MISSISSIPPI COURT CLERK REFUSES SERVICE AND DOCUMENTS FOR APPEAL OVER EMAIL ADDRESS

Oxford, MS – April 22, 2025 — In a stunning and unapologetic act of censorship, Lafayette County Circuit Clerk Jeff Busby has refused to respond to a lawful request for court documents from a journalist whom also is the subject of an appeal in the MS Supreme Court. All of this because he disapproved of the journalist’s email address — a bold expression of political speech aimed at police corruption.

The email in question? [email protected] — a First-Amendment-protected statement of criticism directed at the Oxford Police Department.

In a documented exchange between Busby and civil rights journalist Matthew Reardon, Busby flatly declared:

“I will not respond to this email address in the future.” says Lafayette County Circuit Clerk Jeff Busby in a blatant act of viewpoint discrimination.

That single sentence may carry explosive legal consequences. Under settled Supreme Court precedent, government officials may not condition access to public services on agreement with the speaker’s viewpoint. Doing so is not only unconstitutional — it’s the very definition of government overreach.

“This wasn’t about obscenity or threats. This was about one thing — retaliating against a journalist for daring to criticize a public agency,” said Reardon in a follow-up interview. “They want to make speech the issue instead of their misconduct.”

The refusal came just hours after Reardon made multiple formal calls to the Lafayette County Circuit Clerk’s office requesting his Clerk’s Papers — official documents necessary for his appeal before the Mississippi Supreme Court. Despite providing his case number and request in compliance with state rules, his request was ignored, rerouted, and ultimately denied. Shown below is the call Reardon made to the Lafayette County Circuit Clerks Office the day before, 4/21/2025.

A Pattern of Retaliation

This latest incident marks yet another flashpoint in Reardon’s escalating legal battle with Mississippi authorities. After years of exposing corruption, recording public officials, and challenging unconstitutional actions in court, Reardon has become a frequent target of state and local retaliation.

Earlier in the day, Deputy Circuit Clerk Chyna Sinervo also refused to send the requested court records, stating on a recorded line:

“It’s just not professional. We’re not going to send it to that email.”

Constitutional scholars say that’s not just improper — it’s illegal.

“When government officials deny service or access to records because they dislike a speaker’s message, that is the textbook definition of viewpoint discrimination,” said a First Amendment legal expert familiar with the case. “It’s the most egregious form of censorship.”

The Constitution Doesn’t Care If You’re Offended

The U.S. Supreme Court settled this issue more than 50 years ago in Cohen v. California (1971), where a man was arrested for wearing a jacket that said “Fuck the Draft” in a courthouse. The Court overturned the conviction, stating:

“One man’s vulgarity is another’s lyric.”

Fast forward to 2025: it’s not a jacket this time — it’s an email address.

“The Constitution doesn’t care if you’re offended,” said Reardon. “What matters is whether the government gets to pick and choose whose voice matters. And today, in Lafayette County, they chose censorship.”

The Stakes: A Court of Law, or a Court of Politics?

Reardon’s request wasn’t abstract. The Clerk’s Papers he sought are required to finalize his appeal — an appeal already hanging by a thread due to missed deadlines and systemic stonewalling. By refusing to respond, officials are interfering with his access to justice.

“You can’t weaponize access to the courts,” Reardon said. “You can’t deny someone the ability to fight for their freedom because you don’t like their tone or their politics.”

The Fight Ahead

Reardon is now preparing to file a supplemental federal complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging First and Fourteenth Amendment violations. He is also filing formal complaints with the U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division, the Mississippi Ethics Commission, and multiple national press freedom watchdogs. He says this isn’t the first time Busby has far exceeded his authority in violating the first amendment.

“We are no longer dealing with isolated errors,” said Reardon. “We are dealing with systemic suppression of dissent, enabled by people who took an oath to uphold the Constitution and have instead become its enemy.”

He added:

“The words you choose to say should never determine your access to justice. If they can silence one of us, they can silence all of us.”