BREAKING: DC MADAM - #CRUZSEXSCANDAL - PRELIMINARY INFO RELEASED

DENIED

Supreme Court Won't Release D.C. Madam Records

usnews.com/news/articles/2016-05-02/supreme-court-wont-release-dc-madam-records

"The Supreme Court announced Monday it would not intervene to allow release of phone records from the late “D.C. madam” Deborah Jeane Palfrey, despite one of her former attorneys claiming the records are “very relevant” to the presidential election.

Though he has repeatedly threatened to release the records if courts do not modify a 2007 restraining order, Montgomery Blair Sibley tells U.S. News he’s not quite sure what he now will do.

“I’m going to sleep on it and seek the counsel of people I trust,” he says. “It's laundry day anyway, so I’m going to be washing all my soccer uniforms from this weekend.”

Sibley says he likely will decide this week how to proceed and that he’s infuriated the justices refused his request that they stay the restraining order covering the records."

(…)

"In January, the then-chief judge of U.S. District Court in the nation’s capital refused to allow a clerk to file Sibley’s motion seeking consideration of the matter, writing he appeared to have no legal right to hold the records, as Palfrey fired him before her trial. Sibley disagrees, but his appeal to the D.C. Circuit federal appeals court yielded no action.

What purported bombshell exists in the records is unclear, as is the candidate who may be affected. Sibley is seeking to release two sets of records: a trove of raw phone logs with an estimated 5,000 unique numbers and a Verizon Wireless subpoena response he says contains names, addresses and Social Security numbers of 815 of those callers.

Sibley previously told U.S. News the bombshell is contained specifically in the Verizon subpoena response, but an attempted fact check yielded uncertainty about whether a presidential candidate is named." (…)

DO IT

After Supreme Court denial, ex-lawyer for ‘D.C. Madam’ mulls releasing names

wtop.com/presidential-election/2016/05/after-supreme-court-denial-ex-lawyer-for-d-c-madam-mulls-releasing-names/

(…)

"With the political conventions nearing, and the Supreme Court’s refusal to argue his case, it is unclear what Sibley’s next move might be. “Now that I am at that bridge, I am going to figure out the best way across,” Sibley told WTOP in an email. “That will take a few days as it is a big decision for me.”

The list of released entities includes the following government agencies: Department of Health and Human Services, FBI, General Services Administration, U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command, Internal Revenue Service, National Drug Intelligence Center, National Geospatial Intelligence Agency, U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Army Information Systems Command, Department of Commerce, Department of State, U.S. Postal Service and U.S. Forest Service.

Others listed in the filing include the Archdiocese of Washington, Embassy of Japan, Bethlehem Steel, Constellation Energy/BGE, Hewlett-Packard, Johns Hopkins University, Washington Gas and several large law firms.

In July 2007, Palfrey and her attorney released her phone records for public viewing. After the release of the phone numbers, Louisiana Sen. David Vitter acknowledged being a customer of Palfrey’s service.

Judge Gladys Kessler ordered Palfrey and her attorney to cease distributing her bookkeeping records.

Sibley’s license to practice law was suspended in 2008 for three years by the D.C. Court of Appeal. In addition, Sibley has sued the former chief judge and court clerk in D.C. for $1 million each."

That journalist is pro-Trump, too. Further evidence that whatever is in those records would help Trump immensely. I bet it's Hillary.

From the behavior of Cruz supporters thus far, one has to wonder if anything could dissuade them at this point. They obviously could not care less about the Constitution and the natural born citizen stipulation. Likewise, they appear unfazed by the blatant dirty tricks pulled off by the Cruz campaign team. The Republican leadership may very well be using Cruz as a stalking horse to derail Trump, only to jettison him in favor of a contested convention pick, but a sordid sex tape might not change much in the here and now.

I hope Glenn Beck's name on the DC Madam's clients list.

That would bring forth much salt, but Beck strikes me as more of a pederast than a player.

Here's the attorney's latest:

amoprobos.blogspot.com/2016/05/my-next-steps.html

TUESDAY, MAY 3, 2016

My next steps . . .

Yesterday, the Supreme Court docketed the denial of my Application. They gave no reason for the denial of my request to review the refusal of the District Court Clerk to file my Motions for Modification of the Restraining Order which I believe prevents me from releasing information relevant to the present election cycle.

So now what is my next step? Torn as I am that I should not be gagged from First Amendment political speech by a restraining order that I am being denied the opportunity to even asked to be dissolved, I am a Doctor of Laws and cannot flaunt the Court's authority easily. Hence, I will continue to press Obama Supreme Court nominee Chief Judge Garland of the D.C. Circuit Court to expedite the resolution of the Petition I placed before him on March 9, 2016.

Chief Judge Garland and I have tangled before which is why I believe he is hoping I will release the records so I can be arrested for criminal contempt of court. That most certainly would silence me as there are no keyboards or Internet in jail. Notably, the underlying determination of what Chief Judge Garland has permitted on his watch is deemed "confidential" under Rule 23 and thus sealed from public view. Of course, Chief Judge Garland has the authority under Rule 23(a) to: "disclose the existence of a proceeding under these Rules when necessary or appropriate to maintain public confidence in the Judiciary’s ability to redress misconduct or disability." How about it Chief Judge Garland? Will you release the existence of the proceeding I initiated so the public confidence can be restored? I thought not.

My "confidence" is shaken in the Judiciary's ability to redress misconduct. How about your confidence? And how convenient for the nominee to the bench of the unaccountable, non-elected, super-legislature running our Country to keep his misconduct in the shadows.

translation?

Officially: He's going to try to get t he documents released legally by petitioning Merrick Garland.

Unofficially: I believe he wants to release the documents where he will not go to jail. He'll probably either release them anonymously, or someone will "hack" his computer and release them.

Here's the deal though, Cruz lost tonight, and he's officially gone. If he Sibley continues pushing this, then it's likely Clinton that is implicated.

Bump. In case the documents are released one way or another.