NO LATER THAN MONDAY, APRIL 18
by Sharon Rondeau
Sibley, who represented Palfrey in the civil asset forfeiture case brought against her by the United States, has had possession of the records since 2007, at which time he released a partial list of Palfrey’s clientele. Individuals appearing on the list included a U.S. Navy instructor, a Department of Justice prosecutor, a high-ranking State Department official who resigned after his name was made public, and Louisiana Senator David Vitter, who confirmed the report, apologized to his wife and constituents, but maintained his position in the U.S. Senate.
Since commencing his quest in January to have the restraining order prohibiting any further records release lifted, Sibley has maintained that releasing the remainder is pertinent to the 2016 presidential campaign.
On March 23, the National ENQUIRER began reporting that presidential candidate and U.S. Senator Ted Cruz has had five affairs while married to wife Heidi, some of which were with married women. In an article which appears to remain unpublished at present, the ENQUIRER wrote, “Ted Cruz linked to murdered DC Madam!” References to Palfrey’s “black book” have been made by the ENQUIRER in regard to “political insiders.”
He began by submitting a “Motion to Modify Restraining Order to Permit the Release of Telephone Records Received Pursuant to Subpoenas but Never Made Public and Other Records” to U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia Judge Richard Roberts, the same judge who imposed the restraining order in May 2007.
As indicated below, the records Sibley acquired appear to apply to a single presidential candidate but are said to contain 815 records of “Washington D.C. clients of the D.C. Madam’s escort service.” In a January 28 interview with The Post & Email, Sibley said, “I have 850 clients on the DC Madam Escort Service that no one has ever seen…I’ve been sitting on them because I was ordered not to release them. But I think they’re relevant to the upcoming election and they ought to be released.”
In a comprehensive timeline of the events leading up to Sibley’s petition to the US Supreme Court earlier this month, he reported that “Chief Judge Roberts orders the Clerk to not file Sibley’s Motion to Modify in U.S. v. Palfrey. The Clerk returns to Sibley the Motion to Modify leaving no record of what Sibley sought to file.”
Three days later, Sibley filed a Motion to Reconsider and “Motion to Disqualify Chief Judge Roberts” in US v. Palfrey.
In what appears to be a repetition of Roberts’s previous action, Sibley reported on February 16:
On March 9, turning to the Circuit Court for the District of Columbia, Sibley filed a petition for “Writs of Mandamus, Prohibition, and Procedendum Ad Justicium,” at the same time requesting “expedited briefing” and oral argument. Sibley explained in the timeline that the purpose of the filing was to “obtain a Writ of Mandamus to compel the lower court clerk to file his Motion to Modify Restraining Order.
He was able to accomplish the filing by launching a GoFundMe campaign which raised $390. On his blog on March 9, Sibley wrote, “That Petition throws the matter into the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals which now has to choose either: (i) approve the continuing denial of my access to court to seek release of the D.C. Madam’s Escort Service records which I continue to maintain are relevant to the pending Presidential selection process or (ii) order the District Court to accord me a meaningful hearing at a meaningful time before an impartial magistrate.”
One week later, on March 16, Roberts abruptly resigned his judgeship on the same day on which a lawsuit alleging sexual misconduct on Roberts’s part against a then-16-year-old female witness in a case. Roberts’s legal team claimed that his resignation resulted from “disability” and not the lawsuit or other matters.
On March 9, Sibley additionally stated that he would “wait two weeks for a decision one way or the other and then seek review at the U.S. Supreme Court.”
Sibley reported last Monday that Obama’s U.S. Supreme Court nominee, District of Columbia Circuit Court Chief Judge Merrick Garland, has “tied up my Emergency Petition in the Circuit Court of Appeals for over thirty (30) days without addressing the merits.”
Sibley’s “Legal Argument” for why he believes the restraining order should be lifted contains four components:
- the restriction of his First Amendment right to political speech and public discourse
- time sensitivity in regard to the upcoming presidential primary and caucus season and the telephone records’ alleged relevance
- the withholding of the records from the public “deprives the People of the information they may deem material to the exercise of their electoral franchise,” and
- “The delay by this Court in resolution of this Application – in hindsight(1) – will appear to many to intentionally favor one Presidential candidate over others by protecting that candidate from the release of the Verison [sic] Wireless Subpoena return records Sibley maintains are relevant to this Presidential election cycle.”
On March 28, following the elapse of two weeks, Sibley announced that “I am waiting no more” and that he filed an Application for Stay of Restraining Order with U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., who denied the petition on April 4, according to the court docket.
On April 11, Sibley reported that an unexpected development occurred wherein the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia “removed” his lawsuit against Circuit Judge Richard Roberts and his clerk for failing to file his motions to the U.S. District Court. Consequently, Sibley filed a “First Amended Complaint and “Emergency Motion for Pre-trial Conference to Schedule Expedited Disposition of Sibley’s Third Claim” with that court, which he viewed as a “last federal judicial opening.”
After John Roberts’s denial of his petition, Sibley submitted it under U.S. Supreme Court Rule 22.4 to another member of the court, Associate Justice Clarence Thomas. On Wednesday, the court docket showed that it the petition was distributed for conference by the court for April 29.
In a book titled “Why Just Her” which Sibley authored in April 2009, he states that during its proceedings against Palfrey, “the judicial system time and again failed to live up to its promise to insure justice. Instead, unwittingly sitting atop a list of the most powerful men in the world, that system made sure that Jeane’s story would never be fully told.”
According to techlawjournal.com, an Amicus Curiae, or “Friend of the Court,” brief, is “filed in many Supreme Court matters, both at the Petition for Writ of Certiorari stage, and when the Court is deciding a case on its merits. Some studies have shown a positive correlation between number of amicus briefs filed in support of granting certiorari, and the Court’s decision to grant certiorari. Some friend of the court briefs provide valuable information about legal arguments, or how a case might affect people other than the parties to the case…”
The Legal Dictionary states that “Such amicus curiae briefs are commonly filed in appeals concerning matters of a broad public interest; e.g., civil rights cases” by “A person with strong interest in or views on the subject matter of an action, but not a party to the action.”
The Post & Email has been told by a knowledgeable source that if four members of the court should vote to schedule oral argument or lift the restraining order and the other four oppose it, “Stalemate means nothing is done.”
Given the time required to screen and distribute incoming mail to government offices in the District of Columbia, anyone wishing to file an Amicus brief or letter should mail it by USPS Priority Mail no later than Monday, April 18. Amicus documents in the case can be addressed to:
Clerk of Court
Supreme Court of United States
1 First Street, N.E.
Washington, D.C. 20543
Re: In Re: Montgomery Blair Sibley
Case No.: 15A1016