UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

MONTGOMERY BLAIR SIBLEY ,

Case No.:16-cv-572 (RBW)
Plaintiff,
PLAINTIFF ’S EMERGENCY MOTION FOR
vs. PRE-TRIAL CONFERENCE TO SCHEDULE
EXPEDITED DISPOSITION OF SIBLEY’S
RICHARD W. ROBERTS AND ANGELA O. THIRD CLAIM
CAESAR,

Defendants.
___________________________________/

Plaintiff, Montgomery Blair Sibley (“Sibley”), pursuant to Federal Rules Civil Procedure,

Rules 1 and 16(a)(1), moves on an emergency basis for an immediate Rule 16 Pretrial

Conference to set an expedited briefing and resolution schedule of Sibley’s Third Claim, and for

grounds in support thereof states:

I. BACKGROUND

On October 3, 2006, the government filed a Civil Forfeiture Complaint in United States

of America v. 803 Capitol Street et al., Case No.: 06-cv-01710-RMC. This civil suit sought the

forfeiture of all of Deborah Jeane Palfrey’s assets for operating Pamela Martin & Associates, an

escort agency. On May 6, 2007, Sibley wrote Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez requesting the

appointment of a Special Counsel in U.S. v. 803 Capitol Street as Brian Ross of ABC News

stated that: “The phone records trace back to thousands of men, including a career Justice

Department prosecutor.” Sibley further indicated in that letter that he would release the

remainder of the telephone records of Deborah Jeane Palfrey's Escort service if negotiations do

not commence to resolve the pending cases. A copy of that letter is attached hereto as Exhibit

1
“A”. As a result, Judge Kessler on May 10, 2007, issued the first of several restraining orders

barring Sibley from releasing the names of the clients of the Pamela Martin & Associates.

On November 13, 2007, Judge Gladys Kessler granted in toto Sibley’s Ex Parte

Application for Issuance of Subpoenas in U.S. v. Palfrey.1 Among the subpoenas requested by

Sibley were five directed to telephone companies for the account-holder information of 5,902

telephone numbers that had turned up in the telephone records of Pamela Martin & Associates.

On December 14, 2007, the ex parte subpoenas directed to Verizon Wireless was

returned with a CD containing 815 Verizon Wireless account holders’: (i) names, (i) business

and/or home addresses, (iii) social security numbers, and (iv) home and business telephone

numbers. Each name represented a former escort or client who had a cellphone number that had

called Pamela Martin & Associates when that cellphone number was owned by that person. A list

of the 174 companies and/or government agencies identified in the Verizon Wireless Subpoena

return is attached in Exhibit “B” hereto. The names of individuals identified in the Verizon

Wireless Subpoena return are not revealed in this motion due to Sibley’s uncertainty as to the

applicability of restraining orders issued in the Deborah Jeane Palfrey matters.

Additionally, on December 14, 2007, Judge Robertson – who was curiously substituted

without explanation or reason for Judge Kessler – held a status hearing, a copy of which is

1
Among the ex parte subpoenas requested by Sibley and approved by Judge
Kessler were:(i) five directed to telephone companies for the account information pertaining to
eighty-three (83) escort agencies operating in the District of Columbia. (ii) the Federal Bureau of
Investigation, (iii) the Department of State – Diplomatic Security Service, (iv) the Internal
Revenue Service Criminal Investigation Division, (v) the United States Postal Inspection Service,
(vi) the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, (vii) the Central Intelligence Agency,
(viii) the Defense Intelligence Agency, (xi) the National Security Agency, (x) the Department of
State - Bureau of Intelligence and Research, (xi) sixteen local D.C. law enforcement agencies and
(xi) the White House.

2
attached as Exhibit “C”, at which the following exchanges took place:

THE COURT: Now, the next part of this the next thing I want to
turn to is the subpoenas duces tecum that the defense is issuing.
And these are being issued ex parte, and the defense is entitled to
some protection of its own about who it's subpoenaing, but Mr.
Sibley, I have to tell you that I have received inquiries from two
or three of the persons and institutions that you've served, and
then there is one motion to quash that I think everybody is aware of
– two motions to quash. Well, the so called omnibus motion I have
not received. When did you file that? (Emphasis added).

***

THE COURT The government’s omnibus motion to quash was

filed yesterday; there is another motion to quash that was filed a
day or two ago. Mr. Sibley points out, quite correctly, that he hasn't
really had an opportunity to respond to them yet. I think the right
thing to do is to pass that issue. But, but a number of the subpoenas
that have been issued have been issued returnable tomorrow.

MR. SIBLEY: Correct, Your Honor. It was an odd date, but. . .

THE COURT: I don't know what kind of an order you would call a
temporary quashal order, but I'm quashing all of the subpoenas
until we get an opportunity to decide on the government's
motion to quash. So it's a quash without prejudice. The subpoenas
remain in effect, but the return date is off. (Emphasis added).

MS. CONNELLY: Your Honor, if I could just seek clarification on

one issue, which in fact is in our under seal motion, although this
subpoena was not pursuant to the Court's November 13th under
seal order. The defendant also issued a subpoena on the White
House with a return date of February 19th, which never was,
in fact, the trial date in this case. The Court set the trial date as
April, with a potential backup date of February if Judge Kessler
could fit us in in February. The government's omnibus motion
addresses that White House subpoena, but I would like to be able
to let them know, is that also being temporarily quashed at this
point? (Emphasis added).

THE COURT: Yes, everything is temporarily quashed until I look

at your omnibus motion. . . .

3
 As a result of Judge Robertson’s non-docketed oral order quashing all the ex parte

subpoenas upon non-docketed government motions to quash those ex parte subpoenas, Sibley

did not receive subpoena returns from: (i) Alltel, (ii) AT&T, (iii) AT&T Mobility, (iv) TMobile

and (v) Verizon and (vi) and all the other governmental agencies identified in footnote #1, supra.

Accordingly, as a matter of simple mathematics, Sibley was only able to identify 13% of the

customers/escort contractors of Pamela Martin & Associates.

Finally, it is noteworthy that: (i) since 2007 there has not been a major escort service

prosecution by the federal government in the District of Columbia yet (ii) brazenly advertising in

the 2016 Yellow Pages are twenty-two (22) escort services which have been operating with

apparent impunity since the 2006 prosecution of Defendant Jeane Palfrey. A copy of the 2016

Washington D.C. Yellow Pages is attached as Exhibit “D”

II. MOTION FOR IMMEDIATE RULE 16 CONFERENCE

Clearly, given the obvious public and quasi-public personnel and entities that Sibley was

able to identify in the Verizon Wireless subpoena return, common sense dictates that in the

remaining 87% of the quashed telephone company subpoena returns Sibley would have

succeeded in identifying thousands of other public and quasi-public personnel and entities whose

private behavior reflects adversely upon their public duties.

Notably, the government has secretly utilized escort services for its own law enforcement

and national security ends. As the New York Post recently reported:

In the months after 9/11, the watchers from the [FBI Special
Surveillance Group] followed Awlaki to assignations with
prostitutes at the Wyndham City Center, the Melrose, the Monarch,
Avenue Suites, the Swissotel [in Metro D.C.], and more. Agents
would follow up with the women later the same day or the next

4
 day, asking about Awlaki’s words and actions. He liked the lights
on, the agents learned. He found the escort services online and
booked their services under his real name. Sometimes he asked for
intercourse, sometimes oral sex, and sometimes he just watched the
woman stimulate herself while he masturbated.2

Accordingly, it is reasonable to conclude that certain government agencies have

knowledge of questionable behavior by those – now or in the future – in a position to be

blackmailed in a manner against their public duties.

As this Court well knows, the selection of the next President of the United States and 435

members of the U.S. House of Representatives is well under way. It is beyond cavil that: “voting

is of the most fundamental significance under our constitutional structure.” Illinois Bd. of

Elections v. Socialist Workers Party, 440 U.S. 173, 184 (1979). As such, this Court has a

Congressionally-delegated obligation to protect the integrity of the election processes. Rosario v.

Rockefeller, 410 U.S 752, 761 (1973)(“It is clear that preservation of the integrity of the electoral

process is a legitimate and valid state goal.”).

Upon this clear judicial duty is this conflict: Sibley has an unconditional right under the

First Amendment to speak out on matters of public concern. Accord: Wood v. Georgia, 370 U.S.

375, 391-392 (1962)(“[T]he purpose of the First Amendment includes the need . . . to protect

parties in the free publication of matters of public concern, to secure their right to a free

discussion of public events and public measures, and to enable every citizen at any time to bring

the government and any person in authority to the bar of public opinion by any just criticism

upon their conduct in the exercise of the authority which the people have conferred upon them.”).

2
Retrieved from:
http://nypost.com/2015/09/13/al-qaeda-terrorist-feared-his-love-of-sex-and-hooke
rs-would-end-him/

5
. Yet, the Supreme Court in Celotex Corp. v. Edwards, 514 U.S. 300, 306 (1995), stated

that: “persons subject to an injunctive order issued by a court with jurisdiction are expected to

obey that decree until it is modified or reversed, even if they have proper grounds to object to the

order.” Here, Sibley has sought modification of the restraining orders at the: (i) District Court,

(ii) Circuit Court and (iii) Supreme Court levels without success for over ninety (90) days.

Remarkably, Sibley – uncertain as to whether he is subject to a restraining order – has been

denied the opportunity to seek modification of such an order upon his First Amendment grounds

and thus has properly raised that issue in his Third Claim.

III. CONCLUSION

. Upon the foregoing, Sibley is requesting that this Court immediately hold a Rule 16 status

conference to address Sibley’s request to expedite resolution of the Third Claim of the First

Amended Complaint seeking a declaration of Sibley’s rights vis-a-vis the Verizon Wireless

subpoena return. Accord: Walters v. Nat'l Ass'n of Radiation, 473 U.S. 305, 351 (1985)(“This

Court has not hesitated to exercise this power of swift intervention in cases of extraordinary

constitutional moment and in cases demanding prompt resolution for other reasons.”); United

States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 686-687(1974)(“We granted both the United States' petition for

certiorari before judgment and also the President's cross-petition for certiorari because of the

public importance of the issues presented and the need for their prompt resolution”).

Here, by muzzling Sibley and thus keeping the relevant Verizon Wireless information

sealed from public view – particularly during this election cycle – deprives: (i) Sibley of his First

Amendment Right of Publication and (ii) the People of the information they may deem material

to the exercise of the People’s electoral franchise.

6
 WHEREFORE, Sibley respectfully requests that this Court expeditiously set a Rule 16

hearing to address Sibley’s request for expedited resolution of the Third Claim of the First

Amended Complaint.

LOCAL RULE 7(M ) STATEMENT

Sibley states that in an attempt to discharge his Local Rule 7(m) duty to confer, on the
morning of March 30, 2016, Sibley called David Moskowitz, counsel for Defendants seeking his
position on the instant motion. After receiving no response, on the morning of March 31, 2007,
Sibley emailed Mr. Moskowitz stating in part: “I want to contact the Court and ask for an
immediate status hearing and want to know if you want to be on that telephone call or if you
want me to make a representation on your behalf to the Court.” Notably, refusing to telephone
Sibley, Mr. Moskowitz instead after business hours on March 31, 2016, responded by email to
Sibley’s telephone and email by ignoring Sibley’s request regarding the status conference. A
copy of that email correspondence is attached as Exhibit “E”. Accordingly, as Mr. Moskowitz
has refused to confer with Sibley, Sibley is unable to state the Defendants’ position on the relief
requested herein.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on April 9, 2016, a true and correct copy of the foregoing was
served by U.S. First Class Mail upon: David Moskowitz, Assistant United States Attorney,
counsel for Defendants, 2100 Jamieson Avenue, Alexandria, Virginia 22314.

MONTGOMERY BLAIR SIBLEY

402 King Farm Blvd, Suite 125-145
Rockville, Maryland, 20850
202-643-7232
[email protected]

By: __________________________
Montgomery Blair Sibley

7
 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

May 6, 2007

Via FedEx #8617-4631-8049

and email c/o AUSAs Daniel Pearce Butler, Catherine K. Connelly, William
Rakestraw Cowden

Alberto Gonzalez, Attorney General

Office of the Attorney General
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001

Re: Second Request for Appointment of Special Counsel

Greetings:

I represent Deborah Jeanne Palfrey, a/k/a the “D.C. Madam” who (i) has been indicted by
your office in a matter assigned Criminal Case Number: 07-046-GK and (ii) has had all her assets
seized in a civil forfeiture matter in Case No.:1:06-CV-01710-GK.

On March 1, 2007, FedEx delivered (Tracking #8581-1680-3504) to your office my request

pursuant to 28 C.F.R. §600.1 for the appointment of a Special Counsel for the above matters. In
that letter I indicated that “given the broad spectrum of customers [of the escort service] it is a
mathematical certainty that in time [Justice] Department employees will be identified as customers
of the service and subpoenaed in either the civil matter, the criminal matter, or both.” To date, I have
yet to receive a response to that letter.

In the interim, approximately 20% of the telephone records of the escort service were turned
over to Brian Ross of ABC News. As you are doubtlessly aware, last Friday, Brian Ross, in the
publically available transcript of his 20/20 report, is quoted as stating: “The phone records trace back
to thousands of men, including a career Justice Department prosecutor.”

Moreover, consider the math: If 20% of the telephone records produced one “career Justice
Department prosecutor”, then 100% of the telephone records will very likely produce at least
another four (4) “career Justice Department prosecutors.” Moreover, this discounts the possibility
that if one Akin/Gump law firm employee was an escort for the service, it is as likely that your “law
firm” has similarly situated employees who also worked as escorts for the service. Do not assume

Exhibit "A"
Alberto Gonzalez, Attorney General
Office of the Attorney General
May 6, 2007
Page 2

that the records sezied from my client identified all of the women who worked for the service at one
time or another.

Finally, please note that Brian Ross also reported that: “[t]here are NASA officials; at least
five military officers, including the commander of an Air Force intelligence squadron” and “[t]he
phone numbers also track back to Georgetown mansions and prominent CEOs, officials at the World
Bank and the International Monetary Fund and lobbyists both Republican and Democratic.”

Given that the person who ordered an escort was not necessarily the person who received the
services provided by the escort, the highlighted phrase ought to make you ponder the misogynist
wisdom of prosecuting my client for a victimless crime when significant men of power are walking
on crimes of much greater significance to the Republic. Moreover, given that pre-9/11, an
appreciable part of the clientele of the service were Arabs, national security interests may also be
at issue: Profumo/Ivanov »Tobias/?

As of present, (i) ABC News received copies of 75% of the 2002-2006 telephone records of
the escort service and (ii) confirming the recent Boston Globe report – a group of veteran
investigative journalists associated with the Washington Independent Writers Association are
researching the 1997-1999 telephone records of the escort service.

This limited distribution will change in seven (7) days and when it does: (i) the reporting
will be much more extensive as all of the years of the escort service telephone records will be
released and (ii) the “standards and practices” committees of the recipient organizations, journalists
and internet bloggers who will receive these records have decidedly different professional standards
than that of ABC News.

Thus, I must insist that you take the following steps:

1. To restore public confidence in your office, demand

that Brian Ross identify to you that “career Justice
Department prosecutor” and then you publically
detail, what, if any, role that individual played in the
investigation and prosecution of my client; and

2. Under 28 C.F.R. §600.1, undertake the immediate

interview and appointment of a Special Counsel for
the above matters.

My client is prepared to withhold further distribution of copies of the telephone records

pending confidential settlement negotiations with yourself or your designee – other than the presently
Alberto Gonzalez, Attorney General
Office of the Attorney General
May 6, 2007
Page 3

assigned AUSAs who are demonstratively not trustworthy in this regard – if these steps are taken
and communicated to me by May 11, 2007.

In my mind, failure to do so will simply confirm to the world that your office wields its
considerable power without thought or concern of the damaging consequences upon the public and
the real public interests at issue.

Yours,
 EXHIBIT “B”

A & H Painting & Decorating

Abb Power Generation
ACS Desktop Solutions
AETEA
Akin, Gump, Strauss, Haue
American Cellular Rental
American Land Concepts
Amtrak Technologies
Andersen Consulting
Andersen Corporation
Andersen Corporation Inc
Anne Arundel Co Public Schools
Anzi Tech Distributors
Archidiocese of Washington
Arlington Firefighters
Army Capabilities Integration – The Army Capabilities Integration Center (ARCIC) is the
Army's leader in the identification, design, development,
and synchronization of capabilities into the Army current
Modular Force and the future Modular Force, bringing
together all the Army agencies as well as Joint,
Multinational, and other DoD agencies to manage rapid
change. ARCIC supports TRADOC in providing adaptive
soldiers, leaders and units by contributing to the
development of doctrine, TTPs, and the collective training
experience.
ASNS
ASRC Constructors Inc
Atlantic Research Corp
Balmar Printing
Barnes, Morris, Pardoe & Fo
Battelle Memorial Institute
Beaver Dam Construction
Bell Atlantic Md
Beretta USA
Bethlehem Steel Corp
BML & Associates, Llc
Brand Direct Marketing
Brantly Group
BSI Inc. Browne Academy
Bucks County Free Library
Charles H Hodges & Son

Exhibit "B" - Page 1

Chevron Corp Learn & Developme
Colortone Press
Commonwealth Orthopedics
Community Radiology
Conagra Foods Inc
Constantine Comm Constuc
Constellation Energy/ BGE – Constellation Energy, a Fortune 125 competitive energy
company based in Baltimore, is the nation’s largest supplier
of wholesale power and competitive electricity to large
commercial and industrial customers, and a major generator
of electricity, with a diversified fleet of power plants
strategically located throughout the U.S.

Constellation Fed Credit Union

Costumes Creative Inc.
Custis Farms Inc
Defense Group Inc – A high technology company, advancing public safety and national security
through innovative research, new technologies, and systems assessments.
DGI has key competencies in U.S. strategy and policy, intelligence,
Weapons of Mass Destruction, vulnerability assessments, and homeland
security, as well as technologies and products that support first responder
and medical communities.
Deloitte
Design and Production Inc
DHHS - Office of the Inspector
DHHS/NIH/OLRS
Director of Indirect
Edgewood Management Corp
Education Loan Funding
Edwards & Sullivan, Inc.
Embassy of Japan
Enterprise Integration Corp
Fauquier Bank
FBI
Fedcel Corporation
Financial Svc Ctr/Dept of Va
Fine Homebuilders Int. Inc.
Fitness/Works Llc Company
GE Information Svcs
General Service Admin
Gold Standard Diagnostics Corp
Gottfred Speech Asso
Greenhill Realty Company

Exhibit "B" - Page 2

Grtr S.E. Communty Hosptl
GSA
GSA Potomac Sdt
GSA/PBS/PRS
Healthpartners
Hewlett Packard
Houston Associates
U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command – TRADOC recruits, trains and educates the
Army's soldiers; develops leaders; supports
training in units; develops doctrine;
establishes standards; and builds the future
Army. TRADOC is the architect of the
Army and "thinks for the Army" to meet the
demands of a nation at war while
simultaneously anticipating solutions to the
challenges of tomorrow
IDB Staff Association
IDBSA
Ikon Office Solutions
Indisoft Llc
Internal Revenue Service
International Marketing
Johns Hopkins University
Jones Day Reavis and Pogue
Kopykweeninc Dba Superior
Lockheed Martin
Lockheed Martin Corporation
Lockheed Martin Ms2- Baltimore – Lockheed Martin MS2– MS2 provides surface, air, and
undersea applications on more than 460 programs for U.S.
military and international customers
Logictree
Long & Foster Realtors
McKinsey
Memorial Hospital
Metropolitan Poultry and
Morristown Memorial
MSTD Inc
National Center Management
National Drug Intelligence Ctr – The National Drug Intelligence Center – established by the
Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 1993. Placed
under the direction and control of the Attorney General,
NDIC was established to “coordinate and consolidate drug
intelligence from all national security and law enforcement

Exhibit "B" - Page 3

 agencies, and produce information regarding the structure,
membership, finances, communications, and activities of
drug trafficking organizations.”

Natl Geospatial Intel Agency – The National Geospatial Intelligence Agency – is a

Department of Defense combat support agency and a
member of the national Intelligence Community (IC). NGA
develops imagery and mapbased intelligence solutions for
U.S. national defense, homeland security and safety of
navigation.
NM/Los Alamos National Labs
NVBR of Realtors
NXP Semiconductors USA Inc - Providing engineers and designers with semiconductors,
system solutions and software that deliver better sensory
experiences. Net sales of $6.32 billion in 2007.
OAO Corp
Oracle Corporation
P W Police Association
Palace Meat
Parkview Adventist Medical
Patterson Belknap Webb
PB Facilities Inc
Philips Electronics North Amer
Philips Semiconductors
Westinghouse Electric
PriceWaterhouseCoopers
Property Damage Apprai
Reed Smith Shaw & McClay -- Reed Smith – a law firm that represents many of the
world’s leading companies in complex litigation and other
highstakes disputes, crossborder and other strategic
transactions, and crucial regulatory matters. With lawyers
from coasttocoast in the U.S. as well as in the U.K.,
continental Europe, Asia, and the Middle East, the firm is
known for its experience across a broad array of industry
sectors. The firm counsels 28 of the top 30 U.S. banks and
10 of the world's 12 largest pharmaceutical companies.
Rocky River Dental Assoc
SAIC Corporate Telecommuncations
Selzer G Rabin & Obecny Char.
Sensei Enterprises Inc
Shiner Roofing Inc.
Smoke N Mirrors Inc
Sonoma Materials

Exhibit "B" - Page 4

Spring & Associates
Struever Bros Eccles & Rouse
The Allegiance Group / Aetea
The Durst Law Firm
The Mark Winkler Co.
The Roger Richman Agency Inc
The Spoon Group
Thermo Electron
Tochigi Fuji USA Inc.
Tris Inc
UDRA
United States Coast Guard
U.S. Army Information Systems Command
US Dept of Commerce
US Dept of State/CA/OCS
US Postal Service
USDA Forest Service
USDA-National Finance Center
USPS - Information Technology
Velocite Systems, Llc
Verizon Communications
Verizon Communications Inc
Verizon Communications NSI
Verizon Communications Va
Verizon Communications Wa
Verizon Data & Wireless Servic
VZW/Vienna Channels
Warrior Emporium
Washington College
Washington Gas
World Airways
Zuckerman Kronstadt

Exhibit "B" - Page 5

 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA : Criminal No. 07-0046

V. : December 14, 2007

DEBORAH JEANE PALFREY, 10:OO a.m.

Defendant
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . * . . . . . . . . . . .
TRANSCRIPT OF STATUS CONFERENCE
BEFORE THE HONORABLE JAMES ROBERTSON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

APPEARANCES:

For the Government: DANIEL PEARCE BUTLER, AUSA

CATHERINE CONNELLY, AUSA
WILLIAM COWDEN, AUSA
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
555 Fourth Street, NW
Washington, D.C. 20530

For the Defendant: MONTGOMERY BLAIR SIBLEY, ESQUIRE

LAW OFFICES OF
MONTGOMERY BLAIR SIBLEY
1629 K Street
Suite 300
Washington, DC 20006
(202) 508-3699

Court Reporter: REBECCA STONESTREET, RPR,CRR

Official Court Reporter
Room 6511, U.S. Courthouse
Washington, D.C. 20001
(202) 354-3249

Proceedings reported by machine shorthand, transcript produced

by computer-aided transcription.

Exhibit "C"
Rebecca Stonestreet ( 2 0 2 ) 354-3249 [email protected]
 P R O C E E D I N G S

THE COURT: All right. This is criminal number

07-0046, United States versus Deborah Palfrey. I think

Ms. Connelly, Mr. Butler, and Mr. Cowden are all here.

Mr. Sibley, I presume?

MR. SIBLEY: Good morning, Your Honor. Yes.

THE COURT: Good morning. This is my first encounter

with this case. You've been before Judge Kessler for some

period of time, and a great number of documents and orders have

piled up.

My agenda, such as it is, for today's status conferenc

are first Ms. Palfrey's motion to modify the stipulated

protective order; second, to discuss the timing of Brady

disclosures; third, to discuss the subpoenas that the defendant

is - - defense counsel is, I think it's fair to say, spraying

around the country side; fourth, to talk about the travel

expense issue, which is getting to be an issue with the Marshal

Service; and then perhaps generally to talk about a detail of

procedure. Because Mr. Sibley is filing a lot of motions to

seal along with ex parte motions, and there ought to be a more

efficient way to do this.

Let's talk about the motion to modify the stipulated

protective order. Mr. Sibley, do you want to just briefly

outline that motion and present any argument you think is

appropriate, briefly?

Rebecca Stonestreet
 16

MR. COWDEN: Those are the documents you're talking

about?

THE COURT: Those are the documents Mr. Sibley asked

about and those are the documents I'm ruling on.

MR. COWDEN: And I believe, Judge, we can do that.

That should work fine.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. COWDEN: Thank you, Judge.

MR. SIBLEY: Just so we're clear, the rest of the order

remains in force and effect?

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. SIBLEY: So I'm not going to be publicizing these

and getting out - -

THE COURT: Right. Correct.

MR. SIBLEY: Thank you.

THE COURT: Now, t h e n e x t part of this -- t h e next

thing I want to turn to is the subpoenas duces tecum that the

defense is issuing. And these are being issued ex parte, and

the defense is entitled to some protection of its own about who

it's subpoenaing, but Mr. Sibley, I have to tell you that I have

received inquiries from two or three of the persons and

institutions that you've served, and then there is one motion to

quash that I think everybody is aware of -- two motions to

quash. Well, the so-called omnibus motion I have not received.

When did you file that?

Rebecca Stonestreet (202) 354-3249 [email protected]

 MS. CONNELLY: Your Honor, it was filed yesterday

morning at 11:30. I have a stamped copy.

THE COURT: You guys, you know, all we need to do is t

have a court hearing and paper starts coming in over the

transom.

MS. CONNELLY: Well, Your Honor, I think as I noted in

the motion when you get it, we didn't receive the court order

regarding the issuance of the subpoenas. We had no notice of

the subpoenas until the agencies started contacting us, so we

put together a response this week and filed it yesterday.

We had filed, I think the previous day, the motion to

quash based on one of the agencies. I do have a stamped copy

I'm happy to provide to the Court if it hasn't made its way to

the Court as of yet.

THE COURT: Well, why don't you hum the first few bars

MS. CONNELLY: Your Honor, it's a motion -- it was

filed under seal. I'm happy to discuss it in open court. We

filed it under seal because the order was in fact under seal,

That sort of predated this motion.

But what happened was the government started getting

phone calls, as it sounds like the Court did, from various

federal agencies, not law enforcement and not investigative

agencies, but a number of federal agencies that received

subpoenas.

THE COURT: Why was this all under seal? I'm

Rebecca Stonestreet ( 2 0 2 ) 354-3249 [email protected]

struggling, frankly, with the amount of material in this case

that is under seal, and what's under seal and what's not under

seal and what's ex parte and what's not ex parte.

Why was this -- I'm looking at the memorandum opinion

that Judge Kessler issued on November 13th, which is under seal

Maybe you can explain to me why it's under seal.

MS. CONNELLY: We never received it, Your Honor. It

was under seal and ex parte, so I certainly can't explain to yo

why it was under seal. Our first notice of it was when agencie

were subpoenaed, and pursuant to the order, that order was

attached to the subpoena. So when the agencies provided us wit

the subpoenas they received, they attached the order.

So I have no basis to explain to the Court why it was

under seal. Our motion to quash was under seal only because it

seemed that the Court had seemed fit to issue that order under

seal. So we're perfectly happy to have this issue not under

seal and discussed publicly, but out of an abundance of caution

we were sort of following what the Court had established with

that November 13th order.

THE COURT: Well, Mr. Sibley, the sealing privilege in

federal courts is complex, but you know what they used to say

when we were kids about a secret: If you tell two people, it's

not a secret any longer.

And you've issued a whole lot of subpoenas to a whole

lot of people. You can't expect this to remain under seal. Do

Rebecca Stonestreet ( 2 0 2 ) 354-3249 [email protected]

you have any reason to want to continue the seal on this whole

issue?

MR. SIBLEY: Your Honor, I would ask the privilege of

approaching the Court and answering that question ex parte.

THE COURT: 1'11 hear you at the bench.

(Whereupon, an EX PARTE BENCH CONFERENCE was held on

the record, transcribed under separate cover.)

(END BENCH CONFERENCE.)

THE COURT: The government's omnibus motion to quash

was filed yesterday; there is another motion to quash that was

filed a day or two ago. Mr. Sibley points out, quite correctly,

that he hasn't really had an opportunity to respond to them yet.

I think the right thing to do is to pass that issue.

But, but a number of the subpoenas that have been

issued have been issued returnable tomorrow.

MR. SIBLEY: Correct, Your Honor. It was an odd date,

but. . .

THE COURT: I don't know what kind of an order you

would call a temporary quashal order, but I'm quashing all of

the subpoenas until we get an opportunity to decide on the

government's motion to quash. So it's a quash without

prejudice. The subpoenas remain in effect, but the return date

is off.

MS. CONNELLY: Your Honor, if I could just seek

clarification on one issue, which in fact is in our under seal

Rebecca Stonestreet (202) 354-3249 [email protected]

motion, although this subpoena was not pursuant to the Court's

November 13th under seal order.

The defendant also issued a subpoena on the White Hous

with a return date of February 19th, which never was, in fact,

the trial date in this case. The Court set the trial date as

April, with a potential backup date of February if Judge Kessle

could fit us in in February.

The government's omnibus motion addresses that White

House subpoena, but I would like to be able to let them know, i

that also being temporarily quashed at this point?

THE COURT: Yes, everything is temporarily quashed

until I look at your omnibus motion.

And while we're talking about trial dates, I'm not eve

going to be in the jurisdiction in February. The April 7th dat

that Judge Kessler set is the trial date, as far as I'm

concerned. There's no wiggle room on that. We're set for tria

on April 7th.

MS. CONNELLY: Thank you, Your Honor. And I just

provided you with a copy of the government's omnibus motion tha

was filed yesterday.

MR. SIBLEY: Could I ask for 10 additional days to

respond to the motion to quash?

THE COURT: You may have 10 additional days, and

Merry Christmas.

MR. SIBLEY: -Thankyou, Judge.

Rebecca Stonestreet (202) 354-3249 [email protected]

 43

CERTIFICATE OF OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER

I, Rebecca Stonestreet, certify that the foregoing is a

correct transcript from t h e record of proceedings in the

above-entitled matter.

SIGNATURE OF COURT =PORTER DATE

Rebecca Stonestreet ( 2 0 2 ) 354-3249 kingreport er2Weri zon . n e t

 Browse escort service near 20001 Sign In Join

Home > Washington, DC > Escort Service Map View

Washington Escort Service

Filters Sort: Default

Collections
Charming Cherries (7)
Serving the 20001 Area. Escort Service, Adult Entertainment
(202) 604-7827 More Info
Following
Show Banner (0)
Ad

Golden Blonde Escorts

Businesses
Serving the 20001 Area. Escort Service, Adult Entertainment
(0)
(202) 270-8874 More Info
Show Banner
Ad
Notes
(0)
1. Dc Confidential
500 17th St NW, Washington, DC 20006 Escort Service
(202) 625-0002 Coupons
(0)

2. Adonis Male Escort

Washington, DC 20001 Escort Service
(703) 982-0704

3. Hot Girls 24 7
Washington, DC 20001 Escort Service
(202) 604-7827
FEATURED ESCORT SERVICE
In Washington (20001)
4. Mistress Nancy Ava Miller M Ed
Feedback

2000 L St NW, Washington, DC 20036 Escort Service

Brittany's Private Line
Serving the 20001 Area.
(202) 452-5522
(202) 517-1221
Escort Service. Call
5. Golden Blonde Escorts for Appointment.

Serving the 20001 Area. Escort Service, Adult Entertainment

More Info Ad
(202) 270-8874 More Info

Full Service Escorts

6. Charming Cherries
Serving the 20001 Area. Escort Service, Adult Entertainment Serving the 20001 Area.
(202) 604-7827 More Info (703) 991-8205
Satisfaction Guaranteed!

More Info Ad
7. DMV Vixens
Serving the 20001 Area. Escort Service, Adult Entertainment DMV Vixens
(240) 305-1275 More Info

Serving the 20001 Area.

8. Brittany's Private Line (240) 305-1275
More Info Ad
Serving the 20001 Area. Escort Service
(202) 517-1221 More Info
1 Recovery Center
Serving the 20001 Area.
9. Full Service Escorts (800) 675-8830
Contact Us For Information
Serving the 20001 Area. Escort Service, Adult Entertainment
(703) 991-8205 More Info Website More Info Ad

10. Asian Sweety

Washington, DC 20081 Escort Service
(866) 585-3311

11. DMV Playmate

Serving the 20001 Area. Escort Service, Adult Entertainment
(571) 351-9482 Exhibit "D"
 (571) 351-9482

12. D C VIP Asians

Washington, DC 20006 Escort Service
(202) 657-4380

13. Command Performance

Washington, DC 20002 Escort Service
(202) 399-5515

14. Black Fantasy Escort

Washington, DC 20007 Escort Service
(202) 210-7725

15. C P Service
Washington, DC 20002 Escort Service
(202) 399-5515

16. Golden Blonde Escorts

Washington, DC 20007 Escort Service, Adult Entertainment
(202) 270-8874

17. Ecstassy Inc

Null, Chevy Chase, MD 20813 Escort Service
(301) 654-0873

18. Brandys Fetishes Unlimited

6969 S Queen St, Arlington, VA 22204 Escort Service
(703) 798-2109

19. Lace and Heels

3219 Columbia Pike, Arlington, VA 22204 Escort Service
(703) 596-1561

20. Extravagant International

2501 Heatherwood Ct, Adelphi, MD 20783 Escort Service
(301) 439-4737

Sponsored Links
Single Moms in Need
www.arrangementfinders.com/
Mutually Beneficial Arrangements​
Find a Mind Boggling Relationship!

Young & elderly homecare

www.affinityhomecarellc3.com/
Escort Service! Travel assisitance​
Affordable homcare services

Showing 1-20 of 20 results

Didn't find what you were looking for?

Please help others by helping us do better. Suggest a Business

Gmail - RE: Sibley v Roberts et al https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=ab0c65df21&view=pt&q=dav...

Monty Sibley <[email protected]>

RE: Sibley v Roberts et al

1 message

Moskowitz, David (USAVAE) <[email protected]> Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 6:49 PM

To: Monty Sibley <[email protected]>

Dear Mr. Sibley:

Our me to respond to the complaint has not expired. We will be filing a mo on to dismiss shortly. I am sure
that the court will want to rule on that before anything proceeds in the ma er. I am therefore not sure what the
purpose of a status conference would be at this stage. The Supreme Court has held that in cases, like here,
where there is an immunity to suit defense, the mo on to dismiss must be resolved before the case is allowed
to proceed.

Thanks,

David

David Moskowitz

Assistant United States A orney

2100 Jamieson Avenue

Alexandria, VA 22314
Telephone: (703) 299-3845
Fax: (703) 299-3983
Email: [email protected]

From: Monty Sibley [mailto:[email protected]]

Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2016 7:20 AM
To: Moskowitz, David (USAVAE)
Subject: Sibley v Roberts et al

Exhibit "E"

1 of 2 4/8/2016 10:11 AM
Gmail - RE: Sibley v Roberts et al https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=ab0c65df21&view=pt&q=dav...

2 of 2 4/8/2016 10:11 AM