by Montgomery Blair Sibley, ©2016, Amo Probos

(Feb. 9, 2016) — Montgomery Blair Sibley, a former attorney for Deborah Jeane Palfrey, famously known as the D.C. Madam, has modified and renewed his Motion to Modify Restraining Order to Permit the Release of Telephone Records  requesting permission to release some – if not all – of the D.C. Madam’s  escort service business records of which he is custodian.  Chief Judge Richard W. Roberts had previously refused to consider Sibley’s Motion by Ordering the Clerk not to file that Motion.

Since, 2007, Sibley has been under a District Court Restraining Order not to disseminate in any fashion the contents of the D.C. Madam’s escort service business records. Sibley’s renewed motion apprises the Court of its misapprehension of the legal representation by Sibley of Jeane through a detailed chronology of the events of Jeane’s legal odyssey.  That chronology also details why Sibley’s license to practice law was, without-a-hearing, suspended, thus preventing Sibley from litigating the issues remaining in Jeane’s civil forfeiture case.

The motion requests permission from the Court to disseminate Jeane’s records upon two grounds. First, they are a valuable teaching aid in privacy law and litigation, a course that Sibley teaches at Northern Virginia Community College. Second, given the relevance Jeane’s records may well have to the looming Presidential elections, public policy considerations outweigh any privacy claims that individuals, corporations or government entities may have in keeping their Personally Identifiable Information from the public view.

Additionally, alleging that Chief Judge Richard W. Roberts impartiality might reasonably be questioned,  Sibley has made a Motion to Disqualify Judge Roberts upon two grounds. First, that Judge Roberts had no authority to direct the Clerk to refuse to file Sibley’a Motion to Modify Restraining Orders. thus demonstrating his bias against Sibley.

Second, Sibley has tangled with Judge Roberts before in the notorious case of U.S. v. Duke. The indicted, Capital-bombing terrorist and fugitive from justice Elizabeth Duke was released from her indicted and fugitive status at a questionable legal hearing in 2009. At that hearing, Magistrate Judge Deborah A. Robinson dismissed the indictment against Elizabeth Duke by: (i) falsifying a court order and (ii) committing a felony when she misrepresented herself as an Article III judge when she is in fact an Article I judge when signing that Order dismissing the indictment. Judge Roberts, though apprised of these facts by Sibley, refused to address this corruption of the legal system. Singularly and collectively, upon these facts Sibley alleges Judge Roberts must disqualify himself from considering Sibley’s motion to modify the restraining order.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.