Episode 26 – How Lea Bickerton Is Helping Registrants

11 comments on “Episode 26 – How Lea Bickerton Is Helping Registrants

  1. Don Anthony Johnston says:

    Thanks Andy for dumbing down the questions.

    1. andys says:

      That’s why I’m here LOL 🙂

  2. Mr.Anonymous says:

    I had read that article about Amazon on an ACLU alert, asking me to sign a petition, which I did for whatever that’s worth.
    But I also called Amazon and told them that they were on the wrong side of history and I cancelled my eleven year old Amazon account and told them I was quitting to hit them in the pocketbook. (Of course the lady on the phone was in Manila (and we talked about adobo…) so I asked her to pass it on and she said she would.)
    Not having an Amazon account isn’t hard at all; I bought a hard drive for a laptop the next day from newegg.

    1. andys says:

      Of course you can live w/out Amazon. But it is crazy convenient.

  3. Tim Lawver says:

    Wisconsin does have a backward Supreme Court.
    The last three elections were won by the candidate who expressed ideas supporting the state’s treatment against the S.O. One claimed to have closed a loophole the permitted convicted to escape registration. The loop closed was a constitutional prohibition. The people do not believe in the constitution. We live in a nation of police states enhanced by electronics. John Roberts himself argued for upholding the obvious ex post and was rewarded by his appointment to the Top Seat. He was rewarded precisely because he subverted (or permitted the subversion by congress) via the Whetterling Act. They deep state needed that ruling to advance their desire to utilize databases in Utah to monitor internet use by the citizenry as a whole(felons or not). The two parties will do anything and everything to maintain their power, so they can continue to line pockets with the tax pie.

    1. andys says:

      I know about the Utah facility. But I don’t understand the comments about deep state. Conspiracy theories never make sense to me

  4. WC_TN says:

    I personally think there should be some sort of law or procedural rule that forbids any court to avoid any legal issue simply because it might be controversial. Our judges are not on the bench to win a popularity contest. They’re on the bench to uphold the law. No judge should be allowed to ignore a valid legal argument simply because the way they’d have to rule would run 180 degrees against popular and political sentiment. That’s what that avoidance amounts to. It’s the judge’s way of saying, “I’m not going to be the one to make THAT ruling! The second I do, folks will be out on the streets with torches and pitch forks coming for my hyde.

  5. WC_TN says:

    What about a contact for Lea for those of us who can’t access Twitter? Some of us can use the Internet, but still can’t access social media even after Packingham v. North Carolina.

  6. andys says:

    How so?

    1. Mel Gregory says:

      She’s own here portraying she cares about people’s rights in order to bring in more clients and she doesn’t. At first she will act like she will do all kinds to defend you. Once she gets your money she won’t care about your case. In my case the judge made his decision based on I had no defense and the witnesses testimony went uncontradicted. The witnesses that we’re deemed credible we’re an armed robber, a pedophile, and a heroin addict. The investigator had no evidence only testimony and she lost. Let all that sink in. She also let the state violate my procedural due process. I might has well hired a Wal Mart Greeter. All of this Civil Rights stuff with her is a front.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *