Exclusive: In ‘Powerful’ New Brief, Rubashkin Rebuts Gov’t Reply

In what legal experts are calling an extremely powerful submission, the Sholom Rubashkin legal team, headed by Gary Apfel, an attorney in Los Angeles, and Stephen Locher, an attorney in Des Moines, Iowa, filed late Monday their Reply Merits Brief, a rebuttal to the governments filing of a month ago.

“The government… misstates the law on several crucial issues, misunderstands Petitioner’s arguments regarding the difference between Napue and Brady (often with the effect of turning Petitioner’s arguments into straw persons easier for the government to overcome), and otherwise seems to spend as much time distracting the Court from the relevant issues as addressing them,” the brief says.

“The furious tone of the government’s Reply Brief should not mask the significant admissions contained within it. Most importantly, the government admits it imposed a “No Rubashkins” restriction during the bankruptcy proceeding despite the witness’s sentencing testimony that “[a] prohibition was never leveled” and “[t]here was none, to my knowledge” and the Court’s acceptance of that testimony. This admission alone warrants § 2255 relief…”

“While it may not apparent to a layman, this brilliant brief is extremely powerful,” a legal observer who has followed the Rubashkin case for many years but is not affiliated with his defense team told Hamodia after reading the brief on Monday night.

“It basically demolishes all the governments arguments, one by one. It also includes a new affidavit by Joseph Sarachek, the Trustee appointed by the Bankruptcy court to oversee the sale of Agriprocessors, the company that Sholom Rubashkin helped run, which refutes the points that the government claimed in their submission. It also include affidavits from three prominent legal luminaries, all who have previously served in different administrations as deputy Attorney General for the United States, Larry Thompson, Judge Charles Renfrew, and Philip Heyman.”