The decision by U.S. Magistrate Judge Jon Scoles to deny former Agriprocessors chief executive Sholom M. Rubashkin bail may be a topic of consideration by the U.S. Attorney General’s Office. At least, that’s what one Jewish watchdog group is hoping.
Rubashkin, who is current facing a myriad of federal bank fraud and immigration-related charges, was initially allowed to post bail following his arrest in late October for conspiring in immigration-related offenses. As a condition of bail, Rubashkin and his wife surrendered their passports and he was required to wear an ankle tracking device.
Roughly two weeks later on Nov. 14, Rubashkin was arrested again, this time on multi-million dollar bank fraud charges. Despite offering the court $3.75 million for bail at a Nov. 20 detention hearing, the former chief executive was ordered to remain in federal custody by Scoles. Just this week the judge refused a request by Rubashkin’s attorneys to reconsider the decision to keep Rubashkin behind bars.
While Scoles took several factors into consideration when making his decision to keep Rubashkin in custody, his thoughts concerning Israel’s “Law of Return,” which provides citizenship to any Jew and members of his family who express desire to settle in the country, has drawn the most attention.
Today the Anti-Defamation League, an organization that seeks to stop the defamation of Jewish people, wrote a letter to U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey in relation to the Rubashkin case and cautioning that the “Law of Return” should not be used as leverage to deny bail to Jewish defendants.
Abraham Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League, signed the letter that was sent to Mukasey, an Orthodox Jew. Foxman noted that the court did not stipulate that Rubashkin had direct ties to Isreal as a basis for its consideration of the “Law of Return.”
“The government and the Detention Order appear to conclude that simply because [Rubashkin] is Jewish, and because Jews may have a claim on Israeli citizenship, his religion is relevant to a bail hearing,” wrote Foxman.
In his refusal to reconsider Scoles chided Rubashkin’s attorneys for fixating on his consideration of Israel’s “Law of Return” and not offering new information as to Rubashkin being a flight risk. The mere fact that Scoles did consider the Israeli law when making his detention order, however, has been enough to spark heated comments from the Jewish community.
The lawyers have indicated that they plant to appeal Scole’s latest decision to U.S. District Court Judge Linda Reade.
Foxman and the ADL is not asking for specifics in the Rubashkin case, but is hoping Mukasey will set policy that will prevent use of the “Law of Return” in detention hearings for Jews. Such direction from the U.S. Attorney General might place pressure on Reade to view Scoles decision to hold Rubashkin in custody pending a September 2009 trial date as discriminatory.
Prosecutors in the case have stood by their decision to include the Israeli law as one of their considerations for the court when determining Rubashkin’s risk of flight. They have claimed Rubashkin tampered with case evidence while out on bail at the time of his second arrest. The court was also told of large amounts of cash discovered in the Rubashkin home at the time of the arrest. The existance of two other former Agriprocessors supervisors, one Muslim and the other Jewish, who are named in federal complaints but have not been apprehended because they are believed to have fled to Israel have also been brought up by prosecutors.
Agriprocessors, once the nation’s largest supplier of kosher meat, was the site of a massive immigration raid on May 12. The company has struggled to be solvent since that time and filed Chapter 11 bankruptcy in November, in the wake of a $35 million lawsuit by one of its creditors. Rubashkin and several other members of plant management are facing charges ranging federal aiding and abetting illegal immigration to state child labor law violations.