Sholom Rubashkin and Agriprocessors were forced to file for bankruptcy? If so...?

The following words are part of a news report entitled:

Rubashkin Appeal Hearing: "Appearance of Partiality" Sufficient to Wipe Out Trial

Wednesday, June 22, 2011
By Debbie Maimon, Yated

-Bluffing His Way Through-

Peter Deegan, Assistant United States Attorney from the Northern District of Iowa, then argued on behalf of the government. As if he hadn't paid attention to or absorbed the earlier discussion that had left the government's arguments discredited, Deegan blandly repeated them.

His presentation followed the style of his briefs—leaning heavily on obfuscation of the facts, as in misstating legal rulings and omitting the parts that contradicted his position.

"Defendant was given an opportunity to file for recusal and did not do so," he began, trying to repackage the "motion-is-not-timely" argument that had moments before been left in tatters. "Under Rule 33, the motion for recusal has to be based on truly new information. And it has to show prejudice."

The judges were not playing along. Chief Judge Riley broke in with, "The question is, did the defendant have sufficient information to move for recusal at the time? If he didn't then but does now, according to my Fletcher opinion [cited earlier by Lewin], this is his second chance to do it."

Deegan tried his argument that "defendant's new information is not new; it was raised by the DeLarosa motion," but that too had been discussed earlier. Judge Riley drew on Lewin's argument in disputing Deegan. "We're talking about a case where you might know some things at the time, but you don't know the depth and extent of it," Riley said.

"Defendant doesn't dispute that he knew about at least one meeting between the judge and law enforcement long before his trial," Deegan rolled on, "If he knew about that meeting, he should have assumed there might be more."

Judge Riley interjected that "one meeting is certainly different from 12."

Deegan then cited a Supreme Court ruling which he said "does not authorize the re-opening of closed legislation using a recusal motion." Judge Smith countered by stating that defense counsel was relying on a different "mechanism" to file a late recusal motion. "Why is that improper?" he challenged Deegan.

"Well, it seems to be at odds with what this court has said," Deegan answered lamely, without elaborating on how that was the case.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• Sholom
• Mordechai
• Rubashkin
• Chabad
• Lubavitch
• Agriprocessors
• Yhudim
• Ashkenazim
• Israelites
• Kashrut
• Sephardim
• Torah
• Bible
• Hasidic
• Talmud
• Mishna
• Gemara
• kashruth
• kashrus
• Jewish
• dietary
• laws
• Food
• halakha
• kosher
• Ashkenazi
• Hebrew
• kasher
• fit
• Jews
• clean
• spotless
• Written
• Oral
• law
• treif
• Yiddish
• treyf