Four months ago, a US federal judge in New York ruled that the United States Parole Commission must explain why it has placed such broad, severe parole restrictions on Jonathan Pollard. The Commission has simply ignored the ruling, Pollard's attorneys say.
In a brief filed with the same judge to this effect, the lawyers – Jacques Semmelman and Eliot Lauer, who have provided Pollard free legal services for years – urge that the Commission now be ordered to lift all restrictions on Pollard.
The restrictions in question a curfew from 7 PM to 7 AM, as well as complete monitoring and inspection of his computers and those of any employer who might hire him. In addition, Pollard is obligated to wear an electronic bracelet at all times for GPS tracking of his location – and it must be recharged on the Sabbath, when he is forbidden by Jewish Law to activate electricity.
Hamodia reports that the brief accuses the Parole Commission of issuing a report that "fails in every conceivable respect to address the clear mandate of this Court."
The brief states that the Court instructed the Commission to "identify whether Mr. Pollard has retained 'in his head' secret information that could endanger the public and thereby justify the severity of the special conditions of parole." The Court also "cautioned the Commission against overreliance on evidence of past criminality, urging the Commission to base its statement of reasons on contemporary findings of fact. The Commission ignored the Court."
Pollard's lawyers accuse the Parole Commission of justifying itself in such an "arbitrary and illogical" manner that it reveals "what can only be bias and vindictiveness on [its] part."
Semmelman and Lauer write that even if the Commission had addressed the issue of whether Pollard retains the memory of information that could threaten US national security, the Parole Comission "fails to provide any rational, logical connection between the alleged theoretical risk posed by Mr. Pollard and the Special Conditions imposed on him."
"Because the Commission has set forth no factual basis to justify the imposition of the Special Conditions," the brief concludes, "the Commission should be ordered to vacate them."
It was not reported when the judge was expected to rule on the request.