Trump frees jew fraudster

[yankeedoodle]

Shit-for-brains shabbos goy Donnie-boy has set free a jew who got rich abusing illegal immigrants.   Can you believe that?     He conned Americans to vote for him because he was going to crack down on illegal immigrants, and he just set free a jew who was using illegal immigrants.   

Happy Hanukkah - oops, Merry Christmas - America!   

Rubashkin, 57, ran what was America's largest kosher meat-processing company: Agriprocessors in Postville, Iowa. The company's facilities were raided in 2008 under accusations of immigration violations and worker exploitation at a time of increased enforcement of illegal labor during the Bush administration. In 2009 Rubashkin was convicted of 86 counts of federal bank fraud related to loans to the company, said to be part of a complex accounting scheme to pay workers off the books.       

Why Trump Commuted the Sentence of Sholom Rubashkin, Kosher Meatpacking Executive
http://fortune.com/2017/12/21/trump-commute-sentence-sholom-rubashkin/

The Postville site became the center of controversy for its tensions between longtime locals and two groups of new arrivals: the largely Latino population who arrived to work in the plant, and the Orthodox Jews who supervised its kosher status.

Much reporting — led by groundbreaking exposes from The Forward's Nathaniel Popper — exposed serious allegations of mistreatment of animals and employees at the plant. Concern driven by reporting on Agriprocessors led some rabbis to create the "Hechsher Tzedek" certification, promising that slaughterhouse employees would be treated ethically.   

Who Is Sholom Rubashkin?
https://forward.com/fast-forward/390540/who-is-sholom-rubashkin/

[rmstock]

a Jewish Kosher Butcher and Meat packer was released early from jail by Trump
(not his idea originally), and its like the Jews just won the World Series  :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixpC_V4T4q0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hvX8rYsRWic

[rmstock]

Iowa Judge Linda Reade barely concealed her outrage at Sholom Rubashkin for trying to undo his 27-year jail sentence.
Jun 15, 2017
Judge Reade Can't Hide Her Hate
By Debbie Maimon, Yated
http://www.collive.com/show_news.rtx?id=46100

  "Sholom Mordechai Rubashkin has been sitting behind bars for eight and a
   half years. His ongoing quest for justice, supported by over a 107
   legal experts, has powered a series of hard-hitting appeals that have
   ripped aside the legal veneer covering a shocking saga of prosecutorial
   and judicial misconduct.
   
   Court filings by attorneys Stephen Locher and Paul Rosenberg of Des
   Moines, and Gary Apfel of Los Angeles (working pro bono) reconstruct,
   step-by-step, the strategies by which Sholom's conviction and sentence
   were obtained through the violation of his constitutional rights.
   
   With the case back in the limelight due to its new defense filings with
   the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, the compelling Motion to Recuse and
   Judge Linda Reade's denial of the motion have received new attention.
   
   Through FOIA documents released by the government, the Motion to Recuse
   uncovered conflicts of interest on Judge Reade's part that so impugned
   her ability to remain impartial, she was required to recuse herself on
   her own initiative, judicial experts say.
   
   These disclosures – distinct from earlier FOIA revelations about ex
   parte communications that prompted the first appeal – expose hidden
   conflicts of interests that legal scholars have said would impair any
   judge's ability to maintain neutrality.
   
   SECRET COMMUNICATIONS CONTINUED TO SENTENCING PHASE
   
   The FOIA documents provide new evidence that ex parte communications
   and Judge Reade's entanglement with the Rubashkin case continued up to
   the eve of his sentencing.
   
   In particular, they shed light on an obscure "threat investigation"
   conducted by the FBI after Judge Reade complained that threatening
   letters had been sent to her by supporters of Sholom Rubashkin.
   
   Based on the FOIA documents, defense attorneys charged the government
   with continuing to withhold crucial facts surrounding the threat
   investigation, specifically the correspondence between Judge Reade and
   the USAO regarding the alleged threats.
   
   Attorneys argue that the "threatening" letters might well have biased
   Judge Reade against Sholom. Had he been given the full picture as
   opposed to the doctored one described below, he would have sought the
   judge's recusal.
   
   JUDGE READE'S HUSBAND ENTANGLED WITH RUBASBKIN
   
   The Brief also elaborates on legal problems posed by a conflict of
   interest involving Judge Reade's husband, Michael Figenshaw, a senior
   partner in the Bradshaw Fowler law firm that represented Agriprocessors
   in extensive bankruptcy proceedings.
   
   Figenshaw had access to privileged information about Sholom Rubashkin's
   legal affairs that was material to the 2255 Motion. The recusal motion
   questions how judicial neutrality could have survived the
   Figenshaw-Reade-Rubashkin entanglement, as the strong possibility of
   confidential information leaking from Figenshaw to Reade (from husband
   to wife) destroys all appearance of impartiality.
   
   Already compromised by the pre-raid and pre-sentencing ex parte
   communications, Judge Reade's ability to remain objective was even
   further undermined by her husband's legal and business relationship
   with Sholom Rubashkin.
   
   In addition, the Motion states, Figenshaw, a senior partner in the
   firm, "had a financial interest ... that could be substantially affected
   by the outcome of the bankruptcy proceedings." When a fee dispute
   erupted between Bradshaw and Rubashkin-owned entities, and monies the
   law firm had billed for were not forthcoming, the
   Figenshaw-Rubashkin-Reade entanglement grew even more complicated.
   
   The fee dispute raised the possibility that Figenshaw (and by
   extension, his wife, Judge Reade) may have been hurt financially by the
   dispute, profoundly heightening Reade's conflict of interest in the
   Rubashkin case.
   
   Connect the dots: Judge Reade is presiding over the case of a man whose
   actions, directly or indirectly, might be hurting her husband's wallet.
   
   Furthermore, the Motion to Recuse argues that Reade is unqualified to
   rule on the 2255 Motion inasmuch as she or her husband may be called as
   witnesses in an evidentiary hearing about government misconduct.
   
   [The Motion to Recuse was filed together with the 2255 Motion, a
   brilliant document that reconstructs, piece by piece, government's
   schemes to harm Sholom Rubashkin by thwarting the sale of
   AgriProcessors during its bankruptcy period, followed by an attempt to
   whitewash its actions in court through false testimony.]
   
   She could also be called to testify regarding her own conflict of
   interest, attorneys note. "No judge, no matter how well intentioned,
   could be expected to evaluate her own actions... without legitimate
   questions being raised about impartiality," the Motion stresses.
   
   Precisely because she is a potential witness in the case, the Motion to
   Recuse says, Judge Reade must recuse herself from the case and turn
   over the 2255 Motion to a judge who has no prior entanglement and
   therefore engenders no suspicion of an appearance of bias.
   
   INVENTING FACTS ON RECORD
   
   Strikingly, Judge Reade continuously presents as judicial support for
   her rejecting the Motion to Recuse pages of assertions that are not
   based on facts on record and carry no legal weight. They were not
   excerpted from trial proceedings, deposition, evidentiary hearings or
   discovery. They do not even have the status of hearsay in which a
   witness testifies under oath that he overheard or was told a particular
   piece of information.
   
   For example, she writes emphatically about what her husband knew or
   didn't know regarding the Rubashkin case as if these assertions have
   the status of testimony given under oath, when they are nothing more
   than her own unsupported declarations.
   
   She writes, "The undersigned's spouse [husband Michael Figenshaw] ...did
   not obtain any information concerning these proceedings because he had
   no involvement whatsoever in [Sholom Rubashkin's] criminal case or
   bankruptcy proceedings, and he has no interest whatsoever that could be
   substantially affected by the outcome of this case..."
   
   She then goes on to attest that her husband "as of December 2010 was no
   longer a partner of Bradshaw." Although he continues to work for the
   law firm, it is only in a "limited" way, with a fixed salary not
   contingent on fees paid to the firm by various clients.
   
   Judge Reade's statements about the "limited" extent of her husband's
   involvement with Bradshaw, and the scope of his inside knowledge of the
   Rubashkin case are offered as facts on record. Yet a quick review of
   the case reveals that her husband never gave a deposition or testimony
   under oath in connection with any aspect of the Rubashkin case.
   
   The implication is that the judge apparently feels her utterances do
   not require any form of legal authentication. The mere fact that she
   uttered them is sufficient to establish them as legal facts. In
   actuality, however, these assertions carry as much legal weight as say,
   the statements of any spectator in the gallery who was not deposed or
   questioned and cross-examined on the witness stand.
   
   

   
   "NO REASONABLE PERSON WOULD HARBOR DOUBT?"
   
   Judge Reade oversteps judicial bounds in another way; by evaluating and
   approving her own contested actions as if she were someone other than
   herself.
   
   In other words, Judge Reade plays the part of witness for Judge Reade.
   She offers repeated assertions about what the "undersigned" (i.e. Judge
   Reade) did or did not do, and what "the undersigned" thought and
   intended regarding the entire saga of the raid on Agriprocessors and
   the criminal prosecution that followed.
   
   To justify breaches of judicial ethics, she is forced to create an
   alternate reality in which unpleasant facts – such as the country's top
   legal experts demanding that she recuse from the case – are not allowed
   to intrude. For example, on page 71 of her Ruling to Deny, she writes
   that "a reasonable person...would not conclude that the undersigned's
   impartiality might reasonably be questioned."
   
   Almost compulsively, on page 72, she repeats the "reasonable person"
   argument: "A reasonable person, being fully advised of all of the
   facts, would not harbor any doubt regarding the undersigned's
   impartiality."
   
   Is she truly oblivious to the fact that 107 legal luminaries —
   including former attorneys general, senior officials at the Department
   of Justice, United States attorneys and federal judges — signed a
   friend of the court brief stating their expert opinion that she should
   have recused herself?
   
   In addition, from 2010 to 2013, nearly 70 congressmen wrote letters to
   then Attorney General Eric Holder about the breaches of judicial ethics
   in the Rubahskin case related to Reade's excessive involvement with the
   prosecution. They demanded that his office review the case.
   
   Do all these prominent legal personalities not qualify as "reasonable
   people"?
   
   In view of the wave of legal opinion advocating her recusal from the
   case, Judge Reade's insistence that "no reasonable person would harbor
   doubt" about her impartiality is almost comical.

   •••
   
   Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of Judge Reade's brief rejecting the
   Motion to Recuse is her barely concealed outrage at Sholom Rubashkin
   for daring to try to undo his 27-year jail sentence. The judge's brief
   suggests a mindset fixated on ensuring this is not allowed to happen at
   any cost.
   
   "[Rubashkin's] arguments boil down to a desire to invalidate all of
   [my] prior actions," she writes. All her prior actions. Like a Freudian
   slip, this telltale comment suggests the author's "prior actions"
   encompass much more than is known. She is deeply invested in the
   outrageous 27-year sentence. Under no circumstances can it be allowed
   to be "invalidated."
   
   "(Rubashkin's) mudslinging is wholly inappropriate," Judge Reade wrote,
   dismissing the reams of evidence of shocking prosecutorial misconduct
   as nothing but "accusations, especially unjust ones, [meant] to damage
   the reputation of an opponent."
   
   The prosecutors enshrined this mudslinging comment in their own brief,
   citing it in a block quote at the very beginning of their brief
   opposing defense motions seeking the right to appeal.
   
   What irony. When unscrupulous people schemed to vilify and frame a man
   for a multi-million dollar rap and incarcerate him for life, neither
   judge nor prosecutors worried about mudslinging.
   
   When star government witness Paula Roby told a client (quoted in the
   defense Application for Certificate of Appealability, p.14), "Rubashkin
   (whom Roby had never met) is the sleaziest [expletive] to ever walk the
   earth ..." and she was "going to make sure he was put away for a long
   time," mudslinging did not bother the judge.
   
   Mudslinging was fine as long as the mud flew in only one direction.
   
   "Mudslinging" became a problem only when defense investigations began
   to uncover gross prosecutorial misconduct and judicial impropriety.
   Although the final chapter of this sordid saga has yet to play out, one
   thing seems probable as efforts to learn the truth continue: the deeper
   one digs, the muddier things are going to get.
   
   
   From the comments :
   
   Yemach shemah vezichrah
   Why put her picture up? Would you post a picture of Hitler?
   (6/15/2017 4:03:56 PM)
   
   [ ... ]
   
   Fool
   She's the ultimate fool. She will come to a horrible ending for
   'touching His annointed ones''
   (6/15/2017 6:22:30 PM)
   
    "