He cited evidence of detailed ex parte discussions between Judge Reade and U.S. Attorney in the six months leading up to the raid that were not disclosed during the Rubashkin trial. The letter also chided the Attorney General for shrugging off the many inquiries into the case by concerned congressmen.
â€œSo far, all requests for an investigation have been referred to the [Iowa] Attorneyâ€™s Officeâ€¦the very office that allegedly took part in the ex parte meetings before the raid,â€ Poeâ€™s letter protested.
Congressman Poe Refuses to Back Off
Rep. Poe was one of the galvanizing forces behind a landmark congressional hearing this past August on the problem of overcriminalization plaguing the nation. At this hearing, he raised the profile of the Rubashkin case by citing the governmentâ€™s overkill in invoking an obscure law to incarcerate Sholom Mordechai as an example of prosecutorial excess.
A growing array of congressmen, both Democrats and Republicans, have condemned the unethical conduct of Judge Reade and the federal prosecutors who, the evidence shows, worked hand in hand in prosecuting and convicting Sholom Mordechai.
Thus far, Holder has not responded to any of the letters directly. A stock reply signed by a subordinate informs the concerned congressmen petitioning Holder that â€œlegal and ethical considerations preclude us from discussing issues currently being litigated.â€
Rep. Jerrold Nadler: â€œU.S. Lawyers Violated Rulesâ€
Adding a powerful voice to the growing chorus of congressional appeals for Holderâ€™s intervention in the case, Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) wrote to the Attorney General last week that â€œserious issues of potential misconduct or improper Department policyâ€¦demand your careful review, consideration, and, where appropriate, remedial action.â€
The NY congressman minced no words in denouncing government authorities for not abiding by the laws guaranteeing a defendant a fair trial. â€œI conclude that U.S. lawyers violated rules governing ex parte contact with the judge who presided at the trial,â€ he asserted.
â€œAs the Ranking Democratic Member of the Subcommittee on the Constitution, I believe it is important that the Department of Justice respects the rights of persons in its custody and persons accused of crimes,â€ Nadler wrote.
U.S.Attorney Rose: â€œThe Goal Was to Punish Rubashkinâ€
The Nadler letter raised a serious issue that has largely gone unnoticed: the governmentâ€™s sentencing of Sholom Mordechai to prison over immigration charges that were never presented at trial and never heard by a jury.
Nadler quoted U.S. Attorney Stephanie Rose of Iowa who inadvertently revealed the governmentâ€™s animus against Sholom Mordechai in a December interview with an Iowa-based paper, The Gazette. The interview discussed the governmentâ€™s immigration raid on Agriprocessors and the criminal prosecutions that followed.
Nadler cited comments by Rose that he found very troubling. â€œThe goal of this case was to prevent future crimes like this, as well as to punish Rubashkin,â€ Rose said in the interview. â€œThis case was important for those that are taking advantage of and employing illegal immigrantsâ€¦â€
The problem with punishing Rubashkin for â€œcrimes like this,â€ writes Nadler, is that â€œ[n]either the law nor Department policy permit an individual to be sentenced for an offense that was neither charged nor decided by the jury.â€
Nadler wants to know why Sholom Mordechai was sentenced to over a quarter of a century in jail over immigration charges for which he was never tried.
Following his conviction for bank fraud, all ninety or so immigration-related charges against him were dropped. And in the state labor trial which brought up the far more serious charges of exploitation and mistreatment of minors, Sholom Mordechai was totally acquitted.
Yet, here is the respected Iowa U.S. Attorney –a year after a jury declared Sholom Mordechai innocent – blandly asserting that he needed to be punished â€œto prevent future crimes like this.â€
Despite his acquittal on child labor counts, and despite the fact that the government dropped all other immigration charges against him, Rose still insists on his guilt. In publicizing these sentiments, she betrays an abiding prejudice against Sholom Mordechai that explains the travesty of justice her office has engineered.
Rose Laments â€œMisinformationâ€ Campaign By Rubashkin Supporters
Rose admitted in the Gazette interview that her office has taken heavy flak for its handling of the Rubashkin case. â€œShe said the Rubashkin case was frustrating for her because his conviction and wrongdoing were overshadowed by accusations of wrongful prosecution,â€ the article noted. â€œThe defense put out many facts that were not accurate and any attempt we made to tell the truth â€¦ it just didnâ€™t help, so we stopped,â€ Rose said. [Translation:â€œWe had no way to refute the allegations,so we dug in and prayed the whole thing would just die down.â€]
One is reminded of the instance Stephanie Rose chose to break her silence in order to set the record straight. This was in a June 2010 open letter published in theDes Moines Register and quickly leaked to leading newswires.
Lewin-Cook Letter Challenged Rose to Public Debate
Sholom Mordechaiâ€™s attorneys, Nathan Lewin and Guy Cook, responded to Roseâ€™s lame excuses and fabrications in a scathing rebuttal, challenging the U.S. Attorney to a public debate:
â€œU.S. Attorney Stephanie Rose has decided that â€˜silence is no longer in orderâ€™ and has opted to defend her prosecution of Sholom Rubashkin in an open letter, Lewin and co-counsel Guy Cook wrote.
â€œRose has opened the propriety of her conduct to discussion in the media, particularly since her letter makes many assertions that are false and were never proved or tested in court.
â€œWe now challenge US Attorney Rose to debate Mr. Lewin on the propriety of the prosecution in a public session, hopefully televised, in Des Moines at a mutually agreeable date with a mutually agreed moderator.
â€œSince we are not sure she will accept this challenge, we will highlight in this response a few errors in her published defense.â€
The Lewin-Cook article went on to challenge Roseâ€™s laments about being maligned by â€œvicious and falseâ€ accusations.
â€œMs. Rose claims that the accusations against her office are â€œvicious and falseâ€ and â€œill-informed.â€ But there are many critical accusations that she has failed to answer.
Â· Wasn’t Mr. Rubashkin handcuffed and arrested in October 2008 only to generate national publicity? He had stayed in Postville for almost six months after being notified that he was a â€œtargetâ€ of the federal investigation. When a suspect has made no attempt to flee over a lengthy period, the routine procedure is to tell the defendantâ€™s lawyer to bring the client in to plead to the charge.
Â· Why was Mr. Rubashkin imprisoned for 76 days before trial on the Office’s bogus claim that he would flee to Israel under Israel’s â€œLaw of Return?â€
Â· Why were the charges against Mr. Rubashkin deliberately multiplied by the Office through an unprecedented seven superseding indictments that fragmented one immigration charge and one bank fraud charge into a total of 163 counts? Wasnâ€™t this to impress the media, the public, and the jury?
Â· Why was a 1921 law that has never in U.S. history been used for criminal prosecution added to the bank fraud counts?
Â· Why did the Attorneyâ€™s Office prevent sale of the Agriprocessors business to any purchaser who might employ any member of the Rubashkin family in a managerial capacity, thereby making a sale of the business – which needed expertise in the kosher meat industry – virtually impossible?
Needless to say, U.S Attorney Rose never responded to the Lewin-Cook offer of public debate. As she told the Gazette interviewer, â€œAny attempt we made to tell the truth â€¦ it just didnâ€™t help, so we stopped.â€
Sholom Mordechai, in his appeal to the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, has asked for a court-ordered evidentiary hearing to discover the deeper story behind the governmentâ€™s conduct and tactics in this sordid story. Since â€œtelling the truthâ€ is obviously important to Rose, she ought to welcome an opportunity to do so under oath.