by Sharon Rondeau

(Apr. 17, 2016) — The following letter was prepared in response to a petition filed by the former civil attorney for Deborah Jeane Palfrey, Montgomery Blair Sibley, at the U.S. Supreme Court earlier this month.

Palfrey came to be known as the “DC Madam” during her 2007-2008 trial on prostitution racketeering and money laundering charges.  On May 1, 2008, she was discovered deceased at her mother’s home in Florida in what has been termed a suicide.

The Post & Email has followed the efforts of Montgomery Blair Sibley, beginning in January of this year, to obtain a stay of a restraining order imposed by a federal judge on May 10, 2007 prohibiting him from releasing additional names and phone numbers associated with Palfrey’s former business, Pamela Martin & Associates. Sibley claims that the records he has held since that time could have a significant impact on the 2016 presidential election.

He has detailed his efforts on his blog and in a timeline presented in one of his filings.

After beginning with lower courts in the District of Columbia which proved unresponsive or obstructive to his request, on April 1, Sibley petitioned U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John G. Roberts for a stay of the restraining order, which was denied three days later. Upon petitioning Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, however, the court docket showed on April 13 that the petition had been distributed for conference of the full court, currently at eight justices due to the February passing of Associate Justice Antonin Scalia, on April 29.

Following the conference, the court could decide to schedule oral argument, deny the petition in its entirety, or be equally divided as to any action that might be taken, in which case the status quo would remain.

A second venue for possible adjudication became available to Sibley when the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia last week removed his pending lawsuit against former Judge Richard Roberts and his clerk to the U.S. District Court from the D.C. Superior Court, where it had been filed.

Should any reader desire to send his or her own Amicus letter, please feel free to use any wording appearing below without attribution while omitting specifics which may not apply.

An enlarged version of the letter follows.

Join the Conversation


Your email address will not be published.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.

  1. Pingback: Ruthie Goodrick