I did some further reading on the Internet on this case. As to be expected, influential Jews have been apologists for Mr. Rabashkin . Also as to be expected, Jews have screamed that anti-Semitism perverted the sentencing. When I hear cries of racism and anti-Semitism, I take them with a grain of salt because there are many accusations that exist only in the mind of the offended. Accusation and opinion are not proof! We should all avoid Uncle Leo syndrome.
The following excerpts from: http://finkorswim.com/2011/09/19/the-rubashkin-case-a-no-spin-unbiased-summary/ provide what I think are a mostly objective perspective about this case:
“I (Rabbi Fink) post this as a public service. For a couple years now, the “frum” (Jewish) news sites and papers have reported a whitewashed version of the Rubashkin case. This has caused foolish outrage, claims of anti-Semitism, calls for the lives of the judges who presided over the appeal, condemnation of the criminal justice system and a gross double standard / hypocritical view of justice. All the frum media has been able to learn from this episode is not to trust the government and that we are a few logical steps away from Nuremberg Laws being applied to America. I have not seen one mainstream news article or editorial on honesty in business. Not one. This is understandable, because in the eyes of the frum community, Rubashkin is the victim of a blood libel and a contemporary Dreyfuss. In my opinion, this is reprehensible. We lose credibility as a community when we are not honest. But more importantly we are missing the greater lesson in all of this. Don’t break the law.
What follows is free of compassion or vendetta. It is an attempt to portray pure fact. Please feel free to reference this post when discussing the case with others:
Rubashkin was convicted of 86 counts of bank, wire, mail fraud making false statements to a bank, money laundering and violations of an order from the Secretary of Agriculture. His sentence was 324 months (27 years) which was on the low side of the guidelines. One of the employees arrested in the raid asked that the judge (the Honorable Linda Reade) be recused from his immigration case because she was involved in the logistics of preparing the courts for the barrage of arraignments and cases following the raid. Literally, hundreds of defendants were tried in makeshift court rooms. The Chief Judge was needed to make the necessary arrangements. The court acknowledged involvement but as Chief Judge this involvement was minimal, necessary and not prejudicial. Rubashkin’s trial team was aware of this issue and aware of the court’s decision not to recuse itself from the other trial and did not pursue the matter further during trial. A deadline for recusal motions was also set. No motions were made by Rubashkin’s lawyers before the deadline. It has been argued that since Rubashkin was not convicted of immigration violations, the court should not have considered the immigration violations in the fraud case. The court argues that this is irrelevant. Individuals working for Rubashkin were convicted of immigration violations and were under his supervision. Rubashkin is culpable for those convictions as well. The 27 year sentence has also been challenged. The prosecution and Rubashkin disagree on the amount of loss caused by the fraud. According to prosecutors the amount is $27 million and according to the defense it is $12 million. (Side note: this means that Rubashkin acknowledges that he is guilty of at least a $12 million fraud).
As the to sentence, 324 months was on the low end of the range. The sentence was mitigated by Rubashkin’s circumstances as a father, first time offender and philanthropist. Without those factors the sentence would have been greater.
Another factor was Rubashkin’s lack of remorse during the trial. The perception of the court reflected the outrage of the community. In the orthodox Jewish community, Rubashkin was elevated to hero status as if he had done no wrong.
Letters on behalf of Rubashkin were written by U.S. Attorney Generals and others. Their letters focused on the unfairness of the guidelines. They did not say Rubashkin was not guilty. They did not say that Rubashkin did not get a fair trial. They did not say the case was an example of anti-Semitism. Their complaint was limited to the general harshness of the sentencing guidelines. They did not say the guidelines were misapplied.
It should be noted that 90% of Federal cases settle. This is because the Feds rarely indict unless they are sure they are going to win. Of the 10% of cases that do not settle, the Feds win about 90% of those. One in a hundred Federal cases is won by the defendant. Rubashkin’s lawyers knew the score. If he had settled and entered a guilty plea and cooperated his sentence would likely have been 5 years or less (this is pure speculation but based on conversations with defense attorneys and prosecutors).