January 21, 1999
Dear Ms. Reno:
Re: Craig Iscoe's Fax of January 20, 1999
Today I received a reply to my letter to you of January 20, 1999, in which Craig Iscoe states
"...under long-standing policy we do not disclose the Department's
recommendations to the President or recommendations received by the
Department in response to a request for comment in a clemency matter."
Allow me to point out that I have not made a request to see your
recommendations or those of any other agency.
Rather I have requested full access to Mr. Pollard's own file under
the provisions of section 1.5 of The Rules Governing Petitions For
Executive Clemency, in order to prepare an appropriate and adequate
submission on his case.
Additionally, Mr. Iscoe writes that Mr. Hibey, my client's original
attorney, "had complete access to the classified sentencing
information" and that he and my client "had an opportunity to review the
classified evidence before sentencing". These statements contain
half-truths and are misleading.
Indeed the most damning of all of these classified documents was a
last-minute submission by former Secretary of Defense, Caspar
Weinberger, just prior to sentencing. My client and his attorney were
allowed to view the Weinberger Memorandum under duress and in a highly
coercive environment, only moments before sentencing. Under these
circumstances, they were clearly not given the opportunity to study the
document or to adequately prepare a defense and response- either in
writing or orally- to the many lies and misstatements of fact that the
It is precisely because Mr. Pollard and his attorney briefly viewed the
Weinberger Memorandum at sentencing, and they saw the false accusations
and lies it contains, that Mr. Hibey subsequently attempted to reaccess
the Weinberger Memorandum and the classified file, in order to rebut the
false charges in his Rule 35 motion.
Not only were his requests to reaccess the Weinberger Memorandum denied,
he was also denied access to the entire classified file -including his
own submissions to it! Every Pollard attorney since that time has run
into the same stubborn refusal on the part of the Justice Department.
For example, attorney Theodore Olsen was also denied access to the
Weinberger Memorandum and the classified sentencing material when he
filed his section 2255 motion to set aside Mr. Pollard's sentence. The
reason given for the denial of access to this material which was critical to his client's case, was that he had "no need to know" !
Fourteen years ago a lengthy, secret, last-minute submission was shown
to the accused and his attorney, moments before sentencing. A
life sentence was meted out on the basis of that submission - in violation of
the plea agreement - and yet no one who challenges that sentence is ever
allowed to see the material!
It is precisely for cases such as this that Rule 1.5 of the Rules
Governing Petitions for Executive Clemency vests the authority in the
Attorney General to allow the petitioner and his attorneys access to
the complete file so that the ends of justice may be served.
I therefore reiterate my request to you in the interests of justice. As
Attorney General, due process requires you to grant my client and his
attorneys full access to his file in order to prepare and present a
proper, informed, detailed, and thorough submission to your department.
Finally I wish to point out that in 1995, the late Prime Minister Rabin
proposed a plan to the President and to the Justice Department that
would have reduced Mr. Pollard's sentence to 20 years - a sentence which,
even then, most experts considered to be a heavy sentence - that would
have resulted in Mr. Pollard's mandatory release on or about the winter
Mr. Rabin's plan provided for Mr. Pollard to remain on parole
under Israeli supervision for the balance of that sentence. The Prime
Minister offered to be personally responsible for Mr. Pollard and to
sign all guarantees and assurances that were required by the U.S. Between close friends and strong allies, the word and signed promise of
the Head of State ought to be enough.
When two allies are honestly looking for a solution to a problem that
has become a festering wound between their countries, goodwill and a
sense of fair-play should prevail. I can only hope your response will be
consistent with America's commitment both to due process and to the U.S. - Israel special relationship.
Yours very truly,
Larry Dub Esq.
cc. Mr. Craig Iscoe Esq.
Mr. Charles Ruff Esq.