Case 2:08-cr-01324-LRR Document 905 Filed 04/27/10 Page 1 of 16

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA
EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

CASE NO. 08-cr-1324
v.
DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY
SHOLOM RUBASHKIN, OF SENTENCING EXHIBITS

Defendant

COMES NOW, the Defendant, Sholom Rubashkin, by and through the

undersigned counsel, and hereby submits as an aid to counsel and the Court a summary of

the content of selected exhibits to be offered at the sentencing hearing in this matter:

FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED IN IMPOSING A SENTENCE- 18 U.S.C.

SECTION 3553(a)(1) - “THE NATURE AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE
OFFENSE(S)”

 Sentencing Exhibit 9200 (PSR ¶ 105, 105): Narratives by Danielle Pearl

and Rabbi Pearl corroborate Leah Rubashkin’s trial testimony that her
husband was a simple teacher in Atlanta who reluctantly heeded the call of
his father to come to Agriprocessors. (See also Def’s Variance Motion, Doc.
#896, p. 8) As Rabbi Pearl says, Sholom “caved in to the family pressure [to
leave Atlanta and come to Agriprocessors…[he was] the most honest and
reliable in the family…the pressures were massive, I think they would have
caused a nervous breakdown for anyone else.” (See also Ex. 9700
Psychiatric Report by Susan J. Fiester, p.15- “He was suffering from serious
Depressive Episodes during the time he was involved in criminal activity at
Agriprocessors.”)

 Sentencing Exhibits 9201 & 9203: The pre-enforcement action video details
the complex milieu that was Postville during the Agriprocessors period of
which Sholom was an important part and which influenced him as he
influenced the community. Agriprocessors’ employment of Hispanic
 Case 2:08-cr-01324-LRR Document 905 Filed 04/27/10 Page 2 of 16

immigrants was neither secret nor surreptitious. On its face, the community
embraced the diversity (“Hometown to the World”); embracing the
likelihood that many Agriprocessors employees were likely undocumented
aliens. (See Exhibits 9424-9430, Exhibit 10025 “Taste of Postville”, Exhibit
10116 Rabbi visit) The City (Exhibit 11102), County, the school system,
neighboring communities, the Wal-Mart in Decorah where the “applicants”
obtained their pictures for phony ID’s and spent their earnings, were
effectively aware of the situation. The Union was “in on it” but wanted to
collectivize the employees anyway- illegal or not. Agri Processor Co., Inc.
v. NLRB, 514 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2008), cert. denied, 129 S.Ct. 594 (2008)
(Exhibit 10216) After the Iowa Turkey Plant fire in December of 2003,
Sholom was encouraged by politicians to hire their former employees. It
was no secret that the ITP was rumored to employee large numbers of
Hispanic undocumented workers. The City was knowingly involved in what
was a microcosm of a complex human, societal and political issue. Or as
Laura Althouse put it in a recorded conversation with a government
cooperator after the raid, the “mayor and police chief were here every
[expletive] day.” (Trial Exhibit 6619) The cattle sellers who lost an
estimated $24,000,000 in cattle sales when Agriprocessors foundered
following the raid (Des Moines Register Article 4/14/2010- Sentencing
Testimony) were active and knowing participants. Any pre-raid decision by
whomever had the power to do so at Agriprocessors to mass terminate
hundreds of employees would have significant human consequences to the
human beings and family members who had left their Latin American
countries for better lives. The problem employers like Agriprocessors faced
was complicated. (Exhibit 10400) The enforcement action itself resulted in
considerable human suffering. (Exhibit 10401)

 Sentencing Exhibit 9203 )(PSR ¶ 118-124): (Postville Revisited-Post Raid)

rebuts the accounts of systemic abuse and mistreatment of workers in the
plant.

 Sentencing Exhibit 9614 )(PSR ¶ 118-124): Lt. Governor Patty Judge

visited the plant in the wake of various complaints, she and her team found
no evidence to corroborate the larger body of complaints. The facility had a
reputation as “state-of-the-art”. A study by UNI Professor Mark Grey did
not detect the stressors in the Hispanic workforce at Agriprocessors of the
sort claimed in the search warrant application and elsewhere. (Trial Exhibit
6046) In fact, the study concluded that Hispanics were “quite satisfied with
the wages and lifestyle in the community. However, the Hispanics were
 Case 2:08-cr-01324-LRR Document 905 Filed 04/27/10 Page 3 of 16

quite depressed about being separated from their extended families in their
native countries.” (Trial Exhibit 6046, Conclusion P. 1)

 Sentencing Exhibits 9416, 9424-30, 9600-9618: These exhibits constitute

documentation frozen in time that Agriprocessors was an “open book” to
any and all manner of visitors, including religious or political. (See also
Trial Exhibit 6031 Visitor Logs; Trial Exhibit 6230 “City delegation plant
tour”) The Hispanic populace was not a secret. (Exhibit 9613) Any
reasonably observant politician would presume that at any given visit that
there were some undocumented workers who had gained employment at the
Plant.1 Agriprocessors was courted and heralded anyway. (Exhibit 9601)
Could that be considered a subtle stamp of approval of deliberate
indifference by Agriprocessors management? In fact, the defense now
knows that ICE was preparing for a raid in 2006 but according to the reports,
the raid was cryptically called off “due to political involvement.”
(Sentencing Testimony) Or as Laura Althouse put it in a recorded
conversation with a government cooperator after the raid, the “mayor and
police chief were here every [expletive] day.” (Trial Exhibit 6619)

 Sentencing Exhibits 10000-10024: Sholom Rubashkin and his father are

deeply religious men. Agriprocessors did not just make kosher products.
They believed they were performing a deep religious service. Providing the
kosher food to the masses was believed by the family to enable the
consumers to strengthen their connection to their Jewish faith and thus their
connection to God. (Def’s Amended Sent. Memo Doc. #895 p. 6) In
addition, Sholom spearheaded establishing an entire religious community in
Postville.

 Sentencing Exhibits 9300, 9301, 9302, 9303, 9504:The crushing number of

letters received by the Court speak for themselves. Their authors tell the
Court why they are writing them. Agriprocessors was doing something
important to the Jewish community and Sholom performed uncountable acts
of charity on his own and on Agriprocessors’ behalf for the larger
community. They know him and care about him.

1
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_aliens_(U.S.);http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,236044,00.html;
http://www.parapundit.com/archives/003974.html; http://www.answers.com/topic/meat-packing-plants-sic-2011;
http://www.nytimes.com/1992/09/24/us/307-workers-arrested-as-aliens-at-packing-plant.html;
http://www.alipac.us/article1715.html.
 Case 2:08-cr-01324-LRR Document 905 Filed 04/27/10 Page 4 of 16

 Sentencing Exhibits 10111, 10114, 10200-10243, 11108, 11113A&B: For

reasons the Government and Sholom are in dispute, Sholom became the face
of Agriprocessors. Along with daily financial crisis, Agriprocessors faced
attack from outside sources. Sholom was the fireman who dealt first-hand
with challenges imposed by third parties. (See also Trial Testimony of Rabbi
Kohn). PETA’s “expose” and repeated challenges to Agriprocessors’
Kosher slaughtering practices was interpreted by Sholom (Exhibit 10201,
Leah Rubashkin) as intending to bring an end to Kosher slaughter altogether
(Which is what happened in Nazi Germany). The UFCW’s attempts to
unionize the plant were perceived to be about “control” of not only the
workforce but of Kosher practice as well. Sholom was not alone in being
concerned about the Union but he was the person who had to deal with it.
(Exhibits 10111, 10114 Heshy emails) The UFCW’s connection with the
liberal Jewish Labor Committee (Exhibit 10212) in combination with the
attacks levied by Nathaniel Popper in The Forward (Exhibit 10213, 10217-
219, 10228) put Sholom into deep crisis mode, agitation and anxiety. He
hired Chessboard to consult on union matters (Exhibit 10205) and later
Charlie Arnot (Exhibit 10236, 10239). As early as 2004, a PR advisor
named Mike Thomas forewarned Sholom that the next complaint will come
from the Union complaining about mistreatment of the workers, followed by
complaint that Kosher rules were not being followed. All this came to pass
and more. (Exhibit 10226 -Congressman Investigating Agriprocessors) Due
to adverse attention and publicity, Agriprocessors lost their largest account
with Trader Joes in March of 2008 and lost their “glatt kosher” certification
from KAJ on or about April 16, 2008. (Trial Exhibit 6255)

 Sentencing Exhibits 10110, 10112, 10209, 10214, 10221, 10223, 10241,

10242: A medical plan was offered to every Agriprocessors employee.
Claims of abuse, mistreatment, sexual harassment, failure to treat injuries
etc. were not tolerated by Sholom and commonly dealt with by Elizabeth
Billmeyer. Agriprocessors had specific procedures for employee injuries.
(Trial Exhibit 6088) Such activities, if true, were counter-productive and
provided no benefit to Sholom or his father’s plant. He neither authorized
this activity nor ignored it. In addition, Sholom spearheaded the hiring on a
new plant safety manager, Trent Gordon, in early April of 2008 and
revamping of the plant’s safety plan. (Trial Exhibit 6256) It is evident that
much of the claims of harassment, is Hispanic on Hispanic, often Mexican
National on Guatemalan National. These countries have a long history of
 Case 2:08-cr-01324-LRR Document 905 Filed 04/27/10 Page 5 of 16

animosity. (Trial Exhibit 6047) In Latin American countries, sexual

harassment of women is a significant social problem.

 Sentencing Exhibits 11112, 11114 (PSR ¶ 118-124): Dr. Carbonera and

Rabbi Zeilengold visited the plant pre-raid in the wake of complaints about
the treatment of workers and other allegations. They interviewed employees
and found no evidence of the activities described in Paragraphs 118-124.
These reports are more reliable than newspaper articles. (See also Trial
Exhibit 6308)

 Sentencing Exhibits 10216-10222 (PSR ¶ 114-116, 143, 158-179, 199): For

purposes of the “immigration” allegations at the trial, the stated legal basis
for some evidence was the allegation that Sholom defrauded the bank by
falsely representing that Agriprocessors was obeying all laws even though
the Government alleged that he knew that Agriprocessors’ was “harboring”
undocumented workers by employing them. The immigration charges were
dismissed and would have been defended differently. These exhibits shed
additional light on the larger res gestae involved in the so-called
“immigration” problem. Following the advice of their counsel (Exhibit
10314 Eaton Letter 3/28/08) Elizabeth Billmeyer sent notices to employees
subject to the no-match letters in late April of 2007. About 200 employees
staged a walkout. The Union had spread the false rumors that included the
claim that Agriprocessors had reported the illegality to “INS”. The Union
was interested in unionizing the plant regardless of whether the employees
were really documented. (Exhibits 10218-10220) Sholom addressed a
group outside the plant using employee Virdiana Nunez as an interpreter.
Nyemaster was present at the plant that day (Trial Testimony-Elizabeth
Billmeyer) It is believed she falsely told the group to get back to work or
Sholom would call INS on them. She was fired shortly thereafter for
helping to spread union rumors and instigating the walk out. (Exhibit
10310)

 Sentencing Exhibits 10100-10131 (PSR ¶ 107, 143): Sholom lacked

unilateral or direct authority to “fire” any employee who was the subject of a
no-match letter from ICE. (See e.g. Exhibit 10120, Exhibit 10244 -
Affidavit of Yossi Gourarie) He did not have the unilateral authority to
close the plant. He did not “control” the routine hiring of employees as
 Case 2:08-cr-01324-LRR Document 905 Filed 04/27/10 Page 6 of 16

Heshy controlled production and Elizabeth Billmeyer reported directly to

Heshy in the normal course of events. (Exhibits 10100-10131)

 Sentencing Exhibits 10300-10304, 10305, 10306 (PSR ¶143, 145, 199):

Sholom relied upon the advice of experienced lawyers who claimed
expertise in navigating a company through the waters of immigration and
employment matters. Sholom consulted with Nyemaster regarding the
forthcoming raid (Exhibit 10318). Arthur Kaufman (Exhibit 10305) was
consulted on the Salazar matter, and Sholom consulted with Mr. Kaufman in
April of 2008 regarding the layoffs (Exhibit 6261). Salazar was not
dismissed until Mid-April of 2008. (Trial Exhibit 6272)

 Sentencing Exhibits 10312-10313, 10321-10322 (PSR ¶143, 145, 199): As

set forth in more detail below, it is clear that Sholom and Elizabeth
Billmeyer for that matter believed that they could not fire any no-match
employees during the pendency of the “stay”. (See also Trial Exhibit
6118G)

 Sentencing Exhibit 10314 (PSR ¶143, 145-148, 150, 152, 199): Exhibit
10314 lays out the chronology of events and the legal issues involved in the
no-match problem. While Sholom was aware of the 2007 no-match letters,
he relied on the advice of counsel that Agriprocessors could not immediately
fire the employees who were identified. (Trial Testimony- Elizabeth
Billmeyer; Exhibits 10310) He knew that there was federal litigation,
pending in California, over the question of termination and “no-match”
letters. (Exhibit 10313, 10312, 10314) He believed that no-match extensions
were authorized. (Exhibit 10312-10313, 10321-10322) The Chertoff
litigation was not resolved until March, 2008. (Defense Trial Exhibit 6617-
offered but not admitted [AFL v. Cherthoff, 552 F. Supp.2d 999 (N.D. Cal.
2007]; Trial Testimony- Elizabeth Billmeyer; Exhibit 10313, 10322)
Furthermore, Sholom was concerned about terminating employees, even
ones working under false social security numbers, who had been part of the
unionization drive and was seriously contemplating suing the UFCW ala
“Smithfield”. (Exhibits 10230, 10232, 10233, 10235, 10236, 10239, 10314)
He further relied upon advice during the Salazar lawsuit that terminating
such employees could result in a lawsuit based on retaliation. Sholom was
also aware of litigation pending between “Agri Processors Co., Inc. and the
National Labor Relations Board arising out of UFCW’s effort to unionize
the New York facility. Agri Processor Co., Inc. v. NLRB, 514 F.3d 1 (D.C.
Cir. 2008)[January 4, 2008], cert. denied, 129 S.Ct. 594 (2008).
 Case 2:08-cr-01324-LRR Document 905 Filed 04/27/10 Page 7 of 16

Specifically, in September of 2005, the company’s employees voted to join

the UFCW. Agri Processor refused to bargain and the UFCW filed a
complaint with the NLRB. Id. at 1. Agri Processor contended that after the
election they discovered that ‘most of the [social security] numbers [of
employees] were nonexistent or belonged to other people” and thus the
undocumented workers do not count as employees under the NLRA and the
election was invalid. Agri Processor Co., Inc., 514 F.3d at 3. The Court of
appeals held on January 4, 2008 that undocumented workers qualify as
employees under the NLRA, even though “[i]t seems ‘somewhat peculiar’
indeed, as Board member Kirsanow observed, to order an employer to
bargain with a union representing employees that the [employer] would be
required to discharge under the Immigration Reform and Control Act, 8
U.S.C. § 1324a.” Agri Processor Co., Inc. v. NLRB, 514 F.3d 1, 10 (D.C.
Cir. 2008)(Henderson, J. concurring) Once the lawsuits were resolved,
Sholom began the process of trying to terminate the no-match employees.
(Trial Testimony Chaim Abrahams; Exhibit 10318) Heshy on the other
hand was interfering with the employee reduction plan. (Exhibit 10120)

 Sentencing Exhibits 10100-10131(PSR ¶ 114-116, 143, 158-179, 199):

Sholom’s brother Heshy, who was in charge of operations (exhibits 10100-
10131), and the managers who reported to him, strongly opposed the
termination of employees who appeared to be working under false social
security numbers. When Sholom tried to terminate all of the no-match
employees in two groups, Heshy halted the second round of layoffs by
appealing to their father and the owner of the company, Aaron Rubashkin.
(Trial Testimony- Chaim Abraham/Sholom Rubashkin; Exhibits 10120,
Trial Exhibit 6115). Trial Exhibit 6115 is an email from Elizabeth to
Sholom informing Sholom of Heshy’s back-channel efforts to bring poultry
2nd shift back to full production and delaying layoff in poultry. (See also
Trial Exhibits 6109, 6111, 6112, 6113)

 Sentencing Exhibits 10317-10318 (PSR ¶ 204, 210, 220-223, 226): Sholom

asked Nyemaster lawyer and immigration document specialist Neil Westin
to come to the plant on May 12, 2008 to physically inspect the documents
presented for applicants for employment at Agriprocessors. Westin did so
and rejected several before ICE arrived.
 Case 2:08-cr-01324-LRR Document 905 Filed 04/27/10 Page 8 of 16

 Sentencing Exhibit 10318: In addition to consulting with his lawyers

prior to the raid, Sholom was dealing with the daily emergencies at
Agriprocessors.

 Sentencing Exhibits 11000-11021 (PSR ¶ 314, 316, 334, 345, 351, 352, 354,
356): Agriprocessors could not borrow more than $34,000,000 because
FBBC had issued a letter of credit for $1,000,000 to “cover” any potential
workers compensation claims not compensated by insurance. FBBC’s own
policy would classify the Agriprocessors’ loan as an “evergreen” loan of a
high risk nature (Exhibit 11010) In exchange for the revolving loan, Aaron
Rubashkin gave FBBC a CD worth approximately $2,200,000.00. By the
time of the default in October of 2008, the CD was worth $2,700,000.
Sholom Rubashkin has agreed to turn over his interest in the captive
insurance plan in the Cayman Islands and FBBC has agreed to credit the
$2,000,000 judgment by the amount of $1,000,000. (Exhibit 11024 –
Settlement Agreement) FBBC’s own policy would classify the
Agriprocessors’ loan as an “evergreen” loan of a high risk nature (Exhibit
11010)

 Sentencing Exhibits 11001-11021 (PSR ¶ 314, 316, 334, 345, 351, 352, 354,
356) constitute some of the documentation provided to Abe Roth for
purposes of his FBBC loss analysis. The documents relating to the
Agriprocessors bankruptcy and sale establish that it was not reasonably
foreseeable that a plant with a fixture book value of $40,000,000 would be
ultimately sold at a fraction of its value, and that such diminution of value
was not proximately caused by the conduct associated with the counts of
conviction.

 Sentencing Exhibit 11131 (PSR ¶ 314, 316, 334, 345, 351, 352, 354, 356):
Mordechai Korf made a good faith offer to FBBC in November of 2008 to
purchase their interest in Agriprocessors for $21,500,000 to $22,000,000.
FBBC’s Phil Lykens knew that if Agriprocessors “went out of business” or
went “in liquidation” then the value of collateral would “greatly diminish”.
(Lykens G.J. 11/18/08 pp 27-28) As he testified in the trial, he knew that
Agriprocessors had far to much fresh and frozen inventory, and he knew or
should have known that the fair market value of this inventory was far less
than the book value permitted on the loan covenant. FBBC rejected the
offer outright and failed to even suggest a counter-offer. As Mr. Korf put it
in his Affidavit, FBBC “closed the door and refused to negotiate” with him.
Mr. Korf will further testify that in his conversations with FBBC, there was
 Case 2:08-cr-01324-LRR Document 905 Filed 04/27/10 Page 9 of 16

discussion about accounts receivable may be difficult to collect. Mr. Korf

assumed the “AR” was doubtful and he did not rely upon it in making his
offer to FBBC. His offer was premised on Agriprocessors’ large market
share. Purchasing FBBC’s interest would have been Mr. Korf’s first step.
The second step would have been to open up negotiations with MetLife to
purchase their interest in the plant fixtures. It was not reasonably
foreseeable to Sholom that an experienced Asset-based lender such as FBBC
would unreasonably fail to fail to negotiate purchase of their interest unless
they got every penny back.

 Sentencing Exhibit 11130 (PSR ¶ 314, 316, 334, 345, 351, 352, 354, 356):
Meyer Eichler expressed interest in finding a group of investors to purchase
Agriprocessors, His affidavit details the U.S. Attorney’s Office threat of
prosecution and Rubashkin family prohibition which occurred even though
Aaron Rubashkin was never charged with any federal crime relating to
Agriprocessors. The decisions to file forfeiture charges against
Agriprocessors and forbid involvement by Aaron Rubashkin in purchase of
the company from the Trustee diminished the value of Agriprocessors sale
value, trademark value and good name in the market. These decisions were
unforeseeable to Sholom, and caused diminution of value of Agriprocessors
which directly affected FBBC’s ability to recover as the one of the two lead
secured creditors.

 Sentencing Exhibit 11127-11129 (PSR ¶ 314, 316, 334, 345, 351, 352, 354,
356): Eli Soglowek visited the plant March 26, 2008 (Trial Exhibit 6260)
Sogolowek Nahariya LTD made a $40,000,000 offer to purchase
Agriprocessors in January of 2009. The offer was rejected. Another offer
was made in April of 2009. Rejection of such a substantial offers that would
have substantial reduced FBBC’s unpaid loan principal was not reasonably
foreseeable to Sholom.

 Sentencing Exhibit 10244 Affidavit of Yossi Gourarie (PSR ¶ 314, 316,

334, 345, 351, 352, 354, 356): After the Trustee took over Agriprocessors,
he discontinued renting the chicken houses from Cottonballs because the
federal prosecutors did not want the Trustee to do business with the
Rubashkins. By not utilizing Cottonballs’ facilities, for the period of
February of 2009 through August of 2009, Chaim estimates that
approximately 1.8 millions birds could have been raised at the Cottonballs
chicken houses. Had the Trustee been allowed to utilize Cottonballs, the
 Case 2:08-cr-01324-LRR Document 905 Filed 04/27/10 Page 10 of 16

savings in yield, operational costs and transportation costs I would estimate

to be approximately $300,000 to $500,000. Yossi Gourarie corroborates
Chaim Abraham. It was not reasonably foreseeable to Sholom that the U.S.
Attorney’s Office would deliver an edict that Agriprocessors could not use
Cottonballs which effectively forced the Trustee to incur considerable
unnecessary expense. If they did not want Sholom Rubashkin to derive any
benefit there were other legal mechanism to attempt to prevent that
circumstance.

 Sentencing Exhibit 11023(PSR ¶ 314, 316, 334, 345, 351, 352, 354, 356):
The Government’s prohibition against future involvement by a purchaser
with Aaron Rubashkin and the looming forfeiture proceedings substantially
devalued the company and caused FBBC loss of recovery. It was not
reasonably foreseeable to Sholom Rubashkin that the Government would act
in a manner that would naturally and proximately cause the company to lose
value and reduce FBBC’s recovery in any sale of the company.

 Sentencing Exhibit 11026 (PSR ¶ 314, 316, 334, 345, 351, 352, 354, 356)
Although the Government claims that FBBC/MB Bank sustained total loss
of approximately $26.9M, actions by the Government have impaired
FBBC/MB Bank to recover on the loan. In addition to bringing criminal
forfeiture action against Agriprocessors and its trademarks, threatening at
least one prospective buyer, demanding that potential buyers and the Trustee
obey a no relationship with the Rubashkin’s edict, the Government
commenced an action in the U.S, District Court for the Northern District of
Iowa, 09-CV01013 seeking to forfeit $256,235.97 and $505,356.67 in life
insurance proceeds held by the Aaron Rubashkin Trust. See United States v.
Two Hundred Fifty-Six Thousand Two Hundred Thirty-Five Dollars and
Ninety Seven Cents et al, ___F.Supp.2d ___, 2010 WL 76717 (N.D. Iowa
2010). Meanwhile, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Iowa, FBBC commenced an action against Aaron Rubashkin and Sholom
Rubashkin seeking judgments on their respective guarantees on the
Agriprocessors’ revolving loan. Sholom requests that the Court take judicial
notice of the proceedings in 08-CV-1035. FBBC obtained judgment against
Aaron Rubashkin for $21,000,000 and $2,000,000 against Sholom on March
30, 2010 (08-CV-1035 Doc. #117). FBBC could have taken their judgment
and sought to partially enforce that judgment and make recovery against the
monies held by the Aaron Rubashkin Trust, namely $761,592.64. Rather
than permitting FBBC to seek these monies to reduce the loan amount, the
 Case 2:08-cr-01324-LRR Document 905 Filed 04/27/10 Page 11 of 16

Government continued he forfeiture action and ultimately obtained forfeiture

of $661,592.64 (09-CV-1013 Doc.#40).

 Sentencing Exhibit 11024 (PSR ¶ 314, 316, 334, 345, 351, 352, 354, 356):
Sholom settled the civil suit with FBBC and agrees to turn over a value of
$1,000,000 in the Affinity Captive Insurance Plan. The “loss amount” and
“restitution” should be further reduced by $1,000,000.00.

FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED IN IMPOSING A SENTENCE- 18 U.S.C.

SECTION 3553(a)(1)- “THE HISTORY AND CHARACTERISTICS OF THE
DEFENDANT”

 Sentencing Exhibits 9100A, B & C: Along with testimony the jury credited
as having proved the elements of 86 of 91 Counts, various Government
witnesses who provided incriminating testimony, nonetheless did not
hesitate to attest to Sholom’s underlying or “core” character attributes. These
excerpts from the trial and are particularly remarkable when they came from
specific Government witnesses. For example, Darlis Hendry, who provided
key testimony regarding the inflation of accounts receivable at the direction
of Sholom, still characterized the man as “a good person”. Ex. 9100B
Bernard Feldman was witness to FBBC’s “discovery” of diverted “AR”.
Mr. Feldman was undoubtedly embarrassed since the “discovery” occurred
while he was CEO. He nonetheless testified that Sholom is “a very honest
and forthright individual.” Ex. 9100B. If Sholom Rubashkin was the Caesar
of Agriprocessors as the Government alleged, then for purposes of the trial,
Toby Bensasson was his Brutus. Toby has received a substantial assistance
reduction for his truthful testimony. The court heard him admit that “at his
core [Sholom] is a very well-intentioned man.” Ex. 9100B

 Sentencing Exhibit 9200: This exhibit is full of authentic accounts of

Sholom’s core character traits. Rabbi Pearl tells how Sholom Rubashkin
and his family “generosity knew no bounds” including contributing to a drug
treatment program attended by “equal amounts of non-Jewish people”.
Michele DeBillier tells of harrowing problems with her alcoholic and drug
addicted husband and Sholom’s attempts to aid her family, even though she
did not really know him. “I didn’t even have to ask” she says. The homeless
gentleman says of Sholom, this is a very good man, very sensitive”.
 Case 2:08-cr-01324-LRR Document 905 Filed 04/27/10 Page 12 of 16

Postville Mayor Leigh Reikow tells of Sholom’s “charity without fanfare.”

(See also 9400- Rubashkin Founders Award)

 Sentencing Exhibits 9401-9420: These emails are but a small sample

of documentation of Sholom’s extensions of charity to Agriprocessors
employees and residents of Postville. The football jersey hung proudly in
the office upstairs in the plant. Exhibit 9419-20 The Court heard live
testimony from Ms. Feinstein in an offer of proof at trial. Sholom
Rubashkin paid for one woman’s artificial fertilization (a Government’s
witness) as she was unable to bear children. Exhibit 9412 is documentation
of a special dental project that Sholom spearheaded in the community.
Agriprocessors agreed to pay a local dentist to treat children in the City
whose families did not have dental insurance. (Trial Exhibit 6317) The
children included children of employees who had chosen to sign up for
Agriprocessors’ dental plan.

 Sentencing Exhibit 9304: The “Moshie Video” constitutes evidence

supporting a basis for variance for the reasons set forth in Sholom’s
corresponding Motion (Doc.#896-1)

FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED IN IMPOSING A SENTENCE- 18 U.S.C.

SECTION 3553(a)(2)(C)- “TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC FROM FURTHER
CRIMES OF THE DEFENDANT”

 Sentencing Exhibit 9201: Sholom’s days with Agriprocessors are done.

When released from his sentence he wants to become the simple teacher of
the kind who ministered in Argentina, gave life to a new Jewish community
in Atlanta, taught in Postville during the pendency of the criminal
proceedings, and educated to visitors during his trial in South Dakota. After
the trial, Leah Rubashkin gave a speech in New York. In the speech she
describes her family’s “journey”, core beliefs, including “trusting in the
future” and how they are intertwined from the raid, Sholom’s original
detention, to “amazing” events during the trial South Dakota. Leah
Rubashkin’s speech is an authentic reminder that she and her husband’s faith
is the polestar in their lives and Sholom has something of value to contribute
to those interested or share the Jewish faith.
 Case 2:08-cr-01324-LRR Document 905 Filed 04/27/10 Page 13 of 16

EXHIBITS APPLICABLE TO SPECIFIC OBJECTIONS TO THE PSR

 Sentencing Exhibit 11100 (PSR ¶ 299, 300, 306): Getzel Rubashkin’s

updated spreadsheet traces monies that flowed to and from Sholom
Rubashkin’s personal account and Agriprocessors. Sholom did not
personally profit from any conduct constituting counts of conviction. On the
contrary, he loaned hundreds of thousands of dollars to Agriprocessors,
including monies borrowed from his insurance policies, sale of New York
residence and other monies. In specific instances, Agriprocessors wrote
Sholom a check which he deposited to pay people who had loaned
Agriprocessors. Charitable contributions to third parties flowed through
Sholom as standard operating procedure. Getzel Rubashkin will provide
additional testimony.

 Sentencing Exhibit 11101, 11132 (PSR ¶ 233, 234, 325A):Agriprocessors

paid for Rabbi Ben Chaim’s return to Israel as a matter of standard operating
procedure. No shred of evidence exists that In June of 2008, either Sholom
or Rabbi Ben Chaim were concerned about criminal proceedings being
brought against Rabbi Ben Chaim due to this involvement with “Hunt”. To
this day, Rabbi Ben Chaim has never been served with a target letter or
otherwise charged with any criminal offense relating to “Hunt” or the “Hunt
payroll”. Exhibit 11132 proves that transfer of Rabbi Ben Chaim’s
properties in Postville began more than 4 months before the raid. The
affidavit of Gabay Menachem corroborates the chronology of events that
Rabbi Ben Chaim was selling his properties in Postville to return to Israel
before the raid.

 Sentencing Exhibit 11102, 11113A&B (PSR¶ 361-364): The initial loans

to Mr. Penrod were made in good faith. Mr. Penrod later came to expect
these monies as some form of protection money. Mr. Penrod knew that
Sholom had significant concerns about Union organization of the plant and
his delivery of the “tape” from his Union meeting after the raid to Sholom
corroborates Sholom’s claim that the later payments to the Mayor were
subtly extorted.

 Sentencing Exhibit 11103-11107 (PSR ¶ 107,112, 244, 278, 307-315):As

the USDA recognized, Mr. Bensasson was intimately involved in P&S
related matters including decision-making as to when payments would be
made.
 Case 2:08-cr-01324-LRR Document 905 Filed 04/27/10 Page 14 of 16

 Sentencing Exhibit 11109 (PSR ¶ 114-115): Garnavillo Gospel was paid by

Agriprocessors for subcontracting work and Agriprocessors maintained
records of that work. Ron Wahls has never been charged with any crime
relating to any receipts of monies from Agriprocessors, employment of
illegal aliens, harboring of illegal aliens, money laundering or any other
offenses.

 Sentencing Exhibit 11110 (PSR ¶357): Sufficient payments were made

to Sysco. A premium check was requested by Bensasson to be returned but
went through anyway. On or about the following day, Bensasson wired
additional premium monies.

 Sentencing Exhibit 11117-11125 (PSR ¶ 307-315, 319-320, 335-36):

Contrary to trial testimony and information relied upon in the PSR, Toby
Bensasson was intimately involved in P&S compliance issues, that is why
they brought problems to his attention rather than Sholom. Cattle sellers,
sale barns in particular, knew that Agriprocessors had weekly financial
difficulties and permitted occasional slow pays or entered into oral
agreements to receive the payments before the next cattle purchase.
Waverly and Waukon allowed hand delivery at the next purchase. Waukon
would beg cattle buyer Jim Trappe to buy every Thursday and they agreed to
receive hand delivery payment when he would arrive the following
Thursday. Waukon called & complained after Raid to P&S because they had
being doing a similar practice with another buyer and had got burned on
payments. P&S Agent Leo Sosa called and Toby handled the specific
instance.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ F. Montgomery Brown

F. Montgomery Brown (AT001209)
BROWN & SCOTT, P.L.C.
1001 Office Park Road
Suite 108
West Des Moines, Iowa 50265
Phone: (515) 225-0101
Fax: (515) 225-3737
Case 2:08-cr-01324-LRR Document 905 Filed 04/27/10 Page 15 of 16

hskrfan@brownscott.com

/s/ Guy R. Cook

Guy R. Cook (AT0001623)
GREFE & SIDNEY, P.L.C.
500 East Court Avenue
Des Moines, Iowa 50306
Phone: (515) 245-4300
Fax: (515) 245-4452
gcook@grefesidney.com

/s/ Adam Zenor

Adam Zenor (AT0009698)
GREFE & SIDNEY, P.L.C.
500 East Court Avenue
Des Moines, Iowa 50306
Phone: (515) 245-4300
Fax: (515) 245-4452
azenor@grefesidney.com

/s/ Alan Ellis

Alan Ellis
LAW OFFICES OF ALAN ELLIS
495 Miller Avenue
Suite 201
Mill Valley, CA 94941
Phone: (415) 380-2550
Fax: (415) 380-2555
AELaw1@aol.com

/s/ Karen Landau

Karen Landau
2626 Harrison Street
Oakland, CA 94612
Phone: (510) 839-9230)
Fax: (510) 839-0535
Karenlandau@karenlandau.com

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT

SHOLOM RUBASHKIN
 Case 2:08-cr-01324-LRR Document 905 Filed 04/27/10 Page 16 of 16

PROOF OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that the foregoing instrument was served upon the parties to
this action by serving a copy upon each of the attorneys listed below on April 27, 2010,
by CM/ECF.

Charles J Williams
Email: cj.williams@usdoj.gov

Peter E Deegan, Jr
Email: peter.deegan@usdoj.gov