STEPHEN M. ST. JOHN
POST OFFICE BOX 449
ROCKEFELLER CENTER
NEW YORK, NY 10185
TEL/FAX: 212 534 5024
(The contact information above is no longer current!)
Ms. Mary Jo White
United States Attorney
One
St. Andrew’s Plaza
New York, NY 10007
1 March 2001
Dear Ms.
White,
With respect to published
reports of your investigation of a possible quid pro quo as the driving force behind the presidential pardon of Mark Rich,
I feel obligated to inform you that my own contact with Jonathan Pollard, which occurred under truly bizarre circumstances
in 1981 in Los Angeles and was subsequently reported in writing to United States Attorney Joseph DiGenova in 1985 after Pollard’s
arrest, could possibly shed more light on the subject of your investigation. Mr. Pollard, whose true identity was unknown
to me at the time of our meeting, offered to me the opportunity of brokering a deal for “a shipload of rice anchored
off the port of New Orleans.” As I read about the now unfolding story of Mark Rich, an internationally known commodities
broker, I thought that maybe this bit of information about Pollard’s apparent connection to the same business activity
will be useful to you and your investigation. I have wondered that maybe Mark Rich and Jonathan Pollard are just two
pieces of vegetable in the same soup, so to speak. Personally, I am very curious indeed as to who sent Pollard to me
and who was paying him; our meeting seemed to fit a pattern of surveillance arising from my Near East peace advocacy and keen
interest in related topics. Inasmuch as my letter to Mr. DiGenova was never acknowledged I hesitate to give more information
in this letter to you. However, if you wish, I will be very happy to give more particulars, some of which point to a
Soviet presence in the area of Los Angeles where I was living and where I had my rendez-vous with Mr. Pollard.
Very truly yours,
Stephen M. St. John
Update 29 July 2015: Back then
in March of 2001 I did receive a timely letter of reply from an assistant to Ms. White in which it was stated that I would
be contacted if such contact is deemed necessary. There was no follow-up contact in this matter. The letter of
reply is presently not at hand to be posted here. I cannot recall the name of the assistant who wrote this letter, but
do recall that he or she had a Hebrew name.