Iowa City, Iowa – Attorneys for imprisoned kosher meatpacking executive Sholom Rubashkin say they have found “overwhelming evidence” of prosecutorial misconduct that proves his 27-year prison sentence for money laundering is too harsh.
Join our WhatsApp groupSubscribe to our Daily Roundup Email
Rubashkin’s attorneys filed newly obtained notes from a key meeting of government officials and legal affidavits last week alleging prosecutors improperly interfered with the sale of Agriprocessors in Postville, Iowa, which was the nation’s biggest kosher meat plant. Representatives of the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Cedar Rapids threatened potential buyers that they would use forfeiture proceedings to seize the company’s assets if Rubashkin’s father, Aaron, or other relatives had a role operating the plant, several bidders said in affidavits.
Those threats depressed the sale price by millions because Aaron Rubashkin and other relatives were considered key figures in the kosher meat industry whose expertise was needed to operate the company, bidders said.
Agriprocessors sold for $8.5 million in 2009, even though its assets had been valued at $68 million. An investor had proposed a $40 million purchase but the bankruptcy trustee declined the offer, concluding that it could get more at auction. Potential buyers said they were scared off by the prosecutors’ warnings about the Rubashkins, which the trustee had predicted would hurt the sale price.
The drop in value is significant because it left Agriprocessors’ bank — the victim of Sholom Rubashkin’s money laudering scheme — with a $27 million loss. That figure was used to calculate Rubashkin’s sentence under federal guidelines. Had the plant sold for $40 million, Rubashkin would have faced a roughly three-year term under the guidelines, the filing claims.
Rubashkin, 56, has served nearly seven years behind bars after he was convicted in 2009 of financial fraud for bilking the plant’s bank by submitting fake invoices that made the company’s finances appear healthier than they were so that it could borrow more. His prosecution came after federal authorities raided the plant and arrested 389 illegal immigrants in 2008. Agriprocessors then filed for bankruptcy.
Prosecutors presented testimony at Rubashkin’s sentencing that they had not imposed restrictions on the family’s involvement in any business that purchased Agriprocessors.
Paula Roby, a lawyer for the bankruptcy trustee, testified that claims by bidders of a no-Rubashkins policy were false rumors, adding: “The grapevine can be a very unreliable thing.” U.S. District Judge Linda Reade accepted Roby’s testimony for purposes of calculating the loss, saying it discredited claims by defense witnesses that prosecutors’ interference hurt the sale price.
But the new notes from a 2008 meeting between prosecutors and bankruptcy trustee representatives appear to bolster the defense’s claim and undercut Roby, who was at the meeting.
“No Rubashkins is very important to us — non-negotiable,” Assistant U.S. Attorney Richard Murphy said, according to handwritten notes taken by one of the trustee’s lawyers, James Reiland. Asked by Roby whether there were any other non-negotiables, Murphy reiterated: “No involvement of Rubashkins from any standpoint (control, benefit),” the notes show.
The new evidence “proves the government knowingly presented false and misleading testimony and withheld exculpatory evidence,” Rubashkin’s attorneys wrote.
The U.S. Attorney’s Office said Tuesday it’s reviewing the filing, which is the latest attempt by Rubashkin’s attorneys to seek his freedom.
The U.S. Supreme Court refused in 2012 to consider arguments that Rubashkin’s sentence was too long for a nonviolent offender and that Reade should have recused herself because she met with investigators to plan the immigration raid. In January, Reade ruled that she would also hear Rubashkin’s request for post-conviction relief, saying she had no conflict of interest.
so now what….?
Hashem yerachem!
Yes, Reade has no conflict of interest . . . because she has said so. If you repeat a lie enough times then you start to believe it, and those who want the same outcome will choose to believe it as well. The problem is that she has a conflict of interest by definition. That no one on her state bar’s ethics committee has called her out on the issue of her continued involvement with the Rubashkin case speaks volumes of the ethical state of the legal profession in Iowa.
The justice system in Iowa is on the same level as Caracas, Venezuela, The same Judge plans the raid, Judges the case, presides over the appeal, rules on post conviction relief and (take a load of this) says she has no conflict of interest.
Reminds me of the judge in the old west who said to defendant before the trial started “we’ll give you a fair trial and then we’ll give you a fair first class hanging”
what a miscarriage of justice,and when he finally gets out,he will justifiably sue all those involved in this case
The OU and KAJ both withdrew their hashgochas when Rubashkin’s criminal activities became known. Would they have trusted any other family members, given that at least three of them are also convicted felons? Agriprocessors would be worth very little without reliable kashrus supervision, so we may as well accuse the OU and KAJ of conspiring with the DA.
He did the crime and already completed his time.
We should all pray in his behalf and IYH share good tidings of his soon release.
Where are all the morons shouting ” You do the crime you do the time” or the ones yelling “Its America and not a case of anti-Semitic” ? Mail a letter to the Rubashkin’s and beg for forgiveness.
Hashem has his ways. But we pray everyday to c him free already. And that witch Reade in SMR’s cell yidden dont give up. Yes shes having a party now but its aint over till its over. She will iy”h rot in jail like a skunk till she dies a slow excruciating death
This could only happen under the Obama administration.
She should have recused herself from day one. This is a travesty of justice perpetuated under the Obama administration.
Rubashkin was given he opportunity to plead guilty; if he had accepted the plea deal which the government offered, he would have been out of prison by now. He made a bad decision by allowing his case to have gone to trial. It was held in an area of the country which never saw Jews before, let alone frum Jews. His legal defense team gave him bad advice, regarding that matter. There was no way that he was going to beat that case, at trial. The latter being said, I wish him the best regarding his appeal, and hope that either is sentenced is reduced, and/or the next President will commute his sentence to time served.
Double his prison sentence for his arrogance. He was advised by his entire legal team to apologize and plead guilty.
listen if there were truly an injustice in this case, then yidden should put together a peaceful march for justice and there should be inspiring speeches from lawyers and other representatives of the Jewish community.