As we noted, it was a foregone conclusion under Local Rule 83 after the District of Columbia suspended Sibley, but we now have written confirmation (see Exhibit A at pp. 6-7).
Those interested in goggling at car-wrecks can view Sibley’s self-refuting 133-page brief against suspension, which was mysteriously filed in the Larry Sinclair case, where a number of Sibley’s meritless motions were denied on June 16 for technical failure to comply with the local rules. With Sinclair under felony indictment in Delaware, he presumably has bigger fish to fry than a lawsuit seeking to unmask anonymous blog commenters.
And needless to say that Sibley’s attempt to jump back before the cameras by intervening in the Palfrey case has not been countenanced by the judge in charge of the case. It turns out that Sibley had lied even about being Blanche Palfrey’s attorney: she successfully moved the court to replace Sibley as her counsel, over Sibley’s objection. (US v. 803 Capitol Street, No. 1:06-cv-01710-JR.)
One Comment
Thank you for the updates on Sibley’s situation. It looks as though the Supreme Court has decided to wait a while before deciding on Sibley’s appeal (the other week, Sinclair was claiming that a decision was due “any time now”). I haven’t the time (or stomach) to wade through the 133-page brief, but I’ve read bits of it. It;s curious that he asked to remain on Sinclair’s case despite suspension. I wonder what he was thinking.