| Story Views | |
| Now: | |
| Last Hour: | |
| Last 24 Hours: | |
| Total: | |
Pollard Files Brief in Appellate Court
Pollard Files Brief in Appellate Court
By Avraham Weissman Monday, November 14, 2016 at 2:42 pm
http://hamodia.com/2016/11/14/pollard-files-brief-appellate-court/
NEW YORK – Attorneys for Jonathan Pollard filed on Monday a 35-page brief in
the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, asking the court
to overturn the decision by a lower court judge rejecting a habeus corpus
petition seeking the removal of broad and severe parole restrictions.
A legal observer who has been following the Pollard case for many years, and
spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the
matter, told Hamodia that he found the brief to be “compelling.”
“It sets forth some very persuasive and cogent arguments,” he said.
Pollard, who was released from prison last November after serving an
unprecedented 30 years for passing classified information to an ally –
Israel – is currently required to wear a GPS monitoring system that consists
of a non-removable transmitter installed on his wrist, and a receiver that
is plugged into an outlet in his Manhattan residence. Whenever he moves
outside the range of the receiver, the transmitter — which is three inches
long and two inches wide — acts as a GPS tracker and monitors his location.
Were Pollard to step out of his tiny studio apartment to daven with a minyan
or get some fresh air on Shabbos or Yom Tov, the battery would begin to
drain, forcing him to choose between violating Shabbos or facing re-arrest.
The parole restrictions also include a “curfew” that puts him under house
arrest between 7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. During the daytime, he is only
permitted to travel in parts of Manhattan, and is even prohibited from
visiting nearby Brooklyn. The restrictions also include the unfettered
monitoring and inspection of his computers, as well as those of any employer
who chooses to hire him, which has prevented him from being able to gain
employment.
In the brief, written by a team of lawyers led by his long-time pro-bono
attorneys Eliot Lauer Jacques Semmelman, Pollard argues that there is “no
rational relationship between the Special Conditions and what the [Parole]
Commission says it seeks to achieve with them.”
“The Commission concluded that because the documents Pollard compromised
remain classified as ‘Secret’ and ‘Top Secret,’ Pollard automatically poses
a threat to national security because he saw them 31 years ago,” the brief
says. “The missing link is that the Commission failed to find that Pollard
himself still remembers – or can remember – any classified information.
Aerial photographs, lines of computer code, signals intelligence manuals,
and other such documents are not the types of documents that can be
reproduced from memory.”
In her lengthy ruling, Judge Katherine B. Forrest of the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York had repeatedly referred to what she
felt was the court’s limited authority to overrule a finding by the U.S.
Parole Commission.
“Federal court review of parole commission decisions is extremely limited,
because the commission has been granted broad discretion,” Forrest wrote,
citing several earlier court rulings. “Courts apply the same deferential
standard when a parolee challenges special conditions imposed by the
Commission … The appropriate standard for review of the commission’s
decisions is whether there has been an abuse of discretion. This means that
a court may not substitute its own judgment for that of the commission, but
may consider only whether there is a rational basis for the commission’s
decision.”
But in their brief, Pollard’s lawyers argued that “the parole statute
requires that an imposition of special parole conditions be reasonably
related to the parolee’s history and characteristics … Meaningful judicial
review under this standard means that the Special Conditions cannot merely
bear a theoretical relationship to past conduct, but must bear a reasonable
relationship based on rational determinations.”
They point out that in its attempt to justify the GPS Monitoring Condition,
the Commission relied in large part upon Pollard’s underlying crime of
31-plus years ago, claiming that his “base offense of espionage was by
definition an exercise in deception and furtive movements that included
trips abroad and a false identity …
“However, the Commission did not explain how GPS tracking bears any
connection to that behavior. All crimes involve ‘furtive movements’ in the
sense that the offender sought to avoid detection when committing them. If
that were the test, all parolees would be automatically subject to GPS
tracking, which is not the case,” the lawyers argue.
“If Pollard were truly a disclosure risk, the government never would have
permitted him (as it did) to communicate freely with federal prisoners in
general population for 20 years. Nor would it now permit him (as it has) to
meet with and talk with anyone, anywhere in the Southern District, or to
correspond by mail with anyone, anywhere in the world. In light of what the
government permits Pollard to do, a requirement that he submit to a monitor
on his physical location and on his employer’s computers — and a nighttime
curfew — is not rational.”
Source: http://www.imra.org.il/story.php3?id=71737
