence and other disgusting uprecented actions the prosecutors have taken. Additionally the government's meddling has caused the company to collapse.
You are not smart at all, but extremely naive to not realize that there are some people with a hidden agenda out to get Rubashkin. Your small-mindedness makes it hard for you to realize that there's something bigger than just what's in the papers going on here.
In any case, I can repeat myself until I'm blue in the face but your evil heart is hiding under the cover of an unbiased pontificator (ahem) and will not accept the truth.

214

 Jun 08, 2010 at 11:30 PM hear nur Says:

Reply to #212  
OMG Says:

Up to now I did have respect for position, even though I sometimes robustly disagree with your position, because by and large when challenge, you would comeback with an explanation or even an apology, and that is appreciated, but this time you lost me, because I wrote that it seems that Judge Reade knows what she is doing, that was not a compliment that was my speculation that she decided to forgo the normal sentencing structure i.e. get the department of parole report, hear the defendant statement and dish it out. She decided to hold a formal hearing, and the defense could put on whoever they want, and after the mini trial, she decided to push off the sentencing for two more months, why all this, because one of the items the Appellate Court would look at is, was the sentencing fair, did it show bias, so in my uneducated view Judge Reade, is crossing the T’s and doting the I’s. But by no means am I punishing the prosecution side, I hope and pray that somehow Judge Reade, finds in her heart to do the right thing, and see all the mitigating factors, and take that into her account. But as a pessimist I don’t see it that way because she is know in the field as a hardcore law and order Judge. However instated of being a realist you are advocate for SMR and may I say, proudly so, therefore, I don’t expect you to be unbiased and see it my way. But don’t say that I am biased to the prosecution. I believe that myself and maybe a handful are actually totally unbiased, but praying for the best.
Finally your claim that Federal prosecution was unprecedented, you are wrong there are dime a dozen fraud cases going on every day all over the country, you are just dancing yourself into frenzy, with a few thousand radical right-wingers who see some type conspiracy, against Jews. Sorry I am not one of those.

I don't remember apologizing to you, but if I ever did, it was a mistake.

215

 Jun 09, 2010 at 02:49 AM OMG Says:

Reply to #213  
Anonymous Says:

In addition to your illusions about neutrality you also have comprehension problems because I have repeatedly pointed out that it's not the fraud charge itself that's the problem, but the fact that they have distorted the truth and are not prosecuting him only for the fraud that he commited but also charged him for stealing money (when is stating the wrong amount of assets one has considered stealing? Never, only in this case), they originally called for a lifetime sentence and other disgusting uprecented actions the prosecutors have taken. Additionally the government's meddling has caused the company to collapse.
You are not smart at all, but extremely naive to not realize that there are some people with a hidden agenda out to get Rubashkin. Your small-mindedness makes it hard for you to realize that there's something bigger than just what's in the papers going on here.
In any case, I can repeat myself until I'm blue in the face but your evil heart is hiding under the cover of an unbiased pontificator (ahem) and will not accept the truth.

Part # 1
First of all let’s get the pleasantries out of the way; you want me to throw out my unbiased views to satisfy your lust for ad hominem attacks and seeing in every dark corner a cabal, of evil anti-Semites, who control the levers of government, just so they could get even with the *Jew*, Rubashkin, based on your view, the conspiracy reached the highest levels of the Government, mind you all three branches of Government was knee-deep into this blood libel, President Bush, because his Justice Department with the help of ICE orchestrated the raid on Agri, let’s not forget the President Obama as a candidate made some reference to the Agri debacle, so that puts him square in the middle of the cabal too. The second branch the Congressional, they were involved too, the local Congressman, demanded prosecution. And the third branch the judicial, they were into the conspiracy up to their noses, forget about lady justice being blind to the truth, they decided to prosecute Rubashkin on some drummed up charges, mind you that every day you have people being indicted and charged with fraud after they file for bankruptcy and the trustee is the one who legally has the fiduciary responsibility to alert the Court and to refer the proceedings to the DA office. But you would argue until your last breath, that because every problem is flowing from the original illegal alien raid, therefore, the system should overlook the fraud,

216

 Jun 09, 2010 at 02:49 AM OMG Says:

Reply to #213  
Anonymous Says:

In addition to your illusions about neutrality you also have comprehension problems because I have repeatedly pointed out that it's not the fraud charge itself that's the problem, but the fact that they have distorted the truth and are not prosecuting him only for the fraud that he commited but also charged him for stealing money (when is stating the wrong amount of assets one has considered stealing? Never, only in this case), they originally called for a lifetime sentence and other disgusting uprecented actions the prosecutors have taken. Additionally the government's meddling has caused the company to collapse.
You are not smart at all, but extremely naive to not realize that there are some people with a hidden agenda out to get Rubashkin. Your small-mindedness makes it hard for you to realize that there's something bigger than just what's in the papers going on here.
In any case, I can repeat myself until I'm blue in the face but your evil heart is hiding under the cover of an unbiased pontificator (ahem) and will not accept the truth.

Part # 2
let me explain to you how dimwitted that agreement is, let assume a police officer is driving a patrol car, right next to him, he sees a young man smoking what appears to be a marijuana cigarette, the police pull over the car and asks for license and registration, as the young men rolls down his window, the officer smells a strong marijuana odor, the office demands the young man step out off the car and cuffs him, as the police officer get help, they start to search the back seat of the car. Lo and behold, they discovered a death body jammed on floor, between the front and the back seat. Based on your argument this young man should only be charged with possession of a joint a stupid misdemeanor, because the police office only saw a joint, furthermore, do you think for one second when this young man goes on trial he would be charged with the possession of the joint, I am telling you no they will not prosecute this man on that misdemeanor, only on the murder charge, but all the evidence which flows from that original search would be admissible in court. And I don’t have any doubt, that if the body would have been C’V one of your family, you would demand, rightfully so, that the defendant should fry. But in this case, because, he is one of ours, you are willing to look away, and find any excuse, why? One- he never did anything wrong, two- it is a conspiracy, you know who else always has conspiracy on their tongs, the Aryan Nation, White Supremacist, they see the elder of Zion, the Jews control the media, banks, and all the financial institutions, so you are not far off the mark.

217

 Jun 09, 2010 at 02:50 AM OMG Says:

Reply to #213  
Anonymous Says:

In addition to your illusions about neutrality you also have comprehension problems because I have repeatedly pointed out that it's not the fraud charge itself that's the problem, but the fact that they have distorted the truth and are not prosecuting him only for the fraud that he commited but also charged him for stealing money (when is stating the wrong amount of assets one has considered stealing? Never, only in this case), they originally called for a lifetime sentence and other disgusting uprecented actions the prosecutors have taken. Additionally the government's meddling has caused the company to collapse.
You are not smart at all, but extremely naive to not realize that there are some people with a hidden agenda out to get Rubashkin. Your small-mindedness makes it hard for you to realize that there's something bigger than just what's in the papers going on here.
In any case, I can repeat myself until I'm blue in the face but your evil heart is hiding under the cover of an unbiased pontificator (ahem) and will not accept the truth.

Part # 3
It is not my problem that evidently you never read the governments sentencing memoranda dated 4-9-10, you claim that
“and are not prosecuting him only for the fraud that he commit{t}ed but also charged him for stealing money (when is stating the wrong amount of assets one has considered stealing? Never, only in this case),”
The fact is that SMR diverted Agri funds, for personal use, remodeling his home 200K buying silverware for 20K see page 19 were the government asserts that during the trial is was proven that SMR diverted over 1.5M dollars to his personal account, what is that not fraud? Isn’t that plain old stealing? So don’t tell me that SMR never stole, you are just biased to your view, but I evaluate the facts what the jury decided on, not what the prosecutions said, they jury found him guilty on the diversion of funds, that is stealing in my book.
In conclusion, finally you showed your true colors, hidden under the religious cloak, you wallow in Jewish hate. Even the possessors of the most cynical of imaginations, could never have dreamed up the new criteria adopted by you. That I must have an *evil heart* because I fail to tow your line, that it is all about Anti-Semitism, why is that? Because as long I don’t see it your way, the love for another Jew is dispensable, because he is your kind of Jew and I am in your eyes an outsider.

218

 Jun 09, 2010 at 02:51 AM OMG Says:

Reply to #213  
Anonymous Says:

In addition to your illusions about neutrality you also have comprehension problems because I have repeatedly pointed out that it's not the fraud charge itself that's the problem, but the fact that they have distorted the truth and are not prosecuting him only for the fraud that he commited but also charged him for stealing money (when is stating the wrong amount of assets one has considered stealing? Never, only in this case), they originally called for a lifetime sentence and other disgusting uprecented actions the prosecutors have taken. Additionally the government's meddling has caused the company to collapse.
You are not smart at all, but extremely naive to not realize that there are some people with a hidden agenda out to get Rubashkin. Your small-mindedness makes it hard for you to realize that there's something bigger than just what's in the papers going on here.
In any case, I can repeat myself until I'm blue in the face but your evil heart is hiding under the cover of an unbiased pontificator (ahem) and will not accept the truth.

Part # 4
But in the mean time your outreach groups will try to get me on the bandwagon, and for sure like clockwork before every holiday I receive solicitations, I guess my money is okay, even if I don’t follow your view blindly. You know what, I will not cow down to your twisted views.
Finally yes you did once apologies, but who cares, I don’t have any respect for Jews who judge other Jews, based on a view in a criminal proceeding. Everything you stand for is fake and self importance, in my humble opinion, you and the White Aryans preach the same hate albeit, from the extreme other ends.

219

 Jun 09, 2010 at 07:54 AM Well said Says:

Reply to #210  
PMO Says:

So what statement was Bush making when he rounded up Rubashkin with half his employees and threw them in prison? What statement was Bush making when they levied HUNDREDS of charges against Rubashkin? Was that not the same thing?

Secondly, Obama never mentioned Rubashkin or Agriprocessors by name.

As for Obama being ineffective. This shows that you get your news from infortainers and nowhere else. Obama has accomplished all of the (horrible) things he set out to do. He passed his stimulus package, he passed his health insurance bill, he is about to repeal "don't ask don't tell" easily. To say he has a liberal agenda is true. To say he is ineffective is a lie.

More Obamafaultitis. No matter what happens, it's his fault. I don't even see what's wrong with what he said. He said it was wrong to exploit children. Do we disagree with that? If we do think this is all about Rubashkin, then are we admitting that he exploited children? I'll agree with that part of it, but not that Obama said anything wrong.

This reaching for someone to blame just makes Rubashkin seem guiltier. Some of you are like the little kid standing next to the broken vase, flailing around for someone (a sibling, a dog, a friend) to blame.

220

 Jun 09, 2010 at 09:54 AM hear nur Says:

Reply to #218  
OMG Says:

Part # 4
But in the mean time your outreach groups will try to get me on the bandwagon, and for sure like clockwork before every holiday I receive solicitations, I guess my money is okay, even if I don’t follow your view blindly. You know what, I will not cow down to your twisted views.
Finally yes you did once apologies, but who cares, I don’t have any respect for Jews who judge other Jews, based on a view in a criminal proceeding. Everything you stand for is fake and self importance, in my humble opinion, you and the White Aryans preach the same hate albeit, from the extreme other ends.

OMG, you ARE a BRAZEN FACED LIAR. As I have suspected, I have never apologized, I have only conceded to you one point and I clearly wrote I concede, I have not written that I apologize. Now for someone who supposedly is very "educated and intellectual" you should know the difference between apologize and concede.
You keep on lying about a lot of things but mainly you are deliberately skewing the facts even though I have wasted a large amount of time clearly showing you in the wrong. Boy, am I glad I didn't continue the previous discussion that we had and I will ignore directly answering you as debates with you are a waste of time, not because you will not agree to what I've said, but because you lie outright and one cannot have a disscusion with someone who very clearly is not interested in knowing the facts, but keeps on siding with the prosecution all the time under the very convenient cover of p-o-n-t-i-f-i-c-a-t-i-o-n.
What a faker you are!

221

 Jun 09, 2010 at 11:48 AM OMG Says:

Reply to #220  
hear nur Says:

OMG, you ARE a BRAZEN FACED LIAR. As I have suspected, I have never apologized, I have only conceded to you one point and I clearly wrote I concede, I have not written that I apologize. Now for someone who supposedly is very "educated and intellectual" you should know the difference between apologize and concede.
You keep on lying about a lot of things but mainly you are deliberately skewing the facts even though I have wasted a large amount of time clearly showing you in the wrong. Boy, am I glad I didn't continue the previous discussion that we had and I will ignore directly answering you as debates with you are a waste of time, not because you will not agree to what I've said, but because you lie outright and one cannot have a disscusion with someone who very clearly is not interested in knowing the facts, but keeps on siding with the prosecution all the time under the very convenient cover of p-o-n-t-i-f-i-c-a-t-i-o-n.
What a faker you are!

Let’s get this straight, this was never a debate, you never laid out a foundation for my counter points, at a minimum, I laid out a counter point, on every argument you laid out, no matter how dimwitted it was, I used logic and facts to show that in my opinion, what is the true undercurrent of your twisted views, it is true that I did go back and try to find the place where I perceived that you apologized to me for calling me a name, but to no avail, I am so sorry that I thought that you are a gentleman, that you have a ability after a heated argument to come back and say sorry for the name calling, I am sure that you are right, who is better to judge their own character, then yourself, and you know that you don’t have that ability, so I will take your word on that issue. Personally I don’t care if you debate with me when I write a POV it is not to elicited anger or hate, I try to bring logic to the table and show that there are other views out there, but people like you who are contortionist, and never stay on point, are a lost cause, and I always reframe from even to try to engage in dialog, like Millhouse I told him on many occasions, that without showing respect for the opponent and debating the point I will ignore him, so, I have another person who I shall ignore.

222

 Jun 09, 2010 at 02:06 PM Anonymous Says:

Reply to #221  
OMG Says:

Let’s get this straight, this was never a debate, you never laid out a foundation for my counter points, at a minimum, I laid out a counter point, on every argument you laid out, no matter how dimwitted it was, I used logic and facts to show that in my opinion, what is the true undercurrent of your twisted views, it is true that I did go back and try to find the place where I perceived that you apologized to me for calling me a name, but to no avail, I am so sorry that I thought that you are a gentleman, that you have a ability after a heated argument to come back and say sorry for the name calling, I am sure that you are right, who is better to judge their own character, then yourself, and you know that you don’t have that ability, so I will take your word on that issue. Personally I don’t care if you debate with me when I write a POV it is not to elicited anger or hate, I try to bring logic to the table and show that there are other views out there, but people like you who are contortionist, and never stay on point, are a lost cause, and I always reframe from even to try to engage in dialog, like Millhouse I told him on many occasions, that without showing respect for the opponent and debating the point I will ignore him, so, I have another person who I shall ignore.

Your right you should be alwas ignored,one look over the last year of your posts,shows innumerable insults you spewed.

223

 Jun 09, 2010 at 02:39 PM sherree Belsky Says:

Lets just understand one thing! There are people who will keep on posting here for no other reason that they hate SMR for no reason at all. They just do because they jumped on the bandwagon early on. Either they are not jewish and they are here under false pretenses, or they just like to argue or it is just plain sinas chinam. No matter what happens, no matter if he is acquitted, no matter if Judge Reade now proclaims that she feels the prosecutors were overzealous and SHE herself feels it was a witch hunt and they went way overboard and THEY themselves caused an avalanche of issues that caused the chaos and the problems that brought SMR before the court, basically putting the brunt of the blame on the side of ICE and the prosecution, these people will still call SMR a criminal, a thief and all the other nasties they have been saying about him. That is unequivocally because THEY don't know him, they don't know his family, they never went to the plant themselves and they refuse to believe anyone who has facts that spin a positive tale. These people choose to believe everything they read in the media and court papers regardless of truth or falicy!

224

 Jun 09, 2010 at 04:23 PM OMG Says:

Reply to #223  
sherree Belsky Says:

Lets just understand one thing! There are people who will keep on posting here for no other reason that they hate SMR for no reason at all. They just do because they jumped on the bandwagon early on. Either they are not jewish and they are here under false pretenses, or they just like to argue or it is just plain sinas chinam. No matter what happens, no matter if he is acquitted, no matter if Judge Reade now proclaims that she feels the prosecutors were overzealous and SHE herself feels it was a witch hunt and they went way overboard and THEY themselves caused an avalanche of issues that caused the chaos and the problems that brought SMR before the court, basically putting the brunt of the blame on the side of ICE and the prosecution, these people will still call SMR a criminal, a thief and all the other nasties they have been saying about him. That is unequivocally because THEY don't know him, they don't know his family, they never went to the plant themselves and they refuse to believe anyone who has facts that spin a positive tale. These people choose to believe everything they read in the media and court papers regardless of truth or falicy!

Part # 1
Sherre,
Let’s deconstruct your argument and see point by point your fallacy,

One- you said “people who will keep on posting here for no other reason that they hate SMR for no reason at all”, how you can make a statement which is based solely on your opinion, you are saying that because they disagree with your view, they must hate SMR, why is that so? Can I just retort, what do you know about me to come to that conclusion, in particular you use that argument on me, that I made a judgment without knowing the family, and just because you feel that I must know the family to make a decision on the veracity of the charges, how come you are allowed to make a decision on my veracit,y without having direct knowledge of my family and circumstances.

Two- you wrote “Either they are not {J}ewish” who do you think you are, my father and mother (RIP) both were survivors, are you telling us that you would align yourself with the Nazis to decide who is a Jew and who is not, do you think my blood is not Jewish enough that Hitler Y’MS would have not killed me.

225

 Jun 09, 2010 at 04:25 PM OMG Says:

Reply to #223  
sherree Belsky Says:

Lets just understand one thing! There are people who will keep on posting here for no other reason that they hate SMR for no reason at all. They just do because they jumped on the bandwagon early on. Either they are not jewish and they are here under false pretenses, or they just like to argue or it is just plain sinas chinam. No matter what happens, no matter if he is acquitted, no matter if Judge Reade now proclaims that she feels the prosecutors were overzealous and SHE herself feels it was a witch hunt and they went way overboard and THEY themselves caused an avalanche of issues that caused the chaos and the problems that brought SMR before the court, basically putting the brunt of the blame on the side of ICE and the prosecution, these people will still call SMR a criminal, a thief and all the other nasties they have been saying about him. That is unequivocally because THEY don't know him, they don't know his family, they never went to the plant themselves and they refuse to believe anyone who has facts that spin a positive tale. These people choose to believe everything they read in the media and court papers regardless of truth or falicy!

Part # 2
Three- you wrote “it is just plain sinas chinam” isn’t that argument a subjective statement which you cannot back up, and secondly for argument sake even if you are right, were in Torah do you find that you are allowed to judge me in bad light, you are chastising me for sinas chinam, but your are immersing yourself in sinas chinam.
Four- you wrote “no matter if Judge Reade now proclaims that she feels the prosecutors were overzealous and SHE herself feels it was a witch hunt and they went way overboard” what is wrong with you, are you writing a novel? One, Judge Reade didn’t and wouldn’t come to a stupid conclusion as you propose. Two you are dreaming that the Judge will blame ICE for the fraud perpetrated by SMR way before the ICE raid. What about the 1.5M dollars of Agri money which SMR diverted from Agri for personal use. I could visualize Judge Reade, trowing up her arms and shout out *hallelujah* I just saw the light it is all the ICE faulth.
Five- you wrote “they never went to the plant themselves” I see you just put forth I new standard in American Jurisprudence, we must visit each defendants family before we convict them, how unfair for Ted Bundy, if your system was in place before they fried his behind.
Six- you wrote “refuse to believe anyone who has facts that spin a positive tale.” You are finally right I refuse to believe any spin; I am only interested in facts.

226

 Jun 09, 2010 at 05:25 PM not her nur Says:

Reply to #221  
OMG Says:

Let’s get this straight, this was never a debate, you never laid out a foundation for my counter points, at a minimum, I laid out a counter point, on every argument you laid out, no matter how dimwitted it was, I used logic and facts to show that in my opinion, what is the true undercurrent of your twisted views, it is true that I did go back and try to find the place where I perceived that you apologized to me for calling me a name, but to no avail, I am so sorry that I thought that you are a gentleman, that you have a ability after a heated argument to come back and say sorry for the name calling, I am sure that you are right, who is better to judge their own character, then yourself, and you know that you don’t have that ability, so I will take your word on that issue. Personally I don’t care if you debate with me when I write a POV it is not to elicited anger or hate, I try to bring logic to the table and show that there are other views out there, but people like you who are contortionist, and never stay on point, are a lost cause, and I always reframe from even to try to engage in dialog, like Millhouse I told him on many occasions, that without showing respect for the opponent and debating the point I will ignore him, so, I have another person who I shall ignore.

Your post is a joke.You never answered how you lied openly.He's 100% right to ignore you ,liars should be ignores.Espically that you couldn't admit it.Instead you tried to make it like he was the guilty party.

227

 Jun 09, 2010 at 07:24 PM Anonymous Says:

Reply to #224  
OMG Says:

Part # 1
Sherre,
Let’s deconstruct your argument and see point by point your fallacy,

One- you said “people who will keep on posting here for no other reason that they hate SMR for no reason at all”, how you can make a statement which is based solely on your opinion, you are saying that because they disagree with your view, they must hate SMR, why is that so? Can I just retort, what do you know about me to come to that conclusion, in particular you use that argument on me, that I made a judgment without knowing the family, and just because you feel that I must know the family to make a decision on the veracity of the charges, how come you are allowed to make a decision on my veracit,y without having direct knowledge of my family and circumstances.

Two- you wrote “Either they are not {J}ewish” who do you think you are, my father and mother (RIP) both were survivors, are you telling us that you would align yourself with the Nazis to decide who is a Jew and who is not, do you think my blood is not Jewish enough that Hitler Y’MS would have not killed me.

Your post is a error in logic.So what if your parents were survivors.Norman finkelstein is a son of them.Do you think he represents a normal jew in the world?And the nazis killed man the jewish apostates as well.

228

 Jun 09, 2010 at 09:10 PM sherree Belsky Says:

Reply to #227  
Anonymous Says:

Your post is a error in logic.So what if your parents were survivors.Norman finkelstein is a son of them.Do you think he represents a normal jew in the world?And the nazis killed man the jewish apostates as well.

In response to both. I said "either" so YOU pick which category you fit in, I didn't and please don't besmirched any of the holocaust victims alive or dead who were all tzadikim.

In addition, I have read every word you "spat" since day one of this unfortunate incident, so yes, I do know what I am saying without one question in my mind or a shadow of a doubt. Not that I singled you out, but since you jumped to defend and to answer I will too. YOU believed every single word you gobbled up that was negative about SMR. YOU kept quoted the court records, the federal filed documents, which by the way had a disclaimer that explained "this does not determine the guilt of the accused, it is just an allegation". YOU never assumed any of it to be allegations YOU chose to believe guilt. YOU chose to believe his guilt before he was proven guilty and even though the judge was involved in the raid from day one, and even though the raid was based on lies and allegations that were false and never verified YOU chose to believe ALL those horrific allegations and any and all subsequent allegations that came forth.

229

 Jun 09, 2010 at 09:22 PM sherree Belsky Says:

Reply to #224  
OMG Says:

Part # 1
Sherre,
Let’s deconstruct your argument and see point by point your fallacy,

One- you said “people who will keep on posting here for no other reason that they hate SMR for no reason at all”, how you can make a statement which is based solely on your opinion, you are saying that because they disagree with your view, they must hate SMR, why is that so? Can I just retort, what do you know about me to come to that conclusion, in particular you use that argument on me, that I made a judgment without knowing the family, and just because you feel that I must know the family to make a decision on the veracity of the charges, how come you are allowed to make a decision on my veracit,y without having direct knowledge of my family and circumstances.

Two- you wrote “Either they are not {J}ewish” who do you think you are, my father and mother (RIP) both were survivors, are you telling us that you would align yourself with the Nazis to decide who is a Jew and who is not, do you think my blood is not Jewish enough that Hitler Y’MS would have not killed me.

Furthermore, OMG, let's not deconstruct because I have no intention of having any further arguments or debates with you. It is just not worth my energy and my time. YOU just want to be right and I have no need to change your mind. I don't care how you feel or what you think. YOU and the likes of YOU who have spread Loshon Hora and rechilus on SMR from day 1 mean nothing to me, not even a mumcha, not even as much as a crumb. Because you have no concern for the man, a jewish man. You have no concept of the vendetta and the bogus claims convoluted and manifested against him out of thin air. YOU have no concept that these false accusations snowballed and avalanched completely out of control. Even if Judge Reade (halevai) changes her whole opinion and sets SMR free, you will still be spouting your opinion and argue with the judge. YOU and your elk will hold on to the last splinter of busha and humiliation to bring this man and his family to their graves. No matter who your parents are or were, you sir may be a full blooded Jew but you do not behave as a JEW. You lack the qualities of rachmanus and ahavas yisroel. You CHOOSE to believe the worst and yes it is a choice.

230

 Jun 09, 2010 at 09:24 PM sherree Belsky Says:

Reply to #225  
OMG Says:

Part # 2
Three- you wrote “it is just plain sinas chinam” isn’t that argument a subjective statement which you cannot back up, and secondly for argument sake even if you are right, were in Torah do you find that you are allowed to judge me in bad light, you are chastising me for sinas chinam, but your are immersing yourself in sinas chinam.
Four- you wrote “no matter if Judge Reade now proclaims that she feels the prosecutors were overzealous and SHE herself feels it was a witch hunt and they went way overboard” what is wrong with you, are you writing a novel? One, Judge Reade didn’t and wouldn’t come to a stupid conclusion as you propose. Two you are dreaming that the Judge will blame ICE for the fraud perpetrated by SMR way before the ICE raid. What about the 1.5M dollars of Agri money which SMR diverted from Agri for personal use. I could visualize Judge Reade, trowing up her arms and shout out *hallelujah* I just saw the light it is all the ICE faulth.
Five- you wrote “they never went to the plant themselves” I see you just put forth I new standard in American Jurisprudence, we must visit each defendants family before we convict them, how unfair for Ted Bundy, if your system was in place before they fried his behind.
Six- you wrote “refuse to believe anyone who has facts that spin a positive tale.” You are finally right I refuse to believe any spin; I am only interested in facts.

Woah, YOU really are taking this personally aren't you. "me thinkst the protests too much!!!" That usually means guilt!

231

 Jun 09, 2010 at 09:30 PM sherree Belsky Says:

Reply to #225  
OMG Says:

Part # 2
Three- you wrote “it is just plain sinas chinam” isn’t that argument a subjective statement which you cannot back up, and secondly for argument sake even if you are right, were in Torah do you find that you are allowed to judge me in bad light, you are chastising me for sinas chinam, but your are immersing yourself in sinas chinam.
Four- you wrote “no matter if Judge Reade now proclaims that she feels the prosecutors were overzealous and SHE herself feels it was a witch hunt and they went way overboard” what is wrong with you, are you writing a novel? One, Judge Reade didn’t and wouldn’t come to a stupid conclusion as you propose. Two you are dreaming that the Judge will blame ICE for the fraud perpetrated by SMR way before the ICE raid. What about the 1.5M dollars of Agri money which SMR diverted from Agri for personal use. I could visualize Judge Reade, trowing up her arms and shout out *hallelujah* I just saw the light it is all the ICE faulth.
Five- you wrote “they never went to the plant themselves” I see you just put forth I new standard in American Jurisprudence, we must visit each defendants family before we convict them, how unfair for Ted Bundy, if your system was in place before they fried his behind.
Six- you wrote “refuse to believe anyone who has facts that spin a positive tale.” You are finally right I refuse to believe any spin; I am only interested in facts.

Listen OMG, once again as you did with the court papers YOU ARE READING too much into things. I never said that there was an iota of a chance that Judge Reade would change her mind, so that was another wasted effort on your part, but I know you don't think any of your words are wasted, you like to see them in print! I was just pointing out that even if such an outlandish thing were to happen YOU and those like YOU (but wait a second I didn't mention you, YOU chose to out yourself remember) would not even accept THAT as an acquittal. So there is nothing that you can say to turn this around and put me in a bad light. I gave my opinion of what was happening from the very first article posted here. YOU jumped in here to prove that YOU yourself are one of the posters I was referring to. And if you were really interested in the facts instead of just innuendo and allegations you would truly listen and investigate both sides of the story not just the bad side or the prosecutions', government's, or courts' position. In this case THEY were the bad guys. OH yeah, YOU don't believe Jews or their testimony, YOU only believe in the facts of the goyim and the goyish jury, may g-d bless!

232

 Jun 10, 2010 at 12:37 AM OMG Says:

Reply to #231  
sherree Belsky Says:

Listen OMG, once again as you did with the court papers YOU ARE READING too much into things. I never said that there was an iota of a chance that Judge Reade would change her mind, so that was another wasted effort on your part, but I know you don't think any of your words are wasted, you like to see them in print! I was just pointing out that even if such an outlandish thing were to happen YOU and those like YOU (but wait a second I didn't mention you, YOU chose to out yourself remember) would not even accept THAT as an acquittal. So there is nothing that you can say to turn this around and put me in a bad light. I gave my opinion of what was happening from the very first article posted here. YOU jumped in here to prove that YOU yourself are one of the posters I was referring to. And if you were really interested in the facts instead of just innuendo and allegations you would truly listen and investigate both sides of the story not just the bad side or the prosecutions', government's, or courts' position. In this case THEY were the bad guys. OH yeah, YOU don't believe Jews or their testimony, YOU only believe in the facts of the goyim and the goyish jury, may g-d bless!

Regardless, what you claim in post # 229 at 9:22 PM that you are not interested in any further arguments or debate, but you went on to write a 224 word reply without refuting any of my points with facts, but you are accusing me of basically of unbecoming a Jew. After the second sentence you should have stopped but you couldn’t resist a few more lies and digs at me. Then in post # 231 at 9:30 PM less than 10 minutes after you said that you would not debate with me, you went on to write a new post, of 229 words. Definitely you are the right kind of Jew we should all look up to, we should all emulate you, I am lacking the qualities of Rachmanus and Ahavas Yisroel, for sure I am not on the level I ought to be, but for neither are you, you are lacking Ahavas Yisroel, vis-à-vis me. Finally I will not reply you your new assertions until you reply to my pervious points which you deliberately decided not to argue on its merits.

233

 Jun 10, 2010 at 09:01 AM OMG Says:

Reply to #214  
hear nur Says:

I don't remember apologizing to you, but if I ever did, it was a mistake.

Hear Nur
Last night I got a personal e-mail from friend of mine who views I respect, and he pointed out to me that I might have been harsh on you with my view and my equating your arguments, with the Aryan Nation arguments, upon reelections, I could see how someone could misconstrued my intention. Therefore I humbly apologize for my wrong depiction of your POV.

234

 Jun 10, 2010 at 12:49 PM sherree Belsky Says:

One more thing I wanted to note to "no one" in particular. The prosecutors both in the federal and state cases never bothered to call any government witnesses vis a vis the USDA inspectors who were a constant if not almost daily fixture in the plant. Although it was not their job nor their business to watch or care about the employees status legal or age, no one can deny the fact that spending so much time in one facility a person must "notice" what is going on. Surely them must have looked over the shoulders of "short" people who where "how old again"? Didn't they stand really close to them? Didn't they walk the line to see the cleanliness of the hooks and how the meat was hoisted? Did they have carte blanche to go wherever to check whatever? Certainly they would have noticed if someone's arm was cut open. Were they asleep on the job? And what about all those dangerous chemicals? Wouldn't they have noticed kids playing in those pools?

Is there any good reason why these reliable government workers were not called in to testify??????? What about the officers from the department of labor who were working with Agri to begin with, why weren't they called in to testify?

235

 Jun 10, 2010 at 03:40 PM OMG Says:

Reply to #234  
sherree Belsky Says:

One more thing I wanted to note to "no one" in particular. The prosecutors both in the federal and state cases never bothered to call any government witnesses vis a vis the USDA inspectors who were a constant if not almost daily fixture in the plant. Although it was not their job nor their business to watch or care about the employees status legal or age, no one can deny the fact that spending so much time in one facility a person must "notice" what is going on. Surely them must have looked over the shoulders of "short" people who where "how old again"? Didn't they stand really close to them? Didn't they walk the line to see the cleanliness of the hooks and how the meat was hoisted? Did they have carte blanche to go wherever to check whatever? Certainly they would have noticed if someone's arm was cut open. Were they asleep on the job? And what about all those dangerous chemicals? Wouldn't they have noticed kids playing in those pools?

Is there any good reason why these reliable government workers were not called in to testify??????? What about the officers from the department of labor who were working with Agri to begin with, why weren't they called in to testify?

I am not sure why the government in Federal case should have brought in the government inspectors as witness; the issue in that case was not about minors working in Agri, it was all about fraud, so why would they bring them in.
In the State case, I don’t know why but the same question goes for the defense, why didn’t they bring in these inspectors for their benefit. Lastly why are you still hung-up on the State trial, SMR was found not guilty, what is the beef. Do you want to retry him now?
PS you just keep piling on, but you never analyzed my points. Believe me that on every post you wrote, I could find 5-6 items were you are totally mistaken, and just repeating accusations which are totally faults. I am still patiently waiting for a direct reply to my 5 point I made.

236

 Jun 10, 2010 at 10:42 PM Anonymous Says:

I think Rabbi Aryeh Katz and Sheree Belsky are both very wonderful people. In addition she is a baalas chesed and baalas tzedaka, hosting a wonderful tzedaka organizatiopn...

237

 Jun 11, 2010 at 12:02 PM OMG Says:

Reply to #236  
Anonymous Says:

I think Rabbi Aryeh Katz and Sheree Belsky are both very wonderful people. In addition she is a baalas chesed and baalas tzedaka, hosting a wonderful tzedaka organizatiopn...

Personally, I don’t know Sheree Belsky, and she might be all what you make her out to be, but that doesn’t give her the right, to judge me and insinuate that I might not be even Jewish, this is the same problem what SMR had, because he believes that he was doing good deeds which could very well be the case, he could take advantage of the bank and others, no, one doesn’t negate the other. That is what the core issue is, that people try to justify bad behavior, with some good deed. No it doesn’t wash each other out.

238

 Jun 13, 2010 at 05:24 PM Anonymous Says:

Reply to #237  
OMG Says:

Personally, I don’t know Sheree Belsky, and she might be all what you make her out to be, but that doesn’t give her the right, to judge me and insinuate that I might not be even Jewish, this is the same problem what SMR had, because he believes that he was doing good deeds which could very well be the case, he could take advantage of the bank and others, no, one doesn’t negate the other. That is what the core issue is, that people try to justify bad behavior, with some good deed. No it doesn’t wash each other out.

Answer me a few questions,please,As you are clearly so well informed,and convinced of the case against SMR.1)why did they charge him with chages never invoked in all of american history.2)how could a prosecutor stoop so low as to claim in the state tri

239

 Jun 13, 2010 at 06:13 PM Anonymous Says:

Reply to #238  
Anonymous Says:

Answer me a few questions,please,As you are clearly so well informed,and convinced of the case against SMR.1)why did they charge him with chages never invoked in all of american history.2)how could a prosecutor stoop so low as to claim in the state tri

Sorry it got stopped.Now again:in the state trial that rubashkin was a racist for not hiring a jewish boy whose mother pleaded with SMR to hire him,and he refused as he was under age.So rubaskin wanted to torture spanish boys,while he didn't want jews to "slave away" like that?

240

 Jun 13, 2010 at 06:44 PM Anonymous Says:

Reply to #239  
Anonymous Says:

Sorry it got stopped.Now again:in the state trial that rubashkin was a racist for not hiring a jewish boy whose mother pleaded with SMR to hire him,and he refused as he was under age.So rubaskin wanted to torture spanish boys,while he didn't want jews to "slave away" like that?

Cont.:3)why in the warrant to seach the plant did they mention "this drug area place",when actually during the raid they didn't take any of the usual steps taken when raiding a suspected drug place.4)where is the explosives manufacturing plant mentioned in the reasoning to raid the plant?And why during the raid,did no bomb squad come to secure the place,if they thought this was really true?!

241

 Jun 13, 2010 at 07:27 PM Anonymous Says:

Reply to #240  
Anonymous Says:

Cont.:3)why in the warrant to seach the plant did they mention "this drug area place",when actually during the raid they didn't take any of the usual steps taken when raiding a suspected drug place.4)where is the explosives manufacturing plant mentioned in the reasoning to raid the plant?And why during the raid,did no bomb squad come to secure the place,if they thought this was really true?!

5)why in the state case was the crimanal charges pressed before the investigation was completed,as is thenorm to wait till it completes before pressing charges?6)why did the state file charges against the father and then drop them right before the trial,as it was clear there was no case against them.

242

 Jun 13, 2010 at 10:10 PM Anonymous Says:

Reply to #241  
Anonymous Says:

5)why in the state case was the crimanal charges pressed before the investigation was completed,as is thenorm to wait till it completes before pressing charges?6)why did the state file charges against the father and then drop them right before the trial,as it was clear there was no case against them.

7)why was the raid so unusally harsh by agri.Espicallyy the charges filed,which is just about unheard of.I expect you can answer all my questions fast,as you seem to be sure of the case against SMR,thanks in advance.

243

Sign-in to post a comment

Click here to sign-in.

Scroll Up
Advertisements:
Sell your scrap gold and broken jewelry and earn hard cash sell gold today!