This morning I got an online petition.
Jews are certainly not the only minority who, when scandalised by very public and shameful arrests, convictions, and sentencings of one of their own, lash out. It's been true of the Irish, African-Americans, Italians, many others. Jews aren't the only ones who, on some of these occasions, act as if they must deny the essential evil of an evil man.
And yet I'm a Jew and while I'm chagrinned when this is done by others--it just so needlessly retards movement toward American cohesion--...when it's done by others it doesn't embarrass me. When the evil guy's a Jew and when Jews so inappropriately react to American Justice taking a natural course, I am embarrassed. I am embarrassed because I am a Jew. The impending sentencing of Shlomo Rubashkin, the Iowa kosher butcher convicted of thousands of violations of child labor laws as well as bank fraud is such a case. He may spend the rest of his life in prison.
This morning I got the inevitable online petition. I am to sign it and forward it to every Jew I know. (That's a lotta people.) I don't take the pain of Mr. Rabashkin's family lightly and yet the petition says, in part, that the mean-spiritedness of the federal attorneys wouldn't even allow Mr. Rubashkin to go home for the Passover meal.
(He'd been denied bail largely on the strength of what he did to child-workers. I wondered if that line in the petition was intended as a Jewish-Joke.)
I know who caused his family's pain. It wasn't the government.
I'll share with you the entire petition (below). First, let me review what Mr. Rubashkin did that warranted his being charged on 9 September '08. He
-misappropriated millions that he said were to be "deposited into an account as collateral for a loan." He "fraudulently diverted" those millions " to another account and used "to fraudulently increase the value of Agriprocessor's"--his company's--"accounts receiveable." He then ordered the records of these transactions be trashed.
-defrauded the First bank of St. Louis of $35M by "faking invoices from meat dealers, inflating the value of the company." [These quotations from the 'Times', 11.13.09.]
-hired Hispanic workers illegally by the thousands and put them and their children to work for remarkably substandard wages and under remarkably unhealthy conditions.
-threatened these workers with deportation if they opened their mouths when Agriculture Department and then Justice Department investigators came to his plant.
And that's just the Tip of the Tenderloin.
The entire set of indictments, transcripts, sentencing statements--and no, I've not read it all--is not heart-wrenching except for the descriptions of what conditions Mr. Rubashkin's child workers worked in. Nothing about a potential life-sentence should be heart-wrenching. When federal agents went to his home, after Mr. Rubashkin asked for temporary release, they found cash totaling $20 thousand dollars and passports neatly packed. Rabbis' petitions had assured the court at Cedar Rapids that Mr. Rabashkin was no flight risk. Final sentencing will take place on the 29th.
So, I'll consider signing the well-meaning woman's petition (and she is well-meaning) when Moshiach/Messiah arrives. We Jews, far from seeking leniency for men such as this, should welcome a very harsh sentence for men among us who have themselves harshly violated not only so many of the weakest among us, not only violated banking laws that keep all of us safer, but embarrass every Jew everywhere.
Sandy Koufax electrified me as a young Jewish boy--not an Orthodox boy--when he refused to throw in the Series on Yom Kippur. That made me so proud. This Rabashkin, again, is a thoroughgoing embarrassment and these distinctions we should publicly voice.
This is how we Jews should respond until Moshiach. Or at least until Sandy Koufax' feet alight once again on Ebbets Field's Mound.
____________________________
Below is a request to sign a petition available at http://www.JusticeForSholom.org to ensure fairness in the legal system for Sholom Rubashkin. Rabbi Hillel Weinberg, Rosh HaYeshiva, of Aish HaTorah feels that this should be sent out.
The federal government has been zealous in pursuing Mr. Sholom Mordechai Rubashkin and has submitted him to considerably more severe restrictions and potential punishment than others in similar cases. Mr. Rubashkin, a father of ten including an autistic child, will be sentenced on April 28 and faces the possibility of life in prison and the probability of a 27 year sentence, far beyond the sentences imposed on others whose crimes were significantly more severe than anything Mr. Rubashkin may have done.
In issuing this call, we are in no way condoning any criminal conduct. Rather, we are asking you to communicate your respectful concern over the handling of the Rubashkin case, and the excessive sentence being considered. (For more details about this, please see the memo on the website below.) Rubashkin did not gain personally from the legal mistakes he made and had no intention causing any monetary loss to anyone. (Notably, Mark Turckan, who pled guilty to a 21 year cover up of misapplying funds from the SAME bank, and was found to have caused a 25 million dollar loss, was sentenced to a year and a day in prison.)
Please sign an online petition available at www.JusticeForSholom.org
and please call or email the Justice Department's Intergovernmental and
Public Liaison Office 202-514-3465 /oipl@usdoj.gov (please cc
pr@justiceforsholom.org) with your concerns.
and please call or email the Justice Department's Intergovernmental and
Public Liaison Office 202-514-3465 /oipl@usdoj.gov (please cc
pr@justiceforsholom.org) with your concerns.
These emails are important and will be forwarded to the US Attorney handling the case. Please consider forwarding this to your family and friends as well.
Here is the letter I received from Mrs. Rubashkin followed by the text of the Petition.
Warmly,
Rabbi Packouz
Rabbi Packouz
B"H
Dear Rabbi Packouz,
I hope this email finds you in the best of health and spirits. I know that for a number of reasons, not the least - the timing, this request is a Chutzpah. But considering that my husband's life is on the line, I'm practically willing to do anything that can help bring him home sooner Bezras Hashem (with the help of the Almighty).
Lawyers for my husband have said they never saw anything as vicious and as unfair as the prosecution of Sholom, which they feel is fueled by an unwarranted hatred. The prosecutors have to make their recommendation for sentencing by April 9th. They have already indicated that they view a 21-27 year range to be appropriate. The lead attorney - Guy Cook knows the Judge very well and insists she almost always sentences within the proximity of the Governments recommendation.
We desperately need 50,000 signatures by Thursday, to show the OUTCRY to the US Attorney. A move that lawyers feel will get them to reconsider their position.
I beg you from the bottom of my heart to do this for us. I've shed countless tears. I need not explain to you the suffering my precious husband and children are enduring. If this letter can impact any level of moderation for Sholom's sentence - it is priceless.
This request was sent out by Agudah, Chabad, Young Israel, RAA and others. Is there any chance you can send to your list?
Signed with a broken heart but much hope,
Leah
American Jewish leaders (including the leadership of Agudath Israel of America, Chabad Lubavitch, National Council of Young Israel and Rabbincal Alliance of America) who have been working closely with Sholom Mordechai Rubashkin's lawyers are very concerned about his incarceration and his upcoming sentencing, currently scheduled for April 28. This tragic case is at a critical juncture right now, and demands our immediate attention and action.
In issuing this call to our friends and constituents, we are in no way condoning any criminal conduct. However, as detailed in the memo below, prepared by a lawyer familiar with the case, it is clear that the federal government has been overly zealous in pursuing Mr. Rubashkin and has submitted him to considerably more severe restrictions and potential punishment than others in similar cases. The memo is quite an eye-opener, well worth reading despite its length.
The bottom line is that Mr. Rubashkin is being kept in jail pending sentencing, and was not even allowed to go home for the Passover Seders despite his willingness to post a large bond and hire a full-time guard. With respect to the sentencing, he faces the possibility of life in prison (the Pre Sentence Report prepared by the probation department tallied the sentencing guidelines to be life in prison) and the probability of a 27 year sentence, - far beyond the sentences imposed on others whose crimes were significantly more severe than anything Mr. Rubashkin may have done. (Notably, the lawyers pointed out that Mark Turckan, who pled guilty to a 21 year cover up of misapplying funds from the SAME bank, and was found to have caused a 25 million dollar loss, was sentenced to a year and a day in prison.)
We are therefore asking you, our friends and constituents, to take a few minutes to communicate your respectful concern over the handling of the Rubashkin case, and the excessive sentence being considered.
Please sign an online petition available at www.justiceforsholom.org and please call or email the Justice Department's Intergovernmental and Public Liaison Office 202-514-3465 / oipl@usdoj.gov (please copy pr@justiceforsholom.org) with your concerns.
Some suggestions for topics to be covered in your email or phone call:
· Sholom Rubashkin shouldn’t be in jail pending sentencing He has a right to bail!
· Stop treating Sholom Rubashkin more harshly than you have treated others!
· Sholom Rubashkin should not be sentenced to a long prison term for his convictions. He did not gain personally from the mistakes he made and had no intention causing any monetary loss to anyone.
These emails are critical and will be forwarded to the US Attorney handling the case. We are hopeful that this expression of public support will have a positive impact on the outcome of the case.
Please consider forwarding this to your family and friends as well.
* * * * * * *
MEMORANDUM REGARDING GROSS DISPARITY
IN PROSECUTORIAL TREATMENT OF SHOLOM RUBASHKIN
(The accuracy of this memo has been confirmed by the Rubashkin Legal Team)
Introduction
This Memorandum describes the gross disparity between usual procedures in federal criminal prosecutions under the immigration and bank-fraud laws and how Iowa federal prosecutors treated the case of Sholom Rubashkin, the Orthodox Jewish Hasidic businessman who was arrested on immigration-law violations relating to the Agriprocessors plant in Iowa and was found guilty after a jury trial of bank fraud and failure to pay cattle owners promptly.
The enormous disparity between the treatment of Mr. Rubashkin and others who committed similar offenses began with the Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE") raid on Agriprocessors ("Agri") on May 12, 2008, and has continued to this day.
1. Should ICE Have Conducted the Massive May 2008 Raid?
Because it was apparent from government activity in the neighborhood of Agriprocessors' Postville plant that ICE might be planning a raid, Agri took the advice of the American Meat Institute and retained the services of Robert W. Kent, Esq., an attorney with the international law firm of Baker & McKenzie. Mr. Kent had represented Swift & Co. - a meat-packer that had been raided by ICE in six states in December 2006, when approximately 1,297 illegal employees were found. When ICE sought to raid Swift again in Texas, Kent persuaded them to proceed without a raid and instead to examine Swift's employment records and weed out the illegal immigrants. Kent called the Iowa prosecutors on May 9, 2008, and followed up with a faxed letter the same day requesting a meeting and stating that Agri - which was "the largest kosher meat production company in the country" -- wished to cooperate with ICE and avoid the dangers and disruption of a raid. Kent's requests were summarily denied and the raid took place.
Approximately 600 federal agents in heavy riot gear stormed the Agri plant on May 12, supported by Blackhawk military helicopters. A total of 389 illegal immigrants were arrested and entered guilty pleas in production-line fashion after being told that they could be charged with a major federal criminal felony that the Supreme Court held in 2009 (Flores-Figueroa v. United States, 129 S. Ct. 1886) was inapplicable to their situations. The Department of Homeland Security reversed ICE's raid policy and, since an announcement made on April 30, 2009, will conduct raids only in extremely limited circumstances.
The May 2008 raid received national publicity and ultimately resulted in the bankruptcy of Agri. It demolished Postville's economic infrastructure, destroyed a legitimate business that was the town's major employer, wiped out livelihoods of both legal and illegal employees, forced businesses to shut down, and drove away residents. Postville's population has shrunk by half, and many of those who remain are unable to sell their homes. The town is nearly insolvent. And the raid also demolished the principal source of kosher beef and poultry in the United States, creating kosher meat shortages across the country.
2. Was the Post-Raid Treatment of Rubashkin Comparable to Other ICE Raid Targets?
(a) Swift & Co. - Although Swift was a major employer of illegal workers in six states and 1,297 illegal employees were found on those premises in the December 2006 raids, neither the company nor any of its officials were criminally charged. In Iowa, for example, one United Food and Commercial Workers ("UFCW") official at Swift's Marshalltown, Iowa, plant was charged in an Iowa federal court with harboring illegal immigrants and was sentenced to one year and one day in prison and a $2000 fine after being found guilty by a jury. Another Swift employee who had pleaded guilty was sentenced to probation.
(b) Michael Bianco, Inc. ("MBI") - A manufacturer of leather goods and handbags in New Bedford, Mass. was raided by ICE on March 6, 2007, after an undercover operation from which it was learned that Francesco Insolia, the owner, intentionally sought out illegal immigrants and exploited them with punitive fines and terrible working conditions. Approximately 326 illegal workers were detained in the raid. Insolia was sentenced in January 2009 to one year and one day in prison and fined $30,000. The company was fined $1.51 million and ordered to pay $460,000 in restitution.
(c) Action Rags USA - A Houston, Texas clothing and rag exporter company was raided by ICE on June 25, 2008 - little more than a month after the Agri raid. Approximately 85% of the business' workforce consisted of illegal Mexican immigrants, and approximately 150 immigrants were arrested. The owner, Mubarik Kahlon, and two managers were indicted on immigration charges in July 2008. A jury trial was set for June 15, 2009, but on June 10, Kahlon and one manager pleaded guilty. Kahlon was sentenced to two years' probation and a $6,000 fine.
(d) Miyako Sushi and Panda China Buffets - ICE raided these restaurants in Ocean City, Maryland in June 2007, on evidence that illegal workers were hired as below-minimum-wage employees (paid in cash) in the restaurants and were provided living accommodations in condominiums owned by the restaurant owners, Bo Hao Zhu and Siu Ping Cheng. The owners pleaded guilty to immigration-law violations and were sentenced on September 12, 2008, to 18 months' probation. Their partnership was ordered to pay a $50,000 fine.
(e) Rosenbaum-Cunningham International, Inc. ("RCI") - On February 22, 2007, ICE raided 63 locations in 17 states of a national janitorial service that provided cleaning crews for restaurants. Almost all RCI janitorial employees were illegal immigrants who had no documentation whatever, and they were paid in cash. The owners, Richard M. Rosenbaum, Edward Scott Cunningham, and Christina A. Flocken were charged not only with immigration-law violations, but also with defrauding the United States of more than $18 million in federal employment taxes. On March 4, 2008, Rosenbaum was sentenced to 10 years imprisonment, Cunningham to 51 months, and Flocken to 30 months.
The cases described above are typical. No case following an ICE raid has even come remotely close to the draconian threats and punishments imposed on Mr. Rubashkin.
3. Were Post-Raid Publicized Arrests and Imprisonment of Rubashkin Warranted?
Following the nationally publicized Agri raid, the Iowa federal prosecutors conducted an investigation of Agri. The sworn complaint on which the raid was based had acknowledged that Agri had screened job applicants and had, in fact, twice rejected an ICE undercover agent who tried to gain employment with false identity papers. Only when ICE provided him with authentic documentation was he hired. Rubashkin denied that he had knowingly violated the immigration laws and Agri retained Robert Kent to discuss the charges with the prosecutors.
The prosecutors made arrests and filed immigration-law charges against various company employees. Most of these steps were accompanied by substantial local and national publicity. Counsel forAgri and Rubashkin was in regular communication with the prosecutors to attempt a resolution of potential criminal charges against Agri and Rubashkin.
Although he was served with a letter identifying him as a "target" of the investigation, Rubashkin himself remained in his Postville, Iowa, home during the almost six months following the raid. He made one trip to Canada to visit a sick friend and returned promptly to Postville. There is not a scintilla of evidence that he made any effort to flee.
It was clear that Rubashkin would surrender voluntarily if notified of any charges, but the local prosecutors had him arrested without advance warning, to the accompaniment of great publicity, on October 30, 2008. Page A14 of The New York Times of October 31, 2008, for example, had a story headlined "Arrest Made in Iowa Plant Case" and a photograph - coverage that would not have appeared had counsel been requested, as is customary in such cases, to bring in his client to answer charges.
An indictment charging one violation of the immigration laws was returned. At Rubashkin's bail hearing on the indictment, the prosecutors and the Magistrate Judge permitted him to be released on a $1 million bond and with an ankle bracelet and electronic monitoring. Individual employers charged in all other immigration-law prosecutions have been released either on personal recognizance or on the submission of a nominal bond. No other employer accused of violating the immigration laws has ever been restricted with an electronic bracelet or required to post a bond of $1 million.
On the day following his release, the Iowa prosecutors had Rubashkin arrested again on an allegation that he had committed bank fraud after his first arrest. Their claim was that, in the routine certifications that Agri made to the St. Louis bank with which it had a $35 million line of credit, it had falsely represented that it was in compliance with the law when, in fact, it was harboring illegal immigrants, and that Agri had failed to deposit all checks it received from customers in the "sweep account" that was security for the bank loan and had temporarily used (but had subsequently reimbursed) money for a store and school in Postville that Agri was administering.
Although there was no proof that the bank was actually misled by this conduct or that its loan, on which timely interest payments continued to be made even after the raid, was imperiled in any way, the Iowa prosecutors asserted that this conduct by Rubashkin constituted "non-compliance" with the terms of Rubashkin's release on bail and asked that he be denied bail and imprisoned.
Among other arguments for denying bail to Rubashkin, the prosecutors asserted that Rubashkin could flee to Israel because he is Jewish, although there was no evidence whatever that he had sought to travel to Israel. This same specious contention would justify the imprisonment of any Jewish person ever arrested on any charge. In his opinion denying bail, the Magistrate Judge accepted the Iowa prosecutors' claim regarding flight to Israel.
Rubashkin spent the next 76 days in prison. No other individual accused of an immigration-law violation and no other non-violent and non-threatening person charged with nothing more than having compromised the security of a bank loan that was otherwise being kept current has ever been denied bail prior to trial on such a charge unless he was apprehended while actually attempting to flee.
4. Why Were Seven Superseding Indictments Filed With Inflated Allegations and a Forfeiture Demand?
After a hearing held in January 2009, the District Judge found insufficient evidence to keep Rubashkin in prison as a "flight risk" and ordered his release pending trial. In the meantime, the Iowa prosecutors had begun ballooning the immigration and bank-fraud charges with a series of superseding indictments.
The following is a list of the dates and number of counts of the superseding indictments:
First Indictment
November 13, 2008
3 Counts
Second Superseding Indictment
November 20, 2008
12 Counts
Third Superseding Indictment
December 11, 2008
13 Counts
Fourth Superseding Indictment
January 15, 2009
97 Counts
Fifth Superseding Indictment
March 31, 2009
79 Counts
Sixth Superseding Indictment
May 14, 2009
142 Counts
Seventh Superseding Indictment
July 16, 2009
163 Counts
The basic charges of immigration-law violations and bank fraud remained the same throughout this entire series of indictments. In the Third Superseding Indictment the prosecutors added the request that the entire Agri business be forfeited to the United States. That demand - for the forfeiture of an entire business because some of its employees were illegal immigrants - was not made in any other case involving violation of the immigration laws.
The Fourth Superseding Indictment added the allegation under 7 U.S.C. § 195 that Rubashkin had failed to make prompt payments to cattle owners in violation of an Agriculture Department regulation because his payments were, on occasion, several days late. This was the first time in the history of federal law enforcement that such a criminal charge has ever been made.
The number of charges was increased by the Iowa prosecutors not because any new offenses were discovered. Rather, the basic bank fraud allegation was multiplied because each of the bank's advances of funds to Agri under the $35 million line of credit and each month's report to the bank by Agri was charged as a separate offense. Money laundering was also alleged to have been committed when Rubashkin deposited some funds received from customers to the accounts of a local kosher grocery store and religious school that Agri was maintaining in Postville.
The effect of this deliberate fragmentation of charges was that Rubashkin was ultimately tried before a jury not on one basic charge of submitting false reports to the bank regarding the security for the bank's loan, but on 91 counts of bank fraud, money laundering, and failure to pay cattle dealers. The jury found him guilty on 86 counts.
5. Why Did Prosecutors Prove Immigration-Law Violations at the Bank-Fraud Trial
Recognizing that the jury would be prejudiced against Rubashkin in considering the bank-fraud allegations if it heard evidence regarding immigration-law violations, the District Judge severed the trial of the 72 immigration violations in the Seventh Superseding Indictment from the 91 bank-fraud charges. Nonetheless, contending that he committed bank fraud when he represented to the bank that Agri was complying with the law, the Iowa prosecutors presented more than two days of highly inflammatory testimony regarding the immigration allegations during the bank-fraud trial. The District Judge denied repeated defense requests for a mistrial.
6. Why Was Rubashkin Denied Release on Bail Pending Sentencing?
During the almost ten months between his pretrial release (after 76 days in prison), Rubashkin complied punctiliously with all the bail conditions. His probation officer even testified that on one occasion, when his electronic ankle bracelet became dislodged, "he alerted her immediately to allow for its expedient repair." The District Judge found "that Defendant took great pains to comply with the terms of his pretrial release."
Nonetheless, when the jury returned a guilty verdict, Rubashkin was immediately remanded to prison. In a hearing on the Iowa prosecutors' request that he be denied release pending sentencing, the defense offered to post as security approximately $8 million in the equity of 43 supporters of Mr. Rubashkin and to pay for a 24-hour armed guard that would prevent him from leaving his home without prior authorization. The District Judge granted the Iowa prosecutors' request, and Rubashkin has now been in the Linn County Jail for more than 130 days, in addition to the 76 days he spent in prison between November 2008 and January 2009.
The law regarding release pending sentencing (the Bail Reform Act of 1984, 18 U.S.C. § 3143(a)) does not authorize the pre-sentencing imprisonment of a defendant who is not a danger to the community if he is not a "flight risk" and his future presence can be assured by any conditions of release. The District Judge stated no reason for imprisoning him other than her unsupported concluding statement that he is a "flight risk." The Court of Appeals denied bail also without stating any reason. These unexplained denials of bail violate the provision of the Bail Reform Act that requires "a written statement of reasons for the detention." 18 U.S.C. § 1342(i)(1).
7. Why Has Release for Passover Seders Been Opposed?
Although Rubashkin's counsel believe that any detention of Rubashkin before sentencing is unlawful and are applying to the Supreme Court to reverse the rulings of the District Court and the Court of Appeals, they filed on March 18, 2010, a motion to permit him to observe the first two days of Passover (March 30 and 31) at home. The motion was opposed by the Iowa prosecutors and was denied by the District Court on the day after it was filed.
Federal law (the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-1 and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-1(a)) protect the religious rights of prisoners in federal custody unless the Government has a "compelling interest" in denying the religious right and is taking the "least restrictive alternative" in enforcing that interest. Neither of these standards was satisfied by the Iowa prosecutors or the District Court in denying permission to Rubashkin to observe the Passover seders in his home.
8. Why Is an Excessively Severe Prison Term Being Urged?
The jury found in a special interrogatory that Rubashkin did not profit personally from false invoices presented to the lending bank. Evidence of his very modest lifestyle and his extraordinary charity was proffered at his trial but objected to by the Iowa prosecutors and excluded by the District Judge. He is the father of 10 children, including an autistic teenage boy who depends on him. Nonetheless, the Iowa prosecutors have indicated that they view an appropriate prison sentence as being in the 21 to 27 year range.
Although they dismissed the 72 immigration-law counts after the jury's verdict on the bank-fraud allegations, the Iowa prosecutors have submitted to the probation office more than 30 pages of unproved inflammatory allegations regarding the employment of illegal workers at Agri. These assertions - which Rubashkin has never had any opportunity to challenge and disprove - are designed to prejudice the District Judge against Rubashkin and increase his sentence.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Wren Dancer
Kerry Lauerman
Blacklilly89
beauty1947
A Persistent Muse
MyOwnGender
Salon.com
Comments
"Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to sin, it would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck, and he were drowned in the depth of the sea." Jesus
Super glue it back on and take it of with a hacksaw.
Good post!
R
Glad you brought this stuff out. I also received a similar request when there the sentencing of a rabbi who molested his son's friend at yeshiva for lieniency in his sentencing. I understand he got about 32 years.
Apparently the Catholic church is not unique in defending it's adhereants.
The subtext of the petition is that Rabushkin is being overly penalized because he is a Jew, or an Orthodox Jew (the quality of the crimes are not described at all). It's not often you see a Jew play the victim card (and I say this even though we are less than 2% of the country's population and still do not quality as a "minority")
Whatever the sentence on April 28 (my birthday!) it won't be half of what he deserves.
I'm about to say something as carefully as I can. This mindset has a lot to do with why I wouldn't consider Orthodoxy. From all this constant attention to Torah should come a higher ethical standard, not an excuse for a lower one. In short, I'm left profoundly uninspired. I want to be shown that spending all that effort to be closer to God works, not that it means a whole lot of trappings with gaps at the core bigger than I find in my own far less observant community. I'm not saying that this is true of all of Orthodoxy but I am saying that this phenomenon is most visible in that collection of communities, certainly not an extra criminal bent but an extra tendency to protect those who sin on the basis of what group they belong to, concluding that such membership gives people the right to be held to a lower standard. As a Jew, I find this deeply embarrassing. What I will say about Orthodoxy in general is that when this case first came to light, there was a profound silence emanating from most if not all Orthodox communities instead of an outcry saying: "How can we consider meat from this place kosher if this is the way this business exploits human beings?"
If you don't hold your own community to its own standards, what are your ethics worth?