The former attorney for "D.C. Madam" Deborah Jeane Palfrey is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to allow him to release her escort service records.
WASHINGTON — The former attorney for the “D.C. Madam” has asked the United States Supreme Court to allow him to release records of Deborah Jeane Palfrey’s escort service, including customer names, addresses and Social Security numbers, because they allegedly could affect the 2016 presidential election.
In an application to the high court, filed Monday, Montgomery Blair Sibley is asking to be released from a judge’s 2007 restraining order which prohibited him from sharing Palfrey’s telephone records, during the much-publicized run-up to her federal trial for racketeering, money laundering and mail fraud.
And, if the Supreme Court won’t hear his argument, Sibley says he will release the identifying information of Palfrey’s customers.
Sibley, whose license to practice law in Washington, D.C. was suspended for three years in 2008, has sued former Chief Judge Richard Roberts of D.C.’s U.S. District Court, and Clerk of the Court Angela Caesar for $1 million each, claiming his First and Fifth Amendment rights have been violated because he has been unable to argue for the release of Palfrey’s records.
Sibley’s civil case has yet to be heard in D.C. Superior Court. He claims Roberts has ordered Caesar to return his motions without filing them in court records.
Roberts suddenly retired two weeks ago, the day he was sued for sexual abuse by a Utah woman.
Without providing any specifics, Sibley has said information found within Palfrey’s records could affect the upcoming presidential election.
“Time is of the essence,” writes Sibley in his application for a stay of restraining order. “Denying Sibley a hearing deprives the People of the information they may deem material to the exercise of their electoral franchise.”
Before the issuance of the restraining order, Sibley had made public telephone numbers that appeared in Palfrey’s phone records.
In 2007, pursuant to a search warrant, Verizon Wireless provided Sibley a CD with 815 account holder customer names, addresses, Social Security numbers and home and business telephone numbers. Sibley has never disclosed the names on the CD.
A footnote in Sibley’s Supreme Court filing contains a not-so-veiled-threat: “To be clear, if Sibley is not allowed to file his Motion to Modify the Restraining Order and thereafter does not promptly receive a fair and impartial hearing on that Motion, he will justifiably consider the Restraining Order void as a result of being denied such a hearing by the District Court, Circuit Court and now this Court.”
“In that event, Sibley will simply release publicly the Verizon Wireless Subpoena Return records containing the names and addresses of eight hundred fifteen Washington, D.C. clients of the D.C. Madam’s escort service,” Sibley writes.