No Credit Check Payday Loans

Government Withdraws Objection to Amicus Briefs in Rubashkin Appeal

Wednesday March 9, 2011 9:00 AM - 13 Comments

rubashkin3In light of the Court’s February 28, 2011, Order submitting the motions to file amicus briefs for consideration by the panel to which the case is assigned for disposition on the merits, and due to the possibility the briefs may be considered by the Court without the benefit of any government response, the United States withdraws its objection to the filing of amicus briefs by the Washington Legal
Foundation, et al. (Entry No. 3743162), American Civil Liberties Union of Iowa (Entry No. 3743169), and National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (Entry No. 3744356). This will allow the United States to include any response to those briefs in its brief on the merits due March 11, 2011.

Click here to view the government’s Motion to Withdraw.

{Noam Amdurski-Matzav.com Newscenter}

Email This Post Email This Post Print This Post Print This Post


Top Of Page

13 Responses to “Government Withdraws Objection to Amicus Briefs in Rubashkin Appeal”

1. Comment from david
Time March 9, 2011 at 10:00 AM

can anyone explain this. Who in the world do these prosecuters think they are? Who are they fooling? Sounds like their end is near!

2. Comment from Moshe
Time March 9, 2011 at 10:07 AM

B”H V’nahafoch hu! May the whole conviction be overturned!

3. Comment from Keep davvening
Time March 9, 2011 at 10:32 AM

Can someone please explain what this means? Is this good for reb sholom mordecha?

4. Comment from Yitz
Time March 9, 2011 at 10:50 AM

US Atty Stephanie Rose is looking so dumb now!

5. Comment from Anonymous
Time March 9, 2011 at 11:00 AM

In plain english, what does it mean? Git far de yidden oder chas v’sholom farkert?

6. Comment from posting name
Time March 9, 2011 at 12:50 PM

“…the United States withdraws its objection to the filing of amicus briefs by the Washington Legal Foundation,… ACLU of Iowa (…and National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers …”

Why only those briefs? Aren’t there many more?

7. Comment from Ehrliche Yid
Time March 9, 2011 at 1:34 PM

It’s good news for Reb Sholom Morechai.

8. Comment from kolhakovod
Time March 9, 2011 at 3:04 PM

finally mishenichnas adar marbin besimcha

9. Comment from good news
Time March 9, 2011 at 3:23 PM

it looks like the gov backed down becouse of articles like this http://matzav.com/the-troubling-implications-of-the-governments-recent-effort-to-block-amicus-curiae-briefs-in-rubashkin-appeal

10. Comment from Daniel
Time March 9, 2011 at 8:21 PM

The government’s initial objection was extremely foolish and very revealing. If you’re in a good legal position, you don’t care how many briefs are filed on behalf of your opponent.

11. Comment from Leib
Time March 10, 2011 at 12:00 AM

What it means is, that the Court of Appeals decided to let the panel of judges who will decide on Reb Sholom Mordechai’s appeal-be the ones to decide whether the Amicus briefs should be allowed to be considered by them or not.

What the government is saying, is that they were hoping that a different panel of judges from the ones that would decide on the actual appeal would decide whether the briefs should be admitted.By allowing the same panel of judges that decides the case itself to decide the admissibility of the briefs, you have already exposed them to the arguments in the briefs, which may affect their judgment of the case itself in favor of Rubashkin, so that even if they decide not to allow the briefs, the briefs may have accomplished their intention, and the government has no platform to pick them apart.

I think this was a slick maneuver by the court of appeals. They outsmarted the government here. I think they understand what this case is about. Let’s hope and daven for a complete yeshua for Reb Sholom Mordechai, and for all of Klal Yisroel.

12. Comment from Lawyer
Time March 10, 2011 at 12:50 AM

It’s good for Rubashkin. 3 outside organizations, including the ACLU, filed briefs condemning the judge and prosecutor and how they handled the prosecution, including ethical violations. These organizations are not parties to the case itself, but in important cases, these types of groups who feel there are important issues that extend beyond this one case want to be heard. The prosecution first objected to these briefs being accepted by the court, and now, after looking foolish because these briefs are always accepted, they have withdrawn their objection, saying they want to respond to the claims in these briefs and defend the judge and their own behavior.

13. Comment from NY Attorney
Time March 10, 2011 at 11:48 AM

The government had argued that the amicus briefs were simply “an attempt to inject interest group politics into this case.” Those JEWS, they control EVERYTHING!

Leave a Comment