Posted on 04/06/2016 4:27:17 PM PDT by drewh
Ted Cruz breathes a huge sigh of relief, for now. Sibley has another plan.
Chief Justixe Roberts made his decision late yesterday:
Sibley's application was directed to Chief Justice John Roberts, the justice assigned to emergency appeals from the Washington, D.C. area. Roberts denied it 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.
Anyway, it’s not like Sibley’s gonna let a little thing like the law get in his way, especially since he’s already lost his license to practice. He's biding his time to see what Clarence Thomas thinks (let's hope his name isn't implicated), before releasing the names himself. That's the end game here. Also, Mr. Sibley would like us to focus on Judge Garland.
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
She signed off on the whole thing Short Cake.
She signed off on the whole think Short Cake.
Get someone to explain the issues to you.
You’ve seen her signature on the whole “think”?
That’s all you got.
Not surprised.
Justice Roberts should have recused for conflicts of interest.
I don’t seem to be able to find any charges filed against Mrs. Cruz.
Fortunately we still got that “Innocent until proven guilty” idea here.
You got any actual evidence against Mrs. Cruz?
She worked for the CFR for five years.
Are you really that dense?
Never mind. That question has already been covered.
>>She worked for the CFR for five years
So, I know someone who worked for the Federal Reserve for 20+ years - but that doesn’t mean they did anything wrong.
Lots of people work for the Fed. Lots of people work for/with the CFR.
What was Mrs. Cruz’s work product, specifically, in the conspiracy you’re alleging?
If you don’t know anything about the CFR, don’t bother me.
If you do, I don’t need to explain it to you.
Waste someone elses time.
I know what the CFR is.
I know what the SBA is.
There are probably fools working with/for both.
What you’ve FAILED to do is provide any evidence that Mrs. Cruz’s interaction with the CFR was not in what she believed to be the best interest of the U.S.A.
I’m not going to send my time explaining to you what the CFR is.
If you don’t grasp it now, I could explain it until the end of time and you would be too obtuse to get it.
So I’m not going to waste my time with you.
For others who may be reading this, the CFR is a globalist open borders usurper of U. S. sovereignty and self-determination.
You can’t work there and be a loyalist United States citizen hell bent on sovereignty and self-determination.
Ta ta...
>>You can’t work there and be a loyalist United States citizen
Some people say that about the SBA too, but I’ll give folks the benefit of the doubt - pending their seeing their actual character in action.
To wit: Sans any actual evidence against Mrs. Cruz, you appear to be nothing more than a bloviating conspiracy kook with a big accusatory hat and no evidential cattle.
No further questions.
P.S. Stanley Kubrick’s conspira-directing sucked.
You can think whatever you like.
The main reason the GOPe is apoplectic with regard to Trump is his massive 60’ wall for the border.
Any guesses why?
It stops cold in it’s tracks the NAU open borders.
The end!
If I knew nothing else, that would be enough for me to vote for Trump.
The CFR is not a pro American group by any stretch of the imagination.
Working there for five years would place anyone on my don’t vote list. And Heidi has assured us, when we vote for Ted we get both of them.
Think about that. She wants to be our CFR co-president.
Not happening if I have a say in it.
>>Working there for five years would place anyone on my don’t vote list.
Does that mean you took the Bush sticker off your Chrysler?
I was never a big fan of daddy Bush.
I refused to vote for GW the first time around.
Does that help?
>>The main reason the GOPe is apoplectic with regard to Trump is his massive 60’ wall for the border.
Uhuh. Trump’s Hyperbolic wall.
I forget, was he still a Democrat when he wrote the Art of the Deal?
That hyperbolic promise was pulled out of the same orifice that bleated:
“Talk to My Mortgage Professionals now!”
“I think it’s a great time to start a mortgage company,” Trump told a CNBC interviewer in April 2006, adding that “the real estate market is going to be very strong for a long time to come.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-mortgage-failed-heres-what-that-says-about-the-gop-front-runner/2016/02/28/f8701880-d00f-11e5-88cd-753e80cd29ad_story.html
I’ll believe it when I see it.
>>I refused to vote for GW the first time around.
You didn’t have Bush-Cheney sticker in 2001?
Ok fair enough.
A lot of us got bamboozled. It happens.
“amnesty”
My tip off.
His weasel words about “the children” of illegal immigrants let me know it was a Leftist.
Compassionate Conservative...
His idea of how the fix schools in Texas was to throw tens of billions at education and hope for the best.
Didn’t impress me.
I was lucky to see him for what he was early on.
I wanted to like the guy but his marble mouth and just clueless phraseology left me wincing.
What can I say?
>>Compassionate Conservative.
I still think Bush was on the right track with the Ownership Society - the Hispanic immigrants I observed in my neighborhood took pride in being part of America.
Then the predators gamed the grey areas of the system into systemic corruption and blew it all up.
That’s why I view Trump so suspiciously. He was trying to get in on milking that corrupt cashcow just like Lehman and all the other late comers who saw the magic money machine Arnall & Co. had managed to concoct.
Then, like others, Trump completely blew his assessment of the market and his Mortage bidness went kapudt.
So I’m just skeptical when he says he’s going to micro manage the global economy with a sliding scale - but won’t take OWNERSHIP of that particular failure.
Real leaders own those sorts of mistakes - they don’t try to B.S. and dance around them.
Well, you can focus on that if you like.
You won’t find many tycoons who made a straight line to the top.
Most of them have losses to. It’s a part of life.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.