UPDATE: Supreme Court Rejects DC Madam Case
Ted Cruz breathes a huge sigh of relief, for now. Sibley has another plan.
For complete background on this story, click here.
---
The decision was announced late yesterday. Sibley's application was directed to Chief Justice John Roberts, who is assigned to emergency appeals from the Washington, D.C. area. Roberts denied the motion 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.
Sibley would never let a little thing like the law get in his way, especially since he’s already lost his license to practice. He's likely biding his time to see what Clarence Thomas says (let us hope his name isn't implicated in the list), before releasing the names himself. That's the end game.
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
Apr 8, 2016 at 1:55 AM
Reader Comments (10)
Oh, I think there is little doubt that Sibley has important information. He is just exhausting every last possible legal option, so when he does release the names on his own, and he is arrested or brought into court for violating the original gag order, he can tell the judge that there were no other legal means for release.
As a lawyer, maybe Cheyenne can offer his insight.
Why not just release the names of the johns (and teds) in their entirety?
In the U.S., truth has been an absolute defense to libel since the John Peter Zenger trial in 1734. Pray tell what grounds other than defamation provide the basis for barring disclosure? The details of that case are just awesome. The judge, a loyalist, HATED Zenger and his lawyer, Andrew Hamilton. So Hamilton ignored the judge and pitched his client's case directly to the jury on the grounds just stated (truth = absolute defense), and the jury exonerated.
http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/bookmarks/zenger/
The Supreme Court has stepped into the shoes of the royalist judge for the umpteenth time and ignored that precedent, apparently.
I'm afraid this is all part and parcel of a much larger and very serious assault on U.S. sovereignty by global corporations. I touched on this in "Veneer of Justice," but it was the thin edge of the wedge, you may rest assured.
As for Sibley, let's hope he lives up to the spirit of American defiance shown by the jury in Philadelphia almost 300 years ago, and releases the names for all to see.
But if not, what's another peg down into the muck of despotism for this country? Frankly, I've lost count.
I'm headed to his blog to leave an encouraging comment.
http://amoprobos.blogspot.com/
Under art 3 of the constitution, courts can only decide "cases and controversies." Any number of criteria have been developed by the courts for what qualifies as a case: it has to be ripe, not moot, etc., and the plaintiff has to have standing/injury. Absent those criteria, the courts would be issuing advisory opinions, a judicial no-no.
In any case, Sibley should be happy. Roberts just cleared the dance floor for Sibley's next move. Imo, he's asking for a ruinously long delay by appealing to another justice. It's not as if his penalty would be any worse if he fired away now. And if he's ultimately right, as I think he is, there won't be any valid and enforceable penalty in any event.
"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 - before taking any further action regarding those Records."
"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..."