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 document contains.

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 of 1998.

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.