Hibey: From Pollard to the "Pals."

The NYTimes has reported that Arabs (who term themselves) "Palestinians" are seeking to overturn a judgment that has gone against them to the tune of $192.7 Million.

In a case stemming from a 2002 terror incident when a gunman interrupted a bat mitzvah celebration and killed 6 people and wounded more than 30, a lawsuit was filed by the family of an American victim, Aharon Ellis, who was murdered in the attack, a federal judge, Victor Marrero, awarded the family a default judgment of $192.7 million in damages. But the Pals. want a second chance and the judge has agreed but is requiring the Pals. to post a bond of $192.7 million.

The defendants assert they “are teetering on the verge of bankruptcy,” citing a financial crisis. The family's lawyer, David J. Strachman, opposes any reduction in the bond, saying the defendants are most probably misleading the court. He has noted the bank accounts once controlled by Yasir Arafat. He thinks there are hundreds of millions of dollars that are available in assets.

Richard A. Hibey, a lawyer for the Palestinian defendants, has told the court that the documents will show how “this utterly insolvent, destitute operation runs.”

That name, Hibey, resonated with me.



And I checked.

Richard A. Hibey, and (here too), the attorney defending the Palestinian Authority (aka "Pals.") in the suit, is also a political donor. Here's one contribution record I found. Plays both sides of the partisan divide, it seems. That's okay, no?

But more interestingly, he seems to have been the first lawyer of...Jonathan Pollard, and, it is claimed, sabotaged him:-

Richard Hibey, astonishingly, failed to file a time-limited statement of intent to file a direct appeal. This failure - too gross to be a mere oversight - then prevented Jonathan Pollard from ever exercising his constitutional right to a direct appeal of his sentence. What Hibey did file instead, was a Rule 35 motion to reduce sentence...

And this observation by two lawyers:-

The ineffective assistance claim, which will be argued by Semmelman, centers on the representation Washington attorney Richard A. Hibey, now of Miller & Chevalier, provided his client nearly two decades ago.

"I was appalled at the quality of the legal representation Jonathan received," Semmelman said in an interview. "It became apparent to us that Jonathan Pollard was sentenced to life not because of what he did, but because of what was done to him."

The list of complaints against Hibey is extensive.

According to a brief submitted to the court, Hibey neglected to file any notice of appeal; publicly announced that Pollard had no avenue of appeal; failed to challenge a statement Weinberger submitted to the court all but demanding a life sentence after the government promised not to seek such a sanction; and committed various other errors that denied his client effective representation. Hibey last week declined comment.

Because of a statute of limitations question, the ineffective assistance issue is not directly before the circuit.

Now, the Pollard family have always maintained that Hibey, of Lebanese descent, was either a bad, unprofessional lawyer or, and this is speculation, had a political/ideological knife to twist:-

Actually, what might have saved Pollard from a life term would have been several seemingly obvious moves by his attorney, Hibey. He should have objected to the government's breach of its plea agreement and excessive sentencing by Robinson, insist many legal authorities. Most damaging, in the wake of all the errors and breaches, Hibey never filed the simple one-page Notice of Appeal form within the requisite 10 days. The damage was as good as permanent. By not filing the appeal form, Hibey assured there would never be legal recourse to undo the grievances.

Whether or not Hibey allowed his ethnic connections to override his ethical and moral obligations to his client is one question. Nevertheless, two others remain:

1. Is Hibey representing the Pals. out of professional commitment or for the money (how much does a lawyer receive if he saves his client just short of $200 million)?

2. Are the Pals. being properly and adequately represented?

And one more:-

If they are being properly represented, why wasn't Jonathan Pollard accorded the same courtesy?

More investigation would help.

P.S. DaledAmos thinks so, too. As does SoccerDad.