- Main navigation Bottom Header
- Brief Overview of Defendants & Verdicts at Nuremberg Trials
- (16 Videos)
- Jewish prisoner sues jail for not serving kosher food
Numerous intelligence reports about Soviet missile systems, delivered by Pollard, exposed the way America analyzed Soviet weapons. Some estimate the loss of the RASIN manual cost America billions of dollars, and many years, to completely restructure our worldwide eavesdropping operation. To avoid a public trial, the government negotiated a binding, written plea agreement with both Pollard and his first wife Anne. By way of background, plea agreements govern conduct of prosecutors and defendants in the time leading up to sentencing.
This is done to induce the defendant to relinquish the important right of trial.
Main navigation Bottom Header
The government must live up to the agreement, and the plea agreement can be enforced against the government. This he did. In return, prosecutors promised that while they would indeed request substantial jail time, they would not ask for the maximum: life.
- Sex, Murder, and the Three of Us.
- Site Information Navigation;
- Sex Club (Shameless Sex Diaries - Erotic XXX Stories);
Both agreements also routinely required the Pollards to obtain specific approval from the Director of Naval Intelligence for any media interviews or publication. Such conditions are standard in many plea agreements, especially those involving espionage. But the Pollards tried to outsmart mercy. They decided to rally the American Jewish community and massage public opinion, hoping to create outside pressure on the judge and prosecutors to dispense a reduced sentence.
Brief Overview of Defendants & Verdicts at Nuremberg Trials
Without the knowledge of his attorney, Pollard granted two exclusive prison interviews to Wolf Blitzer, then Washington correspondent for the Jerusalem Post. In these interviews, Pollard brashly presented himself as a highly motivated Jew determined to help Israel in the face of an intransigent American intelligence community endangering the Jewish State. What a disaster. Press interviews with prisoners awaiting sentencing are virtually unheard of.
Jewish officers throughout the American intelligence community were equally incensed that the Pollards might make all American Jews seem disloyal. He had no right! Angry prosecutors would now manifest their rage and exact their revenge. It was inadvisable to throw out the binding plea agreement, claiming the Pollards breached the spirit of the media strictures. With no plea agreement, the government would have to start from scratch and prosecute the case in a public trial. Instead, prosecutors themselves simply breached the plea agreement to make sure Pollard was thrown in jail for life.
Prosecutors were obligated by the plea agreement to confine their arguments to the details of the crime and make no effort to provoke a life sentence. All of it was strictly outside the four walls of the binding plea agreement. Any judge would be inflamed. Life sentences had been dealt just months before to several notorious spies.
At the sentencing on March 4, , prosecutors again emphasized that Pollard was a deceitful and outrageous media manipulator, hammering at the Blitzer interviews. If that was not enough, prosecutors further disregarded the plea agreement by invoking extra information guaranteed to inflame the judge. Figure years. But the judge was steamed — really steamed.
In fact, as the judge was speaking, some thought the sentence might run up as high as 25 years. Then one of the prosecutors turned to me and said 35 years. But I felt it coming. He agreed that Pollard deserved the worst punishment possible. And in addition to those voluminous submissions by each side, I have also received numerous communications directed to the court with respect to this procedure.
The breathless courtroom waited. People were shrieking in dismay. Anne collapsed into hysteria. Guards lifted her off the floor only to hear her own five-year sentence. By now, she was screaming, completely overcome with hysteria. Pollard could not help her. Indeed, federal marshals forcibly separated them. But they were not. Ironically, during a May, interview with Caspar Weinberger regarding his recent published memoir, In the Arena, this reporter asked Weinberger why the Pollard incident was left out of the book.
It was made far bigger than its actual importance. I wish he had made this clear years ago. How does a reporter for a foreign newspaper, especially a newspaper in the country that commissioned the spying, walk into a prison setting to freely interview a spy whose talkativeness and propensity for super-secret disclosures could only further damage American intelligence? In a telling admission, Bureau of Prisons officials and Judicial Adjutant General [JAG] legal advisors to the Director of Naval Intelligence told this reporter that when the Bureau of Prisons grants the interview, it is only after the review and permission of the Director of Naval Intelligence.
She then runs the request through a series of potential interested parties, including the DNI, and then responds to the Bureau of Prisons. That had grievous effects. Although Blitzer and Pollard followed the procedure of working through the Bureau of Prisons, prosecutors somehow portrayed the two interviews as a violation. Pollard, and resulted in his sentence of life in prison. Finally, in the wake of all the errors and breaches, Hibey never filed the simple one-page Notice of Appeal form within the requisite ten days. If he fails to do so, he can never again file for direct appellate review, no matter how outrageous the error.
At least three members of Congress are among the long list of eminent reviewers who agree. Pollard had been sentenced to life in prison, his attorney failed to file a Notice of Appeal—a simple and straightforward task that a competent attorney would routinely have done. By that failure, Mr. Pollard to an unreviewed sentence of life in prison. Every attempt to gain presidential clemency, spearheaded by Israeli prime ministers and American Jewish leadership has been thwarted.
Although, most convicts have learned to conduct themselves passively and speak in a fashion that will play to parole boards, Pollard has gone on the offensive.
Rather just so that you can return to Israel and claim that you brought it up but were unsuccessful. For example, in , Sen. The letter was a Congressional initiative to secure presidential commutation. But after Pollard signed the letter, he reportedly expressed regret over a portion of the letter which apologized for violating Jewish law — to the utter dismay of those pious Jews who had organized the letter. Legal experts consider it inadvisable for a man seeking clemency to offend those needed to champion his cause.
A source close to Sen. Moynihan says federal marshals were summoned to protect Luchins.
Jewish prisoner sues jail for not serving kosher food
By way of background, convicted felons cannot be defamed. Observers say it is understandable for an embittered Pollard to lash out, since he is facing a harsh life term under the circumstances that it was dealt. But legal experts consider it inadvisable for a man seeking clemency to offend those needed to champion his cause.
- Avant-Garde Fascism: The Mobilization of Myth, Art, and Culture in France, 1909–1939!
- Why I’ve Always Been Silent About Israel and Palestine. And Why I’m Speaking Out Now..
- Matri-Money, 150+ Tips about Money and Marriage!
- Kingdom Breakthrough and the Intercessor!
- Balance and Shadow (The Spiritlands Book 1).
- The Real Cost of Prisons Project;
- Time Bandits and the Fountain of Youth (4th in the series) (The Realms).
Concomitant with the combative clemency request is a range of bewildering allegations issued by Pollard or his principal supporters. This arose from the fact that Pollard was given instructions by his Israeli handlers to retrieve specific numbered documents that only an insider would know. His accusers did not particularly care about the guilt or innocence of any of the Jews named. All they wanted was another whipping boy. Lucky for Bloomfield and those others on the list that Jonathan chose honor and truth above self-interest, and would not cooperate.
Images of a government-compiled list of prominent Jewish names outraged many in American Jewry. But upon closer examination, such a list seems to be non-existent, and more than implausible on its face. Bloomfield, now a syndicated columnist, ridiculed the idea as well. I have not spent recent years hiding … No one has contacted me. Such contact would have been a certainty had a list really existed. This has motivated the senior intelligence community to energetically oppose early release for Pollard. Yet efforts to obtain juridical justice for Pollard have faltered over the years.
Fox, a former assistant U. Attorney himself, charged that the government breached its plea agreement. But the court refused his effort, citing the absence of any objection by Hibey. The legacy of anger at Pollard is actually handed down from bureaucrat to bureaucrat as new assistant U. Attorneys come fresh to the case. I said if I did, I would let him know.