Reply brief submitted to the Supreme Court by Rubashkin lawyers Paul Clement and Nathan Lewin, responding to brief in opposition to cert filed by the U.S. Solicitor General…
Petition for Certiorari, asking Supreme Court to hear the case…
A motion to the Supreme court asking for a 60 day extension for the petition in the case of Sholom Rubashkin…
Petition to the entire 8th Circuit Court of Appeals asking them to rehear the case…
Letter to 8th Circuit Court of Appeals Clerk following the oral arguments…
Motion for Release Pending Appeal – Filed with the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals the day after the oral arguments. In this motion, defense attorneys argue why Sholom is indeed not a flight risk and deserves bail pending the outcome of the appeal…
Filed in response to the prosecutor’s brief, this document dismantles their legal argument and highlights their questionable tactics and the involvement of the judge.
The appeal itself, filed on January 3, 2011, is a fascinating read. Read about the fatal flaws in the trial and sentencing that outraged so many…
AP article – Exhibit 5 to Reply to Government’s response to Sholom’s (rule 33) Motion for New Trial based on newly discovered evidence following sentencing. The evidence was discovered from a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit showing there were ex-parte meetings between the judge and prosecutors…
ABC News article – Exhibit 4 to Reply to Government’s response to Sholom’s (rule 33) Motion for New Trial based on newly discovered evidence following sentencing. The evidence was discovered from a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit showing there were ex-parte meetings between the judge and prosecutors…
New York Times article – Exhibit 3 to Reply to Government’s response to Sholom’s (rule 33) Motion for New Trial based on newly discovered evidence following sentencing. The evidence was discovered from a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit showing there were ex-parte meetings between the judge and prosecutors…
USA Today Article – Exhibit 2 to Reply to Government’s response to Sholom’s (rule 33) Motion for New Trial based on newly discovered evidence following sentencing. The evidence was discovered from a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit showing there were ex-parte meetings between the judge and prosecutors…
Affidavit from Alyza Lewin – Exhibit 1 to Reply to Government’s response to Sholom’s (rule 33) Motion for New Trial based on newly discovered evidence following sentencing. The evidence was discovered from a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit showing there were ex-parte meetings between the judge and prosecutors…
Reply to Government’s response to Sholom’s (rule 33) Motion for New Trial based on newly discovered evidence following sentencing. The evidence was discovered from a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit showing there were ex-parte meetings between the judge and prosecutors…
Exhibits 11 – 12 to Motion for New Trial (Rule 33) based on newly discovered evidence following sentencing. The evidence was discovered from a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit showing there were ex-parte meetings between the judge and prosecutors…
Exhibit 10 to Motion for New Trial (Rule 33) based on newly discovered evidence following sentencing. The evidence was discovered from a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit showing there were ex-parte meetings between the judge and prosecutors…
Exhibits 7-9 to Motion for New Trial (Rule 33) based on newly discovered evidence following sentencing. The evidence was discovered from a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit showing there were ex-parte meetings between the judge and prosecutors…
Exhibits 1-6 to Motion for New Trial (Rule 33) based on newly discovered evidence following sentencing. The evidence was discovered from a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit showing there were ex-parte meetings between the judge and prosecutors…
Nat Lewin Affidavit to Motion for New Trial (Rule 33) based on newly discovered evidence following sentencing. The evidence was discovered from a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit showing there were ex-parte meetings between the judge and prosecutors…
Monte Brown Affidavit to Motion for New Trial (Rule 33) based on newly discovered evidence following sentencing. The evidence was discovered from a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit showing there were ex-parte meetings between the judge and prosecutors…
Guy Cook Affidavit to Motion for New Trial (Rule 33) based on newly discovered evidence following sentencing. The evidence was discovered from a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit showing there were ex-parte meetings between the judge and prosecutors…
Motion for New Trial (Rule 33) based on newly discovered evidence following sentencing. The evidence was discovered from a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit showing there were ex-parte meetings between the judge and prosecutors…
Sholom’s timely Notice of Appeal filed on July 2, 2010 in which Sholom Rubashkin appeals to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit from the final judgment entered in this action on June 22, 2010…
Reply to the Government’s Resistance to Motion for Release Pending Sentencing – Filed with the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals. In this brief, defense attorneys reply to the Government resistance to Sholom Rubashkin’s appeal to the denial of bail following conviction…
Letter from Rabbi Menachem Weissmandl – Exhibit 4 to Motion for Release Pending Sentencing – Filed with the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals. In this motion, appealing Sholom Rubashkin’s denial of bail following conviction, defense attorneys argue why Sholom is indeed not a flight risk…
Affidavit from Tovia Kupczyk – Exhibit 3 to Motion for Release Pending Sentencing – Filed with the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals. In this motion, appealing Sholom Rubashkin’s denial of bail following conviction, defense attorneys argue why Sholom is indeed not a flight risk…
Letter from Charles Kelly – Exhibit 2 to Motion for Release Pending Sentencing – Filed with the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals. In this motion, appealing Sholom Rubashkin’s denial of bail following conviction, defense attorneys argue why Sholom is indeed not a flight risk…
Affidavit from Gabay Menachem – Exhibit 1 to Motion for Release Pending Sentencing – Filed with the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals. In this motion, appealing Sholom Rubashkin’s denial of bail following conviction, defense attorneys argue why Sholom is indeed not a flight risk…
Motion for Release Pending Sentencing – Filed with the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals. In this motion, appealing Sholom Rubashkin’s denial of bail following conviction, defense attorneys argue why Sholom is indeed not a flight risk…
Letter from Sholom Rubashkin’s lawyers to US Attorney General Michael Mukasey regarding the Government’s position to deny bail to Sholom based on Israel’s Law of Return…
Motion to Judge Linda Reade to grant bail following his denial of bail by Magistrate Judge Jon Scoles, which was partially based on Israel’s Law of Return…
A Letter from Baker & McKenzie – one of the world’s largest law firms that had negotiated with ICE and with the US Attorney in Texas to avoid a raid on another meat-packing plant – proposing that Agriprocessors would cooperate with the authorities in terminating the employment of undocumented aliens, as the intended target of the Texas raid had done. Neither ICE nor the United States Attorney did anything to respond to that letter…