You are here

CLG: Supreme Court Denies 'DC Madam' Attorney Request to Release Records 'Relevant to 2016 Presidential Election'

CLG: Supreme Court Denies 'DC Madam' Attorney Request to Release Records 'Relevant to 2016 Presidential Election' --Attorney Sibley will attempt 'procedural second bite at the apple' By Lori Price, | 06 April 2016 | Citizens for Legitimate Government (CLG) has learned that Montgomery Blair Sibley, the attorney for the late 'DC Madam' (Deborah Jeane Palfrey), has been refused by the U.S. Supreme Court to remove the restraining order imposed on him regarding the release of Palfrey's escort service records. Recent numerous articles and social media posts have prompted wide speculation that the name and phone number of Republican presidential candidate, Texas Senator Ted Cruz, is in Palfrey's sealed escort service records.Mr. Sibley sent the following statement to CLG early Wednesday:Montgomery Blair Sibley and the D.C. Madam RecordsAs 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 - before taking any further action regarding those Records. The Renewed Application can be found on my blog: 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.)******Link: get further updates on this story and others, subscribe here: