Posted on 04/05/2016 1:34:52 PM PDT by BagCamAddict
The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday denied a request from a lawyer who once represented a woman known as the "DC Madam" to release records from her famous escort service.
Those records include such sensitive information as customer names, Social Security numbers and addresses— information the lawyer, Montgomery Blair Sibley, has said could affect the 2016 presidential election. The so-called DC Madam Deborah Jeane Palfrey ran a high-priced escort service in the Washington D.C.-area for a number of years before her eventual conviction. She died in 2008.
Sibley wanted the Supreme Court to lift a lower court order, in place since 2007, that bars him from releasing any information about her records.
"Time is of the essence," Sibley wrote in his latest Supreme Court filing. "Given the significance of the upcoming political primaries and caucuses, in the looming Republican and Democratic conventions on July 18th and July 25th respectively, and given the impact of the presently sealed from the public record that this attorney seeks to release, upon those electoral deliberations, expedited resolution to this application is incumbent upon this court."
His application was directed to Chief Justice John Roberts, the justice assigned to emergency appeals from the Washington, D.C. area. Roberts denied it without seeking a response from any other party, a sign of how little merit Roberts found in the application.
Imagine that. They want to save it for the run up to the general election if Cruz is the nominee
I would suspect these records are under a gag order because the lady in question is dead. The records were likely obtained in a legal proceeding and, since that case died with her, there is no legal interest making records untested in an adversarial proceeding public. Basic fairness would dictate that anyone implicated by these records would have an opportunity to formally respond before their release. Since there is no venue for anyone to contest the inclusion of their information in these records and no legal purpose to be served by their release, it is not surprising that they remain sealed. Courts deal with actual legal issues and do not normally traffic in rummer or involve themselves with political issues regardless of how titillating it may be to some third party.
SCOTUS: mr sibley do really expect us to release our phone records?
FURoberts
PING!!!
Thanks, Jane Long
His application was directed to Chief Justice John Roberts, the justice assigned to emergency appeals from the Washington, D.C. area. Roberts denied it without seeking a response from any other party...
[Roberts is in someone’s pocket.]
Someone is in Roberts’ pocket. Helping it. Or suppressing something.>>> worst corrupt pos ever.
[Roberts is in someone’s pocket.]
Someone is in Roberts’ pocket. Helping it. Or suppressing something.>>> worst corrupt pos ever.
Who on earth would give their SS# to an escort service? I have a super hard time giving it to anyone and only in extreme circumstances over the phone.>>>> guy with a hooker with task in hand bent on an adult circumcision.
His pro bono work for Big Sodomy certainly does put him under suspicion...
Thank you.
Let the chips fail where they may.
Another Trump Effect.
——When the fate of the country is at stake?——
Seriously ?
The fate of the country will fall or raise on a hooker escort service list of names...?
FLASHBACK
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/214989/right-stuff-ted-cruz
by TED CRUZ July 20, 2005
John Roberts should be a quick confirm.
...or was someone else in his pocket?
Wow...a cogent post....
Thank you...
There is NO other reason than what you stated.
Justice Roberts is the elites firewall.
the names on the list were not germane to the trial and therefore not public
Thank you for posting that obvious non-conspiratorial explanation. That was also my immediate reaction: That anyone named in those records would have no way of disputing their accuracy. If the records were wrong (or if the attorney who wants to release them slipped in some extra names) then the reputations of everyone named would be irretrievably ruined, with absolutely no recourse since the Madam is dead. That’s not something our courts would or should allow. The proper venue for that sort of rumor and gossip is the National Enquirer.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.