The court agreed to bifurcate the trial into two parts, holding a separate trial for the charges involving hiring (and conspiring to hire) illegal aliens. The basis for this separation was the prejudice against Rubashkin on the non-illegals charges that would have flowed from the illegals charges.
Yet the government tried Rubashkin on the illegals charges during the first trial anyway, and I have no doubt that the bias that flowed from those charges influenced the jury as it decided on the other charges. The way that the government reintroduced the illegals charges was to charge him with bank fraud for delivering compliance certificates to the bank in connection with his loan, certifying that the company was not in violation of any laws. Then they introduced evidence that the company was in violation of the laws barring hiring of illegal aliens. As a result, he was found guilt, not of hiring illegal aliens, but of committing bank fraud.
Do you think that a lifetime sentence is standard or appropriate for hiring 300+ illegals? It is not. Here are some other cases:
(a) Swift & Co. - Although Swift was a major employer of illegal workers in six states and 1,297 illegal employees were found on those premises in the December 2006 raids, neither the company nor any of its officials were criminally charged. In Iowa, for example, one United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) official at Swifts Marshalltown, Iowa, plant was charged in an Iowa federal court with harboring illegal immigrants and was sentenced to one year and one day in prison and a $2000 fine after being found guilty by a jury. Another Swift employee who had pleaded guilty was sentenced to probation.
(b) Michael Bianco, Inc. (MBI) - A manufacturer of leather goods and handbags in New Bedford, Mass. was raided by ICE on March 6, 2007, after an undercover operation from which it was learned that Francesco Insolia, the owner, intentionally sought out illegal immigrants and exploited them with punitive fines and terrible working conditions. Approximately 326 illegal workers were detained in the raid. Insolia was sentenced in January 2009 to one year and one day in prison and fined $30,000. The company was fined $1.51 million and ordered to pay $460,000 in restitution.
(c) Action Rags USA - A Houston, Texas clothing and rag exporter company was raided by ICE on June 25, 2008 - little more than a month after the Agri raid. Approximately 85% of the business workforce consisted of illegal Mexican immigrants, and approximately 150 immigrants were arrested. The owner, Mubarik Kahlon, and two managers were indicted on immigration charges in July 2008. A jury trial was set for June 15, 2009, but on June 10, Kahlon and one manager pleaded guilty. Kahlon was sentenced to two years probation and a $6,000 fine.
(d) Miyako Sushi and Panda China Buffets - ICE raided these restaurants in Ocean City, Maryland in June 2007, on evidence that illegal workers were hired as below-minimum-wage employees (paid in cash) in the restaurants and were provided living accommodations in condominiums owned by the restaurant owners, Bo Hao Zhu and Siu Ping Cheng. The owners pleaded guilty to immigration-law violations and were sentenced on September 12, 2008, to 18 months probation. Their partnership was ordered to pay a $50,000 fine.
(e) Rosenbaum-Cunningham International, Inc. (RCI) - On February 22, 2007, ICE raided 63 locations in 17 states of a national janitorial service that provided cleaning crews for restaurants. Almost all RCI janitorial employees were illegal immigrants who had no documentation whatever, and they were paid in cash. The owners, Richard M. Rosenbaum, Edward Scott Cunningham, and Christina A. Flocken were charged not only with immigration-law violations, but also with defrauding the United States of more than $18 million in federal employment taxes. On March 4, 2008, Rosenbaum was sentenced to 10 years imprisonment, Cunningham to 51 months, and Flocken to 30 months.
The cases described above are typical. No case following an ICE raid has even come remotely close to the draconian threats and punishments imposed on Rubashkin.
Again, I am not questioning Rubashkin’s guilt. I am arguing that the prosecutors embarked on a tortuous path to rack up tens of charges arising from the same events, violated their agreement and now are seeking a sentence — jail for the rest of his life — that is far beyond the bounds of propriety and morality.