Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: SJackson
In opposing these restrictions, Pollard's lawyers have argued that "the notion that, having fought for and finally obtained his release after serving 30 years in prison, Mr. Pollard will now disclose stale, 30-year-old information to anyone is preposterous."

Right off the bat, we know Pollard's lawyers are full of sh!t here.

Pollard never "fought for" his release at all. He was eligible for parole after ten years but never applied for it. That itself ought to raise all kinds of questions about the case.

He was paroled after 30 years because Federal standards made him eligible for parole whether he applied for it or not. For non-violent offenders they probably figure it's worse punishment for the convicted criminal if he's put out of prison when he's too old to be useful to most employers.

6 posted on 11/24/2015 8:37:20 AM PST by Alberta's Child ("It doesn't work for me. I gotta have more cowbell!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Alberta's Child

They’re probably right, he doesn’t have information to disclose. That’s a given since if he could cause further damage his parole could have been denied. They could have left that out. As to whether requiring to live in the US and monitoring him, is too harsh, who cares. It’s a standard parole requirement. I think his lawyers are on a wild goose chase. Though I doubt he worked long enough for a federal pension, he’s probably social security eligible, as well as a number of low income programs. I’d let him leave on the condition he gives up his citizenship and social security, the US doesn’t have to support him.


7 posted on 11/24/2015 8:51:35 AM PST by SJackson (Everybody has a plan until they get hit. Mike Tyson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson