Skip to comments.Supreme Court Rejects DC Madam Case (appeal to Justice Thomas filed)
Posted on 04/06/2016 4:27:17 PM PDT by drewh
Ted Cruz breathes a huge sigh of relief, for now. Sibley has another plan.
Chief Justixe Roberts made his decision late yesterday:
Sibley's 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.
Undeterrred, Sibley writes on his blog that he will now appeal to Clarence Thomas:
Yesterday, Chief Justice Roberts denied my Application to be relieved from the Restraining Order which prohibits me from releasing any of the D.C. Madam Jeane Palfrey's Escort Service Records.
Before I simply release the records in my possession, I must exhaust all judicial remedies. Accordingly, invoking Supreme Court Rule 22.4, I am renewing the Application with a second Justice, the estimable Clarence Thomas. I will wait to see what he says before taking my next step.
Anyway, its not like Sibleys gonna let a little thing like the law get in his way, especially since hes already lost his license to practice. He's biding his time to see what Clarence Thomas thinks (let's hope his name isn't implicated), before releasing the names himself. That's the end game here. Also, Mr. Sibley would like us to focus on Judge Garland.
Below is Sibley's complete response to CLG.
By Montgomery Blair Sibley
As you asked me to keep you in the loop, here is the latest on the D.C. Madam's records:
Yesterday, Chief Justice Roberts denied my Application to remove the Restraining Order which prohibits me from releasing the D.C. Madam's Escort Service Records I believe relevant to the Presidential Election. Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 22, I am now renewing that Application to Justice Thomas - a procedural second bite at the apple so to speak. I will wait upon his decision - which in the normal course should come by the middle of next week - beforetaking any further action regarding those Records. The Renewed Application can be found on my blog.
I have reviewed the putative D.C. Madam records released on-line and can state they are not the Records I seek to release. Instead, they appear to be those that I released publicly in 2007... [See also: CLG's 'DC Madam' Phone Records posted September 2007.]
Respectfully, I have sought to answer all your questions, so now I am going to ask you a few of my own: With the Wisconsin Primary now in the books and more primaries on the horizon:
1. Will the Press begin to "press" Chief Justice Roberts as to why he denied my Application in Supreme Court Case No. 15A1016? Is he a Caesar at the Coliseum turning his thumb up or down as the whim strikes him or does he have to account-through-legal-analysis for his decision to allow my First Amendment Political Speech to be muzzled by explicitly approving the refusal of the lower courts in his administrative jurisdiction to allow me to file my Motion to Modify the Restraining Order? (I trust you know for time sensitive or urgent questions, reporters can contact the Supreme Court Public Information Office at 202-479-3211, press 1.)
2. When will the Press begin to "press" D.C. Circuit Court Chief Judge Garland as to why his Court has refused since March 9, 2016 to address my Petition which seeks an order directing the District Court Clerk to file my Motion to Modify the Restraining Order. Notably, in Case No.: 16-3007, I requested Expedited Consideration which the Circuit Court also has refused to grant or deny creating in effect a judicial pocket veto without explanation and thus denying me the ability to appeal such a decision. (Such an inquiry can be directed to: Tracy Hauser Scarrow, (202-216-7460) Special Assistant to Chief Judge Garland.)
BAD NEWS FOR LYIN' TED: Supreme Court Adds DC Madam Case To Official Docket
Is Roberts name ion that book, is a candidates names in the book, or are there quite a few in government in that book?
Just release the names to the press.
Trump is on the list. Prove me wrong.
Here you are doing your smear spreading again.
go for it, gateway pundit got a copy of them yesterday...(supposedly) http://pastebin.com/1HJP7QYU
No can do.
You believe 2 wrongs make a right? Sad. The whole issue of that book needs to be left alone unless or until the attorney releases it. At this point it seems more likely his 15 minutes than anything else. But guessing who might be in a book that might exist is classless.
Why is that person under a restraining order?
Donald Trump has made no secret about his many affairs. I would be a surprised though, given his evident success with so many beautiful women, that he was also paying for call girls. If he has done so, I don’t think think he would deny it if he was asked about it.
Sibley has been promising to release names since 2007, when he was going to appear on 20/20. Then he was running for President in 2012. Then he was going to release them again. He’s a loon.
You can post this til the cows come home and no one will believe it. Just like NE story. Wouldn’t you rather see your guy win on merit rather than on politics of personal destruction?
I am curious about the list but for other reasons. I’m far more concerned with those having serious security access being on the lists. The investigative agencies can determine the authenticity and see if any blackmail or extortion has been taking place due to the records being in existence.
“Just release the names to the press.”
Yea, no matter what’s there, it should not be withheld from the pubic by a worthless turd like John Roberts. Sibley needs to just do it!
why would not it be allowed to release, unless there are powers at be who don’t want to have their names released, judges, senators, etc.
Agreed, this seems to be those in power who won’t be wanting us to see their names.
Release the names and lets see the dirty sleazballs
The courts are corrupt. They are protecting the our rulers.
someone can reverse reference the numbers above from Gateway Pundit and find out who they are. DC public library would be a good placve to start...
It is routine in criminal cases that evidence which is turned over to the lawyers but not introduced at trial is sealed, to protect the privacy of non-parties. Sibley is not even supposed to have copies of these records, because he was replaced as the defendant's lawyer and was supposed to turn everything over to the new lawyer.
Since then, Sibley has been disbarred for dishonesty unrelated to this case.
Roberts and Cruz probably did tag teams. No way would Roberts want that out.
I like the fact that Roberts is out of the loop now, maybe Thomas will help!
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.