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, it’s not like Sibley’s gonna let a little thing like the law get in his way, especially since he’s 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.)
Background reading:
BAD NEWS FOR LYIN' TED: Supreme Court Adds DC Madam Case To Official Docket
Please keep it up........because it will do nothing but continue to destroy Trump's standing with Americans.
I don’t think Roberts’ issue is about girls. He is friends with Cruz, though.
I doubt it was Cruz... for one thing the lawyer is a liberal hater - and liberals don’t hate Cruz.
Thomas won’t help. It was a court order to protect information that was irrelevant to a criminal prosecution. The client who owned the information, the DC madam, later fired this attorney. It was her information, not his, and she did not want to release it, probably to protect her security. Fat lot of good that did her, but there is no basis for the former attorney to release confidential information given to him by someone who is no longer his client and did not ask for it to be released. It’s like a sealed court file in which the parties to the court action are not asking for it to be unsealed.
Trump doesn’t need that list.
He has his own list.
Why do you think he was the official sponsor of beauty pageants? Casting couches for the trumpers.
For the life of me, I cannot fathom why trumpers love this pathetic attempt to try to pin some sex scandal on Ted Cruz.
First of all... they can’t.
Second, their candidate ...The Trump ...is the father of all sex scandals.
Donald Trump paid for all his beautiful women.
If they weren’t literally paid for, as in call girls, they were paid for in a somewhat more subtle way.
Does anyone really believe that old combover could have gotten any of those beautiful women if he was working in appliances at Home Depot.
He bought them all.
And they meant a lot to him. Not as people, or as friends or companions or even lovers but as status symbols.
Old Donald had to validate his manhood by having the hottest women to shore up his low self-esteem.
When one is a combination of low-self esteem and narcissism, it takes a lot of time and money to keep up.
Is there a reason why anyone would trust the names in a pimp’s book?
How is that bad news for Ted Cruz?
Maybe someone can “steal” them and release them. We need to see
What this nonsense article fails to mention is that the so-called DC Madam died in 2008, and all records precede her death.
Ted Cruz was elected to the US Senate in 2012 and didn’t move to DC until Jan 2013.
Nothingburger.
Trump’s supporters are so naive - if told them that Cruz had murdered his mother and buried her on the Washington mall, they’d all be out there with shovels the next day.
Uh the files were already leaked online and Cruz’s number wasn’t on there. So it has to be someone else.
DoughtyOne do you know why this guy lost his law license??? Was it possibly taken by someone on the list???
I don’t Kit Cat, but it doesn’t seem like an idea that is out of the question.
There may have been decent cause, I just don’t know anything about him.
Wait a minute.
Trump is one ugly scoundrel. Having a Beautiful wife doesn’t mean he’s hot, it means he’s wealthy.
Still Report #753 - Ted Cruz May Be in DC Madam's Black Book
Still Report #757 - DC Madam's Files Will Be Released
Still Report #765 - Website Warns Cruz on DC Madam's Records
“the so-called DC Madam died in 2008, and all records precede her death. Ted Cruz was elected to the US Senate in 2012 and didn’t move to DC until Jan 2013.”
Not really a nothing burger. Cruz was in DC from 1995 to 2002 in various capacities. Heidi was there until 2004 and he made plenty of trips. And after he moved to Texas to be solicitor general, he argued in front of the Supreme Court 9 times. The Supreme Court is located in DC.
You want cheese on that nothingburger?
Then again, why did he pick Thomas (because Thomas had that pubic hair on the soda can issue? Or because as a Republican he would not want Republican names out there and it is a stall.) I would think that one of the liberal justices would be more likely to favor release, or not?
but he’s the Trumpeteers loon.
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.