DC Madam’s Lawyer May Not Get to Start Pot Grow

     WASHINGTON (CN) – Suspended lawyer-turned-medicinal marijuana farmer Montgomery Blair Sibley will have to file an affidavit recognizing that growing marijuana in any capacity violates federal law, according to an order against the lawyer’s motion for temporary restraining order.



     Sibley, who is perhaps best known for representing the late D.C. Madam Deborah Jeane Palfrey, sued D.C. Mayor Vincent Gray and the D.C. Department of Health for requiring him to execute an affidavit that he says violates his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.
     His federal complaint also names President Barrack Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder as defendants and claims that federal criminal laws governing marijuana are unconstitutional and don’t apply in the district, which is currently in the process of starting a medical marijuana program.
     A federal judge rejected the motion on Sept. 16. “Because plaintiff has not identified how acknowledging the content of federal law is self-incriminating, or how he is being compelled to make a statement, plaintiff fails to establish a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of his claim,” U.S. District Judge John Bates wrote.
     In 2008, Sibley was suspended from practicing law in both Washington and Florida for three years. In addition to representing the D.C. Madam, Sibley’s list of former clients also includes Larry Sinclair, who claimed to have had gay sex with President Obama when he was a state senator.
     Last year, Sibley publically expressed his desire to become the brains behind a medicinal marijuana cultivation and dispensary operation. He formed The Medical Marijuana Company of the District of Columbia and The Medical Marijuana Company of America. Under Bates’ ruling, Sibley must now legally admit that growing pot violates federal law.
     “Nothing in the district’s medical marijuana laws requires plaintiff to apply to be a cultivator or to run a dispensary,” Bates explained. “Simply put, plaintiff need not seek to participate in the district’s budding medical marijuana industry.”

%d bloggers like this: