by- Suzie-Q @ 1:30 PM MST
Received from Jean Palfrey July 3rd …
Update # 5:
HELLO….
FYI. The oped piece here was sent to both The New York Times and The Washington Post.
–Jeane Palfrey
If there are images in this attachment, they will not be displayed. Download the original attachment
Page 1
CENTER FOR FORFEITURE LAW
1629 K Street, Suite 300
Washington, D.C. 20006
MONTGOMERY BLAIR SIBLEY
ADMITTED TO PRACTICE
:
202-508-3699
FLORIDA
202-478-0371 (E-FAX)
NEW YORK
SIBLEY@CIVILFORFEITURE.COM
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
July 3, 2007
Via Email letters@nytimes.com
Letters to the Editor
The New York Times
Re: Gagged on the Fourth of July
Greetings:
I am the civil attorney for Deborah Jeane Palfrey, a/k/a “The D.C. Madam”, and write to remind that for over one hundred (100) days, she and I have been enjoined from releasing the telephone records of her escort service. That ex parte order was entered on March 22, 2007, upon the Court’s finding that there were “reasonable grounds to believe that harassment of an identified witness exists or that such an order is necessary to prevent such harassment.” The Court then ordered that neither Jeane nor I “shall release, further distribute, or otherwise provide to any person or organization the phone records of Pamela Martin & Associates and/or the phone records of Deborah Jeane Palfrey.”
Following procedure, we sought a hearing to dissolve this order which was held before the Court on June 5th. At that hearing, the government failed to produce any evidence that the release of the records would harass anyone. However, to date, the Court has not ruled on that motion. Given the Court’s lack of response, we sought review in the D.C. District Court of Appeal on June 17th. Given no response from that Court, we took the matter to the U.S. Supreme Court whichdenied review on June 25th.
Why is this of interest? Two reasons. First, access to Court is meaningless if judges believe they can decide an issue by not deciding an issue. That way, they avoid havingto explain why they decided a matter in a certain way. By reserving this power to themselves, the Rule of Law no longer applies. As Thomas Jefferson said: “Let no more be heard of confidence in men, but rather bind them down by the chains of the Constitution.” Here the Constitution requires a decision one way or the other from the Courts.
Second, as the limited disclosure of the telephone records have indisputably revealed, significant information is contained therein related to the activities of those entrusted with the reins of power, and potential misuse of that power, in Washington D.C. For the government to gag a citizen and her counsel who want to bring this malfeasance to the public eye is not among the
Page 2
Letters to the Editor
The New York Times
July 3, 2007
Page 2
enumerated powers granted to this government by the People.
As such, this paper, its sisters and the public must begin – this July 4th– to question why Jeane and I have been gagged for so long from releasing this information publically.
yours,
I have meant to post this for the past couple of days but with the 4th of July and everything else… it got put on the back burner. Besides, after these letters to the newspapers, I was hoping for the next Update which would be the Judge’s decision…