≡ Menu

Are we making Rubashkin into some sort of hero?

There’s another video devoted to the “tragedy” of Rubashkin and the sadness that his family is going through. It seems in my mind that he’s being made into some sort of hero, there is no longer a focus on the so called “anti-Semitic” sentencing which I am starting to learn was in the bounds of reason. It has became this huge PR thing complete with politicians being paid to sign onto kol koreh’s announcing the legal treason being perpetrated by a so called anti-Semitic judge. Long forgotten is the crime and all that’s remembered is that it’s not fair. Of course it is a good excuse to make money in the name of a achdus…

Of course the comments on Facebook were interesting, the classic, “but rapists get only 7 years” and he got 27 years was responded to with something I didn’t know…maybe Mr. Fink has some commentary from the legal perspective.

The sentence was exactly where the Federal sentencing guidelines said it should be. The judge could have given him less time if she had filed a lengthy opinion showing why he should have SPECIAL leniency. He didn’t qualify. The Law said 23-30 years. He got 25 after being convicted of dozens of crimes. He got two years tacked on for repeatedly lying under oath.Now you’ll say “But murderers and rapists get less!”
Sorry, that’s comparing apples and horse-apples. You’re talking about STATE penalties. S.R. was convicted in FEDERAL Court using FEDERAL sentencing laws. He also rejected at least three plea bargains, showed no remorse, didn’t cooperate with investigators, didn’t make any restitution and continued lying after conviction. You don’t get leniency under those circumstances.

Seems to me like Mr. Rubashkin shot himself in the foot – what would be the penalty if one lied to a beis din back in the day?

Find more Rubashkin at 4torah.com

{ 84 comments… add one }
  • Ben December 7, 2011, 7:16 AM

    You’re 100% right. We Jews love playing the victim.

    • whattheheck December 11, 2011, 2:09 AM

      no one is singing songs about all the lives he hurt and the workers and their families whose lives he destroyed or the town he practically ruined or anything….

      • Dan December 11, 2011, 10:50 AM

        He destroyed workers? He gave them jobs.
        If you mean he destroyed them by then being arrested, I’m not sure you can fault someone for getting arrested inasmuch as it hurts the people who he gave jobs to to begin with.

        The town? Same thing. He gave them an economy for a long time.

        • A. Nuran December 11, 2011, 2:09 PM

          He also housed workers in unsanitary, inhumane conditions and took huge chunks out of their paychecks to do so. He played fast and loose with wage and hour laws, not to mention safety standards, employed illegal aliens at sub-minimum wage, so on, so forth.

          • Dan December 11, 2011, 2:22 PM

            Yes, well. As a almost libertarian, I don’t really find anything very morally reprehensible about giving people jobs, even if you pay them as little as possible.

            Besides, that is why we have illegal aliens, because we pay them less than minimum wage. And that is why congress doesn’t try to stop it.

  • Sergeant J December 7, 2011, 8:01 AM

    Yup. He’s a “victim”…
    Thanks, video makers, for being the stereotypes that the rest of us despise..

  • How smart you are December 7, 2011, 8:19 AM

    So righteous, aren’t we? What would be the penalty “back in day” if someone was convicted of stealing $27 million?

    • Dan December 11, 2011, 10:53 AM

      uhhh, giving it back?

      Besides, I don’t know where you get your news, but he wasn’t convicted of stealing money. He was convicted of falsifying records to get approved for a loan, which he had enough assets to cover anyway. That’s not stealing- it is fraud.

      The key difference is that he didn’t actually deprive the creditors of anything, and if it had been up to the creditors, they would have allowed him to continue operating until he could sell the company and pay them back.
      The creditors were only deprived of their money when the feds shut down the plant and wouldn’t let him sell it.

  • The Real Joe December 7, 2011, 10:22 AM

    heshey whom have you been getting your legal advice from Failedmessiah?.
    I love your site even though I disagree 100% with this article, 1) He wasn’t offered 3 plea deals he was maybe offered 1 for 12-15 years not exactly a great deal for a first time offender, 2) the main bases for the appeal was the fact that the trial judge sat in on many meetings with the arresting authorities, even though the court rejected the appeal they didn’t exactly answer the question if that was legal or not, 3) I think every sane person will agree that courts aren’t G-D, and they can make mistakes, yes the American judicial system is the best in the world, however Rubashkin supporters myself included, believe that a mistake was made here and that’s basically what we are fighting.
    to end off only time will show us an outcome until then we can only pray.

    • A. Nuran December 7, 2011, 10:54 AM

      Much as you hate hearing what you don’t like, Failed Messiah got its facts right. What you’re revealing here is reflexive, unthinking, tribalism. “If it’s bad for someone like me it must be a lie.”

      I’ll answer your first contention here. The courts hearing the appeal have already spoken to your second. They rejected his it as baseless. Unless you’re crazy enough to invent an anti-Rubashkin conspiracy theory winding up through the entire Court system you’ll just have to give that one up.

      Besides, consider the sources. The evidence presented in the original trial and the appeals was under oath. There are harsh penalties for lying to the Court. The whispering campaign you’re parrotting was for political purposes and carried out outside the harsh light of oaths and cross-examination. Its whole purpose is to raise unanaswerable doubts, feed the paranoia of the targets, raise money and exert political pressure.

      The prosecution had him dead to rights. They had a pattern of criminal behavior stretching back for years. They had enough evidence to convict him on dozens of serious felony counts. He was offered a plea deal – half of what he could expect and pretty lenient for someone in his position. The prosecutor isn’t required to offer a plea bargain.

      A decent legal team would have said “Cooperate and take the plea.”

      Instead they turned it into ham-handed attemtps to bring political pressure on the judge and invoke anti-semitic boogeymen. He went to trial and got trounced. The sad thing is, he really did seem to think he was so clever and invulnerable and well-connected that nothing bad could happen to him.

      And he lost, convicted right down the line because the facts and the Law were against him.

      His sentence was absolutely correct. The Federal guidelines say 23-30 years for ONE count. He had dozens and got 25. Where did the extra two years come from? They got tacked on because he lied repeatedly and clumsily in the course of the proceedings, lied under oath no less.

      Now you’ll counter by saying “The judge could have been merciful. It’s obvious she hated Shlomo and was out to get him.”

      Nope. Not even.

      First, these are Federal sentencing guidelines. The judge has to follow or show meticulous cause as to why she went against them. Leniency is offered sometimes, but a few things have to happen first.

      If there’s some sort of really exceptional family hardship it can happen. There wasn’t.

      If the criminal shows remorse, cooperates with the investigation, makes restitution and shows some humility it is possible. Rubashkin showed no remorse at all. He stonewalled the investigation. He hasn’t made a penny in restitution. And he’s been consistently haughty and arrogant towards the investigators, prosecutors and judge from start to finish.

      • A. Nuran December 7, 2011, 11:04 AM

        Looks like my reply to your last point was eaten, maybe by the bad words filter. Check back. It will arrive in due course.

      • The Real Joe December 7, 2011, 11:07 AM

        @A. Nuran, I am honored that such a famous commenter like you answered me, other then when you touched on the appeal part of my comment, everything else you wrote was just yapping about things that I didn’t write about?, I didn’t bring up the actual sentence, because I am well aware that every court sentences differently, also your whole dig on “tribalism”, whether you like it or not, every community in the world does that, and there’s nothing wrong with doing that.
        The type of things you and failed messiah write about Rubashkin Chabad you would never write about the African American community in a comparable case?.

        • A. Nuran December 7, 2011, 11:48 AM

          Ah, right on cue…

          “Nigras do bad things, so shut up about bad things Jews do.”

          When you get a chance, check out a book on logic or rhetoric. Look up the tu quoque fallacy.

          • A. Nuran December 7, 2011, 11:48 AM

            I’m expecting some variation on “self-hating Jew” in the next few minutes.

            • The Real Joe December 7, 2011, 12:06 PM

              The only area where I brought up such logic even slightly, is about in tight nit communities protecting each other, I never used such arguments in regards to the criminal case against Rubashkin, whats wrong with a community banding together to defend one of their own, and no I won’t throw the “self hating Jew” label at you.

    • A. Nuran December 7, 2011, 11:03 AM

      Now let’s address your handwaving, wailing and throwing poop at the wall in the hope that some of it will stick.

      The Courts are not perfect. But they have standards, and they are the best we have. If Rubashkin had been a poor man who couldnt’ afford legal representation, didn’t understand the charges against him and so on you would have a point. He wasn’t. He had a large legal team. He had lobbyists. He had a legal defense fund. He had access to all of the evidence. He had a media spotlight which would have illuminated shady prosecution.

      He was convicted because there was massive evidence against him.

      Maybe God knows something we don’t. Maybe we’ll find out the judge was the great to the hundredth granddaughter of Haman. Maybe shedim blinded the judge and jury and took away the brains of his defense team.

      Maybe I will flap my arms and fly to the Moon.

      What you’re trying to do here is smear anyone in sight because the facts and the Law are against you. It’s dishonest and transparently dishonest. The grownups here understand this and think less of you for it.

      The only reason you care a piece of drek and two whistles is that Shlomo Rubashkin is a Jew. You’ve been programmed from birth to believe that no Jew should ever be in a goyishe Court or can ever be convicted. Even if you believed he was guilty as sin you would be required by religious obligation to act exactly as you have.

      • Anonymous December 7, 2011, 6:02 PM

        nuran, are u also happy with jonathan pollard’s sentence, or do you save your shoulder chip for frummies?

        • A. Nuran December 7, 2011, 6:51 PM

          Pollard was guilty as sin. His attempts to shop his classified information around to other countries before Israel blows his “I was just being a good Jew” protestations out of the water.

          But he got a raw deal.

          The Walker family sold crypto secrets, which are infinitely more important, to the Soviets. That was much worse. The politics were different, so everyone but the father is already out. He’ll be in until 2015 which amounts to a life sentence given his Stage IV throat cancer (so saith the Wiki).

          • Dave December 7, 2011, 7:08 PM

            Walker testified so that his son (a minor player, much like Pollard’s first wife, who also got a light sentence) would get a light sentence.

            Arthur Walker: Naive enough to testify before a Grand Jury without immunity for 30+ hours, given three life sentences. Parole denied in 2010.

            John Walker: Testified against Jerry Whitworth in return for the lesser penalty for son Michael. Will die in prison.

            Jerry Whitworth: Sentenced to 365 years, eligible for Parole in 2048. Will die in prison.

            Michael Walker: Minor player, served 15 years of a 25 year sentence.

            (And for reference, Ann Pollard served 2 years 8 months of a 5 year sentence).

            The Pollard ring got the same sentences as the other rings of the 1980s, Life or more for the ringleaders, lesser sentences for minor players as part of plea deals.

          • Anonymous December 7, 2011, 10:00 PM

            “But he got a raw deal”
            my point, sir.
            only pollard? not rubashkin? or is sympathy for suffering only ok when the person in question isn’t frum?

            • A. Nuran December 7, 2011, 11:03 PM

              Check your persecution fantasies at the door, please. They’re beginning to smell.

              Rubashkin didn’t get a raw deal. He got justice.

              He did the crimes. No doubt about it.
              He turned down every chance to make things easier on himself.
              He got exactly the sentence mandated for his crimes.
              He did everything in his power to make sure the judge had no reason to be easier on him.

              This isn’t about him being Orthodox no matter how much Chabad tells you it is in order extract money from you. It’s about an unrepentant, arrogant criminal who thought he was invulnerable. It wouldn’t matter if he were Christian, Muslim or Zoroastrian fire worshipper.

              But as far as you’re concerned the only important thing is that old 8-track tape playing in the background “They persecuted the Jew because he was a Jew.” That’s the only narrative your training will allow you to hear.

              • Anonymous December 8, 2011, 12:30 AM

                wow! you know about my training?
                you have a warped sense of justice, if this is not called a raw deal, but then again if you live in america, this might make sense. it is after all the land where oj simpson and lemrick nelson walked, despite their obvious threat to society, where your enron execs get a relative slap on the wrist and a pedophile is able to seek more victims after spending 7 yrs in jail.
                your vitriolic tone, and presumptions about me only serve to convince me of what i suspected, you are no neutral fact seeker. so is the chip on your shoulder reserved for the frum among us?
                btw, i have acousin who is a judge in ny. she is not orthodox, certainly hasn’t the programming or training you think i have, certainly has a greater understanding of your justice system than i (and probably you) have and guess what????
                she thinks his harsh sentence is due to anti- semitism!

                • Dave December 8, 2011, 7:53 AM

                  If Rubashkin’s were “due to anti-semitism”, we’d be able to show a difference in sentencing from Judge Reade.

                  Only thing is, you can’t. Judge Reade always gives hard sentences (yes, to first time offenders), and her sentence in this case does not deviate from her normal sentencing pattern at all.

                  So, I can draw a few possible conclusions. One, you are misrepresenting your cousin (either her existence or opinion). Two, your cousin hasn’t bothered to actually review the matter. Or three, intellectual gifts in your family are evenly distributed.

                  • Anonymous December 11, 2011, 12:34 AM

                    I don’t know about Linda Reade’s sentencing pattern, you must be very interested in this case to bother checking it out. If so , perhaps you know that she was involved in the planning of the federal raid on rubashkin’s plant. This would make her most unlikely to be impartial, which is the most basic requirement to be a judge.
                    I knew as I typed my comment that I have no way of proving my cousin’s existence or opinion without giving her name, and for all I know her opinion was based on a cursory glance at the story’s coverage in the ny times.
                    A possible conclusion you can draw from my comment, that you neglected to mention in your 3, that doesn’t need to stoop to an uncalled for insult is: maybe there are people who are knowledgeable and educated, who suspect anti-semitism in this case, not because of a tribal affiliation with chassidic Jews, but because the sentence is exceedingly harsh.

                    • Dave December 11, 2011, 4:53 PM

                      I am aware of her role.

                      It sounds like you are not.

                      When the Federal Government is going to conduct mass arrests, they need to make sure that the Federal Courts are going to be able to process those arrested in a timely fashion — the Constitution requires it. So that means coordinating the timing (not the targets) with the Chief Judge. In this case, Linda Reade.

                      So, if you had bothered to look at the details, you’d have seen (as the Appeals Court did) that there was nothing improper.

                      Frankly, I don’t think the sentence is exceedingly harsh. But then, I don’t see why someone who robs a bank for a few thousand dollars with a note (and no gun) should serve a longer term than someone who robs a bank for millions with a fraudulent note.

                    • Dave December 11, 2011, 4:55 PM

                      Oh, one last bit.

                      Reade is known for giving strict sentences. Since she does this to all those found guilty in her court, the logical conclusion is “Reade gives hard time” not “Reade is an anti-Semite”.

                      If you had a generally lenient Judge who dropped the hammer on an Orthodox Jew, you would have cause to suspect. This isn’t that.

  • Scotty C December 7, 2011, 10:43 AM

    I am so tired of frum people defending criminals because they were “religious”. its really an embarassment.

  • Eli December 7, 2011, 10:48 AM

    “It seems in my mind that he’s being made into some sort of hero” – Good Morning, Heshy.

  • A. Nuran December 7, 2011, 11:23 AM

    Next up…

    It’s all the anti-Semites
    Nope. It was a serial criminal who stole millions and was justly convicted for his crimes. He got the same sentence a goy would have for what he did.

    His family will suffer
    Then he should have paused some time during his criminal career to consider the old adage “If you can’t do the time, don’t do the crime.”

    He gave lots of money to charity
    According to Torah tzedakah which comes from crime is tainted and unacceptable. The recipient shouldn’t accept it. The donor fulfills no mitzvot by giving it.

    He was a wonderful family man
    So what? Gilbert and Sullivan said it best:


    He’s a frum Jew
    Then as a “light unto the nations” he should be held to at least the same standard as a Christian schvartze. Prisons are full of people who became religious. They’re the best recruiting grounds for Dead Jew on a Stick’s salesmen. I don’t see any of you stepping up to demand they get special treatment.

    We can’t let a Jew rot in goyishe prison
    I get really farkin’ angry when I hear this from Jews. The moment you say laws and punishment should be different, one for them, one for us you’re begging to be reamed without the common courtesy of lube or a reach around. Nuremberg Laws are bad. They are unjust. They are evil. And they will turn around and bite you on the tochis next week.

    Nebech in galus! We must daven for Moshiach! We need Moshiach now!
    You get right on that. Let me know how it works out.

    • CM in CH December 11, 2011, 10:19 PM

      Amen. I’m sick of the whining.

  • shalomB December 7, 2011, 1:31 PM

    I usually dont poke fun at people but we need to give the yalili guy another hit with that video. I’m 100% joking so people dont get all butt hurt.

  • Tom Voletz December 7, 2011, 5:14 PM

    Nice video. It showed so many beautiful, poignant clips of the life of the tzadik hador, R’ Sholom Mordechai (shlita): his wife, his children, his wedding, his parnassah.

    There was only one thing left out — his crimes.

    He is no tzadik. If he had observed the HALACHOS of theft, lying, cheating, and dina demalchusa (observing the law of the land), none of this would have happened.

    They keep calling him a “baal bitachon” (one who trusts in Hashem). That’s super ironic. Because one who truly trusts in Hashem would not violate His laws in order to make a buck.

    The frum community has been taken for a ride by the PR firms that Rubashkin hired.

    BTW, you can read on Wikipedia about how corrupt his father, brother, and other family members are. Talk about a “crime family”.

  • Crowin' Cock December 7, 2011, 6:09 PM

    Interesting. We just had a huge rally here last week for him, sponsored not by Chabad, but by SATMAR! My theory is that they hate Lubabs enough to publicize Chabad criminials… OK, just kidding, it’s nice of them to try to raise funds for his appeal.

    I didn’t follow the case at all, but I’m a firm believer that as an orthodox Jew with a beard, one will ultimately get the book thrown at them if they engage in crime, especially in a state with barely any Jews living there.

    What gets me is those appeals billing this as “pidyin shvuyim”. As far as I learned, that mitzvah is to ransom a Jew kidnapped or imprisoned for ransom. In this case, no amount of money will free him, the only one who stands a chance of anything, is the lawyer feeding the frum masses false hope and collecting his hefty fees.

    All anyone that cares can do at this point is pray that he survives his sentence as best he can, possibly hope for some miracle where he’d get out early.

    • A. Nuran December 7, 2011, 6:56 PM

      At least in the Rubashkin case he didn’t get the book thrown at him. The prosecutor and judge reserved the immigration fraud and a number of other serious charges. His sentence was right down the center of the Federal guidelines with a little tacked on for lying under oath.

      You’d have to work really hard to convince an objective observer that he got it worse than anyone else because of his religion.

      Abramoff was a career criminal. He was out in a couple years. The important thing in his case wasn’t that he was a Jew. It’s that he was an influential lobbyist. As a member of the Ruling Class he got a very mild sentence.

      Show me some kind of differential conviction and sentencing rates for Orthodox Jews, and I’ll be happy to take a good open-minded look at it. But you’ll have to do some really heavy lifting to convince me frumma have it anywhere near as bad as Black people or the poor.

      • Crowin' Cock December 8, 2011, 6:37 AM

        A Nuran,

        I’m no expert on US law, so I really don’t know what is considered in line with “normal sentencing guidelines”. Living in Canada, I can assure you that Rubashkin would probably have got away with a fine and some community service if he lived here, where serial killers serve less time than Rubashkin will probably serve.

        I think a big part of Jewish and especially frum reaction to his sentence comes from a sense that white collar crime isn’t “real crime”. The attitude that tax evasion and scamming the government is perfectly acceptable is rampant in some communites,so in their eyes he did nothing really wrong.

        I’m quite sure that the judge and jury were itching to make an example out of him, and it’s well within their rights under US law (to the best of my knowledge).

        Unfortunately, Jews have short memories when it comes to the meaning of being in exile. When things go well, we tend to think they have the right to equal and even beneficial treatment in non Jewish lands. Every once in a while, a case such as this one serves as a grim reminder of where we really belong.

        • A. Nuran December 9, 2011, 9:16 AM

          You’re right. You don’t know the facts. You probably should have stopped there.

          What I said is accurate. Rubashkin was sentenced in strict accord with the Federal sentencing guidelines for his crimes.

  • Menachem December 8, 2011, 2:18 PM

    I was in the past a big fan of yours, but this article has made me completely lose all respect I had of you. You are blogging about something you don’t have the slightest idea about.

    As a lawyer who has been following the Rubashkin for quite some time, I can assure you that at least half of his convictions and most of his sentence were quite franky manufactured. In normal circumstances, with a fair judge and decent prosecutors (an increasing rarity), Rubashkin would, without a doubt, receive a single digit sentence.

    Convictions and sentences can be gravely misapplied totally contrary to what the intended law is.

    You are terribly misinformed and for some reason about this case. I suspect that some who really dislikes Rubashkin fed you this pack of lies

  • Menachem December 8, 2011, 3:26 PM

    A few specifics. Rubashkin was convicted of taking a loan he was not entitled to and thus defrauding the bank.

    Most of the money was ‘defrauded’ because he checked off in the loan agreement that he was not doing illegal business, and because he allegedly knowingly hired illegals the entire loan was fraud.

    This is money that Rubashkin fully intended to repay and did repay for 8 years until the raid.

    He was sentenced for this ‘fraud’ just as if he had done real fraud i.e. swindled money with the intention of defrauding the victim.

    This despite the fact that the jury had declared that it was not for personal gain, rather, to keep his father’s business alive.

    About 15 years of his sentence was due to money laundering, a charge that was extremely faulty for many, many reasons. What he did had no similarity at all to any kind of money laundering scheme. Yet, again, the judge and the prosecutors chose to prosecute him just the same.
    Additionally, the judge declined to reduce his sentence because of family, exemplary charity, a very routine thing among judges, instead she upped his sentence for, once again, ridiculous reasons.

    • Dave December 8, 2011, 6:43 PM

      That’s simply not true.

      He used a money laundering scheme (laundering it through charities he controlled, filing false invoices, etc) to divert money he owed the banks.

      Madoff paid people for decades — that doesn’t mean it wasn’t a giant swindle when the house of cards collapsed.

      Rubashkin had a loan against accounts receivable — he invented sales that didn’t exist to borrow money, and diverted money that the bank was owed through charities he controlled to do it.

      And when it collapsed, as these things do, the bank lost tens of millions of dollars due to his fraud. Intent matters if you don’t have actual losses — there were actual losses.

      And frankly, the Judge quite correctly noticed that you don’t get particular merit for donating stolen money to charity.

      • Crowin' Cock December 8, 2011, 6:50 PM


        He sounds like a modern day Robin Hood, minus the arrows , his band of merry men and of course maid Marian. Close enough, Rubashkin has his money, band of merry Chassidim and an eshes chayil sweating in her kitchen when she wasn’t poppin out babies 🙂

        Robin Hood was considered a hero in the story, too bad the sheriff was able to get his hands on Shlomo.

        • A. Nuran December 8, 2011, 9:21 PM

          Wait. Robin Hood robbed from the rich and the poor and gave to himself?

          • Crowin' Cock December 9, 2011, 5:11 AM

            Robin hood robbed the “establishment” just as Rubashkin did. To the best of my knowledge, Rubashkin didn’t defraud poor innocent people, nor did he hold up any old women.

            Robin Hood must have had expenses, after all, he had to keep a bunch of outdoorsmen merry, which much have cost him an arm and a leg at the local liquor store, not to mention all that expensive hunting gear and weaponry. They had to feed Friar tuck and Little John, another small fortune in itself.

            Moral of the story:
            When a Jew robs the government, cheats taxes or causes general mischief, he’s labelled as a dirty Jew, and has the book thrown at him. When an Anglo Saxon does it, they call him a hero, and make movies and childrens books about him.

            I guess the lubabs that made this video are looking for their own Sir Rubashkin of Locksley (or of Postville).

            • A. Nuran December 9, 2011, 9:18 AM

              He did steal from the poor. Look at the labor, wage and hour and indecent living condition parts of the story.

              • Crowin' Cock December 9, 2011, 9:31 AM


                Sir Rubashkin of Postville hired illegals at a lower wages. To some hippy minded people that may be considered stealing, to other practical people, he gave them a job (albeit a sh*tty one) that helped them put food on their tables when no one else would.

                Put yourself in the illegal immigrants shoes. Would you feel ripped off or grateful? Do you think these illegals were jumping for joy when the raid shut down the plant and they lost their jobs?

                Furthermore, the entire world economy is based on the equivalent of slave labor, fueled by Asia. Entire cities of people working in unimaginable circumstances to Westerners, just to feed our appetite for cheaper consumer goods. It’s what makes the world go round.

      • Menachem December 9, 2011, 9:01 AM

        Most of the “fraud” he was convicted of was simply because he checked off on his loan agreement that he wasn’t doing anything illegal.

        This “scheme” was simply a means to borrow more money, money that he fully intended to repay. His company collapsed, and he was unable to repay, solely because the government raided it. Comparing Rubashkin to Madoff is simply ludicrous and ignorant.

        • Dave December 9, 2011, 9:16 AM

          That is untrue.

          Most of the “fraud” he was convicted of was falsely claiming sales that didn’t exist, and diverting money that the bank was owed to his other accounts.

          See, what he had was effectively a loan to smooth out cash flow. Companies sell product, but it takes time to get paid back. The loan he had allowed him to borrow against his accounts receivable (the money owed for orders sold), but required that all accounts receivable go into a special account that would automatically go to the bank.

          What Rubashkin did (and according to unrebutted testimony during the trial, had been doing for years *before* the government raid) was file fraudulent sales to get more money, and then divert incoming payments to charities he controlled.

          You know what that’s called? Fraud and money laundering.

          • Menachem December 9, 2011, 12:32 PM

            That is called borrowing more than entitled to. Not stealing. It is not deserving of more than 2 years in prison.

            And most of the money that was ‘defrauded’ had nothing to do with this ‘scheme’.

            • A. Nuran December 9, 2011, 12:57 PM

              It’s called fraud.
              He lied in order to get money from the banks.
              Then he laundered the money so the banks couldn’t get it back.

              I’m pretty sure you are lying when you say you’re an attorney. Even a half-witted first year student at a third rate law school wouldn’t have gotten that wrong.

              • Menachem December 10, 2011, 5:19 PM

                You may question my credentials, however, I am certain that you have no legal credentials at all.

                You are insinuating that temporarily holding money from the bank to increase cash flow, money that would be ultimately repaid, be considered and treated as stealing.

                You logic sounds like it is right out of the Iowa Attorney’s Office.

                • A. Nuran December 11, 2011, 12:07 PM

                  I’m not insinuating anything. He lied about assets that did not exist to get millions in loands which he did not repay. That’s classic, straight up fraud.

                  • Dan December 11, 2011, 12:14 PM

                    Nuran: Do you know where we could read the trial record, and maybe then maybe nobody would be arguing about facts?

              • Menachem December 10, 2011, 5:53 PM

                You either have a very poor understanding of this case or you are deliberately misrepresenting the facts.

                Rubashkin did not do anything at all so that “the banks could not get the money back”, he merely occasionally withheld money temporarily to increase cash flow in his father’s company (the jury admitted that it was not for personal gain).

                In any event, trying to personally undermine me (my credentials) is a desperate and usually not successful method of debating.

                • Dave December 10, 2011, 7:19 PM

                  Well, let’s see.

                  First, he had the bank loan him money against collateral that *did not exist*. That isn’t lying about your income, that’s taking out a mortgage on a house that doesn’t exist on land that isn’t for sale. So there was no way the bank could ever get their loaned money back unless Agriprocessors was so profitable that it could repay the fraudulently obtained cash out of its profits.

                  But, as you admit, it wasn’t. In fact, it was so badly run that despite years of this behavior (again, it started long before the Federal raid), he was laundering accounts receivable so that he could have more cash on hand.

                  Look, the whole point of that style loan is to fix cash flow issues. The money is loaned with the accounts receivable as collateral. It lets the company get the money on products sold immediately, rather than waiting for the net 30, net 60, or net 90 payments to come in. And that’s why the collateral had to go straight back to the bank as it came in. Otherwise, you’re doing the equivalent of selling your house without paying off the mortgage first, except at least in that case there is a house.

                  Oh, and go read the sentencing ruling again. It details the personal gain that Rubashkin enjoyed from his crimes.

                  • Menachem December 11, 2011, 7:28 PM

                    We seem to be going back and forth here.

                    There is no reason to assume at all that had the government not raided his plant he would not be able to fully repay his loan.

                    See, he had a very profitable company, the margin of profit on Kosher meat is very high, and sales were well enough to cover both the bank loan and profit for Rubashkin’s family.

                    • Dave December 11, 2011, 9:22 PM

                      Sure there is — because the fraud scheme predates the Federal raid by years.

                      In other words, long before the Feds came in, Agriprocessors was playing a shell game with loans to meet its needs. If they hadn’t been, they wouldn’t have needed to file the fraudulent sales in the first place.

                      Look, if you have this style loan, here is what happens when it is working normally.

                      Customer buys product. You ship product. Customer will pay in 90 days. You file the paperwork with the bank, and get your money immediately (think of it like one of the tax refund anticipation laons), enabling you to capture all of your profit (minus the interest you’ll pay on the borrowed money) immediately. When the customer pays, the money goes into a special “sweeper” account, and goes to pay off the principal on the loan.

                      All it does is smooth your cash flow — your profits are the same (minus the float on the loan).

                      The reason to file fake sales is because you aren’t profitable (or aren’t profitable enough) and you’d rather steal than go bankrupt. Because unlike real sales, there isn’t a payment coming in to clear the principal, and you didn’t have the money in the first place. And so the elaborate charade of money laundering begins.

                      The scheme was inevitably going to collapse just as Ponzi schemes inevitably collapse — because the money isn’t really there.

                    • Menachem December 11, 2011, 10:09 PM


                      Rubashkin’s business was running quite successfully for many years before he ever took this loan. The purpose of the loan, and the reason why he overstated his sales was purely because he was expanding his father’s business very rapidly at an exponential pace and he needed a lot of cash in advance. This was no Ponzi scheme.

                      You are making utterly false assumptions to justify an outrageous sentence.

                      See, the government destroyed his entire business and then faulted him for its collapse! (This is the same government that charged him with 9,311 counts of child labor without a shred of proof against him.)

                    • Dave December 11, 2011, 10:37 PM

                      So tell me, when do you think the fraudulent sales started being submitted?

                    • Dave December 12, 2011, 8:28 AM

                      Oh, also, your claim “the same government” is in fact absolutely false.

                      Those were state charges, not Federal. Different governments.

  • Menachem December 8, 2011, 3:32 PM

    You can choose to believe the many prominent attorneys and legal experts who commented about this case, many of whom wrote amicus briefs on behalf of Rubashkin, or bloggers of the likes of failedmessiah, who have evil vendettas against Rubashkin.

    • taylor December 8, 2011, 7:05 PM

      I agree that Rubashkin’s sentence was excessive, but I also agree with failed messiah (while cursing him) that perhaps if Rubashkin expressed a dose of remorse, he would have had a lesser sentence.

      • A. Nuran December 8, 2011, 9:23 PM

        Actually, it wasn’t excessive. It was precisely within the Federal sentencing guidelines. The judge would have had to find a reason why he deserved special leniency.

        You can argue that the United States has an insanely high incarceration rate and keeps people locked up for way too long. I’ll agree with you. You can’t argue Rubashkin was singled out or got a sentence that exceeds what others convicted of the same crimes got from the same judge.

        • Menachem December 9, 2011, 8:52 AM

          Keep on arguing with 6 former US Attorney generals, federal judges and 750 law professors…

          You haven’t got a clue about sentencing guidelines or anything related to it. You read the judge’s sentencing brief and you think you know it all.

          • Dave December 9, 2011, 9:19 AM

            Nice try, but the Former Attorney Generals letter was about a request for Life Sentence, not the sentence he got.

            And, if we’re going to talk about arguments from authority, the sentence was upheld by the Appeals Court (who, unlike law professors, actually deal in cases — most law professors have never worked in the profession other than as academics).

            • Menachem December 9, 2011, 12:43 PM

              There were very prominent members of the legal community who commented on the excessiveness of the sentence and some of them actually submitted amicus briefs to the court of the appeals.

              The 8th circuit happens to be extremely pro government and very rarely overturns sentences, in fact, the Supreme Court overturned most of the 8th circuits sentencing rulings on appeal. Additionally, there some very suspicious circumstances in this case, such as Judge Reade sitting with 2 of the judges on the morning of the appeal.

              • Dave December 10, 2011, 7:23 PM

                Odds of winning any appeal in Federal Courts are low.

                In 2001, the odds of any appeal were 5.7% across all circuits, with the Second Circuit only overturning 1.2% of all cases it heard.

                That’s why, when the government has you cold on Federal Charges, you take the plea, rather than shrieking about how you’re being oppressed. Rubashkin was absolutely guilty of the charges he faced, and because he wasn’t willing to take a deal, he’s going to spend most of (if not all of) the rest of his life in Jail. He did the crime, he compounded that by being a dramatic idiot in the courts, and he’s going to do a lot of time.

                • Menachem December 11, 2011, 7:23 PM

                  Well, retroactively Rubashkin may have taken the plea deal had he know that the judge had extensive communication with the prosecution before the raid.

                  Rubashkin had no way of knowing he would have such a biased judge, and thought he would be able to defend himself in a fair and balanced court (without having to appeal).

                  Unfortunately for him that was not the case.

                  • Dave December 12, 2011, 6:16 AM

                    You should have read the Appeals ruling. It addressed that particular issue (both that it was a non-issue, and that the defense attorney’s knew about it).

                    • Menachem December 12, 2011, 10:39 AM

                      YOU should read his defense brief. Rubashkin actually knew very little about the judges involvement with the prosecutors. Most of it was disclosed when he obtained the FIFA documents which detailed more extensively (albeit heavily redacted) the communications between the judge and the prosecutors.

                      And the appeals court refused to consider it because of a very narrow interpretation of Rule 33b, an interpretation that other appeals courts clearly dispute.

                    • Dave December 12, 2011, 12:09 PM

                      I read the Defense Brief. I was singularly underwhelmed, and I found the defense attorney’s continued misrepresentation of what happened in the public media (much, I must note, to their own financial benefit) to be distasteful in the extreme.

  • Yossi December 8, 2011, 7:26 PM

    I am a born Jew but I wasn’t raised in a Jewish home.  There are lots of things I feel I missed out on:  An early education in Hebrew being the most obvious; the ability to daven in Hebrew with understanding and true feeling is a gift many FFBs seem to take for granted.  (I still struggle through my siddur, tripping over words, always behind, and frequently lost.) I envy the Yiddish FFBs use whenever they wish talk about BTs who are still in the room, or tell jokes we can’t follow.  I love the closeness in frum society, even if it sometimes leads to over-zealous minding of other people’s business.  The way in which Jews instinctively protect and care for each other never ceases to amaze.  

    There are lots of things I feel I missed growing up… But the one thing I am glad I do have is a feeling of civic responsibility and a duty to obey the laws of my country.  Before ya’ll flip out, I am not saying all Jews are law breakers or frum Jews are bad citizens.  But it’s very obvious to someone who’s lived in both worlds that some (not all) frummies don’t feel that all the rules apply to them. 
    I’ve stopped asking questions like, “How’d you get a building permit so fast?” or “Where did you study to get your license?” or “How did you get your property zoned for that?” Heshy talking about how none of the smoke alarms had batteries in his Yeshiva makes my skin crawl. These kind of violations don’t seem to register as a problem and there is an almost cultural tendency to pay little heed to laws that are seen as inconveniences.  

    Frummies may not ‘hold with the government’, but federal law enforcement and federal courts don’t play!  Rubashkin got the proverbial book thrown at him, but nobody, except frummies, are suprised or confused by this.  (Next time you get pulled over for speeding, try insisting to the officer that you weren’t driving – see how it goes.)  

    Lie to a judge, they become displeased. Keep lying and you end up with a 27-year sentence. It’s not anti-semetic, it’s a fact. Further, the courts and law enforcement have a duty to do some book throwing when dealing with people who don’t think the rules apply to them. They are dangerous. 

    And, for the love of Israel, check your smoke detectors. Haven’t enough of us died in fires this century?

    • A. Nuran December 9, 2011, 4:36 PM

      You missed learning that you are racially superior.
      You missed learning the world was created for your benefit.
      You missed learning that everyone else is slightly lower than whale dung.
      You missed learning laws are for other people, not you.
      You missed learning the world owes you a living.

      • Yossi December 10, 2011, 5:14 PM

        Yup! Plus, I’m not afraid of dogs.

    • CM in CH December 11, 2011, 10:27 PM

      Yossi, I couldn’t agree with you more. I’ve seen so much embarrassingly bad behavior from frummies ever since I moved to Brooklyn, it’s the one reason that keeps me wanting to run back home.

  • Menachem December 9, 2011, 12:25 PM

    That is called borrowing more than entitled to. It is not stealing. It doesn’t deserve more than two years in prison. Regardless, most of the money ‘defrauded’ had nothing to do with that.

  • Wigmore December 11, 2011, 2:17 AM

    CNBC recently devoted an entire episode of its American Greed series on Rubashkin. Try to view a copy of it so you can learn that there was a lot more going on than you seem to know about.

  • Mendel December 11, 2011, 10:41 AM

    “That is called borrowing more than entitled to. It is not stealing. It doesn’t deserve more than two years in prison. Regardless, most of the money ‘defrauded’ had nothing to do with that.”

    Whether or not it’s called “stealing” it is called “fraud.” Care to challenge that?

  • Crowin' Cock December 11, 2011, 12:31 PM

    All this back and forth is useless, it isn’t going to help his cause either, nor are those silly videos.

    After all the dust settles, here are some hard facts about this story:
    1) Most frum Jews think he got the book thrown at him because he’s Jewish.
    2) Most goyim probably don’t give a damn, but figure the greedy Jew got what he deserved.
    3) Most self hating Jews think he should be crucified on pay per view for doing what he did, and even more so for having the nerve to try to mount an appeal.

    • Dan December 11, 2011, 12:39 PM


    • A. Nuran December 11, 2011, 2:15 PM

      1) Correct. When you’re frummer everything is the goyim’s fault.
      2) First part correct. Second part, no. Most of them don’t care about him being a Jew, just a crook.
      3) Most honest people, Jewish or sub-human goy-filth, think he committed a lot of crimes and avoided every opportunity to make it easier on himself. Stepped on his shmekele and emptied his magazine into his foot.

  • Klutz December 13, 2011, 1:24 PM

    The Rubashkin fiasco just shows what a racket kosher is. It’s also, maybe even more so about who you know than however kosher you are. There’s a new kosher meat company in Colorado that’s starting out–eco glatt. Already the frummy Ashkenazi folks are raising a stink that the guy doing the slaughtering is Sephardic… they could care less the cattle are grass fed and free range and not shackled.

    Kosher it seems is more often about how big the shochtet’s striemel is.

    • Crowin' Cock December 13, 2011, 1:32 PM


      That’s strange. Sephardic shechita is considered better than Glatt.

    • A. Nuran December 13, 2011, 3:48 PM

      I’ll thank you not to comment on how big and hairy my striemel is!

    • Klutz December 13, 2011, 6:05 PM

      They had that on the eco glatt website. I didn’t even know sephardic was more strict as far as “glattness” goes. What’s nice is that they do the porging and therefore they serve the hindquarters, so that may be an issue. I am all for a kosher New York Strip. I’ve been keeping kosher for over a year now so it’s nice to have something other than brisket and chuck roast.

      • Crowin' Cock December 13, 2011, 6:12 PM


        The Beit Yosef standard is the highest you’ll find (probably the most expensive too). Some will take out the nerve so you can eat the hindquarters, most won’t. Key is to find someone knowledgeable and reliable to do it.

Leave a Comment