Transcript of RM206: Modifications to AWA (SORNA) Regulations Adopted

Listen to RM206: Modifications to AWA (SORNA) Regulations Adopted

This episode of Registry Matters is brought to you by our patrons. Thank you for your continued loyalty and support.

Andy 00:09
Recording live from FYP Studios, east and west. Transmitting across the internet. This is episode ­206 of Registry Matters. Good evening, sir. How are you?

Larry 00:19
Good evening to you. I am doing wonderful.

Andy 00:23
Can you give us a few minutes of your training session with your furnace?

Larry 00:29
Yes I can. I can indeed. It has gotten very cold last night. It was like 18 in the valley. And similar temperature expected tonight. And it still hasn’t started despite my request. So I’m using my auxiliary heat, and I’m going to teach it that I can do without it.

Andy 00:50
How are you teaching it? Are you using a carrot and stick? Are you beating it? Are you talking to it? What are you doing?

Larry 00:59
Well, I do periodically say I wish you would start up, but it just ignores me. So I’ve used my alternate heaters and the heck with it.

Andy 01:06
Okay, then. Alright. Um, and this is gas though? (Larry: Yes.) I kind of think gas would be… I don’t know, from just like space heaters, I got to think the gas would… whole house heating would probably be more efficient than space heaters I would think.

Larry 01:21
Probably so but right now gas is artificially high because of factors that are unique to New Mexico gas company.

Andy 01:29
Okay. Well, then, with that being passed, can you give us an idea of what we’re covering tonight? Because I’m sure I have a really good idea what’s coming.

Larry 01:39
We are going to cover some very important topics. We’ve got some listener submissions. We’re going to be talking about the now final modifications to the Adam Walsh Act regulations that became effective on December 8. And we’re going to be going back to a couple of cases we talked about on episode 205 of Registry Matters.

Andy 02:05
Okay, well, I guess we will dive right in because you have said that we have like 17 hours of content. So let’s hit question number one that comes from a person. Says, if I visit Phoenix for seven days next year, do I need to appear in person at the county sheriff’s office within three business days only to find out they won’t register me? How do I get this in writing? What if I call them ahead of my visit and confirm that they only will register me if I plan to stay in the county for more than 10 consecutive days? I’m sure some Sheriff there will say Sure, I’ll register you. Where’s your $250 initial registration fee? And oh, by the way, you can’t stay at that hotel. It’s within 1000 feet of a school. What do I do then? Right? This is this is definitely something that people talk about when they go visit some foreign land.

Larry 02:54
I didn’t do any research on Arizona law. So I don’t know what it specifically says. But I suspect that it’s related to the AWA regulations we’re going to be talking about later. Because everybody imagines that the three days applies if they travel. But in terms of Arizona specific, I don’t know how long you can be there, per statute. But really all he can do is what he’s talking about doing if he’s determined to find out. if you call the registrar for the jurisdiction you’re going to be in, and they tell you don’t have to register, they’re not going to send you an email in all likelihood. And you’re not going to have a document. I mean, it’s gonna be that you called, and I guess you would have your cell phone log that showed that you called a number affiliated with the registration unit. But you’re not going to have anything that says we wouldn’t register you. I just tend not to get nearly as worried about that as people do. But I understand their concern. It could be a serious charge. But for the life of me, I have not ever heard of anyone prosecuted because they were an hour longer than whatever the perceived time limit is in Arizona. And I didn’t even know they had a $250 fee. That’s something I’m not aware of if that is in fact the case in Arizona.

Andy 04:07
So a little story… I was still on probation. So this is a little bit different I’m assuming that this individual’s condition. I go visit a foreign land, the state of Pennsylvania, and I was told to go register when I get there. And I go there, and I go talk to some sheriff or police officer, whatever the hell they’re called. And he goes, not doing it. I’m sorry, you’re what? He goes, I’m not registering you. You don’t need to. But they told me to. Yeah, but you don’t have to. Look, man, that puts me in a really bad spot. They’re expecting to see your signature. And if I don’t go home with your signature, they’re gonna be mad at me. And he goes, I’m not doing it. I was like, oh god. So how do you prove that you went other than here’s my GPS logs that I stood in the sheriff’s office. I took pictures. I took some selfies with the police. Like what are you supposed to do?

Larry 05:00
That’s really all you could do. And nothing’s gonna come of that. If they won’t register you, there’s nothing the state of Georgia could do. Now there is one thing they could have done, which they can no longer do. They could have said, well, if you can’t find a way to register while you’re there, we just won’t let you travel anymore.

Andy 05:18
Right. Fortunately, for me, it didn’t go that way. And it was no big deal. No one ever asked me for any paperwork of that sort. But it was just like, that puts me in a really, really awkward spot that I can’t prove that I was here because I don’t have the registration paperwork that you signed it. And whatever. Alright, well, so what are you then telling him to do? If he calls them and they say, you don’t need to, don’t go? And just go be on your merry way?

Larry 05:45
Well, I’m a documenting freak. So I would document that. I would try to figure out who I talked to. Certainly the agency I spoke to and the time and the date. I would get your phone record. But I would actually try to make some kind of contemporaneous entry in a journal of some type if I were that concerned. never was one to worry about that. But people do. And I’m not going to tell them they’re wrong for worrying. I just don’t have any history of someone being prosecuted for being a few hours over. I just have not seen that in my experience. But people still carry that fear because the consequences are significant.

Andy 06:24
Okay. All right, then we’ll move over to question one, the second time. And it says. Dear Registry Matters. Hello, my name is Tim, and I am a new subscriber to the NARSOL newsletter and saw your ad for free sample transcript that I’d like to receive and having enclosed a self-addressed stamped envelope. Thank you very much for that. That makes it super helpful for you, I would imagine, Larry. I also wanted to ask about purchasing transcripts. I see you offer, like monthly subscriptions. Do you offer or sell your transcripts individually for each episode? And do you have a library of previous podcasts sorted by topic available for purchase? And then finally, I’m looking for specific topics to answer questions I have regarding my own situation, which is… but anyway, so the podcast, generally, is about an hour long, Larry, and let’s say it’s 200 words per minute. So that’s like 12,000 words that we say in the course of an hour for the podcast. And so how are we going to index that by topic? And that’s very technical and complicated. And perhaps we will get there in the very near future. But that is asking a lot to have every topic. Did we talk about probation in Texas? Did we talk about interstate travel going to this way? There’s a lot of work involved in that. So we don’t have it quite that detailed. But for the low, low cost of what Larry? What is it for a month?

Larry 07:53

Andy 07:55
Okay, for six bucks, you get 12,000 words, roughly, printed four times a month or five times sometimes, and you get a mountain of content, and you would receive everything that’s going on. I think that’s a good bargain.

Larry 08:09
Me too. I know it’s a good bargain because our hard costs are really above that. This is actually not paying for itself, which will give me a chance to tell people if we don’t get the subscription numbers higher, we’re gonna at some point have to evaluate the efficacy of this transcript service because if you’re paying a transcriptionist to cover 40 weekly newsletters, the cost per unit is considerably more than if we have it gone to 100 or 150. People. The transcriptionist spends the same amount of time. Now we would have additional print and postage and envelopes costs. But the actual preparing the transcript and getting the content in shape enough where you can understand what we talked about, that is where the real cost is. So we need for folks in prison to promote this and let’s grow this list.

Andy 08:59
Someone asked in chat says can he backorder transcripts? He most certainly can order backorder them, but someone would have to go to the site. So the way the transcript side works is that’s all posted on the website also. Not on the podcast page, but there’s a link to it there. You could certainly do some creative Google searches to find where we have spoken specific words, which is why I did the transcript to begin with. We talked about heaters this evening, Larry, so if you do a Google search, specifically against Registry Matters for teaching your heater a lesson, I would imagine there are a handful of episodes that show up, especially also talking about showerheads. And the whole reason why I started doing transcripts to begin with was to make sure that Google saw those keywords and then we could find timestamps for it and if we needed to reference back to it, we could find them. But if someone wanted to go do a search for some handful of keywords for you to figure out what subject you’re trying to cover, then you could certainly either download them directly and not worry about involving the print side of it, or you could order them I guess? But we’re not set up to, for someone to say, hey, Larry, can you send me episode 142? Like, we’re not set up for that either, really.

Larry 10:11
Well, we actually could do that. We’re going to be PDFing and all of our transcripts that we have since we’ve been doing this, which started episode 137. We’re going to be going back and making sure those are available, and they’re actually going to be put on our FYP educational website in the not-too-distant future, I hope. But we would be able to do that. I haven’t figured out what the cost would be because that’s labor intensive when you have to go prepare one. So that’s something that requires time.

Andy 10:39
Absolutely. All right. Well, then we will continue on to what would actually be question number two. Says, Liberty and Justice- so I assume that this went to you people out your way- My name is Armando. And I am writing concerning my registry being changed from a 10- to 20-year to a lifetime registry. A change in my requirements I feel is in violation of my constitutional rights. By this change in my requirements, my charges were criminal sexual with a minor fourth degree, blah, blah, blah, and two criminal contact of a minor per plea deal. I served six months in county on work release and 18 months’ probation starting in 2002. And completed it in 2004-2005. In 2006, I picked up a failure to register. It’s a fourth-degree charge. And I pled out for 18 months’ probation finaled in 2007, and was registering every six months until 2012 or close to when all of a sudden, Deputy so and so of Chavez County Sheriff’s Office in Roswell, New Mexico, advised me of a lifelong 90 Day registry. And I am asking you to please look into this matter on my behalf. I am going for three years Department of Corrections plea deal on a failure to register CR something or another. Thank you for your time and consideration. So he’s actually already been sentenced to going to go visit his local Department of Corrections?

Larry 12:16
Well, this case is a little more complicated. And we encourage people not to overwrite. And they’re in a catch 22 because he either deliberately underwrote because there’s a whole lot more here he did not tell us. But being this is in my state, I and with the assistance of our FYP researchers, we have looked into this. So the first sexual offense he had was in 2002. And from all appearances in the public records, he was not off supervision and completed that sentence in its totality by June 30th, 2005. And that being the case that’s what it appears to be, anybody who was serving any part of their sentence for a registerable offence, the laws changed on them on July 1, 2005, which most of the offenses went from once a year for 20 years and some small number of offenses once a year for 10 years. Those 20-year offenses went to four times a year for lifetime. And I think one or maybe two of the 10-year offenses also went into that category. So, if he was serving any portion of his sentence, and that includes community supervision, on July 1, 2005, his requirements changed. And that’s part one. Part two, he has three failure to registers pending in Chavez county right now. Not one, but three. The other part of that is he has possession of a controlled substance pending in Chavez County right now. So he has multiple felony charges pending. Now, for the listening audience who believe that probation is so rare, now did you hear that on his first failure to register he got a probated sentence? In his original charge- now this is almost 20 years ago, 2002- he also got what was essentially a community sentence. He had work release. So all you folks that are so convinced that everybody goes to jail, they actually don’t. But anyway, he’s had difficulty staying out of trouble in the intervening time. So, what’s gonna likely happen in this case is that his current felony charge with the drug possession and his failure to registers, it looks like one of them has already been nolled by the prosecutor. You remember that, nolle prosequi that we talked about? (Andy: I do.) It looks like one of those has already been dismissed by the prosecutor. But what they’re gonna do is they’re gonna roll this. And I have not spoken to the attorney. I just got this letter today. But what’s going to happen is they’re going to roll that into consolidated plea. And he’s going to get concurrent time. So when he gets his sentence, since he has a previous conviction for failing to comply with registration, it has a self enhancement mechanism in the state where it goes from a fourth degree felony carrying a maximum of 18 months, it goes to a third-degree felony carrying a maximum of 36 months. So, they’re going to consolidate that in all likelihood with the drug offense, and he’s going to get concurrent time rather than consecutive time. That’s going to be his inducements to plead guilty. But this is a lesson about plea bargains. People always say, well, why would I plead guilty? Well, here’s one of the reasons why you would. You’ve got at least two and possibly a third failure to register and they’re all seconds. So that’s 9 years of jurisdiction right there. And then you’ve got the drug possession, which I didn’t look up. But that’s got to be at least a third degree felony. So he’s looking at about 12 years of stacked time. Which if you don’t do the plea, all that time could be stacked. And then he’s looking at habitual enhancement, and I’d have to do the research, but there could be some additional time for habitual enhancement. So, what they will get him to do, the plea agreement will be that he will admit that he’s habitual offender. They will probably give him a sentence far less than the 12 years. And that will end this case, and then he’ll serve whatever prison time and come back out on supervision again. And he’ll get a second chance. This case, if he were trying to challenge it, I have worked with an attorney in the Appellate Division of the public defender’s office here where we’ve litigated this very issue in that that very court in Travis County with Judge Romero, who’s now retired, and judge Romero didn’t want to hear anything about registration having been evolved to impose more punishment, because we don’t have residence restrictions. We don’t have all these things in our state. We don’t have any limitations. You can live anywhere you want to, you can work anywhere you want to. And so, judge Romero didn’t see it. We appealed it. The Court of Appeals didn’t see it. They didn’t see any distinguishment that made it no longer civil regulatory. And the state Supreme Court refused to hear it. So, although Romero’s off the bench, I would just about bet if you litigated again in this trial court in Travis County, you would get a similar outcome. Without a significant amount of proof that registration has evolved. And you would cite the cases like Michigan. Well, we don’t have any of those restrictions, or you could cite Tennessee. We don’t have any of those restrictions. So we have a lot weaker cause to say how punitive our registry is. So it’d be an uphill climb for us. This guy is going to need to work out a plea agreement and try to comply with his conditions of supervision when he gets out of prison. He will be doing some prison time in all likelihood based on his prior record.

Andy 17:59
Can you remind me what prosequi means? And can you spell it again?

Larry 18:03
I can’t spell it.

Andy 18:06
What does it mean?

Larry 18:09
It means that the prosecutor elects not to move forward. It’s an effective dismissal.

Andy 18:14
Okay, all right. Um, I think I had another question for you in there. But I don’t remember what it is now. And but the person is writing asking- I’m going to kind of be critical of the individual for a second Larry. The person’s writing to you without full information that you went and went and looked up more information on the person, but kind of minimizing all that has been going on. When you say there’s one, written it says there’s one, but there’s actually three. Like, the prosecutor is going to be like, I don’t have to try very hard to get a conviction out of you. Why would the person even be trying to fight this when they have all this stuff stacked against them?

Larry 18:51
Well, that’s why it’s gonna go into a consolidated plea. You don’t have much to work with because of some of these charges, he would be convicted if he went to trial with the drug possession, the possession of controlled substance. And when he goes to trial, and he gets convicted, all bets are off for sentencing. So it’s just the maximum statutory limit. And there’s nothing that prevents consecutive sentencing. So therefore, that’s why people plead. I know that you guys out there think that you should just abolish all pleas and everybody should go to trial. But this is an example of why you’re not gonna do that. And this case is not going to resolve itself by going to trial. There’s going to be a plea with this. It is likely going to combine with the other case with the controlled substance.

Andy 19:36
Okay. For the next pretty big block of time we’re going to be covering… wait for it… SORNA! Hmm. Who would have ever thought that this was going to come up again Larry? They said that were finalized and they would go into effect. Is it January 7? Is that when they’re coming up again, or going into effect?

Larry 19:57
Sometime in January. I don’t recall the date.

Andy 19:59
Thought that’s what it was. And obviously everyone has their panties all in a wad and the hackles are up. Everyone’s asking questions. What does this mean for this? What does that mean for that? So, we have another flurry of questions to talk about SORNA. And the first one comes from someone named Sandy. I think this is a neat question too. Is there any way to predict with any reasonable degree of accuracy which states might be the most likely to utilize the new provisions? And if so, what are they? Conversely, which states might be the least likely to go along with these new regulations? I think that’s a neat question, Larry. But that probably goes to a whole lot of speculation and whatnot. Can you read the tea leaves? Larry?

Larry 20:42
Well, I don’t know if I’ve been given that skill, but without reading the tea leaves, there’s actually information that would help you figure that out. What we know, despite the fact that only 18, or whatever it is, states have been deemed substantially compliant, we know that many states have submitted compliance request packages to the feds, to the SMART Office The Sex Offender Monitoring, Apprehension, Registration and Tracking office in DC. We know that. So what we could do to predict the likelihood that the states would use this as an opportunity to maybe do an administrative implementation is we could look at the states who have submitted compliance application packets, and look at where they’re deficient. Because the review of their application is, last time I looked, on that website. And you can see where they are deficient. Like, for example, New Mexico’s, it’ll say that they need to add additional offenses to the universe of registerable sex offenses, they need to shorten the time between initial registration. It’s three days by federal standards. We have 10 days for older convictions, and it’s down to five business days for newer convictions when we’re not registering juvenile offenders. Things like that are on the list of deficiencies. So, what that tells you, if you have an open mind, is that those states would like to comply. Otherwise, they would not submit an application now would they? (Andy: Okay, right, right.) Okay, so we have that information of the states that are attempting to comply. Those states that are attempting to comply are going to look at this with a fine-toothed comb saying how can we accomplish some of this stuff administratively? So that would be a relatively easy thing to predict, in my opinion, by looking at does your state want to comply? If your state has said we have no intention of complying, then that changes that paradigm. Which I think there’s been a couple states that have said we’re not going to comply. California, I think, is one. I think Texas is another. Texas is already so bad, you know that complying might actually improve the situation in Texas. Because in many regards, Texas is worse than the federal standards. Same thing in my state. Some of the requirements we have for like the possession of child porn, the federal standards are less than what we require under our current law. So if we were to merely mirror what’s required a whole lot of folks that are lifetime would no longer be lifetime. And I get all kinds of spitballs. You know what we did in school? When you put the spit ball in the straw. I get all kinds of spitballs shot at me when I say that.

Andy 23:19
I do that at you every night while we record this podcast.

Larry 23:25
So people say that. But I tell them if the state, in particular the southern states, where they have far exceeded. If you could just get them to adopt the requirements of the AWA, you would actually improve your state. And they really get angry when you say that. But in terms of the flip side of that question, what states will be the least? That’s harder to predict. I think the states that have said we have no intention to comply may be less zealous. But the state like Maryland where the Supreme Court has said that no disadvantage can be imposed, because it’s in their state constitution and their declaration of rights, Maryland would probably be very unlikely to risk it because their court has spoken twice on this. They haven’t seen it differently on any of the two previous decisions about registering. So therefore, if they try to get cute in Maryland, they’re going to get slapped down. And I think the Maryland public policymakers would recognize that. So that would be how I would look at is who has tried to comply and failed. And who has said that they don’t intend to comply. That would be a good clue.

Andy 24:31
Can we take just the tiniest little bit of a detour about Maryland for just a minute? We’ve brought this up and we’ve talked about this a number of times through the whole history of this podcast. Maryland has that special language. Can you remind me what it is?

Larry 24:44
“No disadvantage.”

Andy 24:48
So they can’t do something that gives an extra special disadvantage to someone from a law and that protects the citizens of Maryland from a whole lot of extra egregious crap that Alabama does to their people, right?

Larry 25:01
That’s correct, because their ex post facto provision is broader than the US Constitution. And this should be a lesson, you can do more than US Constitution and be a state. You can’t do less. So Maryland chooses to provide more protection. So do a number of states. Our state has a constitution that provides greater protections than the US Constitution. It’s okay to do that. It’s just not okay to do less. Same thing with the federal SORNA standards. These are recommendations to the states. Recommendations. If you want to be fully funded, without any loss of funding, you will do at least these things. You can do more, but you’re not supposed to do less.

Andy 25:46
My intent with the example is that we have- I know it’s an extreme way to word it- but we have 50 individual little countries with this federal umbrella that provides for the certain specific things that the federal government is supposed to do. But we have 50 individual states plus all the extra territories, but each one of them is able to self-govern. Right?

Larry 26:09
Correct. So Maryland chooses to protect its citizens. Nothing stop you from working for constitutional amendments in your state to provide greater protections. Constitutional amendments are hard, but nothing stops you.

Andy 26:24
That’s what I was getting you to go for. So we could make all of the other 49 states have some sort of extra protections against providing for more constitutional protections at the local state level. Whether that be in this department or that department, but they specifically worded that so that you can’t create a larger disability for the citizens there. And I just think that’s super neat. And it very much highlights exactly how people need to look at this is that California is not New Jersey. And that’s not Minnesota, and that’s not Florida, and they all get to operate under their own rules and restrictions. And they’re all similar, but they get to do their own little nuanced things.

Larry 27:07
That’s correct. We are 50 separate sovereigns.

Andy 27:12
Alright, then we have this big battery of questions that someone sent in. There’s one from somebody else. But most of these come from an individual in Georgia who did a pretty fair amount of consolidating a whole bunch of questions for us. And it says, does this affect every PFR who has ever committed a sex crime or just those who are still required to register under state law? Can we unpack that first? Can we dissect the question to sharpen it?

Larry 27:41
Well, as best I can, I will try. And it has the potential to affect every person who’s ever committed a sex crime. But at the moment, if you were living on December 7, and you survived to December 8, nothing changed. Your life has not changed.

Andy 28:00
You mean January, by the way, right?

Larry 28:03
When the AGs Office said, we are adopting.

Andy 28:08
Oh, okay. Okay. I gotcha. I gotcha. Not when it goes into effect, I thought that’s what you were saying. Gotcha.

Larry 28:13
If you were alive on December 7, and you were alive on December 8, nothing change. If you’re alive on what date did you say it’s going effective?

Andy 28:20
I thought it was January 7th. That’s what I remember hearing.

Larry 28:24
That’s probably what it is. Your life will be exactly identical to the way it is today. Nothing will change. But there is the potential for an awful lot of things to change. For example, under the federal definition of a person required to register, it does include anyone who has ever been convicted. So it could be that you were convicted a long time ago, and you never had to register. In the provisions of the Adam Walsh Act, one of the things that’s in your compliance package is do you have a reach back provision that will go back and capture people who enter the justice system? They don’t go out looking for you to try to find you. But if you happen to pick up a felony level conviction, or a sexual offense of any type, whether it’s a felony or not, that state is supposed to welcome you back. Now, if you pick up a new sexual offense, that would itself welcome you back into the system. But if you picked up a felony, like a drug possession, and you had an old sex offense, the state is supposed to call you back in and say welcome in, we’d like to have you registered. So if that’s not in your state statute, it doesn’t magically become law. So, your state still has to adopt it, either through a statutory change or through a regulatory change. And I would argue that in most cases, a regulatory change of that nature defining a sexual offender would be unconstitutional, but the answer is we do not know. If the Georgia Bureau of Investigation promulgates a regulation that says that anybody who was defined as a PFR by Federal law has to register, well, is that constitutional? we’ll have to test it in court. But there is that reach back provision. But the reach back provision, it’s not as bad as people think. It’s bad, not minimizing it. So listen carefully. It’s bad. But it’s not as bad as people think. Depending on the age of the conviction, they do not have to start you out fresh from today. So, if it’s a tier one offense, and more than 15 years have elapsed since that offense, you don’t have to register even though they could adopt the reach back provision. They could say, well, 15 years have passed. So therefore, you still don’t have to register. But there has to be expertise on the ground when they’re considering that to explain to them that within the framework of the AWA, you can give credit for the time that has lapsed, that the person didn’t have a duty to register. If it were a tier two, if 25 years or more have lapsed, then you could still say, yes, you do have old conviction. You were convicted for something happened 27 years ago, it would qualify as a tier two if you did it today. But you don’t have to register. Go off, have a good life. They don’t have to do it that way. But they could do it that way. They could do it the other way. They could say you owe us 15 years as a tier one. They could say you owe us 25 years. Now, unfortunately, for those whose offenses would qualify as a tier three, if you’re alive, and you fall into that recapture group, they’re supposed to recapture you and have you register. So a true tier three, if they’re living and breathing, they would have a duty to register if the state adopted that. That’s the horrible thing, because the states are so willy nilly about putting things in tier three that don’t really need to be in tier three. So they look on their chart, they say, well, Andy looks like here on this list, the way I see it, it says you’re a tier three on our list. And even though it happened 30 years ago, and even though you’re 74 years old now, you’re gonna have to register. We’ve given you notice right now that you need to be on the list. That’s what they would do under that. So yes, the answer is nothing immediately. But yes, it could.

Are you a first-time listener of Registry Matters? Well, then make us a part of your daily routine and subscribe today. Just search for Registry Matters through your favorite podcast app. Hit the subscribe button and you’re off to the races. You can now enjoy hours of sarcasm and snark from Andy and Larry on a weekly basis. Oh, and there’s some excellent information thrown in there too. Subscribing also encourages others of you people to get on the bandwagon and become regular Registry Matters listeners. So, what are you waiting for? Subscribe to Registry Matters right now. Help us keep fighting and continue to say FYP.

Andy 33:03
Ok. If Georgia or insert any state decides to further abide by SORNA, will Georgia, or fill in whatever state, have to evaluate all registering PFRs? We know the great majority in Georgia, as I haven’t been since moving here in 2013, have not been tiered. Yes, this is true. There’s probably like 17,000 of the 25 and change that are not leveled.

Larry 33:28
Yeah. And see, that’s what makes this such a great question. Because I get to explain to you, again, leveling and tiering are not the same thing. (Andy: Right. Right.) Leveling in Georgia is actually done as an individualized risk evaluation. And that’s the way it’s done in Arkansas. That’s the way it’s done a number of states where they have the risk-based model. Under the Adam Walsh, that is not the way it’s worked. It would be a categorical approach, meaning that they would put a list of offenses together. And if you were convicted of that offense, it would be a tier one. If you’re convicted of this offense, it’d be a tier two. And if you’re convicted of these offenses, it’d be a tier three. So the only question would be for those, if you had a Georgia conviction, they would just simply be able to look at the list. Maybe the title of an offense may have changed over the intervening years. That could have happened. But there would be history that would show us what that statute as it was named and what the number was as it existed previously. So we could still figure that out. Where it would be more problematic would be if you came into Georgia with a non-Georgia conviction, trying to figure out what your tier would be. Not your level, but whether you would be tier one, tier two or tier three. So if Georgia wanted to move in that direction, then there could be some expense and some complexity into tiering the non-Georgia convictions. But for the Georgia convictions, it wouldn’t be that difficult. We’d just look at the list. It wouldn’t be all that complicated at all.

Andy 35:05
Because the way that you’re describing it, what tiers are from the federal side is if you are- I know you’re going to love this- felony jaywalking, you’re a tier one. But in Georgia, if they’re doing it risk based, they might not even have something that says this or they might have it say that it’s a level two or three just because of the name. They didn’t go evaluate you.

Larry 35:28
Yeah, correct. It’s just a categorical approach. Very simple. It means the offense itself determines how it’s tiered. A risk-based system looks at, you may have had seven offenses, and you may still be a level one, because you may have gotten sufficient treatment, you may have aged out of that type of behavior, and they may still level you as a low risk. So, it’s really not as complicated as people make it. Tiers are categories of offenses, leveling are individually assigned.

Andy 36:07
Alright, well, then let’s move along. If a PFR manages to move out of the US, will they be obligated to provide travel notification to the US when traveling from a non-US country to another non US country? I gotta think that that would be like a big flipping the two fingers at the US. If you’re living in Germany, and you’ve fled or left, why would you tell the US anything?

Larry 36:33
That is correct. Now that would be the case out of the Philippines where they extradited the guy back to Kansas. You remember the case we laughed about.

Andy 36:40
Yeah, yeah, they went and got him.

Larry 36:44
So the US would have no further jurisdiction over the person in terms of requiring them to report. Now, when you leave the US and you’re only temporarily absent, that raises new questions that we don’t know the answer to. Because sometimes, because of your immigration status, you’re not allowed to stay in a country indefinitely. You have to go back to your home. And since I have not traveled internationally, I’m woefully inadequate to explain that. But we had a guy in Maryland that used to go to Latin America, and he had to come home periodically to reconnect with the US. But if you’re permanently gone from the US, and I do not say renounce your citizenship, but if you’ve permanently moved out of the US and you’ve got permanent residence in another country, there would not be any jurisdiction unless that country says since you have a US conviction, we want you to keep staying in touch with the US. But otherwise, there’d be no jurisdiction.

Andy 37:37
I can’t see any other way to noodle around in that one, Larry, to try and tease out anything more from that. So, we’ll move along. Does Larry still think the US is the greatest country on Earth? Encourages Larry to search best country to live in, just saying. Um, and I did some searching just what we were talking about for the library conversation. I’ve looked up to see if you have said that. I didn’t capture anywhere where you have specifically said the US is the best country to live in. But I will back up. Is it, like, is it in the top tier of countries to live in? You and I would both agree that it is. This would had to have come right after we did the episode with River from Germany. The US certainly has its flaws. It’s up there as far as one of the better places to be, but is it the best? I don’t know if it’s the best.

Larry 38:28
Well, let me put it into context. What happened was that I was making snarky remarks about the Make America Great Again slogan. And I said that I was always confused by the slogan of needing to make America great again. Because prior to 2016, and folks, that means prior to Trump running for president, if anyone had ever said America wasn’t great, they would have been criticized as being unpatriotic. So therefore, magically, it was okay to say make America great and you weren’t unpatriotic starting in 2016. So, I said something to the effect that why would we need to make America great again? America is great. But I don’t think I ever said it’s the greatest country. America is a great country. Now I’ll tell you why America is a great country. America is a great country because we have a large amount of mobility in this country that other countries don’t have. And I used to do property management where I had people from dozens of nations around the world. And you have freedom of mobility. You can go to enter any state, any territory without having to get permission to enter the state. You have upward mobility in this country where you can advance. You don’t have a caste system like in India where you’re mostly relegated to where you’re born. In this country, you can rise through the ranks, and you can become something beyond what your wildest dreams were in this country, compared to many other countries. In this country, you do have due process of law. It may not be a perfect process, but it’s a due process of law. In this country, you have so many things. I mean, we have prosperity. We have lots of problems also. We have uneven healthcare, we have a huge amount of homeless people that are really suffering, and we have bad outcomes on infant mortality. I think we have one of the highest infant mortality rates, not in the whole world, because the third world, the less developed countries have higher. But in terms of the industrial countries, we have a very high infant mortality rate. We have problems. But America has opportunity. And I judge it by the passport. If you look at the passport rankings, the American passport is in the top five or six passports of the most countries it will get you admitted to. That tells you something about what the rest of the world thinks of Americans. The last thing that tells me this is a great country is people are still coming here by the 10s of 1000s. And according to the news media now, they’re coming in by the hundreds of 1000s. They come on boats, they come on rafts, they come on any way they can to get to the United State. If the United States was as bad as… I mean, if it was such a horrible country, they wouldn’t sacrifice and suffer and risk their life to get to a horrible nation. So yes, America is a great country. But I’ve never said it’s the greatest country on Earth.

Andy 41:28
I completely agree with you, Larry, on all the points that you just made. So let’s see how this one goes. So what is necessary to get relief from registering in this state and states we were convicted in? The states which have us on the registry where we live or work. So do we have to file petitions with the specific state that we’re in to get relief? Because after you’ve moved, you don’t have to worry about the state you came from. So it’s where you are now as far as getting your relief on the registry? I think that’s what that question is asking.

Larry 42:09
It did kind of meander around. I didn’t realize it was that meandering when I first read it. But when you get relief from the obligation to register, the obligation to register is different by a longshot than being listed on a website. When you’re listed on a website, that is a historical marker of what happened. So if you were to visit Florida, and you were to be listed on Florida’s website, and you leave Florida, even though under the present practices of Florida they’re not going to continue to impose any obligation on you, but that image of you and your crime and that fact that marker will have happened. That is not the same thing as registering. When you register, you have to give a whole lot of information that’s continuously updated. And you have to be subject to paying fees in many of our states. You have to be subject to limitations on where you can live, where you can work. And I just can’t see how anybody can say that it’s the same when it isn’t. So what you’re trying to get rid of is the obligation and duty to register. That’s the priority number one. And that obligation is imposed by your state. So if you petition off Georgia, and you’ve been to Florida at sometime, yes, you may be on the Florida website. And I feel bad about that. That wouldn’t be something you want coming up on a Google search. But Florida doesn’t have any more control over you at that point. You’re not registering with Florida. You have registered in Florida. Is that not clear enough of what the distinction is?

Andy 43:49
They have 50,000 people that are dead on their registry. They have 80,000, or something people on the registry and 30,000 of them are alive. And I don’t know how many, maybe it’s 50,000 that are dead or have moved out. But yes, and yeah, if you’re on the registry in any state at this point, you’re going to show up in a Google search. And if you’ve been on the registry, probably since 2010, you’ll end up in a Google search. It’s very easy to do these kinds of background checks at this point.

Larry 44:17
So now the registry as it exists in Wisconsin, where they say you continue to owe us the $100 annually, and you continue to need to file this report with us, that is closer to having to register. You’re still not subjected to any of Wisconsin’s restrictions in terms of where you can live, where you can work and all those types of things. And I think they may even have some work restrictions. I know they have residence restrictions that are all over Wisconsin, because that’s what the big controversy is about people having to go back to the jurisdiction that convicted them. And the Governor vetoed a bill that was supposed to fix that and all that stuff. But Wisconsin is the only state that I know that tries to do that and I’m dubious about how constitutional that is. But remember what we’ve established about laws about when they’re constitution and when they’re not.

Andy 45:03
They’re probably constitutional until they’re proved to not be. (Larry: Correct.) So they’re constitutional when they’re signed. ,

Larry 45:10
And when the person keeps mailing in the check for $100 and keep mailing in the form, they’re happy to take your $100 and are happy to catalog your fall form and put the data into the computer.

Andy 45:25
I’m going to skip number five, Larry. Number Number Five makes 100% no sense to me. So I’m going to skip it. Moving on to number six, taking a quote from RM 206, which says the courts in the Sixth Circuit where Tennessee is recognized because of a previous precedential decision in 2016, the people are being punished through these laws. And they can’t do that retroactively. So even though the states are recognizing the punitive effect, the federal government does not recognize that and continues to apply amendments to SORNA retroactively. I guess it’s the same as far as illicit drugs are concerned. Let me take a stab at this. If I’m not mistaken, the federal side of it doesn’t impose all the disabilities and restraints that all the states are doing with living and work restrictions. They are requiring more information to be posted within the online aspect. And how much of that is required to be publicly available? Can you disclose that part first, Larry? How much of the online register stuff is required to be public to the public?

Larry 46:31
A bulk of that. But that wasn’t what sunk Michigan’s registry. The 2006 and 2011 amendments were what sunk it and the disabilities and restraints. The government doesn’t require any restriction to be SORNA compliant with the federal recommendations. There doesn’t need to be any restrictions on where a person lives or works. So you can’t point the finger at the big old bad federal government. They’re not causing that. So therefore, all they’re doing, for better or worse, is trying to get the law that was passed by Congress in 2006 and signed by President George W. Bush- maybe should get that Bush name out there because Obama takes so much heat for signing the 2016 IML- but signed by George W. Bush. All they’re trying to do is their job of achieving substantial compliance. That is their job until that law is amended by Congress or repealed. The Department of Justice is tasked with trying to figure out a way to get as many states and territories into substantial compliance. I don’t know what is shocking about people putting their hand on the Bible and saying I’m trying to carry out the law. That was what Attorney General Barr was trying to do when he proposed this in his office. He didn’t have any clue what’s in there. It happened at a much lower level than the Attorney General. All of it gets done in the Attorney General’s name. But all that happened was when the administration handed off, this proposal had been put on hold as we talked about on a previous episode because they were putting all of Trump’s final proposals that happened in his last year presidency up for review if they had not been adopted yet. And they were shooting for environmental degradation. This was something that was placed on hold. There’s absolutely no expectation of a rational person that we’re not going to adopt this. And I explained why. Would you like to hear the explanation again? Because I explained it in a previous episode.

Andy 48:43
Sure, tell me again.

Larry 48:45
Okay, so you’ve got 435 members of the House of Representatives that are facing reelection in 2022. And you’ve got a Democratic party that’s under fire for turning loose a tidal wave of criminality on America. They’re pushing to defund the police. They’re pushing to let criminals out of jail without posting bond. They’re doing all these “horrible” things letting people out and not holding them accountable. The crime rate has been escalating in many of our major cities in 2020 2021. And therefore, the Democratic Party, for better or worse, doesn’t want to be tagged with being soft on people convicted of sexual offenses. So with all the other mortar that’s going to be coming at them in the 2022 midterm elections, they don’t want this. So they’re looking at it and saying, well, it looks pretty good to us. It complies with the law, and hopefully more states will become compliant with the federal SORNA. That’s what any Department of Justice was going to do. Had Trump been reelected… Let’s just ask you this, do you think that Trump, had he been reelected, do think his DOJ would have withdrawn the proposal after the 2020 election? Do you think they would have said well, we put this forward, but now that we’ve been reelected, guess we’ll be soft on the PFRs? Do you think they would have done that?

Andy 50:09
No, definitely not. um, alright, well then let’s move on to… I know how this is going to go. So I proactively emailed the sheriff’s officer in charge of PFR registration, stating Hello redacted, as you may have seen- which probably they didn’t see, Larry- the US Attorney General Merrick Garland has signed amendments to SORNA effective January 7 of 22. These amendments will affect anyone who has ever been convicted of a sexual offense. Is there anything that I, as a person forced to register needs to be aware of? Will any of my requirements under state or federal laws change? Regards, redacted again. And so the question is, did I open up a can or ball of worms? Or maybe acknowledge I now know the new amendments and can no longer claim I didn’t know? Oh, I like the second part of that.

Larry 51:00
I don’t think he really opened up a can of worms because, as I say, on January 8, his requirements will not change. But say, hypothetically, when the Georgia General Assembly convenes- I believe it’s in January or February- when they convene, if they were to want to adopt the substantial compliance, rather than having people come in annually, they would have to have three different reporting periods. They could have everybody be one if they did every three months because the tier threes under federal law are supposed to report quarterly. Now, you can have everybody report quarterly. And that’s at least the minimum, right? If you put everybody at quarterly, then you have met the minimum. But if Georgia being a very responsible state they are, and being frugal with the taxpayers resources, of course they would not want to waste money. So Georgia would be very diligent and they would tier everybody correctly and they would not put anybody in tier two or tier three that didn’t need to be. So that would mean less reporting, because reporting costs the sheriff’s money. Oh, I forget the sheriff’s don’t get funded by the state, they get funded by the local community. But if they were to adopt a change in the registration of Georgia, and that were to be signed by the governor, and become effective July 1, which is their typical effective date, it could change his obligations under the registration laws. That’s one way it could change. Another way it could change would be kind of like what happened in West Virginia, where they sent everybody- they being the West Virginia State Police- they sent everybody a letter and said, By the way, if you’re going to travel internationally, you are required by federal law to give us 21 days advance notice. If Georgia doesn’t already have that in their statute, if they were to either pass it by statute, or if they were to decide to try to sneak it in administratively, which is what this is encouraging. This is actually the motive to try to get administrative compliance. If the Georgia Bureau of Investigation were to direct their sheriff’s registrars- that’s the sheriff’s departments, they conduct registration in Georgia- if they were to direct them to start collecting that information, and they put it in the form and said, when you go into register and they say you need to sign this that you got to give us 21 days advance notice if you leave the country, well, then all of a sudden, you have got notice of the Federal obligation that has been around for years, and years and years and years since 2006. That has been under Adam Walsh Act as passed by Congress. But if your state hasn’t told you to do it, you don’t have anybody to leave the information with because that’s who collects it and passes that on to the marshal who passes it on to the countries around the world that you may be traveling to. So there are a number of ways that things could change. This has the potential to change a lot of things, but nothing has changed yet.

Andy 54:01
Um, a question that one of our patrons asked is if you live in a SORNA state, then they apply otherwise than your state law does. What do you think and maybe some folks may not know the difference between the two if you live in a SORNA state.

Larry 54:19
I have no idea what that means.

Andy 54:22
I’m sorry. And I copied that directly and pasted. It looks like it made sense when I pasted it there. And I’m very confused on what it says.

Larry 54:28
Well, well, most people they use that term… see, our state- most states refer to their laws as SORNA, the sex offender registration & notification Act. Or they may say call it SORA like Michigan does, or they may call it SORVTA like Tennessee does. The sex offender and violent registration, whatever it is in Tennessee. But I think he means SORNA, being federal SORNA, but read the question again.

Andy 54:51
If you live in a SORNA state, then they apply otherwise your state law does.

Larry 55:00
What he’s trying to say is if you’re living in a state that’s been deemed substantially compliant with federal SORNA, that they’ve gone out of their way to try to meet the federal guidelines, that this stuff applies. I don’t necessarily agree with that either. Because, again, Maryland is substantially compliant. And in Maryland, they will not be able to do this stuff, because their Supreme Court has said, you cannot impose any disadvantage. So therefore, despite the fact that Maryland is substantially compliant with federal SORNA, they will not be able to do these things.

Andy 55:41
Okay. And that is the end of that list of questions. And I think that is everything there. You gave me this other document. Was there anything SORNA in the questions for the night?

Larry 55:57
No, we’ve covered the SORNA questions. We just had the Tennessee case we’re going to double back on if we have time.

Andy 56:02
Yep. Yep, we do, we do. So I just want to make sure that I wasn’t missing something and putting things completely out of order. Alright, so any closing remarks on the SORNA, part three, part of the show?

Larry 56:17
Truthfully, folks, we don’t know. We do not know. Anyone who tells you they know, they do not know. They’re telling you what they think you would like to hear. States will be creative and try to do things to move towards substantial compliance. You could be hit with anything, but we don’t know what you’re gonna be hit with or when.

Andy 56:41
Do you want to speak any to maybe other organizations are almost like using this as a rallying cry of trying to drum up just excitement and get everyone’s hackles up over this when they’re- I’m not saying that there’s not anything here that needs to be worried about- but like, there’s nothing we can do about it. But they’re using this as an opportunity. It’s how I feel.

Larry 57:05
Well, it could be. I don’t know that that’s unusual. I mean, you raise money in anticipation. You may need money. There may need to be a lot of challenges filed as this thing unfolds. But right now, any challenge will be premature until we see what has happened and what is going to be done. And it would be like the International Megan’s Law challenges they were premature. Right now. Your life will not change on January 8. When your life begins to change, we’ll have to take a look at what those changes are. You can’t file litigation in anticipation of something that might happen.

Andy 57:42
Alright. Okay, so we’ll move over and we’re going to double back on some things that we’ve talked about recently. And it says, you two, you people get on my nerves. All your sarcasm, all the time. I’m speaking about the case from the Kansas Supreme Court. You went out of your way to make Mr. Shaffer’s lawyer look bad. I’m sure you could have played something from the 45-minute audio where she was compelling and made coherent arguments. Instead, you deliberately make her look bad. Which side are you on? What was Mr. Schaffer supposed to do? Just bend over and take it?

Larry 58:20
Who the heck wrote that?

Andy 58:21
I don’t know, man. That’s harsh.

Larry 58:26
There’s certainly some anger in this one for sure. We did not go out of our way to make the attorney look bad. We simply played clips of the justices on the Kansas Supreme Court interacting with her. Those were their comments, not ours. I’m not sure that which side we’re on really deserves a dignified response, because I think I’ll let my many years of work on this issue speaks for itself. But in terms of what was Shaffer supposed to do, that’s a bit more complicated, but I’ll do my best. First, he should have challenged Kansas from the very beginning well before he got arrested for failure to update his registration. Remember, they sent him a letter several years ago. And he acknowledge that was one of his selling points that I made in his plea negotiations that he had like seven years of continuous compliance. So for seven years, he was riding the lakes of Alabama and around the country, he should have filed- if he truly believed that he was not being constitutionally required to register- he should have filed a petition for declaratory judgment. And by using that vehicle, rather than trying to challenge within a criminal case, he would have been able to develop an evidentiary record showing how punitive Kansas’ registration actually is, and how it’s become. Second, he should not have done a plea deal on stipulated facts. The stipulation he agreed to did not address the punitive aspects of the Kansas registration regime. And finally, he would do well to listen to those who tried to help him, like me, because the entire matter played out pretty much like I told him it would.

Andy 1:00:04
Well, there’s not much else that can be done then. Let’s drive on over to the Tennessee case that we covered about last week. And this was written and it says, The plaintiffs in this case are individuals who have been placed on that registry and made subject to those requirements despite the fact that when they committed their offenses, the registration scheme did not exist. Under the law of the Sixth Circuit, the policy is illegal. Specifically, the Sixth Circuit published a binding opinion in Does numbers one through five versus Snyder 834 Federal- I’m not reading all the rest of it. You can find it in the show notes. (Does #1-5 v. Snyder, 834 F.3d 696 (6th Cir. 2016) held that Michigan’s highly similar scheme, when applied to individuals whose crimes preceded the schemes adoption, violated the constitutional prohibition on ex post facto criminal punishments. Nothing about the Sixth Circuit’s opinion in Snyder suggested that the states other than Michigan have any greater right to pursue such a policy than Michigan did. Larry, this sounds to me like the judge has telegraphed that Tennessee will not be allowed to continue registering people whose offense predates registration.

Larry 1:01:15
Does it sound that way to you? Doesn’t sound that way to me. The court also said, if you read on, although Snyder did not directly involve the state of Tennessee, the federal district courts of the state have repeatedly concluded the same analysis applies (or, as the procedural posture in each given case called for, likely or plausibly applies) to Tennessee’s own, very similar scheme and policies. But that does not mean that Tennessee could not create a dissimilar registry scheme. What’s making this compelling is because they’re so similar in what Tennessee and Michigan does. What if you had a Vermont scheme in Tennessee? Would this same analysis apply? I don’t think so.

Andy 1:01:59
I don’t think anybody in Tennessee would be complaining about it either.

Larry 1:02:02
The ones on the registry wouldn’t. Tennessee people would be.

Andy 1:02:07
Right, they would want more. I noted in page three, it reads the courts that have applied Snyder in individual Tennessee cases have frequently granted injunctive relief to the plaintiffs in those cases that allowed those plaintiffs to be spared from the registry’s requirements. Nevertheless, Tennessee officials have continued to impose the state’s repeatedly held-to-be-unlawful policy on others. Similarly situated individuals have not yet sought and received such a judicial relief. State officials, of course, are under no formal obligation to agree with the Sixth Circuit order to act consistently with the court’s ruling when not specifically ordered to do so. This confuses me, Larry. Is Does versus Snyder binding or is it not?

Larry 1:02:49
Well, therein lies the issue. The Does v. Snyder decision does not in and of itself magically make Tennessee’s law change. For that to happen, people have to file legal challenges citing this precedential case, which is binding in the territory of Tennessee. But if you keep reading, the court said, this court, however, is bound to honor the precedence of the duly empowered federal appellate court with jurisdiction over this district. And the court continues to find the grounds for distinguishing Tennessee’s scheme from Michigan’s to be unpersuasive, at best, for reasons this court and others have already set forth at length. So rather than reiterating every detail of the same analysis over and over, the court will merely refer to the numerous early opinions on the state’s policy of imposing ex post facto criminal punishments on some sexual offenders is unconstitutional under the currently applicable case law. So again, it is binding when someone takes them to court. This judge said, Yes, I have to follow this. She didn’t say that she didn’t agree with it. But she says I have to follow it. It is binding. But I hate to break it to you. The people that manage the registry, they’re not sitting around looking for a way to terminate the registry or to peel it back. They’re waiting for you to force their hand. They’re waiting to be forced to do this. So they can go to the public… like that article we read a couple of episodes back where they say we have no choice but to do this. So when Does versus Snyder came out, there was no one setting in the Tennessee law enforcement apparatus, saying, hmmm I guess our registry looks kind of similar to this thing up in Michigan. We need to take a look at this. I think I’ll put forth a proposal to go ahead and peel ours back before the courts tell us we got to do it. I mean, that just is not realistic, folks.

Andy 1:04:47
They’re going to wait till someone challenges it. (Larry: Correct.) So I see the reason the injunction was granted to only these eight plaintiffs is that they were the only ones before the court? Is that what I understand to be right?

Larry 1:05:00
Yes, that is correct. The judge says the task here is merely to apply the same frequently reiterate principle to the request currently under consideration. Namely, Does one through nine. And they asked the court to enter preliminary injunction forbidding Tennessee officials from applying the registry statutes to them. And that’s all she could do. She could not say, I don’t really think this ought to be happening to anybody else. So I’m going to issue this broad sweeping order to everybody else. Those cases had not been litigated. The state had not been given a chance to argue why they were different. And this was not a class action. This was a consolidated group of challenges by nine different litigants that were consolidated for appellate review. I mean, for judicial review, not appellate review, but these were consolidated into one.

Andy 1:05:52
And then finally says,, it is hereby ordered that the defendant shall not enforce any provision of the Tennessee sexual offender and violent sexual offender registration, verification and monitoring act against Does one through Does eight, or require those plaintiffs to comply with any portion of the act. Each defendant shall to the extent within his power takes such necessary steps to ensure that Does one through eight are removed from Tennessee’s PFR registry. So does this mean that they can never be forced to register again?

Larry 1:06:23
Unfortunately, it does not. We need to understand that this is an injunction against enforcement of Tennessee’s current version of registration. Again, it does not preclude the state from creating a new version with no disabilities or restraints. Just look at Michigan, just look at Pennsylvania. If they were to do that, they could go back to the judge and request that the injunction be lifted, citing the distinguishing factors of that new scheme versus the previously held-to-be-unconstitutional scheme. So no, it does not at all.

Andy 1:06:57
Um, okay. Anything else on that stuff now that you had a good chance to analyze it? We’re starting to run short on time. But any final thoughts before we kick out of that?

Larry 1:07:07
I think we covered it very well. The body of case law is definitely gaining momentum. That Sixth Circuit decision was huge. And every state in that circuit that has decided to impose all these disabilities and restraints, we’re gonna be coming for you. We’re not going to stop because you can’t punish people with a civil regulatory scheme. You’re gonna to have to get over it.

Andy 1:07:33
Very well. Um, I think that is all Larry. So we are going to talk about our speaker from last week. You know, we did a speaker last week that was somewhat offensive, I suppose. But last week, I played this individual.

Alabama Governor George Corley Wallace 1:07:49
Segregation now. Segregation tomorrow. And segregation forever.

Andy 1:07:59
We had a handful of people write in. We had somebody write in, I think it was even before the show was over, of one of the patrons listening to it live who is not here tonight. So shame on you. And that was from Brandon, who was that Larry?

Larry 1:08:12
Was former Alabama Governor George Corley Wallace.

Andy 1:08:17
Um, you want to tell me the context around what he was saying there?

Larry 1:08:23
Well, I think he was… I don’t remember exactly when he did it. I was only 112 at that time, so I don’t remember all the details. You expect me to have a memory from 100 plus years old when something happened?

Andy 1:08:36
You remember some of the most obscure crap, Larry that yes, I would expect you to remember that. I assume with what he’s talking about is some civil rights march or something like that. And this is an individual saying that we are going to keep things separated for as long as we can.

Larry 1:08:51
Yeah, he was pushing back on the integration of the University of Alabama among other things. And he believed in segregation. He ultimately stood in the door of the university to prevent black students from being enrolled. I mean, he was… but to Wallace’s credit, I think he actually repented and he asked for forgiveness. And I think that was genuine. And so now that he’s passed on… that’s an unfortunate chapter of Alabama history. But I think the man actually did change before he passed.

Andy 1:09:21
I mean, would now be a good time to play that other clip from the bigots and admirers?

Larry 1:09:26
No, I think so. We’re already getting enough heat for that.

Andy 1:09:31
Lester Maddox is that one. All right. So then this one, thank you, Al. Al sent in a whole bunch of suggestions. So we’ll be using those for a little while. But if you have any suggestions for Who’s that Speaker? then you can send them into And this was Al’s suggestion.

Who’s that Speaker?
I served with Jack Kennedy. I knew Jack Kennedy. Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine. Senator, you’re no Jack Kennedy.

Andy 1:09:59
That’s a neat quote too. I’ve heard that used elsewhere. So if you think you know who that is, and if you think you don’t know who that is, and you want to send something kind of snarky and fun, feel free to send that in. I may read that on the air, but send that into and title it something like who’s that speaker? WTS. That way I can find them more easily. Anything before we close up and thank the new patrons, Larry?

Larry 1:10:25
I think we’ve done it. We’re over.

Andy 1:10:28
We are. So we had a new signup this week. Ray signed up using the annual subscription and discount. Thank you very much Ray. And since we are running short on time, I will just close everything out and you can find all of the show notes and everything you need to links to go everywhere at You can leave voicemail at (747)227-4477. Again, email registrymatters And thank you so very much to patrons who will be receiving this first thing in the morning. And that is Larry, thank you very much. You are always the Master Blaster of all things knowledgeable, and I really appreciate the great way that you explain things.

MacArthur Clip 1:11:09
I agree with you entirely. That is why I am here.

Andy 1:11:11
Thank you again, sir. I really appreciate it.

Larry 1:11:16
Haha. Oh, good night.

You’ve been listening to FYP.

Transcript of RM205: What Are We Litigating; Confused Litigators; Highway Interdiction

Listen to RM205: What Are We Litigating; Confused Litigators; Highway Interdiction

Registry Matters is an independent production. The opinions and ideas here are that of the hosts and do not reflect the opinions of any other organization. If you have problems with these thoughts, fyp.

Andy 00:17
Recording live from FYP studios West and in a tupik the northeast, transmitted across the internet. This is episode 205 of Registry Matters. Good evening, Larry. We have a mountain of stuff to cover tonight. How are you?

Larry 00:33
Doing awesome. Now, where are you recording in the Northeast? What did you say you’re recording in?

Andy 00:37
It’s a tupik And you know, I probably have already closed the window. I looked up alternate words, words for igloo. And that’s what I came up with. It’s a hut made out of animal skins. I’m so far north, I need a special kind of apparatus.

Larry 00:53
I see. Okay.

Andy 00:56
Tell me sir. I mean, we’re just gonna dive right in. Because there’s no time for us to meander about. We have too much stuff. We need like three hours to record the show tonight. We have 60 minutes to do it. What are we doing?

Larry 01:07
We’re doing some cases. One just recently came to our attention this morning out of Tennessee, the Middle District of Tennessee, US District Court. We’re doing a case from the Kansas Supreme Court. We’re doing a case about money seizure, interstate highway interdiction programs. And we have some questions that have made their way to us from our listening audience.

Andy 01:32
Let us dive right in. I wanted to cover this because in episode – what was it? – 202, we had Brandon Thomas on, but there was a person that asked us a question that night about having internet access and driving a truck. Do you remember this, Larry? (Larry: I do indeed.) So way back in our history, one almost like one of our first patrons was a guy named Mike and he was a truck driver. And he actually ended up coming down to my area. And we hung out for a few days when his truck was being repaired in my area. And he wrote back a really long detailed answer of like, no, if you’re a truck driver, you’re really gonna need some internet access. And so here’s what he wrote. A note about a recent episode where a person from Florida wanting to drive a truck: He will most likely need Internet access. While the logs are technically connected to the internet, it’s more in more depth than that. How is he going to communicate with dispatch? Sure, he can use a flip phone. But that’s not realistic. You need a smartphone to do your job. You need the camera in case of an accident, or any other incident where the dispatcher may need pictures. You may need to be able to send documents you get from the shippers or receivers. Personally, I use CamScanner. An app on the phone. And I can personally attest to that one. I love that app. Then what about the truck GPS? They are all connected to the internet for at least updating software, not to mention live traffic and even weather. That does seem to be really important Larry, if you are driving a truck that you would not want to just get stuck in some traffic jam for hours. And with a smartphone, you can pay for some things with the company money instead of instead of yours by using their account. I did this for weighing the truck to keep it legal, about $20 a shot. This can also be done for fuel if you need to fuel at a truck stop. You will need to send receipts back to your company to if you pay out of your own money for services. If you can send them and email them immediately, there’s less risk of losing them. I could go on and on for a lot of other times when a smartphone would be needed. But trust me, it will be a requirement. Another thing is that this person could possibly consent to location sharing so his handlers know exactly where he is if he wanted to go that route. I know I wouldn’t. But it may be a possibility if it is needed for the job. Finally, since you are driving a vehicle that is over 70 feet long, just using a book of maps is not enough. I could not count the times I used Google Maps satellite view to check out locations. This way I knew where I was going to be better prepared. Super thorough answer. Thank you, Mike. Really appreciate it. You met Mike at the conference. That’s that guy I’m referring to.

Larry 03:56
I did indeed. And we had a discussion on various topics. Smart guy, I don’t exactly agree with him on everything, but he’s a smart guy.

Andy 04:06
I can’t imagine what you would disagree with this particular individual about not at all.

Andy 04:13
Uh, I think since we’ve covered that, I guess we’re gonna we’re gonna go over to this Kansas case, Dennis Shaffer. And I think you were somewhat involved in it, weren’t you?

Larry 04:27
I was and I’m constructing part of this interview from emails that that had been sent to me by Mr. Shaffer. And he took he took an Alford plea on a charge and, and venue was changed from Clark County, Missouri to Kirksville, Missouri. And the charge was sex abuse in the first degree, and he was given a suspended imposition of sentence and he was told that he would not have to register on the PFR registry or take PFR classes. He was given five years’ probation which he violated. And he ended up serving prison time and he was released in April 2000 and moved to Kansas, to Olathe, Kansas, where he was initially not required to register in Kansas.

Andy 05:15
But as I understand it, he got a letter from the Missouri State Highway Patrol saying that he had to register in Kansas in 2008 after the retroactive registration law went into effect, and also stated he would have to register for a lifetime. He then received a letter from the Kansas Bureau of Investigation saying that if he did not comply by registering as a PFR, he would be arrested. We have that letter here at FYP. Did he comply with the Kansas law as directed Larry?

Larry 05:43
He did indeed. And he was complying until April of 2017 when he forgot to make his required quarterly appearance. He said he was in the process of moving to Alabama. So he had already registered in Alabama. And while he was in Alabama on vacation, he was driving his boat, and the water patrol pulled him over. The Alabama authorities discovered that Kansas had a warrant out for his arrest. He was extradited back to Kansas.

Andy 06:12
He was offered a plea in Johnson County, Kansas. And as I understand it, Mr. Shaffer believed that he would not have to register in Kansas. His position was at the application of KORA, I guess that would be Kansas Offender Registry act, to him violated the Ex Post Facto Clause. Your law office worked with him in some capacity?

Larry 06:37
We did. And they had offered him a plea with a provision that he could appeal the question of his registration.

Andy 06:47
Could he find someone that’s licensed in Kansas to help represent him?

Larry 06:52
He reached out because of our advocacy. He found out about NARSOL’s advocacy. He was reaching out to advocacy organizations, and he connected through that process. And we weren’t really able to recommend anything to him, since no one was licensed in my office, but we did talk to him. And we consulted with him as a consultant rather than a lawyer. And you’re actually welcome to read a letter that we actually suggested that he send to his attorney in Kansas in terms of our concerns regarding the plea.

Andy 07:33
And you want me to read just the plea offer part or which part of this would you like me to read?

Larry 07:38
It depends on how energetic you are on reading, but yes, all right. So,

Andy 07:44
I will start at plea offer. It says: Plea offer. At this time, I am not inclined to accept the current offering. I will explain my reasons. (1) Affidavit. The Affidavit on its face clearly demonstrates that I’ve been faithfully complying with the Kansas PFR registration since January of 2010. Second, during the entire eight years, I have not moved, which means the public at large was not in danger because of my forgetting to update my registration. The only thing the update would have accomplished would be it would have permitted law enforcement to see me in person. And I would have confirmed that I’m still at the same residence I’ve been for the past eight years. Third, the plea offer appears to be intensive supervision, which is unacceptable. Intensive supervision, which includes PFR treatment, polygraphs, expensive counseling, may be appropriate for a person just entering the justice system for recent PFR type crime. However, my conviction occurred nearly 25 years ago. And these probation requirements are not appropriate for me, nor am I able to comply with them. I lack the financial resources… Larry, hang on. How was he lacking the financial resources if he was like tooling around in a boat in Florida?

Larry 08:55
Well, that was the representation he made, but go ahead.

Andy 08:59
Okay. I lack the financial resources and my physical disability does not allow me to comply. If I were to accept this plea offer, the likely result is a free ticket to prison. Wow. Like that’s the opposite of the monopoly thing, Larry with the get out of jail free card. The counteroffer, I will consider an offer that guarantees a probated sentence without supervision or one that stays serving of the sentence until the appeal has been decided. Administrative probation is clearly an option on the form which can be done if the prosecutor chooses to be reasonable. And if that is not acceptable, the prosecutor clearly can stipulate that the surface of the sentence shall be stayed until the appeal is complete. Your selling points for my counteroffer are PFR registration is a civil regulatory scheme, which means I have not committed a new PFR type offense that merits intensive probation supervision. Number two, the violation as alleged in the officer statement makes it clear that this is a technical failure, oversight on my part, rather than willful noncompliance. Third, this outcome will spare the state of further effort dealing with an appeal and assure them a conviction. And then finally, appeal duty to register. You’ve indicated that the prosecutor will permit me to appeal. That concession is of little benefit if I lack the financial resources to undertake the appeal. Will you in the state add a stipulation that I will be provided representation to handle the appeal as long as I remain indigent? And will you stipulate that your office will handle the entire regardless of personal personnel changes? I’m sorry that this letter did not reach you sooner. However, I did not receive your communication regarding the offer until yesterday. Sincerely, Dennis Schaffer. So now that I’ve read the letter, though, it appears that your office was doing all it could to help them through the process. We haven’t played that clip yet. So we need to get there. Do you want to play that clip real quick?

Larry 10:53
We were doing all we could to help him through the process. Which clip are we gonna play? We got several of them.

Andy 11:03
Yes. Should this be the first one?

Larry 11:05
Let’s hear what you got queued up there.

Andy 11:09
All right.

State Supreme Court Justice Biles 11:10
If Missouri had no registration requirement right now, would he have been required to register in Kansas?

Attorney Jennifer Roth 11:24
I think that- I think that maybe not. Let me go back to something you said. My brain also is tangled in this. And it is somewhat complicated by the fact that we don’t know under what ground the state even charged him that he has a duty to register. We don’t- there’s so much information that we didn’t have in this prosecution. And so that’s why…

Andy 11:52
Larry, it sounds a lot to me that- we talk about this regularly- of not all attorneys are created equal. And not all of them are experienced in the various areas that you really need an attorney that knows how this stuff works before you have one tries to represent you in something as important as not going to jail.

Larry 12:11
And we need to set this clip up. This is coming from the Kansas Supreme Court’s oral arguments that were heard in March. This was his appellate attorney that was handling that appeal for him. So they’re arguing before the Kansas Supreme Court right now. And that sounds really reassuring to start with, doesn’t it? When she says she doesn’t know. I love it

Andy 12:36
Completely, completely. Um, it seems as though the attorney wanted to do that. And she was trying to introduce new facts on the appeal. She asked for a remand to establish the facts. Is this what you always cringe about whether it’s a civil case or criminal case?

Larry 12:52
It is indeed. The facts in this case were agreed upon by the parties. And the Supreme Court could not altered those agreed upon facts. I think that’s in our next clip, maybe, of what could be better.

Andy 13:05
So can I just try to make a comparison? This is what you rail about with summary judgments too that the parties have agreed to- even if there are erroneous facts- they have agreed that these are true. And they don’t get to relitigate him. Do I have that close?

Larry 13:21
You have that absolutely correct. They did a stipulation, which I don’t think it was provided to me. I think it would probably get deeper in the woods that most of our audience could absorb. But the facts were stipulated to, in terms of his registration obligations. They did not stipulate to any facts related to the harm or anything like that. They just stipulated to the fact that what his conviction was out of Missouri, and how long he’d been in Kansas and basic facts. But yep, that’s exactly valid comparison.

Andy 13:54
All right, and I will stop the rotator and then we’ll try clip number two.

Atty. Jennifer Roth 14:00
But I think, he I mean, he has standing because they’ve, they’ve charged him with this. We don’t know the grounds for it. It’s I’m not exactly… nobody, you know, they entered a stipulation. Um, and so we’re not clear on how all these things would interplay. Um, and so, I mean, the fact is, he was charged, he was convicted, he made this argument. The record is what we have, and so I believe he should be able to litigate this.

Justice Biles 14:36
I think the question is, what are we litigating?

Andy 14:41
So, what are we litigating Larry?

Larry 14:44
And therein lies the problem. When you have a Supreme Court justice looking at you, and theoretically they, or their law clerks or both have read the brief, and they don’t know what’s being litigated, that does not bode well. They were litigating whether or not the Ex Post Facto Clause would prohibit Kansas from registering him. And he cited in his email to me about a case that was not binding in that jurisdiction. But that was his belief was that he had an argument, but he didn’t really have an argument. And the court couldn’t understand the argument. Because it wasn’t, I mean, when you don’t have anything but that little stipulation sheet, and once we get further into their interview, and the next question, we’ll see what had been cited to them as their justification – their legal argument – and most of the legal argument was no longer valid case law. So go ahead. But when the justices tell you they don’t know what’s been litigated, you should not look for and expect a favorable outcome.

Andy 15:52
Did they agree to hear it? It doesn’t just get landed on their lap and they’re mandated to hear it. They agreed to hear it correct?

Larry 16:04
They agreed to hear it. But once they agreed to hear it, they didn’t understand what they were hearing. The parties have to brief the parties. They have to brief them thoroughly and tell them what they are arguing. And they didn’t have anything to work with. There was no trial below. I mean, he chose to plead out so he wouldn’t go to prison. And the attorney, the public defender, the trial level attorney, did not really know how to set this case up for appeal. He was making a deal with the prosecutor to get the case off his plate and keep the guy out of prison. And in his mind, he had done a wonderful job. You can appeal the question of whether you should register, I’ve got you a probated sentence. You can make your argument before the Supreme Court- well, before the appellate court, he didn’t know that the Supreme Court would accept it. But he first had to make the argument to the trial judge. And of course, the trial judge, where he did the plea, denied it. But that that lawyer did not have a clue how to set this case up for appellate review. Cases have to be properly set up for appellate review. If you’re intending on going that route, you need to actually know what you’re doing.

Andy 17:25
So the court stated the remaining two cases cited by Shaffer in his petition for review do not help his cause. In Snyder, one of the effects of the Michigan statute that the Sixth Circuit graphically described with the aid of a map of the extensive area of Grand Rapids, Michigan, that the law rendered off limits to PFRs is that Michigan’s law is so restricted where PFRs may live work and loiter that many of the plaintiffs have had trouble finding a home in which they can legally live find a job where they can legally work. In Rausch, the court relied on specific and detailed facts presented to the trial court by plaintiff in his as applied challenge to retroactive application of the lifetime registration requirement in Tennessee. Were such facts presented in this case?

Larry 18:11
They absolutely were not. And this is a prime example of what I was just speaking about, of the attorney that was resolving the case had no idea how to set up for appeal. But I totally forgot, I was gonna mention that that the four cases he cited in his petition for review don’t even stand for the proposition that retroactive PFR registrations are punitive and violate the Ex Post Facto Clause. He cited Millard versus Rankin out of the 10th circuit, which later became Millard vs. Camper. Your remember, Judge Matsch was overturned by the 10th circuit on that decision. Okay, so that one was no longer was relevant. He cited the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in Muniz, which held that retroactive application of PFR requirements violated Ex Post Facto Clause. Unfortunately, that case is no longer controlling because the Pennsylvania Supreme Court later held after the legislature amended the statute, in the end up Commonwealth vs Lacombe case that it was not violative of their constitution. And then the cases that you’ve just talked about. When he gets to the Supreme Court, he has nothing.

Andy 19:23
That sounds like that’s bad.

Larry 19:25
They had their own binding precedent where they had decided that the Kansas offender registry was not inflicting punishment, it didn’t have all those prohibitions that were cited in the cases we just talked about. So he just had virtually no chance of winning this case.

Andy 19:45
I’m picturing Larry if you’ve ever watched like Bugs Bunny cartoons, Roadrunner specifically, there’s wily coyote and he always ends up going off a cliff. And then there’s no ground underneath him and he like holds up a sign and says, Oh, no, and then just falls. That sounds like what he’s going into if he ends up at The Supreme Court.

Larry 20:01
Don’t we have one more clip here? I think. (Andy: We do. We do.) This is the best of all.

Andy 20:09
Okay, here’s clip number three.

Andy 20:10
And now I’ve gone off and forgotten exactly what your question was. But I see your point about, do we need to compare this? And I guess I just go back to the fact of Johnson County charged this man, they prosecuted him, they entered into the stipulation of facts. He’s arguing that this applies to him ex post facto. And it might be that there needs to be some sort of a remand. I haven’t thought that through. But maybe there’s some sort of a remand to decide to what extent does this cover him? And what are all the issues involved?

Justice Biles 20:45
And the problem I have with that, is that this issue was raised before the District Court. And your side has the obligation to make the case. And so it was presented, if there are holes in the record, I think we get back to that, why would we remand to give you a chance to do a do over to fill in these holes? Seems like they should have been filled before.

Andy 21:21
Just what you talk about Larry, of filling holes and being prepared when you go to court?

Larry 21:26
That’s correct. When you’re inevitably going to be in an appellate posture, you cannot rely on anything other than facts that you’ve established below. And if those facts are lacking, or if they are not correct, the appellate court is stuck with those facts. They’re not going to forgive you and say, Oh, well, you should have had a better lawyer. I mean, there is a possibility that he could assert ineffective assistance of counsel on this plea. He would have to look at Kansas law in terms of post-conviction proceedings, if he has that option. But that wasn’t an issue before the court. That wasn’t raised in this. This was merely a stipulated factual determination of the law if it could be applied retroactively to him with his Missouri conviction. And the answer is unequivocally yes. And this was painful. This was 45 minutes of oral argument. I could not watch it all. I have watched oral arguments. I’ve sat through courts and oral arguments. And this, I mean, I hate to say something negative about someone in the profession, but she was either having a bad day, or she shouldn’t have been there to start with.

Andy 22:47
Is there a danger though if it does go to the Supreme Court? What happens then, if it does?

Larry 22:52
Well, it would be unlikely in my opinion, that there would be a cert petition. I would always take the optimistic view that an attorney looking at this would say there’s nothing here on this case. But if he were to gather the resources, and put together a cert petition, and if four justices on the US Supreme Court granted it, yes, there would be a risk. Because part of what he was trying to argue which they didn’t really seem to consider, because it hadn’t been raised properly below, was that there might have been an independent federal duty to register. If this case were to get to the Supreme Court, and they’re inclined to want to establish that independent Federal duty, which already the Willmann case out of Michigan has found that. The Sixth Circuit has already said that there was an independent duty. That would be the risk. But I think this is a real long shot that this case ends up being decided by the US Supreme Court. I think it’s done.

Andy 23:53
Well, that’s probably a good thing, because this doesn’t sound like a thing that we would want to have go up there and establish possibly more bad case law for us.

Larry 24:02
The case law already existed in Kansas. So it didn’t really hurt Kansas. They already had this case law, but it would have that potential if the Supreme Court did. It has the potential to be harmful, but I think the odds are very low. And see, I occasionally give you good news. You guys always say that I’m negative. On this one, I don’t think there’s a cert petition in the filing.

Andy 24:25
Very good, sir. I think that’ll close this one out for us.

Larry 24:30
Where are we going next?

Are you a first-time listener of Registry Matters? Well, then make us a part of your daily routine and subscribe today. Just search for Registry Matters through your favorite podcast app. Hit the subscribe button and you’re off to the races. You can now enjoy hours of sarcasm and snark from Andy and Larry on a weekly basis. Oh, and there’s some excellent information thrown in there too. Subscribing also encourages others of you people to get on the bandwagon and become regular Registry Matters listeners. So, what are you waiting for? Subscribe to Registry Matters right now. Help us keep fighting and continue to say FYP.

Andy 25:25
We are going to go cover this Tennessee thing that like showed up on the radar but apparently has our whole Discord server abuzz. And the title that I got from a US news articles is federal judge rules for Tennessee PFRs rebukes the state. A federal judge has harsh words for Tennessee officials who continue to enforce retroactive punishment against PFRs. Some of whom committed their offenses decades before the state’s PFR law even took effect. Um, so you put this in here though from Tennessee and it’s a decision from a federal judge ordering eight men removed from the PFR registry. Well, we do have the actual decision now. It says US District Judge Aleta Trauger ordered the removal of eight men from the PFR registry to end their sentences retroactively. Trauger went on to say the Tennessee’s official Tennessee officials continue to disregard the guarantees of the Constitution, Trauger wrote in her ruling Friday. The state’s federal district courts have repeatedly concluded that the same analysis applies to Tennessee’s own very similar arrangement and policies. Tennessee officials have continued to impose the state’s repeatedly deemed illegal policies on other similar individuals, despite statements. She said, What is going on here?

Larry 26:52
Well, it’s simple. It actually is in the AP story. According to the Associated Press, governments are prohibited from increasing penalties for crimes previously committed under the Ex Post Facto Clause of the United States Constitution. And according to judge Trauger, the violation does not depend on plaintiffs hardships, but rather on the punitive nature of the law. So that’s what’s going on here. The courts in the Sixth Circuit where Tennessee is are recognizing because of a previous precedential decision in 2016, that people are being punished through these laws. And they can’t do that retroactively.

Andy 27:35
And it’s not the mere act of the registering part. It’s all the other things that -I really like the expression- disabilities and restraints. That’s really the problem. It’s not just going and visiting your popo. It’s like getting booked and work in living restrictions and all that other stuff. That’s where it becomes a problem.

Larry 27:51
That is correct. Everybody wants to believe that the mere act of registration is unconstitutional. The mere act of registration is not unconstitutional. But when you inflict punishment and disabilities and restraints, and alter people’s lives, it’s a whole different type of registry that can no longer be considered a registry. It’s a form of probation supervision, if not even more.

Andy 28:12
Right. I also noticed that Judge Trauger cited on in a in an April ruling in which another federal judge in the Middle District of Tennessee ruled that the two men should be removed from the PFR registry. The judge ruled that enforcement of laws made after the crimes committed were unconstitutional. In addition, Judge Trauger mentioned that in the 2016, the 6th US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against the retroactive implementation of a Michigan PFR law. Is this what you mean when you say we need to build a body of case law?

Larry 28:44
Yes, indeed, it is. The body of case law in the Sixth Circuit has been steadily building since the precedential decision that was Does vs. Snyder was released back in 2016. And we’re gonna see it continue to build because, until that is no longer precedential and controlling in the sixth circuit, everyone who has a punitive registry- now listen carefully, everyone who has a punitive registry- has the potential to have a viable legal challenge. If you have a Vermont-type registry, and you’re in the Sixth Circuit, you’re probably not going to fare very well because Vermont doesn’t impose these types of restrictions and restraints on how one lives.

Andy 29:24
Now, Larry, I’ve done my own research on this judge and you know all about people doing their own research these days. She’s a liberal do gooder appointed by Bill Clinton. Let me go through some of her notable decisions. On March 14, of 2014 Judge Trauger issued a preliminary injunction ordering Tennessee to recognize the marriages of three same sex couples consummated out of state. This was well in=advance of the Supreme Court’s decision. She said at this point, all signs indicate in the eyes of the United States Constitution, the plaintiffs marriages will be placed on an equal footing with those of heterosexual couples, and that prescriptions against same sex marriage will soon become a footnote in the annals of American history. Then, on March 23 2017, Judge Trauger issued a preliminary injunction prohibiting Rutherford County from subjecting children to solitary confinement while their cases proceed. On July 3 2018, Judge Trauger struck down a law that would allow Tennessee officials to revoke driver’s licenses of defendants who could not pay their court costs. She sounds very liberal pointy headed Larry. In September of 2019, Judge Trauger warned that a Tennessee law that restricted voter registration had chilling effects on the individuals and organizations that were trying to register new voters in Tennessee. Then judge Trauger struck down the law ruling that there was no basis that a law would benefit Tennesseans. The most recent activism, judge based activism, Larry, occurred on July 9, 2021, when Judge Trauger issued a preliminary injunction blocking a Tennessee law that would require businesses and other entities that allow transgender people to use the public restroom that matches their gender to post a government prescribed warning sign. The injunction blocks enforcement of the law while the lawsuit is pending on the grounds that implementation will cause immediate and irreparable harm. This sure seems to me to be an activist judge that is legislating from the bench, Larry. She’s legislating from the bench, does it not?

Larry 31:25
Well, yes, that is what she’s doing. I mean, she’s legislating from the bench, and particular on the Rutherford County, which one were you talking about where they can’t collect their money?

Andy 31:40
For the driver’s license. Yeah. Go on.

Larry 31:44
She just arbitrarily rewrote the law with total disdain for the people in Tennessee. And she decided that she knew what was best. And this is judicial activism. But let’s talk a little bit about judicial activism. It is indeed that. Unfortunately, there are times when legislating from the bench is the only mechanism to effectuate the constitutional protections guaranteed to all Americans. Do you actually think we would have the Miranda warnings that are given today and have been for decades that are intended to protect us from self-incrimination were it not for the liberal Earl Warren Supreme Court? Do you think that the police would have raised issues and developed these directives of their own volition? Do you think that legislative bodies would have enacted such statutes requiring those warnings to be given? And then, for example, in Gideon versus Wainwright where the constitutional right was established, that you have, if you can’t afford representation, that that you will be provided representation at no cost. Do you think, without Gideon versus Wainwright, do you think without that activism of the Warren Court that we would have the requirement? Do you think that that the state taxpayers of their own volition would have said well, you know, we’ve accused of a crime. We ought to provide you an attorney. That’s the least we could do. The very reason why Gideon versus Wainwright made it to the supreme court was because the state of Florida had a policy that they didn’t provide any person accused of a felony, unless it was a capital felony, with free representation. So wasn’t that judicial activism?

Andy 33:20
It sounds like it. I’ve heard grumblings from the current court that the Miranda rights might have challenges too.

Larry 33:26
Well, they have been weakening the Miranda rights. This more conservative court has weakened them through the years. But everybody’s for judicial activism. The only thing is, when it’s something that achieves their goals, they magically don’t consider it activism. This more conservative court has been very activist. For example, they’ve extinguished the right of labor to collect dues for everyone that they’re obligated to represent in a union shop. And so they’ve done away with dues checkoff. They have decided that corporations are people in 2010. And so, activism happens all the time. It’s just that the type of activism that we’re looking for comes usually from the left. And this judge is an example of that. But my bigger point is most of what she has done would not fare very well with conservatives, unless they’re on the PFR registry. And then they like that activism on this one thing. But on the other activism of the cases that you’ve cited, they wouldn’t be fond of that at all.

Andy 34:35
The state’s position is that the eight individuals in question, named John Doe’s number one through eight in court documents, must remain on the registry to protect public safety and to prevent potential future crimes State Attorneys have argued. However, Trauger wrote that no evidence was provided by the state to show that the plaintiffs posed a threat. Larry, this sounds to me as though this do-good judge is thumbing your nose at the citizens of Tennessee and their Law. If this is not overturned on appeal, does this mean that all PFR’s in Tennessee may have some sort of due process keeping them on the registry?

Larry 35:10
That is a possibility. Let’s, let’s take a look at one of these individuals. John Doe number one pleaded guilty to second degree assault of his girlfriend in Hawaii in 1994. Now we’re coming up on how many years now that that happened? Almost 30 years. According to the court, since completing his probation, he has not been convicted of any other crime. He’s lived a productive law-abiding life. He’s married. Has children, and he owns and operates his own successful business. But because he’s subject to the Tennessee PFR laws, he is required to personally report to the police within 48 hours of changing his address, job, or email address, Facebook account or buying a vehicle among other things. Failure to report may lead to criminal prosecution. And there’s no may to it- you will be prosecuted. While his crime did not even involve a child, under Tennessee law, he’s not allowed to live near children. He cannot attend the events at his children’s school. When one of his children was injured at school, he rushed to see his child and the school staff called the police. He cannot take his children to parks or playgrounds and the law does not allow them to invite friends into the house for fear of breaking the restrictions. This is an example of runaway disabilities and restraints. They just can’t help themselves.

Andy 36:32
It is, though, the public that wants it. They say I’m going to make things tougher for the PFRs. And the people are like, Yeah, let’s make it tough for the PFRs. And then it gets signed into law. This is what we get.

Larry 36:42
This is indeed what we get. But see the thing that people refuse to argue, which is very compelling, if you would actually try it. I mean, who am I to say? But anyway, if you actually try this out, utter the words civil regulatory scheme. When you go to your capital, remind your lawmakers when they’re debating changes, look, folks, this is a civil regulatory scheme. And if you’re going to try to inflict all these things in a civil regulatory scheme, you’re going to run afoul of the Constitution, because it sounds like you’re wanting to inflict punishment. And you just can’t do that in a regulatory scheme. But see, we’re resistant to using that term. Because they say, Larry, if you just understood what registration was all about, you would there’s not anything civil and regulatory about it. That doesn’t matter. It’s upheld as being civil regulatory. So you need to remind them that it’s a civil regulatory scheme. And beyond that, when they say are you own the registry? That’s a difficult one. Because once you say yes, then they say, I don’t think you have the impartiality to be objective. And you say, you answered a question with a question. You say, well, since it is a civil regulatory scheme, do you not generally invite people to come testify before you when you’re looking at regulatory schemes that apply to a particular whatever the situation is? Every regulated entity gets to have input in how the regulations apply to them. So rather than going down that path of saying, Yes, I’m on the registry, and letting them say, well, you’re no longer impartial. You say it’s a regulatory scheme. And everyone who is regulated, whether it be the oil business, whether it be the telecommunications business, whatever it is, they are allowed to participate in the formulation of those regulations. And if they’ve pinned you down and say, Well, I still don’t believe you’re impartial, if they’ve already figured out you’re on the PEFR registry say, Well, you know, I think I’m inclined to agree with you. But I think all these victims that come in here, I’m not sure they can be impartial, either. And you certainly don’t hesitate to hear from them do you?

Andy 38:50
What is this about the ninth plaintiff not living in the state of Tennessee? So they knocked them off the list because they don’t live there and it doesn’t apply to them?

Larry 38:59
The state has filed a motion according to the story to dismiss his claims, because he’s no longer subject to the registry in Tennessee. So therefore, any relief that they would be able to grant him would be a moot question because he’s having to register wherever he is. So it’s no longer relevant. Now he can argue against that motion. He can say that he’s in Tennessee regularly. He has a business interest, he has whatever, and that he doesn’t want that claim dismissed. But the state doesn’t want that to be decided because it’s another hole in their registry that they’d rather not have. So, they do everything they can to extinguish your claim without it being decided.

Andy 39:38
Okay. Let’s see. We did receive a couple of questions from people. I hope we haven’t covered them already. So this is a question from Chuck on the Discord server, who is also listening in chat. I have a question for Larry. That’s you. These winning cases and the PFR is taken off of the registry, is there a possibility if/when Tennessee changes Parts of the registry that are punitive per the courts, that these people would have to go back on the registry? And then another question I can ask if you need me to remind you, does winning a lawsuit prevent you from being forced back on the registry? I guess is that is my question. I’m pretty sure one of the changes to the AWA states if you have ever committed a PFR-type crime, you will be on the registry.

Larry 40:24
I would answer those in turn, is it possible these people that have been ordered to be removed can be put back on? Yes, it is possible. It’s going to be a lot harder for them, because I’m assuming that an injunction is going to issue when this case comes back. There’s going to be an injunction issued when the when the final order- I haven’t gone on Pacer, looked at all that- but there’s an injunction issued. So the injunction will have to be lifted before they can be ordered to register. But if they come up with a new law, and the court cannot order them not to come up with a new law. That’s one of the big misunderstandings. They are certainly free to try to come up with a constitutional regulatory scheme. So if they were to come up with a new law, what they would need to do is to notify them that they believe that they have a duty to register because the law has been amended, and it’s no longer punitive. And they should move the court for an order lifting the injunction. And they would tell the court what has changed. But in terms of everyone else that doesn’t have an injunction, you’re not in nearly as strong a position. They could just simply change the law like they’ve done in Michigan and say that law that was declared unconstitutional, it’s gone. We’ve got a brand-new version now and you have to litigate all over again.

Andy 41:50
I gotcha. All right. And then this one is also related. And this is the Patreon Question of the Week. What sanctions can be placed on Tennessee for not complying with the previously discussed Does ruling in a timely manner? Why hasn’t Tennessee adopted a class action suit? Like Does vs. Snyder and Michigan? That’s way above my paygrade by the way.

Larry 42:15
I can’t answer the second part of why. may be that just the legal resources… I mean, you represent clients not causes. And these people have either one or several clients. It looks like this was a consolidated case of multiple clients challenges that were working their way through the court. And is it possible that there’ll be a class action. That’s exactly what happened in Michigan, but that only happened in Michigan after the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. And that may be what’s going to happen in Tennessee is that Tennessee may finally decide that we’re going to we’re going to take our chances and try to distinguish ourselves. And we’re going to appeal these adverse decisions to the Sixth Circuit and see if we can get a different outcome. And if they get a different outcome… I mean, the general rule of thumb is a panel will not overturn a previous panel decision, unless the case is extremely distinguishable. So what was the last part of that question?

Andy 43:14
The other part was why hasn’t Tennessee adopted a class action suit? But um, says what sanctions can be placed on Tennessee for not complying with a previously discussed Does ruling in a timely manner? So I mean, if the rule says they can’t do it, and then they continue to do it, can’t we put the state in jail for not following the law?

Larry 43:33
That premature. When the decision has been made that something’s unconstitutional, there has to be an order of the court. The decision that if you look at that, usually there’s a memorandum opinion. And that’s followed by an order. And if the order is to remove an individual, they would have to do that, or the state would have to ask for a stay of that order, pending an appeal or for reconsideration. I mean, there’s no automatic sanctions until there’s a violation occurring of a court order. I mean, right now, if you look at that, the one that we just got 10 minutes ago, that’s an opinion, right? It doesn’t say anybody’s ordered to anything. Well actually it did. It did say there was an order in that one…

Andy 44:22
Well, those eight people are required to be removed from the registry, but I’m gonna guess not the 20,000 or whatever it is in Tennessee.

Larry 44:30
Yes. So let’s go down and see. It is ordered the defendants shall not enforce provisions on Tennessee…They have been enjoined. And so, yes. This particular case, if they don’t follow this order, this is not an opinion, this is an order. So if they don’t follow this, what the attorneys would do is they would vote for an order to show cause. And the judge would hold a hearing and say, why have you not removed these people? Show me cause why you have not done that, and sanctions could flow. But they could also file a motion for reconsideration. I mean, there’s all these legal tactics, and I can’t tell you what Tennessee is going to do. But folks, this is going to drag on for some time. I mean, don’t start…

Andy 45:18
If your case is similar to those eight, then you have a good shot of bringing a case and going, I’m just like number two and three over there. Shouldn’t this apply to me too?

Larry 45:27
Could. Or you could try to bring a class action. This is a number of cases, 1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9. Looks like this is this is a whole consolidated… but it says memorandum and preliminary injunction. So there is an order attached to this that they cannot continue to register these. So they will have to comply with that fairly quickly.

Andy 45:49
Okay. Well, that’s cool. Um, I think we’re done with that one, too, sir. I believe.

Larry 45:56
I believe that we might have might be enough time for the seizure.

Andy 46:01
I think we do we have enough time to cover this at least reasonably in depth. We let’s say we have 10 minutes to float around with this one. You shared this video with me and a few other people about an army vet, marine vet, I forget which one it was. He got pulled over for driving too well Larry. He actually, as I recall, he got cited for driving too close to the person in front of them. He was driving like maybe a mile below the speed limit. And when the police pulled him over, we have some clips to play. And but he did all of the things that everyone says when we talk about the different police brutality kind of things where the person doesn’t comply, this and that. This guy was hyper compliant. Hyper, hyper, hyper. He did everything, sir. Yes, sir. Thank you for your service. I know you’re just doing your job. He did all of those things. It seemed he would be doing them right for what ultimately ended up happening. What do you want to set up before we start playing some clips?

Larry 46:57
So I think you’ve set it up pretty well. He was passing through Nevada, and he was met with the Nevada Highway Patrol Interdiction Unit. So let’s play the first clip. This is good stuff, man.

Andy 47:13
All right, here we go.

Police #1 47:16
Hey, this is gonna sound kind of weird. Um, part of my job out here is I do what’s called highway interdiction. I look for people that are smuggling contraband through our state, across the country. Weapons, humans, drugs, illicit currency, things like that? Anything in the vehicle I should be aware of. (Victim: Nothing) Okay. No, no firearms? (Victim: No.) No explosives? (Victim: No.) Okay. Are there any drugs in the vehicle? Cocaine? (Victim: No. I don’t do drugs.) I got to ask all these silly questions, right. Any large amounts of United States currency in the vehicle? (Victim: Yes.) Okay, what’s a large amount of US currency to you? (Victim: Anything over $10,000.) Okay, so there’s over $10,000 in there? (Victim: Yes.) Okay, how much money you got in there? ((Victim: About $100,00.) Okay. (Victim: I don’t trust banks, so.) Fair enough. Fair enough. Um, would you give me permission to search your vehicle today? (Victim: Yes.) That’s okay with you? Okay, perfect.

Andy 48:17
He lets them search. Larry, is that a problem?

Larry 48:23
Well, as we get into these clips, you’ll see that this is a combat veteran who would have probably never had any experience with a cop. Maybe a traffic ticket or something. But in his mind, it’s a wise thing. And people who are in the criminal defense business, I don’t think anyone’s going to tell you that this is a wise decision to allow search. But since I’m not allowed to give that advice, officially, I’ll tell you that my office has never advised anyone to do that. And I don’t think the attorney that we hear from later advises that course of action, but he thought it was the best thing to do. And let’s see where it goes next after he does it.

Andy 49:03
So here’s the second clip.

Police #1 49:05
He consented to a search. Said there’s money up there. We located what he says is $100,000. It’s in a Ziploc sandwich baggie. There’s also- I haven’t gone into it. There’s also a bunch of bank receipts and stuff in there as well to show to show the currency…. Hold on a second.

Police #2 49:25
So why the mistrust for the banking system? (Victim: I just don’t trust them. That’s just my reasoning. It’s my personal thing.) No, it’s just not usual.

Andy 49:39
So what is the problem with carrying, let’s just say whatever, 100 grand, what’s the problem with carrying that kind of cash?

Larry 49:45
Well, I mean, there’s nothing unlawful about it, and through the 12 or 13 minute clip, the cops make it clear that it’s not unlawful. But since he’s doing something that’s not ordinarily done, it’s very rare. It raises questions. And he is not able to talk himself out of this situation that he’s opened the door for by giving them… First thing he said is I’ve got a large amount of cash. Remember, the cause for the for the engagement was if he was following a little too close behind a vehicle, right?

Andy 50:22
Yep, they said he was following one second. You know, you’re supposed to follow two seconds behind the vehicle that’s in front of you. And they said he was following one sec. And that’s why they pulled him over. And I can’t ever think of anybody I’ve ever known in all of my million years of living that has been pulled over from following too close, Larry.

Larry 50:39
Well, I have but anyway, he should have confined the stop to the reason for the cause. But he was being a good patriotic American. He always believed the cops are overworked, understaffed, and that they just are so busy with real crime that they would never have this type of engagement. So, now he’s got himself in a position where they’ve got 10s of 1000s of dollars. And it’s not unlawful to have it, but it’s very unusual. So now he’s got more and more questions coming at him that he would not have had, had he not opened the door, but keep going.

Andy 51:16
Well, this is just like the final one that does like the close out of it. So here we go with that.

Victim 51:22
I find it even more so concerning that, if this could happen to me as a combat veteran who served overseas, in Iraq and Afghanistan, this could happen to anybody.

Andy 51:43
A clip that I didn’t capture was the dog alert one and this is something that we should cover though, is that they took the money and they put it in the bag and they went out like in the field nearby the truck. And they said I think it was like 40 yards away or whatever. And the drug dog goes, yeah, there’s totally some drugs on this money. And I know that I’ve heard this throughout my life that all US currency, like particularly 20s, they have trace amounts of cocaine. So if you put 100,000 bucks in a bag, you’ve got some appreciable amount of cocaine, and the dogs be like, yep, cocaine money, right?

Larry 52:17
That’s exactly right. That came up in the video. But here’s a guy by all accounts, who did everything right. He had bank receipts, showing that the money had been banked. He was traveling across country. They engage him in a dubious stop. They recognize he’s a veteran and a good citizen. I mean, it’s a very cordial exchange. He has such a high level of comfort with the officer. And with ultimately the supervisor. The part we didn’t tell is they called the drug enforcement, DEA, and they weren’t able to come, but that’s who ultimately got the money. After the dog alerted, they seized the money. He had no money, because all of his money is there. And he says I don’t have enough fuel to get across the country. And they said, Well, too bad, so sad. He said, I don’t have money for my family. And they said too bad, so sad. I’m embellishing it a little bit. But that’s essentially what they told him. And he says, all I get is a receipt? And they said yes. And then they told him to call the DEA. And he did that to no avail. And he ended up finding this liberal do-good outfit to file a lawsuit on his behalf. And apparently, they do these actions to try to get people their money back. I don’t know if they get a portion of it. But the lawsuit resulted in the DEA agreeing to release his money. But he would never have believed in United States of America where he went and had bullets fired at him, if we liberal do gooders had told him that we’ve got these runaway seizure statutes where the government can take your money without even so much as a criminal charge, much less a conviction. If we had told him that he would roll his eyes, he would have rolled his eyes, and he would have been astounded. He would have said no way. That can’t happen in my country. And now that his eyes are opened, I hope he will do what most don’t do. Rather than saying this as an isolated incident over a renegade cop, which it isn’t. He’s on an interdiction team that Nevada has. And there are multiple lawsuits being filed regarding these seizures. Hopefully, he will try to advocate for some systemic change. And this is what we talk about when we talk about the police being reduced funding. When they throw that cliche out of defund the police. This is an example of where funding is coming to the police. They get a portion of the seizure. A significant portion of it. So here’s law enforcement that has a job that’s funded by their success rate. And they go out and take assets away from people without even so much as an arrest, let alone a conviction. So I hope he will do what he should do, which is become an advocate for change. Getting his money back is the first step. But don’t stop there.

Andy 55:23
So we’ve covered stories even like this before, Larry, where you recommend that people stand up to the police. And this is what you’re describing for this guy to do as well. You have to have some massive cojones to stand up to the police. And they go, Well, you stopped me for following too close. Can you just hand me the citation for that? And no, you can’t search my car and peace out, mic drop, flip them the bird and get in your car drive away?

Larry 55:50
I wouldn’t advise doing that the way you describe. What you would try to tell the officer- and it may not go well for you, I cannot predict what he would have done- But you would tell the officer I believe I’m being detained for a traffic infraction. Can we get on with the traffic infraction? And well, I’m just wanting to search your car? No, I don’t think you’ve articulated any probable cause for searching my car. This was a traffic stop, right? And you’ve got to focus back to what the reason for the engagement is. And the traffic stop, You can say, let’s deal with traffic stop. I’ve got a time schedule to meet and I need to get on my way. Well, can you search? No, I’m not able to do that. Do you have anything to hide? No. I don’t have anything to hide. I’m in a rush. I need to be on my way. And you’ve got to stay focused on that message. I can’t tell you what they would have done. They might have gotten belligerent, they may have said, well, we’re going to have the dogs take a sniff. Would they have found the baggy? I don’t know that either. I don’t know how that would have played out, but when you have an illegal search, you make it legal by giving your permission. In the worst case, if they had gone ahead with him protesting and saying no, you would clearly have had an illegal search. Right now, that was that was an legal search. He gave consent. You heard him do it right? Was he threatened with anything? (Andy: No. He wasn’t being detained either.) That was a voluntary and intelligent decision that he made. So had he been charged with something, say for example, if that was actually dirty money, and they could dig up evidence that he had engaged in criminality, he just shot us in the foot in terms of trying to suppress that search. Because with acquiescence to the search, our motion to suppress would’ve gone right down the crapper.

Andy 57:54
I have two things. The crapper. Is that a technical term? And B is the transcription person going to know what acquiesces is?

Larry 58:01
Oh, Otter will know that.

Andy 58:05
Alright, um, I still, Larry, to be able to push back on them when they ask that question and have the gumption to say, the hutzpah I think is the best word, to say, No, I don’t consent to that. And you force them to be in a position that they are detaining you. That then escalates things up. Like you’re forcing their hand to, I guess you’re given them the game back because they’re already giving it to you and you give it back and force their hand and then they let you go. Probably?

Larry 58:35
I don’t know, but I would think that the odds are his supervising officer would have probably said, we don’t have enough here to work with. But there’s no guarantee of that. But he didn’t fare very well with his strategy that he did.

Andy 58:51
He definitely did not. But I mean, I mean, ultimately, after I don’t know how many years it was, but it took him a while to get the money back. But he got some $86,000 bucks if I recall.

Larry 59:00
And I’m suspecting that law firm that helped him gets some. I mean, they couldn’t operate their business without getting a part of it. So they probably… that’s how we paid his legal fees from that money.

Andy 59:11
Sure. All right, man. Let us go over to we are going to do who’s that speaker and again, Larry, you gave too many hints and tips about it. But last week, I played this.

Senator Howard Henry Baker, Jr.
What did the President know? And when did he know it?

And the answer to that one is Senator Howard Henry Baker, Jr. The leading Republican on the committee investigating the Watergate scandal surrounding President Nixon asked the seminal question at the hearings. What did the President know? And when did he know it? So we did have a winner. And this is Al in Maryland. And he wrote, he is the first one to write in but he does not believe this. Now this was a more worthy adversary, Larry. Although I agree that Larry may have given too much of a hint, as usual. Since I don’t listen the podcast until several days later, I’m sure someone told you by now that was Reagan’s Dick Cheney, the distinguished senator from Tennessee, Howard Baker, doing some grandstanding and political positioning as it was becoming obvious Nixon was going down during Watergate. Nice pic. Everyone’s heard the quote, repurposed a million times, but probably doesn’t remember who said it. If Trump is ever held to account for January 6, this quote will be resurrected yet again. A boy can dream. Thanks Al, in Maryland. Appreciate it. Oh, any comments before we move on?

Larry 1:00:35
I was nearing 100 when that happened. And my recollection is that we just didn’t have enough evidence to know that Nixon was going down. The Smoking Gun hadn’t come out yet. That had not been discovered. So I’m not sure that we knew Nixon was going down when this quote was made. But I mean, he could be right. But I don’t think that that was clear at that point. But anyway, we have another great one for tonight.

Andy 1:01:02
Okay, and no clues, but I bet you nobody gets this one. You’re gonna have to dig for this one.

Who’s that Speaker?
I say segregation now. Segregation tomorra’ (tomorrow). And segregation forever.

Now, how do you spell tomorra’ (tomorrow with an accent)? That’s my question. Tomorra’. Segregation now. segregation tomorra’. segregation forever. There you go. That is that. And that is pretty much wrapping up the show Larry. If there’s anything else, I guess we could ask if you have some sort of audible clip that you would like us to play to contribute. Feel free, you can email Use something about Who’s that Speaker submission, something like that. And then I can filter through my email and find them. Anything else before we shut things down?

Larry 1:01:48
Absolutely. And we’re going to be building our FYP Education website in the coming weeks. And we may end up needing some help building that because of our very busy schedules on mine and your side. So if there’s anybody out there who’s a website master that knows how to make it pretty again, how would you contact us?

Andy 1:02:07
Use the email address You know what else I forgot? Like I did find this. So check this out if you’re looking at the screen. See? Like and subscribe over on the YouTube side. *click* click* *click* I got buttons that click. Right. All right. So Well, very good. Thank you everyone for joining. We had a nice crowd there on Discord. And if you want to find all the show notes and everything, all links to everything is over at You can leave voicemail at 747-227-4477. Email at And of course the best way to support the program and lets you get into the discord server so you can listen to the program live is And I think that about does it Larry. I appreciate all the analysis and everything that you did this evening. You did a fantastic job.

Pres. Roosevelt from MacAurther Movie
I agree with you entirely. That is why I am here.

Andy 1:03:12
Thank you, Larry. I really appreciate it. I hope you have a great night and good night.

Larry 1:03:17

You’ve been listening to FYP.

Transcript of RM204: Every Wrong Is Not A Constitutional Violation

Listen to RM204: Every Wrong Is Not A Constitutional Violation
Andy 00:00
This episode of registry matters is brought to you by our patrons. Thank you for your continued loyalty and support.

Andy 00:08
Recording live from FYP studios West and an igloo in the northeast, transmitted across the internet. This is episode 204 of registry matters. Happy Saturday night, Larry, is it that it’s freezing cold where I am. I hope it’s called where you are just so you can empathize.

Larry 00:24
It is not cold here that was 60 degrees today.

Andy 00:28
Okay, it’s 60 below here. That’s all I’m saying. Is it 60? Below?

Larry 00:32
Well, that’s good for the Michigan consolidated gas company or whichever gas company provides your service and that equal urine.

Andy 00:41
That is true. Tell me sir, do you have anything snarky to talk about? Before we go into it? Are we gonna dive right into it?

Larry 00:48
We’re gonna dive right into it. We have a lot of stuff on this agenda. We’ve got to do it in 26 minutes.

Andy 00:53
26 study. Now go.

Larry 00:56
Okay, let’s wrap it up.

Andy 00:58
Yep, we’re done. So what do we got going on tonight, sir?

Larry 01:05
We have two amazing cases, we’re going to be talking about one from Iowa and one from Connecticut. We’ve been putting off for two or three episodes. We have some questions that have been submitted to us. And we’ll do the best we can with those questions. But I’m not completely clear on the last one.

Andy 01:23
Very well. Yeah. I mean, when someone just posted on the website, if they don’t give us a lot of detail like about I mean, they did give us the recent case anyway, we’ll get to it. But if you don’t give us more information about it, we got to do what we got to do. But starting off with things, this first question came over discord this pi two weeks or three weeks ago, there’s a guy in there that has moved to Georgia. And it got framed that the the website mixes what’s required by statute with that what not required by statute, how does one comply with what’s in the statute while refusing to comply with what’s not in statute? So if the sheriff asks for something, Larry, how do they how do you like? politely say no, can they mix the two and a notice, like the above? So the person just called the sheriff’s department for Paulding County, Georgia, which I think that’s over by Six Flags there? It’s over kind of on i 22, the west side?

Larry 02:18
I don’t believe so. I believe it’s actually on the north side of Atlanta. But go ahead.

Andy 02:21
Oh, well shows you what I know. Alright, here’s the breakdown on what I need something showing my original charges, and then a $25 Cash fee, and internet identifiers. I’m confused. Like, what is he supposed to bring almost like a utility bill that says where he lives. So he has to bring something showing as original charges? Like, can’t they just look that up?

Larry 02:44
Well, he’s gonna He’s both at Georgia. So he has a non Georgia conviction. So they don’t have that red shirt.

Andy 02:52
I mean, I guess he just brings the court docket from where he comes from. He’s coming from Florida.

Larry 03:00
Well, I’ve not heard of them asking for that until very recently, my state now that we have an out of state translation process for work here. But but in Georgia, you’re going to have to register, they have the catch all language that we don’t have. So I don’t know what that would do in terms of unless there is a provision to not have to register in Georgia. And I would seriously doubt the Paulding County sheriff is trying to find a way that the person doesn’t have to register. That would be very surprising to me when you

Andy 03:32
totally i. So he’s bringing some sort of court document from his original so he can they can figure out how to translate it.

Larry 03:39
Well, but I didn’t know the sheriffs in Georgia do that. I didn’t think that was one of the responsibilities. If you come to Georgia, I’m just thinking pretty much there’s a catch all that you have to register and Georgia if you have to register anywhere.

Andy 03:52
So that that’d be for something of because there’s the three or four different windows that he might apply to, like 403. I think

Larry 04:00
that’s a good point. So you don’t even need me here. I keep telling you that he would have more progressive restrictions, depending on how recent his event occurred. So that would be one of the reasons they would want that those documents to look at what he did when he did it.

Andy 04:17
And then what about the $25 cash fee? I mean, he was supposed to bring in there and 25

Larry 04:24
I’m not I’m not sure about that. $25 Cash fee. But I think internet identifiers. I’m not registered in Georgia. But don’t ask for those in Georgia. Don’t ask your user. They don’t

Andy 04:38
listen, when you and I first met in a hotel, not a hotel in a hotel meeting room. There was an individual there named Terry and I and I lose drawing a blank on his last name. It is my understanding that that individual fought Georgia and won and that’s what got rid of the internet identifiers. I can’t verify this. But that is what I believe to be true. And so they have taken that away, they have never asked me for a single online account of any sort?

Larry 05:08
Well, his question is, how do you politely tell them and that is very tricky and very cautious because you don’t want to set yourself up for them targeting you to try to catch you in non compliance with something petty. But on the other hand, you don’t want to give them information that could come back to haunt you, that’s not required by law. It’s almost a catch 22, isn’t.

Andy 05:35
It totally it is. I mean, you’re very much damned, if you don’t, if you go in there and be hostile to them, then I believe like your terms would be, they’re going to enhance your super, he’s not on supervision, mind you, but they’re going to enhance their monitoring, so to speak. But if any of you just comply, maybe you’re setting yourself up to be giving them more than what is required.

Larry 05:55
What which may come back to haunt you later, depending on what you give them. That’s our issue. With Cobb County, they’re asking for work schedules. And your schedule is not required by Georgia statute. Cobb County is a suburban Atlanta County for our global audience that doesn’t, it doesn’t relate to that immediately. And if you give them that work schedule, then it begs them to go out and check and see if you’re there. And then if you’re not there, they say you lied to them. And then they intimidate you and say, Well, we’re gonna, we’re gonna have to violate you file registry violation for not giving us truthful information. So I’m thinking people probably should not give those work schedules unless they’re static and don’t change. But people are giving them because the sheriff with a gun is telling them, I want it.

Andy 06:45
Say this is not very different from the homeless individual that we spoke about three or four episodes ago, who has to text in where he’s staying that night, because he’s homeless, when he gets home from work or whatever. Like, that’s not required either.

Larry 07:00
That is absolutely not required. And we’re actually we being nagarsol, we’re actually looking into that it’s going to take all these trains take some time to run. And people want instantaneous problem solving. And we our first strategy is to try to figure out if there’s more than one person in Barrow County that’s having to do that, because we would like not to out a particular individual, because that’s who they’re going to turn their retaliatory attention to. But it may be that there’s only one. So I’ve encouraged that person not to pretend they’re homeless, if they’re not homeless, because they will definitely prosecute you for that. declaring yourself to be homeless and not being homeless. That’s, that’s not an accurate representation of of your status, is it?

Andy 07:49
No, could you give me something more of a legal definition of homeless is this like me if you’re couchsurfing? That is that is that homeless are not homeless?

Larry 07:58
Well, I don’t, I don’t think homeless to me, if you have a home, if you have a structure, I don’t think you’re homeless. But that structure, if you’re couchsurfing may change continuously, you may be allowed five nights, well, then you’ve got to constantly keep the department, the sheriff, or the law enforcement in Georgia informed. They take the position that if you don’t have a fixed residence, that you’re going to be at permanently you have to report in every week. My personal position is that if you have a temporary place that lasts more than a week, you shouldn’t have to report every week because you’re in a fixed location. We don’t know the answer that question because it hasn’t been litigated. In a case. If a person says Well, I don’t, I don’t own that place. I don’t rent it. I don’t have a written agreement. But my friend, Jeff is letting me stay there. And I don’t know how long he’s gonna let me stay, he may let me stay for three months. Well, to me if you’re fixed at that time, you shouldn’t have to go in and more frequently than anyone else. That’s at a fixed location, because all your locations can be unstable, depending on if your wife kicks job puts the suitcase outside, your girlfriend does all these things, if the landlord finds out tells you to vacate, which they’re prone to do, there’s all these kinds of things that can change your status. But if you are at a fixed location, that’s my personal opinion. But there’s so many things we don’t know the answer to, because no one has been faced with that and been prosecuted. And we don’t have any appellate guidance from the Georgia Supreme Court or Georgia corps of appeals in terms of what is homeless. They try to they try to define it in the statute, but sometimes they don’t do a very good job.

Andy 09:39
I would like to get you on the record. Can you walk in there? Good. I’m on camera right now and you you hold up your two middle fingers need go FYP I’m not giving you the original churches, the cash money or the internet identifiers and walk out and mic drop on the way up.

Larry 09:54
I certainly would not encourage that approach.

Andy 09:59
All right. How do you how do you? How do you stand your ground without being a jerk? And cover your bases at the same time? Like, is there like secret legal language that you can say to the sheriff of No?

Larry 10:15
Well, I would do my best to be polite as all possible. But say, I’m not familiar with that section of the statute. Can you show me what it is? I’m required to do? So that I’m absolutely clear. And I’m, I’m intending to fully comply. And of course, if it’s not there, they won’t be able to show it to you. But you set it politely rather than giving them the middle finger. And, you know, it would even be great if you held a copy of the statute nearby. And I’ve studied this thing, and I’m not sure what the board that said, and I certainly want to comply, but can you point that out to me? And

Andy 10:48
I can imagine I’m saying something that I’m sorry, you can’t find a copy? I brought one with

Larry 10:53
me. That’s precisely what I would do.

Andy 10:57
I pictured that doesn’t go over well, either.

Larry 11:00
Well, it would not go over well, and you’ve made the point that he’s not on supervision. But they treat it kind of like supervision, even though it’s shot. They do those checks on you. And they’re looking for an I gotcha moment. So I remember I just had this conversation about two weeks ago with Paul Dubin, the attorney from Chapel Hill. And I told him, I said, Well, you know, you can because he was saying, Just tell them, tell them the take and stuff. And I said, You can’t do that. I said, here’s what happened if you didn’t do that, and I started naming the things he said there was, those things are illegal. I said, Paul, your defense attorney, for for all people used to understand that law enforcement does a lot of illegal things, just because something is illegal doesn’t stop them from doing it, I said, what they would do, if you declare yourself homeless, and don’t leave your homeless, let me tell you what they will do. They will go infinite, find out who owns the property, if it’s public or private, they will contact the entity or the individual. And they will ask them to get get to give them an order to remove you, they’ll say that you’re trespassing. And then we’ll talk to property owner to agree with them. And then we’ll come back and say, you’ve now been given an a no trespassing order. That’s one thing they will do. If you have a vehicle, they will surreptitiously put a tracking device on your vehicle. Now, I’m not saying that that county will do it. I don’t know the reputation of Barrow County what they will do. But I can tell you that law enforcement does that all the time. And pulses that say like when I saw, of course, it’s a really good court ruled

Andy 12:32
that 112 1010 or something that they couldn’t do it,

Larry 12:36
but they don’t use it as they don’t use it in the complaint, what they will do is they will track you to your girlfriend’s house that you’re going to every night claiming to be homeless, and they will set up surveillance at the neighbor’s house, they’ll ask the neighbor, you know, we’d like to, we’d like to set a camera up on your property, and the neighbor could give permission for that. And then they will track you with that vehicle coming to that location every night for a requisite number of nights that you should have declared that residents. And then they will go down, and they’ll get a warrant. And they will say on information and belief that they found that you weren’t staying at the place that you identify that you were spending the night at when you’re homeless. That’s what they will do. They will never disclose exactly where they found you out. They will just say that they all information they they have that you’re not there at that location. And they’ll say that they’ve done. They’ve done visual surveillance, and you’re not there. They will put say that in the affidavit for the restaurant, they won’t say and we’d surreptitiously put a tracking device on their car. Why would they do that?

Andy 13:39
I gotcha. I gotcha. I think we should probably move on from this one. Is there anything else

Larry 13:46
I empathize with with him? I don’t know that counties reputation all that? Well. Generally, those suburban counties tend to be more conservative, they tend to be more affluent, and they tend to have more resources. So therefore, if you irritate them, they just may well turn those resources on you.

Andy 14:10
Well, this one comes in from the YouTubes and says, If from freedom is right asks, Why in the US, does the sentence matter from a plea to a trial judgment is basically poking at you learn? It should not matter. As citizens, we are guaranteed a trial. So why does the punishment increase if we express that Right? because it saves time or cost taxpayers more money? Bullshit. In other words, the US sucks. Is that what you said Larry?

Larry 14:41
I don’t recall ever saying us luck. Matter of fact, I think I have said over and over what a great country we have and how proud I am to try to be a part of making it even better. But in terms of the trial one reason why you get a tougher sentence is because with a plea you can contain the damage by limiting the judges discretion. We have a case in Brunswick, Georgia in Collin County right now, where the judges discretion is very limited because by statute, they must impose at least on two of those guys, a life sentence, the only discretion the judge has as life without parole or life with parole. When you do a plea agreement, there can be charges that are dropped as a part of the negotiations, which would enlarge the exposure of the judge. Because if you take out three counts, you’ve just extinguish some discretion of the judge. Would you agree with me on that? Yeah, I think so. Okay, so you’ve you’ve you’ve limited the exposure, depending on how far a plea agreement goes, you may have a sentencing agreement that even would contain the judges discretion further, so the judge may have 15 years of discretion, if he worked, backs you out of the charges that you pled, but the sentencing agreement may say that as a part of the plea agreement, that can be no more than five years of incarceration imposed. So that’s one of the reasons why why you get you have not restricted the judicial discretion. When you go to trial. It’s open season for sentencing. So does that make sense to you, you play agree, but usually limits the discretion of the court. Without a plea agreement, the court has unlimited discretion up to the maximum of each count.

Andy 16:25
Does seem though, Larry, that there is almost like a tax or a penalty for taking a trial to

Larry 16:32
we’re going to, we’re going to get to that point. But okay, this is the first part of the answer is that’s the reason why you get more time because you have no limitations on the court, except the maximum penalties prescribed by law. The other reason these are human factors, and folks try to remember I don’t make the rules for life. I’m just simply the passer that passes these rules on to you. Judges are human. And so we’re prosecutors. So we’re witnesses and victims. And there’s a common belief that if you force the court to go to trial, when there’s overwhelming evidence against you, and you tie up the court’s time, that somebody is going to have to pay a little something for that. Now, most judges will deny that they’ll say they don’t do they won’t call records that I was extra harsh because the person went to trial. But that’s a reality of the situation. Now, if you want to pretend that’s not a reality, that’s okay. Because I’m just the messenger here. But of the all the trials I’ve seen very seldom, occasionally, but more likely than not, the sentence would have been better to have been resolved and imposed by a plea agreement. There are exceptions, our former Secretary of the Department of Taxation and revenue for the whole state, just went to trial on embezzlement, not from the state, but from our private client. She was convicted at that trial. And she was sentenced to probation, which was a very tough decision for the judge to make having to sit through days of horrible testimony. And all the public vengeance was about this, this person needs to go to prison. But those are rare situations, more likely than not, you’re going to get a harsher sentence if you go to trial, because the theory is you have not recognized the error of your way. You’re not feeling remorseful. And perhaps a harsher sentence will give you the opportunity to do some introspection and reflection and maybe perhaps you’ll feel remorseful. That’s what the attitudes are. Those are not my attitudes. Those are what developed over 240 years of our existence.

Andy 18:41
Do you think that that’s an accurate perception?

Larry 18:47
I think in some cases, if a person goes to trial, if they’re innocent, of course, they’re in denial. But if the evidence is overwhelming, that’s why we have the Alford plea. Because sometimes, the fact is, the evidence will convict you even though you didn’t do it. So I don’t make those rules either. Okay.

Andy 19:12
Yeah, I can’t, I can see I hadn’t really considered your part about hadn’t preemptively I guess you’re signaling to the court that you are taking some level of responsibility for your actions by taking a play.

Larry 19:25
You absolutely are. And then the federal system is written into the sentencing guidelines, which passed in the Reagan administration was one of their cherished achievements. There is actually that in the sentencing guidelines, there are enhancements for going to trial. It’s written in the statute on the federal side. It’s not just a practice it has it is written because you are not accepting responsibility.

Andy 19:52
Interesting. All right. Then I think we are ready to move over to the third question. This came in on the website Someone posted a comment on registry matters SEO. Is anyone considering illegal ex post facto applications? recent case of John Doe vs. can’t remove plaintiffs from registry in Tennessee through due process and ex post facto because Feds ruled registry punitive without review. Now, I just put this in there this afternoon, haven’t had a whole lot of time to try and go track down any further details. Do you have an off the cuff kind of response to what this is?

Larry 20:30
I’m not sure of the John Doe versus can’t case but Tennessee is within the Sixth Circuit. And all the stuff that’s happening, Tennessee is flowing from the DOS versus Snyder decisions out of the Sixth Circuit out of Michigan. So I’m suspecting that’s what he’s talking about. But that’s exactly what they’re alleging is that these registries not unconstitutional, and please save your hate mail. It depends on what you require of the registrant the mere act of registering is not unconstitutional. We register voters we register cool schoolchildren, we register young men for the draft. And they don’t have an option because I know people are gonna say, Well, Harry, you just don’t take them to their stand. People voluntarily registered to vote, but no, not for the draft. You don’t you’re required to do it as a federal statute carries a prison, maximum prison sentence of five years if you don’t do it, and you lose your financial aid for college and a number of other benefits, which I don’t think I can recite all. But it’s a serious better not to register for the draft. But no one has ever argued that the draft registration process is punitive. Because it isn’t. And you could have the same PFR registry that would not be punitive. So merely registering people to stop was period. In the case of Michigan, they just couldn’t stop adding on the case of Tennessee, I think we’ve gone through it on an episode, they just couldn’t stop adding on and adding on to that’s the case around the country. But you could have a very benign registry, that would be very constitutional. But the Xbox facto is where most of these are being born. Because they’re imposing probationary type conditions, and disabilities and restraints. They’re way beyond what can be considered a registry.

Andy 22:23
If we all were to have the registry that existed in Alaska in whatever it was 2003 2001 I forget the date, Larry.

Larry 22:30
Yes. 2010.

Andy 22:32
I struggle to think that other than people bitching about they’re going to visit the popo, whatever it is over here. I don’t know that anybody would really complain that much. Yes, some people would complain, yes, you shouldn’t have to do it, blah, blah, blah. But you wouldn’t have living restrictions, you wouldn’t have work restrictions. At the time, there wasn’t much internet. So at least that wasn’t much of a thing. But now it is. So that wouldn’t be much of an issue. You wouldn’t have people living under bridges. If that were the registry, you wouldn’t have people living under bridges and tent cities that you do in

Larry 23:00
Florida. Well, in fact, and Alaska 2000. At that era, you did not have to go to the popo you mailed in a form. Okay, so that was even more gooder? Well, that’s how they found it constitutional. Because there was very little require.

Andy 23:15
And you don’t have to go get booked and fingerprinted and frist and put in lockup and in a holding cell for a period of time. You just mail in a form like, wow, that doesn’t sound so bad.

Larry 23:27
Well, there are only a few registries left like that anymore. And the authorities, the lawmakers will continue to pile on. And there will continue to be challenges. But folks, the magic silver bullet you’re looking for isn’t coming, because the mere act of registering is not unconstitutional. So therefore, you can peel the registry back once there’s been an adverse court ruling. And it is constitutional. Only the narrow circumstances like in Maryland, or they have that constitutional provision in the state constitution that says that there cannot be any disadvantages imposed. Maryland would have a real hard time because any type of registry would be a disadvantage, ex post facto.

Andy 24:13
But any, any idea how that ended up in their constitution versus the other 73 states? However many that is.

Larry 24:21
Thank you. 61. but who’s counting? Okay, right. But anyway, they I don’t know how that ended in their constitution, but it has a great provision that has saved them because they would have gone back and tried after those cases that went adverse to them, they would have gone back and tried to make a more benign registry, which is what the other states typically do. They don’t generally throw up their hands and say, well, we give up I mean, we we covered an article about two weeks ago or last week from Tennessee. I think it’s two episodes back where we read verbatim from the quotes from the legislators saying that they weren’t gonna get rid of the registry.

Andy 25:02
There, we got to figure out how to pigeonhole it in with what the Ninth Circuit seventh sent which circuit? Layer six circuit? Six, six. Okay. Yes, yes, they were, they were going to try to figure out how to make it fit within those guidelines. And they were going to roll it back to the point that they were not forced to roll it back further.

Larry 25:17
That is correct. And that’s what they’re typically going to do. Folks, we will stop having registries when the public stops supporting them. That’s, that’s really the end of it. The silver bullet that you’re looking for in legal cases, is not coming. Now we might get a silver bullet in terms of the internet dissemination, because that is something that really damages the individual, particularly when they physical address, the vigilantism and the disenfranchised, disenfranchisement, from from employment and from Reza, I mean that that’s a horrible thing that you couldn’t really have thoroughly evaluated and oh three, when they did the Connecticut Department of Public Safety versus doe. And the Connecticut court had said it was unconstitutional. But of course, the Ag of Connecticut took it to the US Supreme Court, US supreme court said no, it’s merely just a dissemination of already existing information. Let’s say all that has changed since since that case, because it’s no longer just a dissemination of existing information about the conviction. Now, it’s all the stuff that was not a part of the conviction that’s being disseminated. So it’s ripe for brand new litigation, because that case law is can be distinguished from what exists today. Gotcha.

Andy 26:36
Are you a first time listener of registry matters? Well, then make us a part of your daily routine and subscribe today. Just search for registry matters through your favorite podcast app, hit the subscribe button and you’re off to the races. You can now enjoy hours of sarcasm and snark from Andy and Larry on a weekly basis. Oh, and there’s some excellent information thrown in there too. Subscribing also encourages others of you people to get on the bandwagon and become regular registry matters, listeners. So what are you waiting for? Subscribe to register matters right now. Help us keep fighting and continue to say F why.

Andy 27:24
Okay, let’s move over here. Larry, I put this in there. And I asked you the question straight up, like, what’s the grand jury indictment, Georgia case? Like we don’t, you didn’t give me any information as to what this is about. So what is this about?

Larry 27:36
I just said I’m pretty sure we could drop it because I thought that Georgia case might get out of the way it might have been worthy of discussing the conviction and in Greene County, and Brunswick with the with the Father, the Son and the neighbor. But that was very complicated indictment, and I didn’t really completely understand it myself. They had like nine counts on each one of them and they got convicted of almost all counts.

Andy 28:01
Okay, so may might be something that we revisit at a later date. could very well be cool. All right. Well, then we are going to come over here to the e o work case that you are very excited about for some strange reason. And I did notice some chatter about it on the narwhal affiliate list. It was just decided by the Iowa Supreme Court this week. The case number is two zero dash 0375 and the name is Travis bomb. gars Kyle Krause, Anthony Gomez, James Hall, Raymond, LaBelle, Shane millet and Kelly sand versus the state of Iowa. Did all these people Larry did they all have some big power? They met at the local Starbucks, and they filed a lawsuit against the state of Iowa.

Larry 28:45
No, that’s not exactly how it happened. There were several inmates who had filed post conviction petition for post conviction relief. And their cases were ultimately consolidated for purposes of appeal. And this is not all that uncommon, and it’s done for judicial economy.

Andy 29:04
Okay, well, here even though I’m in an igloo, it’s I did read all 45 pages later, which I’m sure surprises you. I note that I noted that the essence of the case is that several male inmates serving time for sex related offenses are challenging what they believe to be a catch 22 in Iowa’s prison system. But before we get to that, I noticed the state challenged almost everything. They challenged the venue, they asserted that the case was not right for decision. And the most appalling thing is that they challenged the appointment of counsel to represent the men, they prevailed on that particular challenge. So the men were left without representation. I swear I swear I thought that you were entitled to have some sort of court appointed attorney represent you. But why did they fight so hard?

Larry 29:49
But you are entitled to representation where you’re facing loss of your liberty, but they’re already convicted. They’re, they’re trying to shorten their loss of liberty. But why does the state fight so hard? It’s really easy. easy and simple to understand. If you can prevent a trial, you cannot lose. So therefore, the state will use every tactic. Sometimes they’ll border in the gray area, but they’ll use every tactic that they can conceive of to prevent the issue from being determined on the merits, as alleged in the complaint. So they put forth those challenges about venue. I mean, the whole way, by the way, the wrong jurisdiction here. I mean, this should have been filed, where they were convicted, because that’s normally the way I think, post conviction by fluid Iowa. And then they asserted it was not right, because they said, Gee, these men have not proven that that they that they’re being held merely because they haven’t completed treatment. They have not shown that they’re otherwise eligible. So therefore, it’s not right. They have deaf become eligible for release in all other aspects before they can say that this is why they are holding up. And of course, they wouldn’t want him to have counsel, because a counsel is going to be better trained in presenting the arguments than a pro se litigants going to be so all it makes sense. You’re trying to delay. It works the same way. If you’re charged with a crime, I have all these people, they just say, Larry, I can’t take this anymore. This has been pending for a year and a half. And I said, Well, you’re still free, right? Well, yeah. But but it’s just stressing me out. I said, but you’re still free, right? And if you if they never can get this case to court, you will never be convicted. But I just can’t take it anymore. I said, Well, what seems like

Andy 31:34
the time, the longer the time goes on, the better off it is that would that that would indicate to me that would send you a signal that they have less than stellar evidence against you, or they’re waiting for something to develop?

Larry 31:46
Well, it could be that you’re you’ve delayed it, it could be a combination of delays, but the delay often works to your benefit. Because if you if you have a case that’s going to go to trial, or you’re contemplate going to trial, things can happen that makes those witnesses unavailable. I mean, people,

Andy 32:06
people, this sounds like a mafia movie right now, man,

Larry 32:09
people do move. I mean, this is a vast country, and people do relocate from state to state, I mean, it surprises you, but they do. People are in points of their life, they might be in their armed forces, and they may be deployed. There’s just all these kind of things that are critical witnesses sent to a combat zone. And they have to solve the case for the terms of deployment, that witness may come back and the other one may be in college in Honolulu by them. And they can’t put on their case. So that enhances your negotiating power because the time is running. And the evidence is getting older and older, that people may be getting less and less anxious about having you go to prison. Can we all good things. It can only get better for you the longer case runs, but two people just can’t stand it and they just say I just can’t. So what we can call it the game. So you want to go ahead, change your play, we can do that. So

Andy 33:06
well, let’s get to let’s get to the underlying claims made by the men to be considered meaningfully for parole. These inmates needed to have completed their PFR treatment program or s OTP. But because of limits on resources, this treatment has tended to be available only as the inmate nears his tentative discharge date. The inmates asserted among other things, that this circumstance violates their constitutional right to due process. I don’t understand. To me this case seems eerily similar to the case from Illinois, which was won by Adele Nicholas, it should have been a slam dunk, Larry. Yes.

Larry 33:41
No, they should. It shouldn’t have been there’s a significant difference and I would Illinois in the process. The the challenge in Illinois was successful because the state has a period of mandatory supervised release, which commences only after you conclude a person’s incarceration. And the Illinois prisoner review board sets conditions for that period of MSR mandatory supervised release, which includes having approved housing, Iowa has a system of meritorious parole, which permits an early release from one’s period of incarceration upon successful completion of the required programming. And therein lies the problem. The required programming of treatment cannot be completed due to lack of, of slots, which is a funding issue. The challengers were not successful, I carry their burden of proof that there was deliberate effort to keep them in prison. They just did. They didn’t have evidence to show that

Andy 34:40
it’s just that simple. They did not carry their burden of proof. So okay, to deny them parole, you know that the state is deliberately Larry, you must know that they’re deliberately keeping them in prison by not having enough treatment resources available. Why can you not see this?

Larry 34:58
Well, in courts We are, we require proof. I mean, that’s the that’s the way our system works. It is a real tragedy for those who are unable to make parole due to lack of housing, or due to lack of treatment. But having said that being released on parole in a system such as Iowa is not a constitutional right, because you’re getting to go home early, but your prison sentence is still in place. meritorious parole is a privilege is granted, but all program requirements have been met. For better or worse, these offenders are not eligible for early release from prison until they complete treatment. Thus, that’s in stark contrast, Illinois where they’ve actually exhausted the prison state and are still serving a period of prison time because their mandatory supervised release is being served in custody. The prisoner review board and Illinois won’t release them, because they don’t like where they would propose to go. That’s different than an Iowa and every wrong that occurs in society. It’s not necessarily a constitutional violation. This is morally wrong. And I think it should be fixed by additional funding for treatment, which is in and of itself a tough political sell in an area and an error of no new taxes read by lips.

Andy 36:17
Oh, I don’t have that one queued up. But I do have this one queued

Andy 36:19
up. The notion that everything that is stupid is unconstitutional is probably the besetting sin of judges, anyway,

Andy 36:30
and that Scalia saying that just because you don’t like it doesn’t make it unconstitutional? I think I cued that correctly. That is great. Um, just real quick, as a side note, that can we can we summarize the difference between Iowa and Illinois and this is that the Iowa folks would be getting parole versus those. The folks in Illinois have backed out and they would be getting released on probation or, or even without probation, like they’ve maxed out their sentence. That’s the difference.

Larry 36:59
They have maxed out their term of prison, they have a subsequent sentence called MSR, the mandatory supervised release component, but that is intended to be just listen to the title, mandatory supervised release.

Andy 37:13
Sounds like you’re, I mean, supervision of some sort. So it’s probation. It sounds like,

Larry 37:17
yes, it’s intended to be a supervised community component. But the the prisoner, their equivalent of of the parole board. Let’s say we won’t release them until they have housing that we like, but they’ve already paid their debt in full of the incarceration side, that MSR is intended to be served in the community, your prison sentence, and Iowa is a prison sentence. And if you are released early from that prison sentence that is a meritorious grant this condition upon you doing things that they impose upon you to do.

Andy 37:52
I gotcha. All right, well, then up because I’m confused, because it’s clear that those in prison have a Liberty interest in parole. Iowa code section nine, zero 6.4. Subsection one provides a parole or work release shall be ordered only for the best interest of society and the offender, not as an award of clemency. The Board shall release on parole or work release any person whom it has the power to silver leaves, when in its opinion, there is reasonable probability that the person can be released without detriment to the community or to the person, a person’s release is not a detriment to the community or the person if the person is able and willing to fulfill the obligations of a law abiding citizen in the board’s determination. Theory, they do have a Liberty interest in getting out of prison early. How can you deny this?

Larry 38:44
Well, I’m not denying that at all. There’s no disagreement. The question is, do they have a constitutional right, that requires taxpayers to fund the programming that will permit the parole board because you read the language that would permit the parole board to release them, consistent with all the requirements articulated in Section nine? Oh, 6.4, subsection one? That’s the where in the Constitution. There’s just it’s just not in the constitution.

Andy 39:13
So I think I see what you’re saying though, on page three of the opinion, the court stated, and considering this case, we emphasize that our job is not to approve or disapprove how the state allocates resources in the prison system. We simply conclude that no constitutional violation has been established. The record shows the Iowa Department of Corrections has not postponed treatment in order to delay parole. The problem is simply one of numbers. There are more male PFRs in the Iowa prison system than the treatment program spots available. The DRC has been actively addressing the need for PFR treatment by increasing the number of classes and counselors. The existing waiting list which prioritizes admission to treatment based on tentative discharge date is a reasonable way to decide when the offender gets admitted to treatment. Are you telling me that the court does not have the power to order the state to provide more resources or treatment?

Larry 40:05
No, I’m not telling you that. I’m telling you that is not the role of courts to allocate funding unless it finds there is a constitutional violation. A person serving a sentence of incarceration does not have a constitutional right to early release, nor does that person have the right to be provided anything other than basic medical care. Do you remember all the controversy a few years ago when the court ordered that a sex change be paid for by the taxpayers? Do you remember that?

Andy 40:32
I do recall this and I remember it was a little bit heated, I guess we can say that was a case ordered in the state of Idaho to pay it was due to a ruling from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Everyone knows that court is dominated dominated by a bunch of liberal pointy heads, Larry, you still have not convinced me Why is this not a constitutional violation. But at the time of the hearing, all seven offenders were on the waiting list to receive track one treatment program, the Sex Offender Treatment Program, that waiting lists had 419 individuals on it, the petitioners occupied positions 209306 341-360-8377 382 and 392 got a forerunner 19. I mean, they’re like they’re on the bottom half of that list. While this case was on appeal, cross was moved off the waiting list and began the treatment program. It’s a conspiracy theory, Larry, and you just will not admit it.

Larry 41:27
Well, I can’t admit it, because the petitioners did not prove such a conspiracy. According to the court, except for a small program for inmates with special medical needs, that I would medical that which is that the one medical classification center and Oakdale. All SMTP programming for men takes place at the new correctional facility. And treatment takes approximately three to four months with track to base lasting somewhat longer than track one. At the time of the hearing. In this case, there were potential slots for 175 individuals to undergo treatment at correctional at any given time. However, the correctional system as a whole has 1600 male inmates needing to complete treatment does an inmate other group of 1600. As they get closer to the discharge date, they would typically be transferred to do correctional and put on the waiting list. The court found that process of assignment on the waiting list is not unconstitutional. It seems to me that the evidence shows that the people are getting treatment. The issue is more funding. And that’s an issue to be determined by the legislature. I mean, you don’t like legislating from the bench. Do you, Andy?

Andy 42:32
Oh, I don’t think we should legislate from the bench. And I guess state constitutions are generally set up like the federal one and the Congress controls the person. I assume that’s who controls the budget generally for the states

Larry 42:44
that the state legislature.

Andy 42:47
While I was reading, I noticed that on pages 16 and 17, that the opinion cites case law from other jurisdictions and stated as a general proposition, prisoners do not have a constitutional right to rehabilitative services. It goes on to list a few cases which I won’t read. The bottom line is that this is not same issue as Illinois, and that these people will have to wait, did I get that? Right, Larry?

Larry 43:11
That’s what the Iowa Supreme Court said, You do, indeed have that right. Unless the people of Iowa, through their elected officials decide to prioritize additional treatment, they will indeed have to wait. As I stated numerous times just because something is not good public policy, it does not magically violate the constitution. Oh, God, I

Andy 43:30
can play that clip again. Let me try this one.

Andy 43:32
Stupid but constitutional. Constitution. Stupid but constitutional.

Andy 43:41
I couldn’t resist doing the WebPart. So any any closing remarks on this case?

Larry 43:48
I feel really bad for the people that are they’re trying to do their best. The sad thing from a public policy perspective, is that we would actually want to incentivize people to do everything they can in the way of programming and to behave themselves for a second chance at freedom. And an earlier Chas, amendment when they served their entire sentence, they’re gonna be released anyway, because they don’t, as far as I know, what does it do what Illinois does continue to hold them in there. But we would want that it would be it should appeal to the conservatives, because theoretically would save some money if people were out in the community. I don’t know that that’s really as much of a savings but we just want these people out being productive, working, paying taxes, and moving on to the next chapter of their life. So it’s, it is unfortunate, but the remedy is not going to come through the courts. I don’t think you’re going to solve this through through court challenges. I just don’t.

Andy 44:44
I’m going to give you a part of an expression and I’m going to hope that you can finish it but if not, I will finish it but I think it goes something like an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. So could we not apply that to this. And if we were to invest a small amount of money on the front side to get more people to go through the treatment stuff, then they would not stay in prison as long, which costs an exorbitant amount of money for it to keep them actually locked up. But we’re not willing to fund it up front. This sounds like getting vaccination versus actually getting treated with a further cure. So it sounds like to me,

Larry 45:22
it does, indeed, but you know, when you when you take a few handful of people out of prison, you really don’t save a lot of money there. I was having a discussion recently, with a colleague of mine, you really save money with prison management, if you can close an institution. But I mean, when you when you take 30 people out of an institution as 1400, you save the cost of breakfast, lunch and dinner. But I mean, the security staff is all in place, the program staff is all replaced, utilities are running, everything is running as normal. I mean, the savings are really insignificant. So you have to really do a significant decrease in population and ideally, to close an institution. So I mean, you you run and say, Well, if I could get these, these four guys out, once you’ve got 1600, what what did that accomplish?

Andy 46:10
I do see that I’m just looking at some sort of tidal wave coming down the pike where some number of those will exceed the capacity of that Newton correctional facility or whatever. And they have to figure out a way to get more of them to go through or else they’re gonna butt up against their max date. And they either let them go without having the treatment or they hold them over heavy. I mean, that’s just an actuarial table. If I’m not mistaken.

Larry 46:35
That’s correct. But But yes, it’s a tough sell on saving money, because treatment costs money, and the savings is margin unless you can significantly decrease prison population. And that’s the tough sell politically, because crime in many instances, the statistics are showing since the pandemic crime has been going up across the country. So there’s a lot of fear against further relaxation of how we treat those who are in prison and those who are facing present there’s there’s kind of a backlash against all this liberal Ducat ism.

Andy 47:08
Well, thank you for helping out. To clarify all those points. Let’s cover this one that we’ve picked at least once out of Connecticut, and the name is Anthony versus commissioner of correction. What’s this case

Larry 47:20
about? This is a lingering case that’s gone on for several years. It’s an Anthony a versus commissioner of correction was decided in 2017. To commit to Connecticut Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the appellate court which had concluded that Anthony a had a protected Liberty interest in not being incorrectly classified by the Department of Correction as a P F. R, for purposes of determining his housing, security and treatment needs. The bottom line is that Connecticut decided to classify him as a PFR anyway, even though he had not been convicted of a sexual offense.

Andy 48:00
Right, and they what did they base that classification on?

Larry 48:06
Well, well, there’s there’s some Can you just read the partial, extremely redacted excerpts from the court’s opinion? It explains it probably better than I can.

Andy 48:19
Okay, all right. So um, there’s gonna be some level of colorful language here. So if trigger warning, let me let me do it that way. There’s, if you are sensitive to violence, kind of things that this might be coming down the pike, but based on the decision of the court, the petitioner was arrested and charged with several offenses, including sexual assault in a spousal relationship in connection with an incident that occurred on the evening of July 18. And the morning hours of July 19 and 2017 life 2017 Okay. His former wife M informed the police that on the night in question, she and the petitioner had been drinking and smoking some crack cocaine, which caused the petitioner to become paranoid shocker there and to act in a delusional manner. Believing that another person was in the house, he began searching for that person under the bed, in closets, and in the hallway outside the bedroom and looking for used prophylactics. After repeatedly accusing me of having an affair. Petitioner made her take off her clothing and lie on her back, Larry, I’ve reread that sentence a whole bunch of times, and I still don’t see how those two things are connected. Were Pon digitally penetrated her later the petitioner became suspicious that another man had been using his video game system and repeated what he had done. When the petitioner continued to accuse her of having an affair em, out of annoyance, lied to the petitioner that in fact, she was having an affair with one of his friends, which cause the petitioner become violent and to pour soda on em. That also doesn’t make any sense to me, Larry, this is too much to read. So I’m stopping to provide a statement to the police later

Larry 50:00
Hey, Dad, and let me correct that your assets 2017. It’s not correct that the event happened at an earlier year. That was the year the appeal was decided. But, but this is a redacted version of what was in the court. So yeah. In his statement to police, he he admitted he was getting high on cocaine, and questioned him about whether she was having an affair. He also stated throughout the night, as he lay in bed next to him, she said, though, and that she was not in the mood pushing him away. He stated that when him said no, he would stop for a while before trying again, which happens several times throughout the night. And then at one point M got so tired through the phone, she threw a phone at him. And the petitioner stated that he took the phone and snapped it in half.

Andy 50:47
Good sounds like bendgate. It must have been an Apple phone. I’m guessing that the state would have had a strong case on his admission. I recall the accuser subsequently recanted.

Larry 50:56
But she did indeed she did. Every candidate her statement to the police. In a notarized letter dated August 17 2011, which is the correct year, she stated that she did not wish to pursue any charges against the petitioner, that the police report concerning the night in question was inaccurate, and that Petitioner never sexually assaulted her am explain that she have a petitioner are very sexually active. And that tomorrow or her body that evening came from their sexual activity. him further stated that her face was injured when she came out of the shower and slipped on the wet floor. And that Petitioner was not present when she fell, and at no time had tried to harm her.

Andy 51:39
You know, people in prison often end up with different kinds of bruises and stuff and they go oh, yeah, I repeatedly smacked myself in the face in the shower. Probably not true. But so her recantation Should Have Ended the case, Larry, I can guarantee you that. That’s how that went.

Larry 51:55
Unfortunately, it doesn’t work that way. On February 21 2012, the prosecutor informed the court, which was what she was supposed to do. This she had met with him, went for him per the prosecutor that she was abusing substances on the night in question, and that she no longer recalled her conversation with the police, and that she now believes that something different happened from sexual assault, which was alleged to have happened. The prosecutor informed the court that they have also stated that she was that that when she sobered up, and saw what really happened, it was not the petitioner who had sexually assaulted her. And then she slipped and hit her head on the bathroom. She had a seizure. And sometimes seizure makes her belief things that are not actually true, and that she has no memory of whatever she told the police, but now believes that it was incorrect.

Andy 52:48
What did the state do after receiving that notarized statement?

Larry 52:51
Well, the state entered on an old a procedure on the charge of sexual assault and a spousal relationship. The petitioner thereafter plead guilty to unlawful restraint and the first degree failure to appear and violation of probation for which he was sentenced to an effective term of three years and six months of incarceration.

Andy 53:10
You just use the word of Nolet Prosek. What did you say?

Larry 53:14
De la pro ck, that’s a Latin term, which means that the state wishes to not proceed any further is just this case, we wish we wish to move no further on the case. So it’s an essence a dismissal, but it doesn’t have to say title.

Andy 53:28
So Okay. A way that every the case is that the Department of Corrections decided that the petitioner had committed the offense that was dropped after the accuser recanted. And his argument was about the due process clause. It is that is it that is that because the due process clause prohibits the government from depriving a person of any such interest except pursuant to constitutional, constitutionally adequate procedures. The case was remanded to the habeas court for a determination of whether the Department of Corrections had afforded the petitioner the process he was do prior to assigning him the challenge classification. Do I have that right? What was the Supreme Court deciding? Connecticut Supreme Court decided?

Larry 54:10
Well, you do you have you have it right. Pretty soon. I didn’t know you’ve got to have a job right. FYP. home it was it was the petitioners appeal from the judgment of the habeas court denying his amended petition for writ of habeas corpus. The petitioner asserted that the habeas court incorrectly determine that the commissioner of correction did not violate his right to procedural due process in classifying him as a PFR. So the Connecticut Supreme Court had decided in 2017, that he did have the right to be properly classified and that he had the right to due process. So that’s what he was alleging that habeas court didn’t do a good job of. He also claimed the table scored incorrectly determined that his challenge classification did not violate his right to substantive due process or his right not to be punished except in cases that are clear warranted by law and with the Connecticut constitution. The court concluded that the petitioner was not afforded this is the most recent appeal that we’re talking about was not afforded procedural due process protections. He was due prior to be classified as a PFR. And therefore, its classification violate his right to procedural due process under both the federal constitution and our state constitution. And they rejected the substantive due process. Thoughts claim,

Andy 55:27
can you can you explain what the differences between the two,

Larry 55:30
I’ll try both substantive and procedural due process are two different aspects of the same due process of law that originates in the fifth and 14th amendments. However, a distinction between the two is is noticed when procedural due process aims to protect the fundamental right of the individual by ensuring that the government follows the rules. And a free and fair trial is given or the process is as that person has a four day process to substantive due process prevents the government from exceeding the limits, by inventing laws. substantive due process generally serves to put a brake on what the government can do when it announces a broad policy statement. And the procedural due process is you’re entitled to a certain level of procedure before they take away our right which is he had the right to be classified correctly, because that affected his housing and program opportunities. So in order if they were going to classify was a PFR, they needed to give him the adequate process where he would know what he was big. Whatever evidence are we using, let him call witnesses that have tried to rebut their all their presumptions, and nature surely gave him a kabuki kangaroo court. So and it came with a blue key, and it came back to haunt them. The Connecticut Supreme Court did not say you cannot classify someone as a PFR. They had ample evidence to classify him as a PFR. But they just wanted to take a shortcut folks in Connecticut, I know you’re listening, the correction Secretary probably listens, you’re gonna you’re gonna win. All you need to do is just take a little bit more time. Let the person have counsel, if they request it. Let them know what the allegations are. Let them cross examine your witnesses, they’re gonna say that they had all likelihood, in all likelihood, he did commit this offense they got they got dismissed. But they didn’t want they wanted to take a shortcut to classify him. And they did without going all the details. They basically just railroaded him through something that didn’t even even closely resemble due process. And they said, we’re classifying you as a PFR. Well, guess what? Can’t do that. You got to give the person process.

Andy 57:41
And if we overlay this over the new Awai guidelines, whatever coming down, is this a violation of the due process clause?

Larry 57:51
Oh, well, it could be a violation of both forms to due process. We’ll just have to wait and see. I don’t I don’t think I don’t think we know yet. It does these these regulations. I haven’t followed that. You’re talking about the new regulations that were proposed by the Trump administration that are actually going to be implemented under the by administration. Right?

Andy 58:08
That is correct. Yes.

Larry 58:10
Yes. I think there might be some both forms of process that will challenge if those windows do not if but when those become the final rules for Awai. I suspect there will be a number of process challenges both substantive and procedural due process challenges.

Andy 58:26
We’re starting to get short on time. So can you tell me what the court ultimately decided in this case in Connecticut,

Larry 58:33
it concluded that although the petitioner was afforded some procedural protections required, it is clear that he was not provided all of them. And particularly, he was not provided one an opportunity to call witnesses in his defense to adequate notice of information to be relied upon in determining his classification of the PFR ad three, the impartial decision maker to rule and his appeal. He wants to provide it It illustrates, folks, you can do an awful lot if you’ll just follow the rules. That’s all.

Andy 59:05
Very well. Any final notes before we move on to who’s that speaker?

Larry 59:10
Are we running out of time already?

Andy 59:12
Yeah, we’re at 50. Oh, sorry. Almost 60 minutes.

Larry 59:15
Wow. Time flies when you having fun?

Andy 59:19
It does. It does. It does. All right. Well, then I think we can move over to who is that speaker? And last week I played

Andy 59:28
it doesn’t fit. If it doesn’t fit. You must acquit.

Andy 59:33
And I received numerous people signing up for answers and the first one to come in came in. I think even before we were done recorded, but if not it came out as soon as the Patreon version came out. And that was Brian n. And he wins all the glory and fame that we have to offer here. FYP studios do you want to set up who’s that speaker for the next one or should I just played?

Larry 59:55
Well, it just goes way back folks. You’re gonna have to, you’re gonna have to remember back To the decade of Watergate, that’s not enough of a clue. Oh, man,

Andy 1:00:05
there, you just you give stuff away.

Larry 1:00:07
You gotta gotta think back. But this is not a this is not an everyday household name that made this one here. And then, before we play this, we’re anxious to have some submissions from listeners of length that I think we should use. Because we’ve been told that hearts are too easy. So let’s send them send them to Andy. And he will, he will screen them and we will decide which ones to use as recommendations for a mystery speakers.

Andy 1:00:33
You could you could do that send me messages at mystery to the subject of mystery speaker at registry matters And we we can fill these in. But yet, Larry, like everyone is guessing that they’re saying, I’m not guessing because it’s too obvious. So this is going to be a little bit more obscure. Here is this week’s who’s that speaker?

Larry 1:00:55
What did the President know? And when did he know? I will play that again. What did the President know? And when did he know it?

Andy 1:01:07
And that is who’s that speaker for episode 204. So send me a message at registered matters. And same with the subject? Who’s that speaker? WT s or something like that? And tell me who that person is there. We didn’t get a new patrons this week. Did we get any new snail mail subscribers?

Larry 1:01:27
I don’t believe we did. But we’re sending out an awful lot of sample transcripts. So I know that they’re going to come. They’re going to come rolling in here by the dozens in 2022.

Andy 1:01:38
Do you see who I gave you for picture this week?

Larry 1:01:41
No, who did you give me?

Andy 1:01:43
I gave you Johnnie Cochran.

Larry 1:01:47
There is actually a strong resemblance and get us there.

Andy 1:01:50
Yes. And this is a picture of him with the gloves. And what were the gloves?

Larry 1:01:54
Those were the gloves that were alleged to have been used and in the murder of the coal. Yeah, what was his name? Go Goldwyn. What was that? My god? Yeah, dude. Ron, Ron. Ron gold. Ron Goldman.

Andy 1:02:07
Okay. And it’s so if, if the gloves do not fit, you must acquit. That’s what the statement is?

Larry 1:02:14
That’s correct. Good, sir. It could be a number easy before I close it all out. There could be a number of reasons why they didn’t fit. He could have had swollen hands that they we don’t know why they didn’t. The gloves got shrunk. We don’t know why they didn’t fit.

Andy 1:02:30
All kinds of things. Anything else before we close out there?

Larry 1:02:34
Well, I’m gonna just ask now, are we going to be recording on December 28? Saturday, December 25. At our normal time?

Andy 1:02:41
I mean, seriously, no, I can’t imagine we will actually record on Christmas Eve.

Larry 1:02:46
Christmas Day is Sunday, Saturday, I

Andy 1:02:48
mean, whatever Christmas Day, whatever, you’re gonna ask me that for for a month from now. I don’t know it’s a month from now. You might not be here, you might go visit that bridge in West Virginia.

Larry 1:03:00
I’ve given a lot of thought.

Andy 1:03:03
Okay, um, you can find all of the show notes over at registry You can leave voicemail at 747-227-4477 email at registered matters And thank you so very much to patrons that support the program and you can join them. Twitter. There’s a Facebook page if you want you can also go find the show. Do us a favor, go over to YouTube and do like a thumbs up, listen to the program help get some of those numbers up and feed that suggestion engine for more people to perhaps find it. So that’s matters. And I think that’s all I got for the evening. Larry, anything you want to say before we close out?

Larry 1:03:47
I hope everyone had a wonderful Thanksgiving holiday weekend. By the time this gets out. They’ll be back to work.

Andy 1:03:54
Absolutely. Again, Larry, I hope you have a splendid evening. I will talk to you in a few days. Have a great night.

You’ve been listening to FYP

Transcript of RM203: Police Proactive Sex Stings with Kathleen Hambrick

Listen to: RM203: Police Proactive Sex Stings with Kathleen Hambrick

Registry Matters is an independent production. The opinions and ideas here are that of the hosts and do not reflect the opinions of any other organization. If you have problems with these thoughts, fyp.

Andy 00:17
Recording live from FYP Studios, east and west. Transmitting across the internet. This is episode ­202- 203 of Registry Matters. Oh, gosh, I have stuff written in the document. 203 of Registry Matters. Larry, happy Saturday night. Good evening to you. How are things out west?

Larry 00:33
Awesome. We’ve had some beautiful, chilly, fall days. We actually had our first freeze officially at the Albuquerque International Sunport. You know, they always record the official stats at the airport

Andy 00:51
yes, that’s the only place that matters, right?

Larry 00:54
That’s correct. And we went below freezing a couple nights back. And I’ll tell the story next episode about how I’m teaching my furnace a lesson. But we don’t have time. We’ve got so much to do tonight.

Andy 01:07
Wait, can you give me the short version because after the showerhead, after bringing fans, I got to know how you’re teaching your furnace a lesson.

Larry 01:18
Well, it didn’t start up last winter. So I decided that I wasn’t going to have it repaired. I use alternate heat sources and it didn’t start this winter. And I’m going to teach it a lesson. It’ll start when I need it to.

Andy 01:31
Oh, okay, so since it doesn’t start, you have made alternate arrangements. So you have like space heaters that will fall over and burn your house down? (Larry: Correct.) Okay, perfect. I don’t see anything wrong with this. What could possibly go wrong, Larry?

Larry 01:50
It’s even better than that. I use the gas burners on my stove. And you know, if you let me explain this to people: if you use the burners for your stove like if you were to put a turkey and cook it for six hours. It absorbs the fumes, and you know it cleanses the air somehow. But if you turn that stove on for five hours without a turkey in it, it will kill you almost within the first three hours if you’re using it as a heat source. (Andy: I was gonna check in chat. Carbon monoxide poisoning. Totally. All day long.) Yes, but see, that same thing. You could have two pots on the stove and you could be cooking. You could cook beans for five hours. And that won’t poison you. But if you don’t have a pot on the stove, absorbing that carbon monoxide, it will kill you instantly.

Andy 02:38
Okay, man. Well so heating lessons from Larry. Tell me what’s up the agenda for tonight please.

Larry 02:47
We have an awesome interview planned with our guests from an organization. What is it called? Lady? What is her blog?

Unknown Speaker 02:56
Her blog is Lady Justice Myth. It’s Kathleen from is LadyJusticeMyth.Blog.

Larry 02:59
We have an extensive interview about government entrapment. We have a couple of questions and think we might even have a comment. And we have a case out of Connecticut that we’re going to talk about

ANdy 03:17
Outfrickinstanding. So let’s dive right in. I’m going to turn on the screen rotator so that people following at home can see what’s on the screen. Last week, you know what I screwed up and I didn’t have a video except for I did have it for the interview. So at least that was good. Um, but this comes to us and says I was surprised and grateful to see that you mentioned me in your podcast. I’m not sure that you quite got my point. I do agree with you that everything can’t be doom and gloom. And that levity is probably a welcome and necessary balm to a lot of us. You have no idea about the sarcasm and snark that goes on here in prison. Oh, yes, we do. But even in last podcast number 200, Congratulations, by the way. Look at the subjects you deal with. The whole political environment, how PFRs might as well forget about reforms under this administration and how the AWA is written in stone, and no one will go anywhere near modifying it. On all of these points, I wholeheartedly agree with you 100%. I was saying nothing would happen for PFRs under Biden since before he got elected. In fact, I was saying there would be zero prison reform of any kind in the Merrick Garland Department of Justice. If anything, there will be backsliding and that’s becoming obvious as the administration is seriously now considered bringing the people released on COVID compassionate released from the BOP back to prison. Over 5000 of them, even when only about 1% have violated the terms of confinement. The rest had reestablished themselves in the community, in their work and in their families. To be clear, these are not PFRs. I believe very few PFRs were released by the BOP under COVID compassionate release, but I can get you those numbers easily. Interesting, Larry, I bet you’re going to have a counter argument to the position that this individual is taken.

Larry 05:12
I’d say in response to that is a very long letter, we don’t have the time to read the entire thing. But those were releases that were done at a time of extraordinary circumstances. And, as I have pointed out, oftentimes, there are dueling cursors going in politics. So we’re rolling into 2022. It sounds like he’s coming from the position that this administration has no desire to do any reforms in the criminal justice. I’m not ready to pronounce that. I look at the evidence. And I look at the evidence very carefully. I look at his career as he served in the Senate, and I look at the Vice President’s career, and I think we can all agree that she was no reformer. And I’ve said that previously. She would have to morph into something she’s never been, if she were to promote reform. But even if this President were to want to do reform, he’s got the other side of the aisle that is not so inclined. And you can look back at the first step act, it was the other side of the aisle that stood in the way of having a broader reform under the first step act. It was the other side of the aisle that kept PFRs from getting into relief. I can’t change history, I can merely tell you what it is. And it was a group of senators, led by Arkansas Tom Cotton, I believe there were eight of them, all from the R-column, that didn’t want the reform. This administration will not be facing reelection in 2022. But the entire house of representatives will be and 1/3 of the Senate will be. That’s the reality of the politics. So if you don’t like that reality, then maybe you should propose another system of government. But they’re not going to be bold with criminal justice with the other side of the aisle going to be bashing them continuously. And probably on this issue of the prisoners that have been let go. I would not put that past becoming a campaign issue. Does anybody remember the name Willie Horton? Does anybody remember who sensationalize Willie Horton, in 1988? It was the other side of the aisle that did that. About it was a furlough program that existed in the state of Massachusetts. So like to say, I think he’s coming from the side of this administration is crap. I’m not ready to pronounce that. But I can tell you the political reality is that they’re not going to be doing anything bold on criminal justice in 2022. Just not gonna happen.

Andy 07:53
They were trying to do all kinds of bold things with infrastructure stuff. And that sort of took a nosedive.

Larry 07:59
It did indeed take a nosedive. And it’s laughable to me, because I watch another podcast, where there’s always people talking about how social security needs to be expanded and benefits need to be increased, and they’re looking for their extra $200 a month. Well, the money is just not there to do that. The other side of the aisle would never approve of a dramatic increase in Social Security benefits because they would say that we don’t have the money. And these expanded, I mean, some of the things that are in the build back better. I don’t fully understand some of the things I agree with that are in the build back better. But you have to pay for these things, folks. There’s no revenue, we’re already running a huge deficit, which is declining precipitously from what it was in the previous administration.

Andy 08:48
Larry, I gotta tell you, I was listening to, I want to say, I don’t remember what it was. It was something I was listening to today. And I heard the comment made by a listener. And they, or somebody that they interviewed on the street, and he said, well, to have tax cuts, they’re great. But if they go along with increased spending, that’s bad. I was like, wait a minute, that’s backwards. How do you do that? We are going to reduce the income flow, but we’re going to increase the outflow too?

Larry 09:19
well, that’s what they do. That’s the snake oil they’ve sold for 100 years, for since about the 1930s. But what they what they do is they say that when you cut the rates of taxes, the economy will just spring to life that you’ve never seen. And there’ll be a gushing, gushing of revenue. And there is. When taxes are normally high, there is in fact some economic generation of new activity. But our taxes in the US are very low already. So you have a diminishing return from cutting taxes in this country because we’re half the tax rate of our peer nations that we like to identify with. So we don’t have that luxury of cutting taxes that we had during Eisenhower’s 90% rate, and when Reagan came in, we were still in the top rated 70%. We’re not there anymore. But yes, they say if you cut taxes, there’s gonna be a gushing of new revenue so we can pay for the lost revenue, and the new spending and that’s what they’ve been doing for a long time. That’s why they always balloon the deficit, which is not the topic of where we’re supposed to be going.

Andy 10:22
Alright, let’s go over to this next one. Boy, I hope I do this one justice. Larry and Andy of the Registry Matters podcast. This came in to the FYP global headquarters on November 8. I’m currently serving 17 and a half years on a CP case. I have over two and a half years left on my sentence, and I’m doing my time in the SHU, special housing unit, Yazoo City medium federal complex. The reason I am in the SHU is because I cannot walk in general population due to my case being hot as most medium Federal Prison people with SO PFR offences cannot walk. Several books have been published talking about this topic right now, I have been in the SHU for four months. As of right now, I have been given three incident reports for refusing a direct order for not going to general population. In response to these write ups, they have taken away my commissary privilege and my phone privilege. And I know this is a continuing issue with inmates like myself self who are PFRs. My question is, how can they write me up for simply trying to protect myself by remaining in the SHU for protective custody? Thank you for all that y’all do. Okay, I bet you the answer to this is pretty much they can do it until they’re told to stop.

Larry 11:49
I’m not an expert on prison classification, in terms of all the factors. I know some of them, I’ve been in committee discussions about prison classification. He’s talking about Federal Bureau of Prisons. But the way they try to do it in our state is they do give you the opportunity to discuss with the classification officer about why you would need special housing combination, because of your safety. There can be a variety of things that can impact your safety. But the bottom line is, it’s really not your decision. I mean, it really is because you can always do something to get yourself thrown in the hole, which is what he does by disobeying orders. But the prison administration classifies the inmates and they put them where they think they belong based on their scoring sheets and all the factors that they consider. And only thing I know he could do is file an appeal of his classification. Having no experience in the BOP, I don’t know what the outcome of that would be.

ANdy 12:47
Someone in chat who did fed time, if I’m not mistaken, says technically you have to go out to the general population and get threatened. Snitch on the person that threatened you, and then they’ll accept your PC request. I don’t know if that’s the right advice. But that’s someone that did some time.

Larry 13:04
Well, when you make that request… see, I’ve always had a problem with PC because they don’t distinguish, or at least they don’t seem to distinguish how they treat you in terms of loss of privilege based on this letter. If you’re being protected because they cannot keep you safe in the regular population, for the life of me, I don’t understand why we would punish you for that. On the other hand, if you’re being a disciplinary problem, and you’re throwing coffee, or feces or whatever, or doing things in front of a female officer that you shouldn’t be doing and you’re disruptive to the orderly administration of the Correctional Facility, then you do deserve to have some loss of privileges. So I don’t understand. And no one is explained to me to my satisfaction why you treat the person who needs protection the same loss of privileges, versus the person who is being disorderly to the institution. Some of the wardens and some of the mail people that that screen our mail, why don’t you shoot us a line and explain that to us?

Andy 14:04
Larry, like you made a point to say that you’re doing something in front of a female officer, are you saying that these people don’t do these things in front of male officers? Are you being very gender biased right now?

Larry 14:16
Well, I haven’t heard a lot of male officers complain about it. I don’t think I’ve ever heard of a male officer, but I have heard women officers complain about they don’t want to see that. And my experience has been that the people that do that generally don’t have anything anyone would want to see.

Andy 14:30
I’m with you. I was trying to add to the previous commenter’s snark and sarcasm stuff and pile on top of that and see if we can get more hate mail. Joining us now everyone is Kathleen Hambrick. Have I pronounced that right? (Kathleen: Yeah.) Okay, good. We don’t normally use last name. So I would just say hey, it’s Kathleen, but you can see it right there on your screen. It says Kathleen. You have a blog called LadyJusticeMyth.Blog. And I met you, you say you were at the last one. I don’t believe that you were at the last one. But you were at the previous Houston conference and that’s where we met.

Kathleen 15:10
Yes. Araceli and I were at the 2019 together. And then the last one, of course was virtual. You did the whole thing. You’ve told me all about it. And then I was at this last one and presented.

Andy 15:23
You did. And that’s where I was, like, super impressed with you and thought that we should have you on. Tell me quickly about what LadyJusticeMyth.Blog is. And then also, what is your affiliation with CAGE And what is CAGE?

Kathleen 15:37
Citizens Against Government entrapment. Yep. So the blog, after my son was convicted of attempted rape of a child, I went into a drunken stupor for a month. And when I shook my cobwebs free, I needed an outlet for my grief. And so I started writing. And part of that was that when this was happening to him, I had looked online, and I didn’t see anything about stings. There were there was nothing online about stings at all. Other than Oh, yeah, let’s get these dirt bags. So part of mine was to let others know our journey, and to speak it because I hadn’t found anyone else speaking it. But additionally, and most importantly, it was my therapy. And Lord knows I needed it then. As the years went on, and different events occurred, there were three families that banded together. All three sons had been 20 when stung in the state of Washington and imprisoned up there. And those three families eventually formed the basis or the core of CAGE. CAGE has been in existence officially for about a year, a little over a year. So we’re pretty new. And we have about 60 members from across the country with a focus on the state of Washington. That’s what started my journey and those of the other core members.

Andy 17:05
I would assume that they’re probably doing this. Larry, feel free. I’m assuming they’re doing this type of operation everywhere. And we’ll get into the details of what this operation is. But they’re doing this everywhere, aren’t they?

Kathleen 17:16
Yes, absolutely. They’re not always the same. Some places have different rules. But anyway, we’ll get into that.

Andy 17:27
Yeah, we’ll get into that. Um, I guess a point of contention on like, we’ll just throw this in there out of the gate. Says, under the false narrative of protecting children, our government creates criminals, where there were none before. Sons, nephews, grandsons, and friends are simply going online to meet adults. What they don’t know is that behind the curtain of the internet is an adult police officer who sends pictures of an adult, and at some point, mentions they are a minor. Doesn’t law enforcement use a similar tactic as other criminal investigations occur?

Kathleen 17:59
Oh, are you talking about stings for other…? Yes. So there are stings for other crimes. They originated…I don’t actually; I was thinking this would be a great thing to try to research and find out what the first thing was. I don’t know. But I do know that they were really big in the drug era, which started the United States whole incarceration phenomenon. But the drug era, they used to try to get stings. They would like, set it up and have a guy come out to buy whatever, and then bust him. But so really, the big fine line here for me is that the person going out to buy drugs is breaking the law. Okay. As opposed to someone going online to an adult site, clicking the button saying they’re an adult and starting to talk dirty with other people who are there who have clicked the button who said they’re an adult. So, you know, to me, it’s really evolved into, they’re trying to appease the public into feeling safe, as you mentioned in the opening, by just grabbing anybody and labeling them and throwing them in prison, whether they deserved it or not.

Andy 19:05
Yeah. The way that you’ve described the story with your son, I am on the fence ultimately, like, I don’t know why police would go off and do this. But there are certain actions that our people take that… just stop. But anywho we’ll continue. Um, yes. At the conference, you made a statement about something. And generally, almost categorically I will say, I don’t believe in government conspiracies. And you say that this is a government conspiracy. But it’s not against the law to attempt to arrange a sexual rendezvous with an underage person. So why do you… what is your whole spiel about this being a government conspiracy?

Kathleen 19:51
Okay, so when you say it’s not against the law to arrange a rendezvous with, are you saying it’s not against the law for the police to pretend that whole part?

Andy 20:01
I mean, obviously they’re doing it. No one is stopping them.

Kathleen 20:05
Oh, no, no, no, no, no, your own sentence is going to come back to you right near here. They’re going to do it until somebody makes some stop, right? That doesn’t mean it’s legal. Come on. So repeat the question, because you took me on a little loop there.

Andy 20:21
So it’s not against the law for them to arrange for there to be an encounter with an underage person, even though there’s not one. So who’s the actual victim? We’ll keep that off to the side for just a minute. So it’s not illegal for them to do this.

Unknown Speaker 20:39
Oh, why do I believe it’s a conspiracy? Okay. So sorry, I lost my train when I was laughing at you, I can’t help it. So the conspiracy part, you know, honestly, everybody who’s been caught in these can’t believe what’s happening to them. And I think that’s really a huge part of how it happens is because people are caught so unaware, so confused as to what’s happening, and why it would even happen. It doesn’t make sense on any level to try to entrap people who aren’t looking for something and then label them and put them in prison. We don’t get that because we don’t expect that in the United States of our government. And I certainly didn’t for a long time, and a lot of people started telling me, you know, a lot of people in my group deal with conspiracies. The QAnon and the just the entire gambit of especially concerning sexual trafficking, and, you know, all the Democrats have children in their basement kind of craziness. Okay. So it really threw me for a long time that the point where I finally got to it’s a conspiracy is when – and I’m a scientist, I’m a computer programmer have been for 36 years now – is when I went to find the data. And it wasn’t there. That said conspiracy to me because we know it’s happening. We know it’s being reported. Where does that go, then? If we can’t find it, if the FBI does not have that information, there’s a reason for it. And at that point, the FBI is the government, ICAC, who are running these things is the government. And so for them to be covering their tracks. And even worse than just covering their tracks. They use the statistics from the FBI, to go to the legislators and basically say we need more money for these. So they are funding themselves here. They’re using statistics that are not accurate. And so all of this to me is it’s kind of make believe, and at that point, it’s a conspiracy, because you’re lying to the people. That’s the only way I could get to it. And so and I am not a conspirator by any stretch of the imagination.

Andy 23:03
The piece there, it almost sounds like they are using their own data to support the reason why they’re doing it. Therefore, making more of it happen. And thus, this feedback loop. I think I heard somewhere along the way, and it was something completely unrelated to this. ICAC, you mentioned that term a second ago. Who was that real quick?

Kathleen 23:26
So ICAC. It’s a program out of the Department of Justice for child justice. I forget what it’s called DOJ, Department of Justice, juvenile protection, I don’t even know. So many acronyms. Anyways, they created through statute. It originally created in 1998. It was reorganized in 2008. And it stands for Internet Crimes Against Children. It’s a taskforce created. There are 61 of them across the nation. And they are funded through the Department of Justice to theoretically keep the internet safe from sexual predators for children, against children.

Andy 24:09
The reason why I wanted to bring that up is if it’s the same organization, then I heard that they have either a third or half of all the CP that is on the internet, that they control those servers. That’s why I was bringing that up.

Kathleen 24:21
It’s the same people.

Andy 24:25
So are you saying that the people that do end up going down this path, that they should not be prosecuted? They are often guilty of doing these things, but they shouldn’t be prosecuted?

Kathleen 24:40
Yes. So let’s just take a very generic example. I’ll use kind of the basis of my son’s example without extreme details. Obviously, he’s in the middle of trial number two, which most people go how the heck is that even possible? But anyways, so the basis of this is that you go online, you go onto an adult site, you meet somebody, they say they’re a minor. You, in his case, don’t believe them. Ask for some kind of, you know, backup kind of proof. Get a picture. Supposedly like a picture. So imagine you walk into a bar, you see somebody there, it’s an adult setting, you see them, they appear to be in their 20s. Okay, this is kind of the similar way we do things these days. So she had mentioned she was a minor. She didn’t talk like a minor, she had a neck like a minor, she sure as F*** didn’t look like a minor Oh, am I allowed to swear. And he doesn’t know, the finalities here. He doesn’t know to be nervous, he goes to make sure. And in his 20-year-old mind, if it was a child, which he is not interested in, then he would turn and walk away. Not knowing that, you know, according to the government, he’s already committing the crime by going there. But the funny thing is, is someone could legally be online, say the same exact things that happened to Jace, and a picture the same as Jace got, you know, an adult. He could go there, it could be somebody pretending to be adult, they could have sex, and there is no crime committed. So I don’t understand where a crime could be committed, where there couldn’t be one, depending on the outcome? The outcome, how does the outcome change what you do? I don’t know. I’m lost there.

Andy 26:30
We’ll get some opinion from Larry, I guess, as we get towards the end of this. That in the bar scenario, they carded you to get in. So you’d have some sort of gatekeeper that made it that everyone was above age, at least 18, presumably. And now you say, hey, do you want to go do something? (Kathleen: Yeah, great analysis.) And they turned out to be some level of underage, but you were supposed to check their ID, look for the hologram on the ID, you’re supposed to do all of that, and then sign a consent. I don’t understand how anybody… I just, it seems very complicated to me. But whatever. This is the world that we live in. Um, I’m assuming that some of the men come to the trap house or some location and meet up with a teenager, what happens next after they have enticed them or whatever word we’re gonna use?

Kathleen 27:20
Well, they never meet up with a teenager, because there is no teenager. But if you mean intent, there are some men who do want to meet up with a teenager. And that is why they go. But my point to these is that all the police would have to do… well, first off, you don’t have to necessarily encourage those people to show up with a picture of an attractive adult woman, because that wouldn’t turn them on in the first place. But my point to that is that those people are going to have other evidence that would be easily collected to corroborate that that was their intent. They would either have pictures of children on their phone or at their home computer. They would certainly have history on their computer of looking up that kind of stuff. I mean, you don’t become interested in something and at the turn of a dime, and then all of a sudden say, hey, tonight, I’m gonna go have sex with a 13-year-old. It just doesn’t really work that way. So if the police wanted to differentiate, they could. They don’t care because they’re paid whether it’s true or not. So no, I don’t think the people that are tricked should be prosecuted. I think the police and the government, certainly the judge, should be able to think about, hey, there’s nothing else in this person’s history. There’s nothing else in this investigation that points to yeah, we got the right guy. It’s a free for all and it makes me sick honestly.

Andy 28:43
You guys should probably join up with the people the against mandatory minimums also, because I mean, the judge’s hands end up getting tied in that too where the judge said, I’m sorry, you are guilty of doing something. And I have to give you 5-10… I could go along with that one. Now that means that we people, we have to go hire attorneys – which cost 10s of 1000s, which that’s even like a gross underestimation of it – to support this whole gravy train of going down the pike. I think Larry has referred to it as the sex offender industrial complex. (Kathleen: accurate.)

Are you a first-time listener of Registry Matters? Well, then make us a part of your daily routine and subscribe today. Just search for Registry Matters through your favorite podcast app. Hit the subscribe button and you’re off to the races. You can now enjoy hours of sarcasm and snark from Andy and Larry on a weekly basis. Oh, and there’s some excellent information thrown in there too. Subscribing also encourages others of you people to get on the bandwagon and become regular Registry Matters listeners. So, what are you waiting for? Subscribe to Registry Matters right now. Help us keep fighting and continue to say FYP.

Andy 30:09
And where do we get it? I mean, in the case of your son, how old was he when this happened? (Kathleen: 20.) Did he have some big bankroll? Five, six digits hanging out in the bank waiting to hire an attorney?

Kathleen 30:25
No, he did not. He had been through boot camp for the Navy. So he had attempted to successfully launch from home. Unfortunately, he had been diagnosed very young with ADD, as a lot of children are these days with the videos and just on and on with the constant, fast moving life. And so he had, unfortunately had to come back home unsuccessful in his naval career, and so was living at home. He was working two jobs at the time. Had been trying to get into computer programming, to see if he had a knack to follow in mom’s footsteps. But no, he had no bank role. He had enough money to play games, which was his norm. (Andy: I like playing games though.) Yeah, I know.

Andy 31:19
Something else said on your website is that some cases, they will then read them the Miranda rights, but then later, they’re being booked, they tell them they need to write an apology letter to the victim or the victim’s family. Who are you apologizing to? There isn’t a family even… I’ve always struggled with this, like, you’re guilty of a crime… this is really a thoughtcrime. This goes like Minority Report where you have the little people in the little bubbling ooze, whatever with headsets on and like guilty guilty, um. But what do you do with that letter? What do they do that letter?

Kathleen 31:55
They use it as evidence against you. And this is probably part of the whole fact that they realize they really don’t have any evidence of an intention, no intention of a crime here. So from the moment you’re arrested on, they do an interview, they do a polygraph, they do everything they can to try to collect information that would seem damning. One of those would be a letter to the victims you know, explaining what you went there for and how sorry you are for it. They can use that as intent.

Andy 32:34
Like, who are you apologizing to?

Kathleen 32:37
Yeah, I also, yeah, Jace paid- I paid $500 into the Victims Fund. And then when he was about to be released, which we opted to leave him in prison for extra time, so that he would not have to get out in the state of Washington, which has some really nasty rules up there. We’re in Oregon. And so during that time, he had to serve an additional 30 days in order for them to notify the victims. For Jace’s case, when there was no victim. Yeah.

Andy 33:11
Over the years, I know that Larry’s beat this into my head over the years of going through this that once a person is convicted with a plea deal, I get like you’re signing all these little checkboxes as you go down there that you weren’t coerced, you’re doing this of your own freewill, all that stuff, that there’s little chance of a successful appeal. But you’re headed down that path, correct?

Kathleen 33:35
No, we already won our appeal. Jace did not take a plea, we went through a bench trial. The appeal, our appeal lawyer, who was a public defender appeal lawyer, she pointed out that we had never signed any documents or that Jace had not waived his right to the trial by jury, which is what we wanted. Our lawyer vehemently said you don’t want that. We kept saying we did. And my point was what if, you know, the judge didn’t get laid the night before… Whatever. You know, I’d rather have 12 people where one could see the logic versus one person, you know, judging the whole thing. And so we went back and forth repeatedly. And I want to say that, you know, my son really isn’t wasn’t, hasn’t been overly involved within the whole strategy of why we do what we do- what we’ve done. So, you know, he wasn’t really involved, but I have all the emails where me and the attorney were fighting about, I wanted it to be a jury trial, and here are my reasons and he kept saying no. And eventually what happened was he signed the paper saying that his client had waived his right to a jury trial, which is illegal. So the appeal lady lawyer, she found that. Pointed it out and the state conceded that they had to overturn the conviction. Now this was after Jace was already through prison and released. You know, appeals don’t happen very quickly. And fortunately for us, unfortunate, unluckily, he went to prison for nothing. But fortunately, he was already out at that time. He got a seemingly short sentence.

Andy 35:28
Why do you say that Washington state is worse? I realize that this is your opinion. But why do you think that it’s so much worse than other states?

Kathleen 35:36
Oh, everything is my opinion that comes out of my mouth. We’ll just put that there. But Washington State, one of the reasons was… First off, at that time, I did not realize that these were being performed across the country, and that some are worse than others. I had it in my brain that that this would never happen in the state of Oregon. Well, apparently, it does. Maybe not as severely. So it’s one of the worst, worser. How’s that?

Andy 36:06
I like that word a lot.

Unknown Speaker 36:07
Worser. It’s one of the worser states as far as their tactics. Like, for instance, I had spoken to a number of different people from ICAC offices across the country when this first happened. And I spoke to a woman named Mary out of Las Vegas. She worked, she was a police officer at the ICAC office. And I was complaining, basically trying to find out about the picture. The picture really bothered me. Why you would send the picture of an adult. And Mary out of the ICAC office in Las Vegas says that they’re not allowed to. They cannot send a picture of an adult. It would not make it through their court system. It would be thrown out. So that will kind of show you how some states are worse than others as far as the things go. But what happened for the state of Washington is, for the release, they are much harder on their restrictions. Not necessarily residential, but it’s one of those states where, and Larry would know this better than me what it means or why, but where the sheriff’s can change your level. Like if you’re on a tier system, they can up you to try to get you to move out of their area. I didn’t know that was even possible in the state of Oregon. Your tier is your tier, and it doesn’t change without due process. But up in Washington, they can harass the heck out of you. They also send out flyers and notify all of your neighbors with your address that you have a person required to register on your block. And that is for anybody above a tier one. Now, amazingly, in these stings, depending on how they do their tiers, and for the state of Washington, they use the static-99. Jace is mid-level even though he has no history, no record. He was 20 years old.

Andy 37:59
I would bet most people are like somewhere up in some kind of higher level. Just like overall, I bet you they are.

Kathleen 38:05
Yeah, but with no victim. I just find that shocking. How do you say that they’re a medium, you know, threat to anybody when he’s never hurt anybody? So that was interesting to me. So those reasons were why I feel Washington is pretty harsh. Additionally, the sentencing up there is off the chain.

Andy 38:27
We cover cases all the time on the program from all the different states when we know of them at least. And they generally, I don’t know that we’ve ever covered anything up that way. They come from places like Minnesota or all through the South. Alabama and Mississippi and stuff like that. They come from the states that are generally considered to be worser. So we have worse, worser, and worstest. (Kathleen: Yes.) How about, what are the similarities and what are the differences between the states in these PPSS’s? And can you cover what a PPSS is?

Kathleen 39:01
Police proactive sex stings? Yeah, I get tired of saying it. Police proactive sex stings. It’s also a bit of a tongue twister. So I just started saying PPSS. It’s almost like ROUS’s, isn’t that the one from Princess Bride?

Unknown Speaker 39:15
You know what I’ve never seen that movie. I know sorry. I’ve never seen it all the way through. I’ve seen pieces.

Kathleen 39:21
Okay, rodents of unusual size. Anyway. PPSS, it’s police proactive sex stings. So across the nation, I think that we tried to find a state that didn’t have any at all and we were unsuccessful. On the CAGE website by state you can go into the state and see listing of stings. It’s probably by far not inclusive for everything, but it’s a start. And so the different tactics, well, one would be whether or not you use a picture of an adult, which was one that happened in my son’s case. Some of the places are horrific, like New Hampshire has scenarios where the person isn’t even informed the piece about that the person they’re speaking to is a minor until they arrive at the site that they’re supposed to meet. So it’s like, hey, I’m here to meet you. Oh, yeah, I’m sorry to bother you with this, but I’m a minor. Click. On go the handcuffs. I’m not sure how that works. But apparently, they’re getting convictions off of it. And that’s pretty sick. And then there are states who don’t really go to this extreme like that. I do know that in the state of Oregon, I don’t know right now, but at the time, the rule was that the ICAC office would create their own web page. Like they wouldn’t go on to adult dating sites, they would be on their own webpage that somehow hinted at sex with minors and those people that went to that website and then started trying to hook up… which I personally think is probably a much more realistic way to go. Okay, those people were looking for children. Okay. Guess what? You’re in the right ballpark, woohoo. So there’s some differences there.

Andy 41:16
In preps for doing this interview with you, and again, thank you very much for coming on. You shared with me where you got on, I think it’s called open mic with an attorney. And honestly, I didn’t realize that that was like, they are friendly. They’re friendly towards the vigilantes.

Unknown Speaker 41:39
Well, it is Chris Hansen’s attorney. So that does make sense, right?

Andy 41:41
I just thought it was an interview with an attorney and he was pushing back. You seemed to stump him. To me, you seemed to stump him a time or two of him trying to completely get himself wrapped around the argument of in a case like your son’s versus some true predator.

Kathleen 41:58
I certainly tried. Yes, yes, a true predator. I certainly tried to be logical. And at the end of that interview, he did, after we were off, he did thank me and said it was an interesting case. And he was very confused. If you watch the interview, you can tell he’s confused why they would continue to prosecute Jace after he already served his sentence in jail. But the thing that he said after we were off air was he was definitely concerned with the picture. The picture was it for him as well. Why send a picture of an adult? And he even said on his interview that he’d asked the other people in his group and yeah. The most that someone could say was maybe 16 or 17. But most people thought that the picture was of a 20-some year old and that is the truth. It is a 20 some year old.

Andy 42:56
You’ve also been on the Dr. Phil Show? What kind of shit show is that? hate that show so bad. I guess you could almost call it like a tame down version of Jerry Springer, almost. It’s just garbage.

Kathleen 43:12
It is drama. But what we thought was how do we reach as many people as possible? So you kinda, you got to go there. And honestly, the first person to reach out to me after the New York Times article was Tamra Hall. I guess she’s a woman who does a talk show. I don’t watch her. She certainly hasn’t been on as long as Dr. Phil or anything. But she reached out to us first, saying that one of her producers had read the New York Times article and that they were very interested in having us on the show. That got delayed because at that time, Lloyd came through and COVID was going and so it got delayed and delayed, and eventually, we got on the Dr. Phil instead. And so then Tamra Of course, you know, we were tainted to her. She didn’t want to talk to us. So, but that’s okay. So and I do know that a lot of people don’t like Dr. Phil. Obviously, as I said, on the Mike Morris podcast, you know, all of these are TV shows, and they require good ratings in order to stay afloat. So they have to create drama and controversy and they’re not really looking for the truth. But I was able to speak my truth and Jace was able to speak his truth and so we felt good about that. And it was a segue for us to get into how to talk to a group. How to anticipate adverse reactions and you know.

Andy 44:48
Did they like berate you? I mean, I haven’t seen the program, but did you get like the whole big 200 people or whatever it is in the audience booing at you for things said?

Kathleen 44:56
Well, that’s pretty funny too, because a really good friend of mine, Anne – Jace’s best friend’s mother – was in the audience. One of the three founding family members from CAGE was in the audience, Dan. My sister was in the audience and my sister’s a character. And she was actually pretty much telling the other people to shut up and be respectful. So no, we were covered in the audience. Obviously, there were a lot of trolls ripping me a new one in the comments as always happens. But, you know, that’s those people. Usually when I talk to somebody one on one, they see the points. They may or may not agree with it, but they didn’t know these were happening the way they’re happening. And it is confusing and upsetting to them at some level.

Andy 45:52
Totally. If you could get, most of the time, if you can get someone one on one and describe how the whole registry works, and how long it lasts, people don’t normally like pile on and keep going… like, yeah, this should just be forever, forever, forever. Like, people generally have a more humane side of things. They think that it’s while you’re being punished that this goes on. Not that it goes on for people for forever. It’s generally my experience. Tell me, we’re getting sort of close to the end timewise. But go into the advocacy side of what you’re working on with the legislature.

Kathleen 46:26
As I had mentioned, for CAGE, we have three founding families and one of the families, their son managed to get a 10 year sentence, which is unthinkable and disgusting for a 20 year old with no prior criminal record whatsoever. That family, of the three families, that is the only family that physically lived in the state of Washington. They are kind of affluent. And so, for that reason, they already knew a few legislative families. And so they started heavily reaching out to try to recruit people to help change the laws up there. That family is laser focused on trying to get their son out of prison who’s been in there for five or six years now. He went through a year and a half of solitary confinement. I’m not sure if you can imagine what that does to a 20-year-old. (Andy: I can’t imagine what it does to anybody.) Yeah, yeah, it’s a really sick case. And so, they now have a group of people who are on board. A group of legislators who are on board with we need to alter some of these. All of the legislators had no idea what was going on to this extent. And so we we’ve really brought focus to just letting everybody know, and then saying, okay, this is unreasonable, because in the state of Washington, someone caught in a sting will do more time than someone who actually offends. So they have a diversion program up there, where as we all know, the majority of people who offend are known to the victim. And so, if you’re known to the victim up in the state of Washington, you’ll get a 12-month sentence, and then the rest of you can serve out as probation of your sentence. That’s not available to anybody caught in a sting because you can’t know nobody, because there was no victim. And therefore, we have to serve the entire sentence in prison. And so it’s atrocious. And so they have been fighting tooth and nail to get their son out of prison and we just back them up with anything we can. Recently I had to put together a flyer because the police chief up in the state of Washington who was in charge of the net nanny and that is the name of the campaign that they ran up there, he denied that they’re breaking any rules whatsoever. And so I had to write up a statutes… and the other thing that happens a lot is when the police get on the stand in this case is they’re like, we don’t have to follow the ICAC rules. They’re just suggestions. We can break any rule we want to get through these nasty people you know. They deserve to go to prison at any cost.

Andy 49:19
Larry wouldn’t that go directly to if you sign a confession, they don’t really have to do much else. You’re sunk.

Larry 49:28
That’s generally the case. When you sign a confession, this troubles me a lot. I don’t think I’ve heard that conducted that way in our state in terms of making apologies to a non-existing victim. But they’re pretty zealous here.

Andy 49:44
We were gonna move over to this case. What is subjective versus objective entrapment defenses?

Kathleen 49:55
And I hope Larry’s gonna answer this. (Andy: I hope so too.)

Larry 49:59
Well, I don’t generally think of it in those terms. So I don’t relate to it that way. But there’s entrapment, where the person, they show that they were predisposed to commit the crime. If you have a nice looking decoy out doing a prostitution sting, and the person makes the approach to the decoy and makes the offer, that is a predisposition. The decoy just happened to be a law enforcement officer. If, on the other hand, the decoy is actually making the approach, and suggesting that there will be a rewarding relationship for the right price, then you have what she’s talking about with the law enforcement, which is what they do in these sting operations. They suggest a crime that the person has not thought about. If you’re predisposed to commit a crime, and you happen to approach an officer, whether it be a heist of a bank, or whether it be at embezzlement from your company, if you’re predisposed to commit a crime, and you happen to make the approach to an officer, that’s just too bad. I mean, you shouldn’t have had a criminal mind. You know, an evil mind, an evil hand. But what’s happening in these stings is not that. The people have no criminal mindset. They’re looking for a hookup. And all of a sudden, the person transforms and morphs into something that was not advertised. And people are in doubt that that’s what happens, that this person is really a minor. Particularly when they show a picture- I watched the entire interview. It was like 33 minutes long. And I watched it, and I looked at the video, and I looked at it. I froze the picture, and I couldn’t conclude that I would think it was a 13-year-old. Something we’ve got to do better is we got to tell people, if anybody ever says I’m a minor, you have to stop. What we’re gonna have to work on doing is educating. If a person says, I’m a teenager, you’re going to have to stop right then. And say, I am reporting you to the operator of this website. And I’m reporting you to the police. And the police, of course, that’s who you’d be reporting them to, because they are the police. But we’ve got to stress that message, when someone morphs into something that they have not represented themselves to be, you must stop. Now, that doesn’t mean that we don’t need to be working on litigation and legislation. But the message has to go out as best we can. When you’re in an adult website, and someone morphs into a child, you’ve got to stop, and you’ve got to say, I’m going to report them. I’m going to report you, you shouldn’t be here, you clicked and said you were an adult. You should not be here, go away. Now a 20-year-old, depending on their maturity level, is not going to have that reaction in most cases. But that’s what the message, we’re gonna have to start teaching in terms of what the proper course of action.

Andy 52:56
I don’t know how we bring that to everyone preemptively though. I mean, that means from the time that they start going through almost like sex ed classes, whatever they call it now, like we’re gonna have to say… like, there has to be some training. Because if all your indicators, Larry, tell you that it is not a minor, and someone just goes, I’m 13, you’re like, No, bullshit. No, you’re not. Like, I understand what you’re saying you have to then walk away. But all of your other indicators tell you that it is not a 13 year old.

Larry 53:33
I agree with you. And I agree with Kathleen. But I’m saying in terms of what we can do immediately, because most of the people that listen to us are not pretrial. They’re post trial. So our ability to reach people is somewhat limited. Because they wouldn’t be here except for they’ve already encountered this problem. And where we’re losing the battle is that just like Kathleen said, people don’t know this is happening. All they know, and I can tell what I was gonna say earlier, when there was a point being addressed about the legislature and what the police do to self-fund. Kathleen was making a point about this is a self-funding operation, which is exactly correct. That is what it is. The lawmakers are told, and I’ve sat through these hearings with the Office of the New Mexico Attorney General present. And they say that they need additional funding for these things because they consider this an approach crime. The argument they make us is somewhat similar to like, if you work in a retail establishment and you have the tendency to graze. Many employees, I’d say even maybe a majority of employees tend to pick up whatever item that they might want to have or eat something and they refer to that as grazing. But the argument the AGs office makes is that but for us, these people have a tendency and a predisposition to have sex with minors or they would have done just what I said. They would have stopped when we presented ourselves as minors. So, but for us, we have saved the community from dozens and dozens of approach crimes. And the public is terrified that they’re actually people out there lurking online, trying to hook up with their minors. So the reality is I have not seen any evidence. As Kathleen says, there’s no evidence because it just doesn’t happen. Seldom is it really an adult tried to hook up with a real minor. But that’s the story that they tell in the legislative chambers and the committee’s. That’s what they say justifies what they do. (Andy: Kathleen?)

Kathleen 55:37
Yeah, absolutely. And to bring that even further, I did do a survey. I have an online survey, because I couldn’t find any data on these stings, what’s happening. And one of the things that came out was that over 60% of the men who are convicted and arrested, of course, but convicted of these say that they did try to walk away from the conversation. They disconnected in some way, and then they were reached back out to by the police. And that’s pretty scary, too. So even if you accidentally fall into this doesn’t mean you’re going to get out.

Andy 56:16
Larrt, did you have anything else? Comments from other parts that we were talking about?

Larry 56:22
No, you’ve done a great job covering this. And Kathleen’s done a great job describing what happens. This is actually a serious, serious problem nationwide. I don’t think there’s any state that doesn’t have some degree of these stings. They’re just too easy to do. There’s too much funding available. When we talk about cutting funding to law enforcement, this is an example of what we’re talking about. The reason why they are able to do this is because the federal government piles money into it. And like my state, the New Mexico Attorney General’s Office has a unit, a particular unit, where they prosecute these cases. This is one of the few prosecutions that’s handled solely by the New Mexico AG. And they come to the legislature and say, we just need more. You just wouldn’t believe how much of this is going on out there. And who can say no when they’re showing statistics? The self-fulfilling prophecy that Kathleen was talking about. They say in the last year we arrested dozens or hundreds, or whatever the case may be, and we need even more. We could do so much more if we had more money. That’s what they do. And nobody understands that.

Andy 57:39
I’m not going to frame this exactly right. But I’ve heard that because police patrol less affluent neighborhoods, they then find more crime, which then they say, oh, we need to go fight crime in those neighborhoods where we found the crime before, thus perpetuating the loop of less affluent neighborhoods ending up with, quote unquote, more crime, because the police are there because they found crime before but they might find the same amount of crime somewhere else, but they weren’t there already. Sounds identical to that.

Kathleen 58:07
It is very similar. Yes. So the increased presence then gets you more. Unfortunately, you know, this is pretty open to any single person and plenty of married people who go online looking for companionship, which is the norm in this day and age.

Larry 58:27
No way married people would be online looking for… that is the most bizarre thing I’ve ever heard Kathleen. *sarcasm*

Andy 58:36
They’re all going to singles nights at the local Y or something like that, right? Is that what they’re doing?

Kathleen 58:42
It was closed down in COVID.

Andy 58:45
Right. What are we supposed to do now? (Kathleen: I don’t know.) Is there anything else before we let Miss Kathleen go?

Larry 58:54
I would be delighted to have a conversation probably off grid about the about the retrial. And I can certainly offer my insight pro bono. Not that I expect your strategy to change. But I can tell you what our experience is with these type of trials.

Kathleen 59:08
That’d be great. Thank you so much.

Larry 59:11
Kathleen, thank you so very much for coming. I really appreciate it. You’re probably about to go have dinner because it’s three hours behind what it is on the east coast.

Kathleen 59:20
It is. I have to go cook for Jace who’s gonna come home from his Amazon job.

Andy 59:24
Oh, okay. And I’ll say this, and then I’m going to cut you off. East Coast is the only time that matters. (Kathleen: You suck.) Thanks so much, Kathleen. Have a great night. (Kathleen: Bye, everybody.) I think Larry, we’ve been going for quite a long time and we have this case to cover from Connecticut. Are we ready to go there? Or is there anything else that we need to do?

Larry 59:48
Well, it looks like we’re almost out of time.

Andy 59:50
We are almost at a time. So I’m going to speed read. Okay. So if you are listening to this at Advanced speed, I’m sorry.

Larry 59:57
Well, we could kick this out until next week if you like. I mean, this is not time sensitive.

Andy 1:00:03
It’s not time sensitive? Because we’re already right at an hour without some cutouts, whatever. I mean, we can kick it. If you want to.

Larry 1:00:10
We can kick it. And then also, there was a document about PFR registry reform proposal in Connecticut. We could combine those into an episode maybe for the Thanksgiving holiday. But yeah, this is not time sensitive.

Andy 1:00:23
Okay. Well, then let’s jump right on down to the very end where we will go to Who is That Speaker? So last week, Larry, I played this.

Larry 1:00:40
Accordingly, I shall not seek, and I will not accept the nomination of my party for another term as your president.

Andy 1:00:52
Larry, who was that?

Larry 1:00:54
That was former president, the late President Lyndon Baines Johnson.

Andy 1:01:00
And I gotta tell you, it must have been because we talked about nobody writing in on these easy ones. You keep giving people these little softballs. And I think everyone’s like, Come on, man. Everyone knows who that is. You got to make these things harder for people to dive in. So incidentally, because of that, I received like 40 submissions, but the first one to come in was from Carl. Carl, thank you very much for writing in and being the first one listening to this and submitting the answer. And then for this one, this one probably will be a little bit harder Larry. And for Episode 203, send me an email message at with the subject line of who’s that speaker and tell me who this is.

Who’s That Speaker? 1:01:47
It doesn’t fit. If it doesn’t fit, you must acquit.

Andy 1:01:51
Do you think I need to play that one again?

Larry 1:01:53
Give them one more shot at that. That’s an old clip.

Who’s That Speaker? 1:01:58
It doesn’t fit. If it doesn’t fit, you must acquit.

Andy 1:02:03
All right, there you go.

Larry 1:02:07
And that is fitting in view of what happened this weekend in Kenosha.

Andy 1:02:11
Oh, boy, here we go. Okay, I really don’t want to talk about this because this is like just a powder keg. But what do you want to talk about with the jury trial that closed out this week?

Larry 1:02:22
Well, the jury… Of course, everyone knows that’s listening to this, we have the best audience on earth. Not even just in the country, but on Earth. The audience knows that there was an acquittal. There seems to be a lot of dissension out there. I’ve heard so much misinformation about it. And the case crashed way before the conclusion of the trial. The case crashed when the surviving person testified that he had a gun at the head of the accused and now acquitted. When he did that, the case crashed. You were not going to get a first-degree conviction, you weren’t going to get hardly any. It was like unlikely to get any conviction. So what I wanted to talk a little bit about is this is an example of mob justice. When prosecutors are forced by the angry population to file charges that are really not supported by the evidence just because the public is angry. This is a dangerous way to conduct prosecutions in this country. I am not on the side of Kyle Rittenhouse at all. I’m not on anyone’s side. I’m on the due process of law, presumption of innocence, proof beyond a reasonable doubt. That’s my guiding principle. The proof just wasn’t there in this case. And it reminds me of, I believe it was 99. The Ramsey case out of Boulder. And those who’ve been listening since day one have heard me talk about the Ramsey case before. You had a very prominent person in the Boulder community who was accused or suggested, he was never accused, he was ever formally charged. But his daughter disappeared, she didn’t even disappear. I’m gonna get the story wrong. She was murdered. And a ransom note was left for approximately the amount of money of his annual bonus which was something around $100,000-$113,000 (Andy: Annual what?) Bonus from his job.

Andy 1:04:27
Oh, I’m sorry, I misunderstood you.

Larry 1:04:29
The Boulder district attorney was a relatively honorable guy, which I’ve said repeatedly. I don’t even know if Alex Hunter is still alive. I do know that his chief deputy Peter Horstman is not. Most of those guys believe that you should actually have evidence of the crime before you made the accusations. And if you couldn’t prove them, you shouldn’t make accusations. I mean, that wasn’t being soft on crime. It’s just they believe the power of the state of Colorado should be used for the charges they could prove. They didn’t just throw things at the wall and hope they would stick to appease the mob? Well, the Boulder community was very enraged that these are fluent people who obviously had had taken the life of that beautiful little model girl, JonBenet Ramsey. They were they were they were outraged. And they said, anybody else would have been in jail. Well, maybe they’re right. Maybe anybody else would have been in jail in most jurisdictions, but not in Boulder. That’s not the way they ran that office. And he ended up no longer being DA because of the outrage about him not prosecuting. Well, it hasn’t been many years ago, that they have completely exonerated and said, neither of the Ramseys could have been involved in this. That would have been a case of a travesty of justice if they had succumbed to the angry mob and filed charges. Just because something is horrible doesn’t mean that you have to have a charge to satisfy the mob. This situation was a tragedy, a total tragedy in Kenosha. Bad decisions were made on both sides. And two lives were lost, and another person was injured. And I don’t know what all I’ll let fall out of that because there were people arrested and cars burned and all sorts of things went on in Kenosha. But there just wasn’t evidence of premeditation and planned murder. Prosecutor, you should never have charged him with that. You should not have done that. You should have charged him with what you could have proven. And when your case crashed and burned, you should have walked over to the defense table, you should have said, Hey, I just took a hit on my case. Do you want to talk a plea negotiation? But they were not allowed to do that because of the angry mob. You know what the public would have said? The conspiracy theorists would have said, See, the prosecution deliberately lost that case. They deliberately tossed it because they deliberately did a bad job so they could offer him a sweetheart deal. That was just not an option that they could have done. But that’s what a good prosecutor would have been is hey, we just got sunk. Do you want to talk a deal?

Andy 1:07:06
But that goes in contrast to what a lot of our people experienced that you did cross the line and did do something that’s going to get you a PFR charge, but then they also throw in all of this other stuff that they probably can’t prove. But then they get you to take a plea deal, because you know you’re guilty of something way down. And then like they completely, I don’t know, I don’t know if I want to call this a bluff. But they do a boo game. How about that? A boo game, that’s a prison term for people. And they scare you into taking the plea deal. That’s in contrast to what you’re just describing, though.

Larry 1:07:41
I don’t think it is in contrast. I think it’s very consistent. That’s what I’m saying. That at the very beginning, they had a horrible case. But they could not offer him a plea, they could not offer him a plea. (Andy: Just because of the public pressure?) Because of the public pressure. (Andy: I see.) There’s no plea offer that could have been made. And at the time when the case crashed, in my opinion, and this is not hindsight quarterbacking, I said that at the time. I said this case just went down the crapper when I saw that testimony. And at that time, they still didn’t know about the lesser included. The prosecution still had the weapons charge, and they had the option of making a deal on a lesser charge. And that would have been the prudent prosecutorial move to have done. But with mob justice, you can’t do that. You cannot say, because people don’t understand how the system works. And they want it all or nothing. And they got nothing. A good prosecutor wants a conviction on what the appropriate crime is. Alex Hunter would have made a deal. He would have said, Look, this is what I’ve got, folks. This is what I’ve got. And this is what the plea offer is going to be. But that’s not permissible anymore. And this judge, I don’t know what Wisconsin’s law is on recall and removal. But if that exists in Wisconsin, this judge is going to be subject to the same type of effort that Judge Persky was in California.

Andy 1:09:04
Interesting. Wow. That would be very interesting. I, Larry, I have a homework assignment for you, then. Can you then research can that judge be recalled. And if you hear any grumblings about that, that would be interesting to follow up on.

Larry 1:09:18
I will do that. I don’t know what the process is there. But I’m sure with our vast research staff, I can assign this and we could probably… and our winner also put a nice humorous email together about our research staff. You remember that was same person that won. He made some jokes about our research and our writers and our copy editors and all the stuff that we have at FYP.

Andy 1:09:46
I do. I just don’t know if they’re the same people. Alright, with that Larry, on the heels of who Who’s that speaker for this week of episode 203. Again, send me an email message at And for that if you have an answer… and for the bonehead in chat that already unleashed it, you’re going to get banned if you keep that up. Just saying, just saying. It’s not an idle threat. But I think Larry, then we can talk about our new patrons, we did get a new one named Lydia. Thank you very much for becoming a new patron. Part of the FYP global headquarters Alliance or something like that. I got to come up with a very slick name. And defjunkies was very generous. He increased his support for the show by a factor of three, Larry, a threefold increase. So now he’s that stimulus check times three.

Larry 1:10:34
So what’s 14 times 3?

Andy 1:10:40
28. I don’t know what goes on after that. 42?

Larry 1:10:43
Yeah, $4200 a month.

Andy 1:10:46
Cool. Like it. And Larry, did we get any new snail mail subscribers?

Larry 1:10:49
We did get one, but the name escapes me. (Andy: How about Roger?) That sounds right.

Andy 1:10:55
That’s why the show notes are there, man.

Larry 1:10:57
You think I actually look at that screen?

Andy 1:11:00
Well, obviously not. All right. Well, I think that closes it up. We are bumping up right up against the time there for the transcript. If you don’t know, we have a certain number of pages that can fit into an envelope without costing more than one, I think, one first class postage stamp. Is that right?

Larry 1:11:15
It’s actually more than one. But we don’t want to keep going up. Yeah, we’re at two ounces. We could go higher. It’s just money.

Andy 1:11:25
Oh, that just grows on trees.

Larry 1:11:27
Yeah, and we have a vast amount of grant money. I mean, it just flows in. And there’s grant organizations approaching us wanting to give us money.

Andy 1:11:37
That’s why we need that 501c3 that we talked about at the beginning of this year. And we’ll talk about it again at the beginning of next year, I suppose. Thank you, everyone, for listening on the live stream channel on Discord. It’s super fun. Everyone keeps me on my toes in there. And they post good information like the person posting the information about what to do for PC, for the person that is being threatened there and doesn’t want to go on to general population. I have information for you that we’re going to get sent out. But you can find all of the show notes over at You can leave voicemail at 747-227-4477. Email me again at And of course, if you want to support the program, all contributions are greatly, greatly appreciated. We spend a crap ton of hours doing the stuff Larry puts together all this legal analysis stuff and all the postproduction work that I have to go through and pre-production work. And that’s over at This is Thanksgiving week. Larry, Thursday is Thanksgiving, if I’m not mistaken, and I hope that everyone has an enjoyable holiday. And we will be here again Saturday night if I’m not mistaken. And have a great night. Larry, I’ll talk to you soon.

You’ve been listening to FYP.

Transcript of RM202: Registry Removal Process in Georgia with Brandon Thomas

Registry Matters is an independent production. The opinions and ideas here are that of the hosts and do not reflect the opinions of any other organization. If you have problems with these thoughts, fyp.

Andy 00:12
Recording live from FYP Studios, east and west. Transmitting across the internet. This is episode ­202 of Registry Matters. Good evening, Larry. It’s a little bit later we had an interview that we recorded. So we’re a little bit later. How are you tonight?

Larry 00:32
Awesome. Let’s get going.

Andy 00:34
Yeah, we should dive right in. Tell us what we have going on and not time travel, because we already recorded an interview. But what else do we have going on?

Larry 00:41
We have several questions that have come to us by various mechanisms that we receive questions here at FYP education. And we have a news article from Tennessee that we’re going to try to cover. And we have our Name that Speaker.

Andy 01:00
Beautiful. All right, well, then we will just dive the freaky-frack right on in. And we will jump on over to the first question of the evening. It says, I have a friend that has just been released from incarceration and is currently on PFR probation, has been for a couple months. He is starting a job as a truck driver and is going to be using an E log system. And I guess that’s electronic driving logs system to track miles and times for truck drivers. I think that is very much accurate. But in order to use it, he needs Internet access to upload his logs. When he asked the treatment counselor, he was told that he had to be in treatment for a minimum of six months before she would even consider thinking about it. But when he asked his probation officer, she told him that he would have a judge amend his probation. He then told us PO that he would like to get a different treatment provider. His PO told him again that he would have to get a judge to approve that as well. I wasn’t aware that this was the case, as I have not seen anything like that in Florida Statutes. Is there something I am missing? Larry, look, I’m just gonna tell you, as a tech person, having some sort of digital device thingamajigger that’s in the cab that lets you press the button that says I’m driving, I’m not driving is not the same as saying I have internet access. That’s somebody that’s really passing the buck.

Larry 02:23
Well, I’m taking the question at face value, said they have to have internet access. But I see a merging of two issues that are unrelated in this question. I would not jump to the conclusion that you need a new treatment provider. I don’t see that connection. What the probation officer said is to get a judge to order it. Why would that translate to needing another treatment provider? Of course, I know the answer to that. He’s like, I don’t like the fact this treatment provider said I won’t consider it for six months. That means that this treatment provider’s not going to be fair to me, which means I need to need a new treatment provider. That’s what he’s thinking. But I would not jump to that conclusion. I would merely go to the judge and… the PO is not likely to violate you for going to the judge, when they’ve told you to go to the judge. That’s a long shot there. So I would go to, if Internet access is needed for this E log system which that’s not in my wheelhouse, go to the judge and ask for that. Do not ask the judge to give you a new treatment provider. That will upset the applecart like you have never believed. It’s like going to the polygraph office with your lawyer in hand and saying I’m here to take the polygraph. Do not do that.

Andy 03:38
What about having a polygraph in your house when they come shake you down?

Larry 03:42
That’s even worse if you do that. I think I think we learned the consequences for that.

Andy 03:47
We may have learned those consequences. I’m sorry, my friend for saying that. I’m sorry. I’m just poking fun at you.

Larry 03:53
But yes, they’re two unrelated issues. You make your compelling case to the judge that you need internet access for employment. It’s more likely than not I would speculate unless the crime had a direct tie to the internet. And unless there’s a justifiable reason to totally ban or severely restrict, I would just about bet that that access would be granted for employment. But here’s the part that they didn’t raise in the question that I’ll go ahead and raise it. Are we talking about interstate driving here?

Andy 04:26
Or just within? I would think that even local drivers, Larry, probably have like the driver log thing because if you’re in a state like Georgia or New Mexico, you could drive all day cross state and you are going to run into the limits of the eight hours or 10-hour limit, whatever it is. Someone correct me, but somewhere in that ballpark.

Larry 04:45
That’s not where I’m headed with this. If you’re going to be on supervision as a person forced to register, driving interstate trucking is not going to be an easy task. I’m not saying it’s impossible. Some jurisdictions may be more tolerant to try to make that happen. But if you tried to do that job in New Mexico they would laugh at you and tell you to go find another job.

Andy 05:04
Because they’re not going to let you just randomly leave the state and go to the next 10 states that are in your proximity.

Larry 05:10
That is correct. They’re gonna tell you that you needed a travel permit. And by interstate compact, they’re not allowed to do that. They have to let the other state know that there’s gonna be a PFR in their territory. And I’m sure we’ll get some emails saying, I drove a truck. I’m not even contesting that. I’m telling you that my state would never allow you to do that. I don’t know what Florida’s position is going to be if he’s going to be driving out of state. But that’s something to consider, as well. Will they allow him to have this job? There are jobs that people can be restricted from doing, if they imposed a restriction as reasonably related to the offense. For example, I don’t know what the level of adult bookstores that exist in Georgia. They don’t exist across the country the way they once did, because of the internet. But they do have adult stores that sell toys and some degree of sexually stimulated stuff. (Andy: What kind of toys, Larry? I’m just kidding. Don’t do it.) They would never allow you to work at a sexual toy store while you’re under PEFR supervision. That would be a reasonable prohibition on your employment opportunities. And it wouldn’t matter that you said you worked at that store for seven years before you got convicted. Doesn’t matter. They’re not gonna let you do it. So it may not be appropriate for him to drive a truck depending on what he did and how he did his offense.

Andy 06:29
I completely understand. I was just kind of poking at you on that one, because that was funny. I wanted to hear you describe what adult toy stores were. Okay, I think that is everything there. Shall we move on then, sir? (Larry: Let’s do number two.) Number two, then it says: Dear NARSOL, I know from personal experience, as well as anecdotal evidence of others, that fighting a sex crime charge is probably one of the hardest cases to make. Most lawyers will tell you that there is no defense, and they urge defendants to take a plea, any plea. And then it continues, so my question is, what are the best defense strategies for someone accused of a PFR type offense? Just generally, as I know a large multitude of factors will affect any individual case. Are there available statistics on the rate of conviction ratio of plea to trial, etc. for PFR charges. Interesting question actually.

Larry 07:30
I don’t know about those particularized statistics, but overwhelming majority, 90 plus percent plead guilty. And I would say in the sexual arena, it’s even higher than that. Already, an astoundingly high number. But what are the defenses? It’s really specific to the allegations of the complaint of what was alleged. What type of PFR case we have. If you’re talking about a porn possession charge, we’re going to be more interested in terms of what’s being depicted in the porn. And the age of is very important. It’s not illegal if the person’s not underage. So we sometimes get into disputes about the age of what’s being shown. Sometimes there’s no doubt. I mean, if you look at a nine-year-old, a nine year old doesn’t pass for an 18 year old very often. But a 15-16 year old can very well pass for an 18 year old. So we get into trying to prove that that that depiction is an image of a person who’s underage and cannot lawfully pose for that photograph. So, but if it was a forcible offence, we’re going to be looking more at evidence that would suggest that the force happened. So we’re going to be looking at that the Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner, the SANE nurse or what the report says, what was alleged to have happened and we’re going to be looking for evidence of force. Because at the bare minimum, we’re going to try to try to cut it out to be consensual. I mean, that’s just what we do in this business. We don’t go in and say, yep, state you made a valid charge, we’re gonna plead the person guilty. You look for defenses, that’s your job. That’s why it’s called a defense attorney. So we’re gonna be looking for ways to mitigate the harm that’s been done. The defenses can be diminished by your confession that you made when they read you your rights and told you that you had the right to remain silent. That would have been a good point to stop, but most don’t. So and then if we’re looking at an offense where the person, it was merely criminal because of the age, then as an attorney, we’re going to look at, do they have to prove this mistake of Age in defense? Oftentimes, it’s not, but we’ll look for that. And any representations that’s been made in terms of age by the accusing party, we’re going to be looking can we prove that there was a misrepresentation? Because we’re gonna try to do mitigation. But in terms of defenses, it’s gonna be variable to what the allegations were specific to each person as to what defenses are best asserted. But the victims industrial complex and law enforcement complex have worked vigorously over the last 20 years to diminish our defenses. You know, we can’t aggressively cross examine, because that’s victimizing them the second time. We can’t introduce any sexual history, because that’s not relevant to the instant accusation, doesn’t matter about that stuff. So we have a lot of things we cannot do. And remember, give your defense attorney a little bit of slack. They didn’t make the law. They’re just simply opening up the statute book, and blowing the dust off of it and looking at what the elements are that have to be proved. They’re looking at what the criminal complaint alleges. They’re looking at your statement, they’re looking at the video of you confessing. They’re looking at all those things. And oftentimes, that weighs very heavily in terms of negotiating a plea. Because without a plea, guess what? Your sentencing options are wide open. If you don’t do a plea, you do the plea to contain the range of sentencing. So if you have five counts, and the state agrees to drop three of the counts, you’ve just diminished the range of punishment by a significant amount. And then if you negotiate even further, the sentence will be no more than maybe, of those two remaining counts, they could stack those and give you 10 years on each one. You may negotiate that those will run concurrently. That’s not something that you could achieve in a trial, because that would be the option of running those convictions consecutive. So you may have a plea that says I will give the person, in exchange for the plea, a guarantee of no more than eight years max. Isn’t that a whole lot better than 20 years stacked or 50 years stacked, if you had all five counts and the jury convicted them? That’s the reason why we do please, folks, because you’re looking for certainty of outcome versus the uncertainty of the outcome.

Andy 11:49
Well, now I’m going to make your head explode. But Larry, we should all stop taking pleas and then we would blow up the criminal system, the court system, and then they would have to, like, start lowering the requirements of everything.

Larry 12:01
That’s an interesting theory. But there’s only one problem with that theory: the defense attorney has a job to represent the best interest of that particular client. You will not find anywhere in the Rules of Professional Conduct where your job is to try to blow the system up so you can redesign the system. So your job is to look at your case specific, your clients specific, and try to come up with the best outcome in view of the circumstances that exist for your client. So that’s never going to happen. You can wish, and you can wish, and you can wish, but that is never going to happen. And I just told you that. So there’ll be a lot of ugly emails I’ll get this week. Well Larry, you just don’t understand, if everybody would stand together, stick together, it would work. But it won’t work, because it’s never going to happen.

Andy 12:45
I gotcha. All right. Well, then, let’s go over to question number three. It says, first of all, tell you gentlemen how much of a life line your podcast has been for me. Often, I find myself feeling very alone and needed to listen to you guys just to remember that I am not walking this walk all by myself. As soon as I am no longer a full-time nursing student, I will become a patron. In the meantime, I will wait my turn to hear your humor and insight. But however, thank you very much seriously, like this is my own commentary. Thank you very much for becoming a patron. If you’re waiting, then you somehow got off of being a nursing student. My situation here is much like many others, my husband and I have resided in our home in Florida since 1998. In 2018, he was arrested on 10 counts of CP. 10 is some sort of magic number for felonies of this type in Florida. We fought it as hard as we could without putting our house on the line to keep him out of prison. But the DA would not allow anything that the that didn’t include state prison time. So as of December 2020, he has been in prison and we expect with good time, he will be released in June of 2023. He will be on PFR probation for five years after his release. And this is Florida. So that means like forever. SO probation will be difficult enough. But our main concern is housing. Our county ordinances state PFRs cannot live within 2500 feet of a school daycare playground. Pretty much all of humanity. Our home is well within a 2500-foot radius of a few schools. Yes, multiple schools, public, private, private and charter. The closest schools were built around us since we’ve lived in and owned the home. But of course, prior to his arrest, the million-dollar question is will he be able to come home? Has he essentially given up his residence status in our house by being in prison? Is there legal precedents regarding this type of scenario and who or what state entity decides this or approves residences? Thank you for putting your time and effort into such a great podcast and source of information to support the PFRs and families. I appreciate all that you do. Keep us in the know. Sincerely, Liz and FYP. Thank you for signing it FYP Liz. That was really very clever of you. And wow, thank you for becoming a patron also. Larry, go at it.

Larry 14:56
Now is this the $1,400 monthly one?

Andy 15:00
Yes, absolutely. Came in right at the stimulus check money, and then also added on the Child Tax Credit too.

Larry 15:07
Because you know, this podcast is ALL about the money, right?

Andy 15:11
It’s all about the money. Every second of it Larry.

Larry 15:13
So well, there are a lot of questions buried in here. And I don’t know the answer. What I would tell you how to go about getting the answer, though, were probably talking about Miami Dade County, because that’s the county I’m familiar with. For those that don’t know, that’s in the southern tip of Florida, and they have the 2500-foot rule. So I’m guessing that’s what we’re talking about. But there’s a lot of unknowns here. We don’t know, if within the county ordinance, if there is a grandfather clause in the ordinance. So we would need to have the ordinance. This came to me like an hour before we went live. So I don’t know that I had enough time to even begin to look. But we would need to know if there is a grandfather for people who lived there prior to that. But then what we also need to know, does a stint in prison break the residence? Because technically, he’s not residing there. And at the moment, we don’t know if his residence has been forfeited by his residence in the Florida Department of Corrections. So we don’t know that. But then we can get to what we do know. We know that there is a restriction that may apply to him. And we also know that the probation authorities have the ability, if they so choose, to impose restrictions retroactively. So what I wish we had here was some information from the attorney if there was even a discussion about this because their attorneys knew, I’m assuming if you get to know your clients, which most of the people who are good at this we do, we want to know for several reasons for stuff like situations like this. And we also want to know, because it helps to figure out if you can pay the bill. And most of the attorneys when they do small talk, they’re coming at it for wanting to know if you can pay them, pay the fee. But also, I want to know if we can help protect you. So knowing where you live, particularly on a PFR offense in a state that has just hopscotching all over the state. I think there’s 1000 foot requirement in state statute. And that doesn’t apply to every single PFR. But then the jurisdictions are free to impose their own. And it can vary from that 1000 up to 2500 in Miami Dade. And maybe there are other counties who have that. So we would need to figure out if the attorney did anything in the pre-negotiation process to deal with the issue of housing. Did he even care he or she care about that issue? When the client pays you big money, and I can assure you, they paid big money for this, it’s your duty to try to help mitigate the damage on the backside. The prison is only temporary. Three years if he gets all his good time. So you need to you need to look beyond that. So I’d like to know what the attorney discussed in terms of housing, if anything. And if the attorney didn’t say anything and that attorney practices in this county, and they didn’t do that, I’m really dubious about the competency level. As was pointed out in the prerecorded episode that we did, an attorney may be an attorney, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that they’re a good attorney. But what I would do, if I were her, I would start with the Florida Action Committee. And they may or may not respond, these are volunteers, which they are an affiliate of NARSOL, which I’m on the board of directors of NARSOL. I would contact them and see if they have any insight about if there’s a grandfather provision, if they don’t know or if they don’t respond, then I would say that we can probably make a couple of attorney referrals off air to this patron in terms of who they might contact to get some reliable information. But he may in fact be precluded from coming back to that house. I just don’t know, and that would be tragic.

Andy 19:16
Um, this is not going to help any but a friend of mine here that I met while I was gone, when he moved back home, there had been a pool put in since they had moved in. So it came in in their neighborhood afterwards. And he was grandfathered. Now I know that that’s a one-off example in a different state, different conviction, all that stuff. So like it may be possible. I’m only saying that for that reason. That maybe there’s some sort of grace out there that would let you stay there, since I think the way you stated it that they lived there before all the other things moved in, I think.

Larry 19:49
Yep. So we’ll have to wait and see. And then of course, she can feel free to provide us additional details.

Andy 19:56
Very good. And then moving along. So this is a for RM 202 Public something or another. It says state’s sex offender registry faces questions. This is from Tennessee lawmakers. I’m assuming that this is a newspaper article. This is actually like a printed… the Tennessean. Oh, that’s the newspaper. And here are some highlighted blocks that I got to read. The concern is the state’s system established in 1994 and revamped in 2004 may now be deemed unconstitutional for being too punitive lawmaker said. What we don’t want in Tennessee is for our registry to be struck down and we wake up tomorrow morning, and there are roughly 20,000 kurt PFRs on the registry that we’ve got no good way to keep up with, said Representative Mike Bell Republican of Riceville, who co-chairs the joint committee. Did I did I add enough to dramatic inflection there, Larry? (Larry: You did a great job.) All right, then it continues. Davis recommended lawmakers look at model legislation produced by the American Law Institute, a Philadelphia based advocacy group consisting of judges, lawyers and legal experts. The legislature should also allow trial courts more discretion in determining how long and whether an offender should remain on the registry. But the solution in a roomful of conservative lawmakers with a tough on crime stance is unlikely going to be abolishing the system. Bell said he could look at establishing a board to assess individual offenders’ risk to public safety. House Criminal Justice Committee Chairman Michael Curcio, Republican of Dickson, said the legislature realizes the system should be changed. The change isn’t to weaken the system, he said, but to fix the legal problems. Nobody was saying that we need to be soft on PFRs, he said. What we are saying is what we are doing is not workable. We need to fix that. Where are you going with this craziness, Larry?

Larry 21:51
I’ll put it in here because we’ve got some listeners in Tennessee. And they keep reminding us that they’re in the Sixth Circuit, which we’re cognizant of that fact. This Davis person is a defense attorney, who’s from the Tennessee association of criminal defense attorneys. And he’s trying to point the legislature toward that prestigious group called the American Law Institute, a Philadelphia based… Now I can tell you as a Southerner, you come in starting talking about Philadelphia, they have no interest in wanting to hear anything from Philadelphia. That’s the last place they’d look for advice. But the main thing I put in here for folks, the Tennessee legislature is under Republican control. And you hear that because you hear the committee chairs, that means they have the majority. So don’t waste your time going to the Democrat Party. Because they can’t do anything for you other than be sympathetic. You need to go to the party who’s in the majority to these key people. If you want registry reform, that’s who you need to talk to. I put in here for a snippet of what lawmakers are likely to say when you go talk to them. They’ve already told you that they’re not interested in letting PFRs go, they’re interested in doing the least they have to do to save the status quo. That’s what they said here. This is from the from the Tennessean newspaper. It was sent to us by a listener. And so I told him, eventually we would talk about it. We’ve had it a couple of weeks. So now we’ve talked about it. It’s not likely that this is going to result in any major changes. The only way change is going to come to Tennessee is if you start electing different people, which is not likely, or the courts collar them like they did in Michigan, and they’re finally forced to make some token reforms, but the registry is not going to come crashing down. And there’s the rest of my hate mail coming.

Andy 23:42
You are trying to run off all of our listeners, Larry.

Larry 23:45
I’m doing a good job, don’t you think?

Andy 23:48
Yes, absolutely. Especially with the numbers that we’ve seen lately. Um, yeah. Okay. So you don’t think… I think this is stemming from the High Court – not the high court – but the appeals level court, is that right?

Larry 24:03
The Sixth Circuit Court.

Andy 24:07
And that’s from the Michigan case, correct? (Larry: Correct.) Okay. And so, since they’re in the same district, they have to follow the rules of what they said in that little quadrant, correct?

Larry 24:17
Yes, there are dozens of cases pending in Tennessee in Federal Court and there’s eventually going to be decisions that are going to force the lawmakers’ hands. But they have just told you that they’re going to do the least that they can do. If you listen to them and trust what they said, that might encourage you to vote for different people.

Andy 24:39
And there could be people of the same party but just different ones, perhaps Larry? (Larry: Well…) I was trying to throw a bone out there for something, but you can do with that how you want.

Larry 24:50
Well, this party is the party who actually needs to do it because they will vilify the other party if they try, but see the other party’s not gonna try because they’re in such a minority in Tennessee, they couldn’t pass anything if they I wanted to. So why would they stick their neck out on something like this when they can’t pass anything? So this is actually the party’s side of the majority you need to be talking to. So make your journeys to the people that represent you and tell them this. That this is a real problem and see what they tell you and remind them that you’re a constituent if you are.

Andy 25:21
Is it gonna sound like go pound sand?

Larry 25:23
It’s not gonna be good.

Are you a first-time listener of Registry Matters? Well, then make us a part of your daily routine and subscribe today. Just search for Registry Matters through your favorite podcast app. Hit the subscribe button and you’re off to the races. You can now enjoy hours of sarcasm and snark from Andy and Larry on a weekly basis. Oh, and there’s some excellent information thrown in there too. Subscribing also encourages others of you people to get on the bandwagon and become regular Registry Matters listeners. So, what are you waiting for? Subscribe to Registry Matters right now. Help us keep fighting and continue to say FYP.

Andy 26:16
Joining us now is Brandon Thomas and Mr. Thomas operates the law office of Brandon A. Thomas located in Atlanta, Georgia. The firm specializes in criminal law cases, including PFR petitions and failure to register offenses. Mr. Thomas received his law degree from Emory University of Law. He also received his bachelor’s degree cum laude in political science from the State University of Chicago at Albany, and that’s SUNY. Mr. Thomas is a former assistant federal defender for the Middle District of Alabama. That’s in Montgomery area. As a Federal Defender, Mr. Thomas has handled serious felony cases ranging from white collar crime to drug and firearm cases where defendants were facing life sentences. Prior to this, he was an assistant public defender for the Eastern judicial, excuse me, Eastern Judicial Circuit of Georgia. And that’s near Savannah, where he exclusively handled felony cases and served as lead attorney on jury trials. Thank you so much for joining us, Mr. Thomas. How are you tonight?

Brandon 27:13
Oh, good. Thanks for having me.

Andy 27:15
I really appreciate you coming on kind of short notice. But you are a… you attended, you joined us at the Atlanta conference. I think that was in 2015. And that’s where we first met. But I’m sure you don’t remember me for all of that, because it was a long time ago.

Brandon 27:31
I do. I do. It wasn’t that long ago. Must be three years. Four years. Maybe.

Andy 27:34
Larry, Larry, remind me when was the first Atlanta conference?

Larry 27:39
Think we did ‘15 and ‘16 in Atlanta, but I’m not sure. I don’t believe in ’16 and ‘17. But we did two in Atlanta back-to-back.

Andy 27:45
Yeah. Um, but so you are a defense attorney in Atlanta, Georgia, and the majority of your career has been criminal defense. Can you tell the audience what attracted you to this area of law?

Brandon 28:03
I’ve always liked criminal. I actually, at this point of my career, do pretty much half criminal half employment. But the bulk of my career prior to having my own practice was criminal. So it’s something I’ve always liked. I think I watched all the law and order episodes growing up and all and maybe internalized some of that. So it’s never boring. There’s always something new in criminal law. It’s also very… it’s someone’s real life. So that keeps it interesting as well. People facing significant amounts of time. Here in Georgia, we have pretty lengthy sentences based on these statutes, so there’s a lot to lose. So I think I like that excitement aspect of it. It is something I enjoy and we don’t run out a crime in Atlanta, tell you what. We really don’t. So there’s always something to do.

Andy 29:05
Yeah, I can only imagine that you never run out of anything to do up. Specifically, the reason why we are having you on is because we are going to be talking about the removal process for the PFR types. And PFR, if you’re not familiar with the acronym is person forced to register. We don’t use, typically, we try not to use terms like sex offender, whatnot. So we use PFR, person forced to register. And that code for the GA side of things is OCGA. And that’s 42-1-19. And let me begin by asking first, are there certain offenses that are not eligible to be removed from the registry?

Brandon 29:41
There’s a lot of offenses that are not eligible. Um, and like we were discussing before, one of the reasons that I have like a very high percentage of success, like 90% of the people are represented able to get off the registry and the reason that for that is I pretty much cherry pick my cases because I can look at a case and get a very good idea about whether somebody is gonna be able to get off the register or not. And so right off the top, rape is not going to work. 100%, you’re not getting off the registry in Georgia with, if it’s a literal rape, like an actual first degree, there’s no way. Because it’s written into the law that certain offenses, you cannot get off the registry. For example, if you have a conviction that lead to physical harm to the victim, you can’t get off the registry. And so rape implies sexual contact by force. So that by definition, that implies physical harm. And so for that reason, you’re not going to be able to get off. If the victim was restrained in any way, like, let’s say they got tied up with like a rope or anything like that, or even depending on the facts, there’s such a thing as you can incapacitate someone using drugs. Like let’s say you, they gave somebody Rohypnol, or some type of drug that like knocked them out, and then they have sex with them. That can also be a bar from getting off the registry. Multiple transactions, that’s another problem. So like, let’s say, somebody commits a sex offense, and then they commit another sex offense, the fact that you have more than one will operate as a bar in Georgia. So every state has their own law. That’s what’s important to know. So I’m in Georgia, and I practice in Georgia, all over Georgia, but my expertise is limited to Georgia. And so you can be in Montana or something, and you have completely different law. And maybe you can get off the registry in Montana with a rape conviction. But I just know what you can do here in Georgia. And to some extent, I’m familiar with Alabama, just because I get a lot of Alabama calls just because we’re right next Alabama. But other than that, you really need to consult a lawyer in your state so they can tell you what the requirements are in your state.

Andy 32:13
Under OCGA, 42-1-19(a), provides some of the opportunity to file a petition even before the passage of 10 years. Can you go into that a little bit on this subsection?

Brandon 32:27
Um, so pretty much anyone who’s been living… Let me back up. In Georgia, again, everybody has their own system, but in Georgia, everyone’s gonna be level one, two, or three, and you get that level from the sex offender Review Board. So in Georgia, level one is the lowest level, three is the highest. That’s called a sexually dangerous predator. So if you’re level one, you’re eligible to be removed from the registry as soon as you’ve completed your sentence. And completing your sentence means there’s no incarceration left, there’s no probation or parole left. So if you still… what happens to a lot of people is they may, like let’s say, they got, I’ve seen before somebody committed a sex offense, and they got a 30 serve 10, which means they got 10 years in prison, 20 years’ probation. So even though they’re out of prison, they’re not eligible to be removed from the registry, because they still have the 20-year probation. And so what will have to happen is, they’d have to file a motion for early termination, and get that 20 years cut to something less. Typically, you’re going to have to do at least half the time. So like, let’s say you’re 20 years on probation left, you have to do at least 10 years don’t get in any trouble, then you can ask the court to cut your probation sentence and I’ve had success with that. You can do that. Then after that, you can try to get off the registry, but you can’t get off the registry until your sentence is over.

Andy 33:54
I can attest to that one being true. I just did that roughly a year ago. Um, I’ve heard that a person has to be leveled prior to getting the court to consider the petition. What does this mean? And how does a person go about getting level? Do I just pick up the phone and go, Hey, Review Board, I need you to do me a favor, and can you level me? Or is there something more of a formal process that needs to be done?

Brandon 34:18
So typically, there’s two ways for that to happen. The first way is if you go to prison. And if you go to prison in Georgia, very often before you’re released, the sex offender review board is going to conduct what’s called a risk assessment. And then they’re going to give you level one, two or three. And they’re going to give you a narrative telling you why they put you at that level. So, the more serious the offense, the more likely your level is to be high, but they also look at different factors such as, for example, multiple transactions. If you have multiple instances of child molestation for example, that’s more likely to place you a level two or a level three. Certain offenses aren’t as serious as other offenses, even though they are all sex offenses. So for example, rape first degree would be like the most serious offense. Statutory rape, in my opinion, is probably the least serious because it implies consent, that, you know, they didn’t, they wouldn’t force themselves on the other person, it’s just that, as a legal matter, the other person was not of an age where they could have consented to the sexual contact. So those cases, more likely are going to be level one, whereas a more serious offense is more likely to be level two or three. So to answer your question, the first way to get leveled is if you go to prison. A lot of people don’t go to prison, and sometimes they even go to prison, they still don’t give you a level. The other way to get the level is that you file a petition to be removed from the registry. And then the sex offender review board will give you a level before the court makes a determination about whether they’ll let you off the registry or not.

Andy 36:07
When you do that process with filing the motion, do they have some kind of time limit to respond to that kind of petition?

Brandon 36:17
Um, they have 90 days for the risk assessment by law, but I’ve had it happen before where sometimes they come back faster. I’ve had them come back as fast as 45 days. And I’ve also had situations where it took much longer than 90 days, and they just asked for special permission. Basically, they just told the court look, we need more time, and then it ends up… I’ve seen it take as long as three months before. Excuse me, not three months, 90 days is three months, so I guess three months longer than that. So I’ve seen it take like six months before. If the convictions are really old… so let me back up. The sex offender Review Board, this is what they’re doing, they’re trying to get police reports, they want to see the guilty plea transcript, they want to look at the indictment, there’s a lot of documents they want to look at to try to figure out, okay, should this person be level one, two, or three. And the problem is like, some people’s conviction are so old, like, like right now, like since year 2000, criminals have become very computerized. And like everything is scanned in nice and neat on a computer. But if your convictions are from 1980 or something, a lot of times they gotta like pull it up off like a microfilm, or you have to like literally, like, blow the dust off the archive, like an old dusty box somewhere in the back. And they have to dig it out. And that can take time. And sometimes even when they dig through all the boxes, they still can’t find it. So that’s the problem. And so I’ve had that happen before. I had a client who was seventy years old trying to get off the registry, and his conviction was, I want to say it was like from the 80s. And they really were having…. And then on top of that, like the more rural the county, the more likely it is that they’re not technologically advanced. If you’re in a major city like Atlanta, or Nashville, Los Angeles, they probably have their archives pretty well put together. But like that particular case that I’m thinking about, he was like, in a rural place in Tennessee, when he got the eviction. So they are a lot slower to get things like computerized and scanning and stuff. So they really have to look for it.

Andy 38:41
I completely, completely understand that. So we just covered how does the person file the petition? And then but where? Like, which county does this happen in? And I guess then to extend that question one step further, does it matter if they’re from out of state by chance?

Brandon 39:02
Again, here’s the problem, like every state is going to have its own procedure. So I can only speak to Georgia. And the way Georgia does things is if your conviction is from Georgia, you file a petition in the county that you get convicted in. If your conviction was not from Georgia, you need to file the petition in the county that you reside in. So, I have a lot of clients who they got convicted in Ohio or California or something, and we just file the petition wherever they live. So but if your conviction is from like, you know, Macon County or something, it has to be filed in Macon County, there’s no way around it. But that’s how Georgia works. Other states, what I find is that most states have similar laws in terms of, like, half the states have a way for you to get the registry and half do not. And the ones that do have a way for you to get off the registry, I feel like they largely like borrow from each other in terms of the law and the structure and how to get off the registry. But that doesn’t mean it’s the same procedure at all. Like it can definitely vary. So what I’m talking about is very specific to Georgia. If you’re in New Mexico, it won’t be like this at all.

Andy 40:20
Yeah, we talk about this pretty frequently on the podcast that they are similar, just like you describe it, but every state has their own nuances. Larry, do you want to add anything in there for that?

Larry 40:33
Sure. Brandon, he’s got it pretty accurate. A significant amount of states do not have a process at all. But the states that do, there are fragments that have similar characteristics. In Arkansas, you’d file in the county where you’re convicted. North Carolina, you file in the county where you’re convicted. The same process applies for the out-of-staters, you file in the county you live. That would almost seem, Brandon, like that might present an opportunity for a little bit of forum shopping if a person had the resources to pick their county. If they did their research carefully enough, they could say, oh, well, 90% get off in Fulton County and 30% fet off in Sumpter County, I think I’ll live in Fulton County,

Andy 41:12
I was just gonna go there.

Brandon 41:15
That would be better. But that’s not typically how life works. Like, I have a client right now who is a woman and she is in a rural county in Georgia. And I was asking, I was like, I’m just curious, not criticizing, Why did you move there? I’m like, it’s probably as conservative as you can possibly get. And I’m just curious why somebody would move there on purpose knowing that they have a sex offense. And she’s married. And she’s like, well, my husband got a job here. And so that’s why we came. And I said, Okay, um, but like, I mean, sex offenders get a hard time everywhere, but she’s in a, I want to say, a particularly, it’s a lot less tolerant, I would say, to sex offenders than other places. And, but she, you know, she went where they can make a living, because her husband has a job there. Okay, so the petition has to get filed where she lives. And so we just got to deal with it. But in hindsight, if you really want to get off the registry, if that’s your number one priority, maybe you should move to Fulton County where things are a little more balanced. But people have to live, especially kids, responsibilities, you have to go where the employment is and that’s where her employment is. It’s gonna be hard to just sleep on a street corner in Fulton County, just for the purposes of getting off the registry. Like if you don’t have a job, what are you supposed to do?

Andy 43:00
Totally, we had a person with a situation that we covered. And he was trying to move to, like, the most rural part down the southeast part of the state. And they kept pulling the rug out from underneath him. And this wasn’t to get off the registry. But this was just registry conditions in general. He’s coming from New York, and it was just a nightmare of like, why did you pick to go there? You could have picked kind of sorta anywhere in the state to go, but he chose to go pick to like, one of the toughest areas with no population, and they’re just going to be all up your hiney trying to make a point that we don’t want your kind here,

Brandon 43:35
Basically, yeah, to me, they did that on purpose to kind of chase people away.

Andy 43:40
Totally, totally. Um, when you do go to court, though, how do you prove… like who has the burden of proof? I mean, I’m going to come up with like a non-legal scenario, but like, how do I say that I’m not going to be a threat to society? So you’re presenting my case saying, so, Your Honor, we have evidence that this guy’s not going to because we went to the future to try and predict. But so how do you prove that I’m not going to be a threat that I deserve to be off the registry at this point?

Brandon 44:08
Okay, so um, the short answer is the person seeking to get off the registry has the burden of proof. And there’s a few things there. The first is if you come back level one, that’s the sex offender review board determining that you’re the lowest risk level. So that speaks for itself. So that’s a feather in your cap right there. Just by itself, you’re level one. And I’ve had that before be influential to the court, where, you know… so let me back up. This process, like my job is to argue for the, for the, the sex offender to get off the registry, and the prosecution’s job is to argue for them to stay on the registry. That’s just their job. I was telling my clients, don’t take it personally, that’s just their job. Just like, if it was an actual pending criminal case, my job is to get you out of jail, and their job’s to keep you in jail. And that’s just what it is. So when we go to court, the prosecution is doing everything they can to argue that this person shouldn’t be released from the registry, danger to society, etc. So the very first thing is, if they’re level one is that your honor, the sex offender Review Board are experts in determining risk. They know how to discern between someone who’s a low risk, who’s an intermediate risk. Level two includes a high-level risk. They said that my client is level one, that’s the first thing. Second, would be length of time since the offense. So the ideal situation is something like, which I have a lot. Like, let’s say their offense was like, from 20 years ago. So we’re trying to predict the future. And basically, the courts trying to figure out, okay, if I let this guy off the registry, is he going to be like kidnapping little kids and throwing them into the van and doing all this stuff? Or is it gonna be okay? That’s what he’s trying to figure out. But no judge wants to be the judge that lets somebody off the registry, and then the sex offender went out and did something crazy. And now they put the judge on the news. And the judge was crazy. Like, why did you let him off the registry? Didn’t you know, he did this, this, this, this, this, 20 years ago? That’s the problem with society judges like this. And so nobody wants to be the judge that’s on the hook for that. So that’s really what the whole thing is about. The judge is trying to see, do I trust this person or not to not make me look crazy? And one of the biggest things like I said, after we get beyond the level of the person is the length of time that they’ve gone without being recidivist. So, if their offense was like, from the year 2000, and it’s now 2021, that’s 21 years they haven’t done a sex offense. They haven’t done anything in 21 years. I think the risks that if we let them off the registry, that they’re gonna go out and do something crazy is very low. So, a trickier situation is which I’ve had before, where, let’s say somebody gets a relatively short sentence. Let’s say somebody gets like, let’s say they got five years in prison, no probation, okay. So their offense was committed in let’s say, let’s say the offense was committed 2016. And it’s now 2021. They just got out of prison. The sex offender Review Board has found them to be level one. So they’re eligible to be removed right away. I have people contact me all the time, who they just, just, just finished a sentence. And they are eligible to be removed from the registry. And I’ve gotten people like that on the registry before, but to me, that’s a tougher thing. It’s much tougher than somebody who it’s been like 20-30 years, and they haven’t done anything. Because that puts the prosecutor in a position where they kind of have to make somewhat ridiculous arguments to the person is a risk, when it’s like they haven’t done anything in 20-30 years, like, why are you even saying that? Whereas somebody who just got out of prison, you really don’t have much of a track record to base anything off of because they just got out. They haven’t had the opportunity to do a sex offense, you don’t know, one way or another. A third thing that’s been very effective is people being married, marital status. Um, I’ve had a lot of success with that. I’ve had cases where I felt like the judge, the court was on the fence about should I let this person out the registry? Should I do it? Should I not? And the wife coming to the court and just talking about that this person is a good man. And that’s why I’m married to him. I knew he was a sex offender. And I married him anyway. That, just somebody like being married to you, like, that’s the biggest like cosign that you can get they’re vouching for that person. Like, I wouldn’t be married to this person, if I didn’t think they were a good person. And furthermore, I think there’s somewhat of a bias, which works in the defenders favor, it’s a good thing, and I use it to our advantage. People think that if you’re married, basically like your wife is checking up on you and you’re less likely to commit a sex offense. So that’s just what they think. And so we just go with it. So it’s like, the court thinks you’re less likely to do something crazy because you’re married. So that’s been very effective. And then following that, maybe something about really good jobs, that helps sometimes. But it’s really the first three things. Level one, ideally, a long time since the offense occurred, like, you know, 20 years or something. Ideally. An ideal world. And third, if they’re married, they have a stable life. That’s better than you being single. The worst case scenario, just to illustrate, the worst case scenario is like, a single person who’s not married, they just got out of prison. And so they haven’t even been out that long. So they don’t have a track record of not being a recidivist. And then let’s say they’re homeless or something. Compared to someone who’s married, has a stable house, maybe even a homeowner sometimes, and they have a good job. So just to show you those two extremes. Like the ladder, the ladder situation is where I say judge, he has everything together. He’s doing great. We ask to be released. He’s not a risk. And like I said, 90% of my people get off the registry. But that’s just because I cherry pick things. If I think something’s gonna be a problem, I tell people in advance that this is not gonna work.

Andy 51:15
I gotcha. How about somebody filing on their own? I guess that’s called pro se. Does that term apply in this context as well? (Brandon: Yes.) Do you recommend that people file this on their own? Or do you recommend that they hire an attorney. (Brandon: I do not recommend it, but I mean, I mean, um…) This is another conversation that we have, like, you are allowed to, though, correct? Like, I can go, Hey, Judge, I would like to petition to get off the registry. Like, I’m allowed to do that?

Brandon 51:47
Yes, but…

Andy 51:51
I can also go change my own oil in my car, too. But I might not know how to, is that where we’re gonna go.

Brandon 51:56
I mean, I think I saw a movie once where like, somebody got, like, attacked with a sword. And then they did their own surgery and sold themselves… I think I saw it and but for the most part, I mean, I used to work. When I was in Savannah, being a public defender, like, sometimes you will have defendants who want to represent themselves and the judge will just be like look, I mean, you can try to pull out your own teeth if you want to, but it’s probably gonna be a lot less painful if you go to the dentist. They know how to… it’s a serious thing. But it’s a complicated thing, because as a class, um, sex offenders very generally, they don’t have money, because it’s like, it’s already hard enough to get a job when you’re convicted felon. It’s like times 10 If you’re a registered sex offender. So now it’s like, okay, it’s easy to say go out and hire a lawyer, but you have somebody who’s either (A), they’re homeless, they don’t have a job. So there’s no way for them to do that. Or (B) maybe they have a job. But they really just have enough income to survive, and they don’t have like an attorney. So all they can do is file by themselves. But what I what I would tell you is that even lawyers who are like practicing attorneys that do criminal law, if they had to try to jump in and do these registry petitions, they’d be lost. And I’ve seen people do it before, unfortunately. I’ve seen people just file these petitions, and they look like a mess. Like lawyers even. And that’s because, I mean, some lawyers, they’ll just tell you straight up, look, this is not my expertise. This is not in my wheelhouse. I’m not going to represent you on this. And the reality is, though, lawyers with law practices, like they have bills too just like regular people. And some lawyers will take someone’s case and try to figure it out as they go. Unfortunately, you’re not going to know, as the person who’s hiring an attorney… like oh, well, that’s a lawyer. I’m sure he knows what he’s doing. But they may never have done the registry petition. But this is a very sophisticated, complex thing in my opinion.

Andy 54:24
Look, man, I can see that on your wall. I can see your degree back there. You’re a lawyer, you know everything about all law everywhere. Like, right?

Brandon 54:33
Well, I just think that…

Andy 54:37
I’m being very tongue in cheek on that one.

Larry 54:42
So we stress all the time on this program about having an attorney, having an attorney, having an attorney. It’s like man, the stakes are so high on this, and you don’t want to do it because there’s a wait. The wait time after you file it pro se and botch it up, how long you have to wait before you can file another one?

Brandon 55:00
In Georgia, it’s two years. But it’s more than that. In my opinion, like the hidden thing that people don’t think about, like, judges are human beings too. And like human beings are just a certain way. And like I try to explain to people, there’s what’s called a confirmation bias. And, and what that is, is like, in people’s minds, like, like your mind is predisposed to confirming whatever you already thought. Like, once an idea gets into your brain, your mind, it does all types of cartwheels and gymnastics, even when presented with new evidence, your mind wants to believe what it already thought the first time once it gets set in there. And so, if you have a judge who heard your case, you did it yourself pro se, but you screwed it up, you didn’t know what to present, you didn’t know how to present it and you messed it up. Then you go out and get a lawyer. And then you go back in front of the same judge or maybe it’s a different judge, but the judge, even if it’s a different judge, they can see, for example, that this petition was filed before and got denied before. And the judges look at it, well, what’s new now? What’s different now? I think I should just deny it again. It was wrong before, I should deny it again. And so that’s the problem with just kind of just throwing your petition in there, because a lot of judges, they’re just gonna want to confirm what they did the first time, which is the denying you again, if that makes sense.

Andy 56:37
Right. Oh, it totally makes sense to me, Larry, I’m assuming it makes sense to you.

Larry 56:42
It absolutely makes sense to me, because I tell people since you do not know the rules in this in this arena, there may be evidence that the judge considers that an attorney would have prevented the judge from considering by objecting. And of course, sometimes you have to play the reason for the objection. And you have to argue the objection of the judge says, oh, I’ll disregard that. But lots of times with the attorney, you can preclude that from coming in from the beginning, because the attorney knows what to tell the prosecutor who’s the adversary in this proceeding. And they can pre agree on a lot of stuff. You can’t do that, because the prosecutor is not going to talk to you.

Brandon 57:19
If I’m being honest about it, I have some of my colleagues, I have very prestigious colleagues in Atlanta and prestigious in criminal law who’ve been around. They’ve been practicing like 30 years, they bill at like $450 an hour, and they make very good money doing criminal law. They would not be able to make heads or tails of the petition if they had to file it. I say nine criminal law attorneys out of 10 are not equipped to deal with this. And the problem is a lot of people, especially in a small town, somewhere like, you know, Macon, Savannah, a lot of people still just ask their cousin, hey, you know, any criminal lawyers? Or they know a guy who’s like a big criminal lawyer in town, and they just go with what they know. But that person is not dealing with registry petitions, and they’re not equipped to deal with this. And so that’s a big problem. Um, but you don’t know that as the consumer, as someone who is trying to get a lawyer to represent you in a petition. You just know, oh, he’s a lawyer. I’m sure he knows. But a lot of lawyers don’t know. But they’ll act like they know. And you’re not going to know the difference. Just like, if you’re not a mechanic, you’re not really going to know that your mechanic is screwing up your car. Not really, you don’t know what they’re doing. You just hope that you’re giving this person that money, and they’re gonna fix it.

Andy 58:54
You know when your tire falls off in two weeks while you’re 80 miles an hour down the interstate, you’ll know for sure then.

Brandon 59:00
I just think you’re just not equipped to make that evaluation. And so just some friendly advice, if you’re gonna look for a lawyer to get you off the registry, at the bare minimum, what I would do is look on their website and see if they have a section on their for registry petitions. If a lawyer is advertising for like sex offenders in registry petitions, then more likely than not they handle those at least somewhat regularly, and they can help you. Whereas most people what they’re doing is they’re hiring just any kind of kind of general criminal lawyer. They don’t have anything on their website about registry petitions. That to me is a clue that they’re probably not dealing with this regularly enough that they can help you.

Andy 59:53
I completely understand. Alright, but now that you’ve explained the risks of going at it alone and all the other things that we’ve talked about before, the Registry Matters Alliance, folks that listen to this program, like, can we talk about, I don’t necessarily want to, like, ask you what your fee is, but what would the fee be roughly in general? And since Gerorgia has 159 counties, it seemed likely that your fee would be adjusted for travel and miscellaneous, other expenses, etc. Can we dig into that to some degree?

Brandon 1:00:23
I’ll put it out there, let me just… I’ll just put it out there. So like, in Georgia, like I’ll charge $5,000 for a registry petition, which is very low. Like for the level of experience that I have. And for the work that I’m putting into it, it really is at least a $10,000 thing. But I like helping people, like I used to be a public defender, I guess I’m still trying to save the world or whatever. So I recognize that as a class, the sex offenders don’t have money. It’s like I said before, it’s already hard enough to get a job as a as a convicted felon. Now you’re a sex offender on top of that. Like, I’ve had clients who client he used to be a teacher, he had a bachelor’s degree and everything, then he became a sex offender. Now he makes a living by, he goes to like junkyards, and like picks up scrap and stuff and tries to sell it on eBay or something like that. And he makes probably, like, $700 a month or something crazy. Like him doing the best that he could do. Um, so it’s like, it took everything for his family to be able to afford. Even that reduced rate of $5,000, like, a lot of people don’t have it. Um, the average American, they say, you know, they probably have less than $1,000 in their bank account. Like 60% of Americans. So like, you’re talking about sex offenders, where are we supposed to get the $5,000 from? And a lot of people have meritorious cases, and they really could get off. But they don’t have the money. And, you know, so I do what I can on my end, like, I reduce my fee, I don’t charge people like $10,000. For that, I’ll do it for $5000, which is really like doing it for like $4,750 in terms of money that goes to me, because $250 of that goes to the filing fees just to file it in court. So, um, yeah.

Andy 1:02:27
I didn’t even think about that part.

Brandon 1:02:29
Well, I have to think about it, because hey, I have to do it. So it’s like, you’re basically filing a lawsuit against the state of Georgia, just to file that in court is going to cost you like $250. So it’s really like $4750 in terms of money to me, but I just let it go. Because it’s like, it’s a very life changing thing and that I like to do. It’s not even the registry petition, like, that’s not even 10% of my firm’s gross income. So like, I make a lot more money doing other things. I just like to help people. So that’s why I do it. That being said, I’ve come to the conclusion that I can’t work for free because I’m in my office now. I’ll be out on the street. Like, they don’t want to hear like, Hey, I know. I know the rents due this month, but you know, I got someone here and like, I got him off the registry and now he’s like living wonderful and married to kids and all that stuff. So is it okay, if I don’t pay the $1,500 for my commercial lease? Is that okay? And they’re gonna look at me like I’m crazy. And I can’t do it for free. I just can’t. Now maybe one day, you know, because like I said, I do half criminal, half civil, maybe when I have some multimillion dollar cases that settle and then it’s like, okay, I have a lot of money so I can afford to just work for free, but that’s not my situation right now. My situation is I make a very good living, but I can’t afford to work for free. So unfortunately, you can’t help everybody. I just do what I can where I can.

Andy 1:04:19
Completely. Larry, is there anything else that you want to cover before we let Mr. Thomas go?

Larry 1:04:24
You’ve done a splendid job. I would just like to get his contact information out there for the hundreds and hundreds of people that are listening, will be listening to this.

Brandon 1:04:33
Sure. My website is My office number is 678-330-2909. That’s 678-330-2909. and my email is So you can do any of those, and I suppose you can even contact Larry and then they can pass it along to me. But again, I’m licensed in Georgia practice in Georgia. And so there’s going to be little to nothing that I can offer you, if you’re in California, for example. The only thing that I could probably help you with is if you’re in another state, and you think you want to move to Georgia, and you’re trying to get off the registry in Georgia, because maybe they don’t have a way to get off in your state. That’s pretty much all I can help you with is if you’re moving here. But if you’re in another state, often what they tell you is you need to try to find a person who handles registry petitions in your state.

Larry 1:05:51
So I’d like to do a plug for Brandon. I referred a case to him. And in three days, he turned the case around and did a felony resolution in Cobb County, Georgia with a splendid outcome where the person will have no felony conviction if they do what they’re supposed to do. So I can personally attest to his effectiveness.

Brandon 1:06:09
Thank you, Larry, that’s so of you. Glad we could help.

Larry 1:06:12
So it was literally about a three day turnaround, wasn’t it?

Brandon 1:06:16
I mean, she needed it, unfortunately. Like, um, sometimes it’s, I mean, when you’re a public defender, you do that. But I still do that in my regular practice where it’s like, it’s almost like you’re like triage, and it’s like an emergency room and somebody comes in, they need something immediately, they gonna die, and like, like, that particular person had a warrant for her arrest. And if we did not resolve the case, she could have been in jail for weeks waiting just to go to court for the first time. But we resolved it in a way that she didn’t even have to get locked up. And if she does everything, right, she doesn’t have to have it on her record. So, you know, that worked out.

Larry 1:06:58
So but thank you. Really, really, really appreciate you stopping in there like that. And we appreciate you being here with us. (Brandon: Thanks for having me.)

Andy 1:07:07
Thank you. Thank you so much for coming on. And I hope you have a great rest of your weekend. Thanks again. Thank you. Bye, bye. And I’m going to stop recording this. Thanks, Mr. Thomas, appreciate it.

Brandon 1:07:24
I did forget, the most important thing I want to say, which I should have said is that, um, this year in Georgia, there was a bill to change the registry, so that people will have to wait a minimum of 10 years before applying to get off the registry. And the reason is, because people are thinking that, Oh, it’s too easy to get off the registry in Georgia, we want to make it harder. So I would encourage you to if you’re thinking about getting off the registry, you need to go ahead and try to make that happen now before something bad happens. It just so happens that the bill that they tried to pass failed, it failed this time, it may not fail the next time. So and then maybe, for all I know, there’s a movement across the country to use sex offenders as a political hot potato. And it’s gonna be very difficult for a candidate to, if we’re being honest, to take up the mantle for sex offenders, because nobody wants to be the candidate that’s easy on sex offenders. So it’s really an easy target. And so I’m just saying, Georgia, we narrowly missed having a new law that would have made it very difficult for a lot of people to get off the registry. So if you’re thinking about getting off, you need to try to make that happen now before they change the law. And that’s it. That’s all I wanted to say.

Andy 1:08:55
I appreciate you coming back on to add that on there. Perfect. (Brandon: No Problem.) Perfect, though. I appreciate it. That’s kind of funny. All right. Well, then I think we got to close this out really, really soon. We’re bumping up. Um, do you want to do the times recorder thing from Ohio? Or are we going to bump that also?

Larry 1:09:15
Let’s do that next weekend. (Andy: Okay, cool.) Let’s get on to this closing out with our wonderful mystery speaker.

Andy 1:09:23
Absolutely. So last week, I played this:

Richard Nixon 1:09:27
Because people have got to know whether or not their president is a crook. Well, I’m not a crook.

Andy 1:09:32
And if you were paying attention, watching on YouTube, then you would notice that I used a picture of… who Larry?

Larry 1:09:40
That’s Richard Nixon. The 37th President of the United States who served from January 20th, 1969 through August 8th at noon, 1974.

Andy 1:09:57
And no one Larry wrote in and I have a hard time believing that that is because nobody knew it. I have a hard time with that one. But maybe just nobody felt like writing in. I don’t know, out of the 1000s of people that listened to this program I would have thought somebody would have written in said that was Nixon. But alas, they did not. But now so for this week, do you think that we need anything other than the individual? I think this one is kind of obscure, I can’t say that I recognize this individual’s voice just right out of the gate.

Larry 1:10:24
So well, I can tell you that it’s in that era, a little bit earlier. It’s in 10 years leading up to that era that I just described. So tell us who said this.

Who’s that Speaker? 1:10:38
Accordingly, I shall not seek, and I will not accept the nomination of my party for another term as your president.

Andy 1:10:53
Do I need to play with that again to Larry, you had me replay it last week?

Larry 1:10:57
So well, I don’t know that voice is kind of old.

Andy 1:11:01
So one more time,

Who’s that Speaker? 1:11:02
Accordingly, I shall not seek, and I will not accept the nomination of my party for another term as your president.

Andy 1:11:18
Alright, there you go. So write into And give me something in the subject line says like, Who’s that speaker? WTS, something like that. So I can sort of search for them easily. And do that before next Saturday afternoon or something like that so that I have time to pick it out. And you can be a Winner. Winner, winner, winner, winner chicken diggin. And with that, Larry… Oh, so we got some new patrons. The new patron, we already covered it from the question that was asked. Thank you, Liz. So very much. And then we had some transcript subscribers, Larry, why don’t you read those off, Please, sir?

Larry 1:11:52
We have Donald and David and Lester. David is in a military prison. Lester is a guest of the Bureau of Prisons. And Donald is actually in the free world. And and it’s always great to have someone the free world, it could be that he prefers to read paper copies, or maybe he’s not allowed to have internet access. But thank you to all of you.

Andy 1:12:12
Excellent, excellent, excellent. With that, Larry, I think we should close things out because we are pushing the limit of the transcript. And otherwise, you should go over to to pick up all the links to everything that’s going to be talked about in the next 30 seconds. And so Voicemail is 747-227-4477. Larry, do you remember like on episode five or something like that someone wrote in saying I don’t understand what you said. Could you repeat the phone number? And I’m thinking Larry, why didn’t you just press rewind and play it again? That was what I was thinking at the time.

Larry 1:12:53
I think there is that provision.

Andy 1:12:56
And then email again, is And because we’re all about the Benjamins, please feel free to go over to and support the program. It is greatly appreciated. It is mostly a charity thing. That’s not the right way to word it. But we’re not doing this for money, that is for damn sure. But it does offset the time a little bit. And I appreciate every one of you so very much. And I thank you all very much. Anything else, Larry, before we get out here?

Larry 1:13:30
And next week, we’re going to cover a case that we didn’t have time for tonight out of Connecticut. An awesome win. And we’re gonna have a special guest that’s going to be talking about an amazing topic about entrapment. So be tuning in next week.

Andy 1:13:43
Perfect. Sounds very good, sir. As always, Larry, I appreciate your time very much and all of your insight and setting everything up and all that. And I hope you have a great rest of your weekend, and I will talk to you soon.

Larry 1:13:56
Thanks for having me.

Andy 1:13:57
Goodnight, Larry.

You’ve been listening to FYP.

Transcript of RM201: Unknown Unknowns

Registry Matters is an independent production. The opinions and ideas here are that of the hosts and do not reflect the opinions of any other organization. If you have problems with these thoughts, fyp.

Andy 00:17
Recording live from FYP Studios, east and west. Transmitting across the internet. This is episode ­201 of Registry Matters. Happy November. Larry, this is the first episode of the November. How are you?

Larry 00:29
Awesome. Thanks for having me back again.

Andy 00:32
We were just talking about having a GoFundMe campaign that we might be able to raise some funds to get you to permanently disappear.

Larry 00:41
Yeah, I’m sure that would be one of our most successful campaigns yet.

Andy 00:44
We could get all kinds of people to pile on that one. For sure. Chat is streaming comments by as we speak saying they agree with this plan.

Larry 00:56
So well, why don’t we see what we can raise and I’ll decide if I want to take the journey.

Andy 01:01
We could do it and then really in like fine print, say we’re going to donate it to some kind of charity.

Larry 01:07
That’s a great idea. That’s what everybody else does.

Andy 01:12
All right. What do we got going on tonight on this evening of November 6? It’s set your clock back night, by the way.

Larry 01:19
It is indeed. It’s the end of daylight savings time until March. And last week, it was so funny. I went home. I’m so old. I remember when it was the last week of April going forward and it was the last week of October going back. And I just went to bed knowing that I had an extra hour. So I stayed up later. And I got up expecting the news cast because I normally watch the Sunday morning programs. They were already over.

Andy 01:49
Yep. You know, Larry, these things that maybe you’re not familiar with yet. They’re called computers. And they auto update for you. And pretty reliably, if you look at your phone, the clock will be accurate.

Larry 02:01
So I did look at that. And I saw it had not changed. I thought this is really weird that they haven’t caught on to the change yet. That’s fair.

Andy 02:10
So here we have it. Larry doesn’t trust technology. Larry is always right to the point that the technology is wrong. I gotcha.

Larry 02:17
That is correct. (Andy: Well, what do we have going on?) We have questions that mostly come in from the electronic resources out there. And we have something from, what is that, Tik Tok?

Andy 02:33
Yeah, there’s a little video that got posted on the NARSOL social site from Tik Tok. It’s quite disturbing.

Larry 02:39
So and we’re, we may even do a patron extra where we talk about the economy. I love that so much all the hate mail from the last one. So that would inspire me to do another one about the economy. (Andy: All right.) We’re gonna be talking about the Adam Walsh Act as the regulations are moving forward. And then there’s… we’re just all over the map tonight. This is going to be a totally free form. There are no questions that have been prepared in advance. This is live radio.

Andy 03:16
All right. Well, then we shall begin with the first question that comes from a listener. Says, I have just listened to the Registry Matters podcast the other day. I like very much what you and your guests from West Virginia had to say about the legislative process and the need to do your best to stop bad bills when they’re in committee. So I must write again regarding the IML reauthorization that is on the agenda for the House Foreign Affairs Committee. The next opportunity to defund it won’t be for another five years. And as I’ve already written to you a couple times, the potential damage its expansion could do not only overseas but domestically is great. So far, it has only half the number of co-sponsors it had last time, and it’s being buried in the popular Bill suggests most members are lukewarm about it. Please, won’t you and your members lobby the committee to remove these provisions from the bill?

Larry 04:16
Well, that’s a lot. In terms of won’t you or your members lobby? We’ve actually suggested -both we being the podcast and we to the extent of NARSOL – we’ve actually suggested people contact their members of Congress in the house, particularly where this legislation is. So we’ve done that. I think the consternation is that NARSOL doesn’t have a lobbyist in the DC. We don’t have the money. That’s a quite an expensive place to operate and it’s year-round. So you’re looking at I mean, probably close to a six figure to have someone in DC you’re round. That’s even maybe on the low side. I truly don’t know, because it’s so expensive in DC. There have been members of Congress who choose to live in the office rather than pay the rent and expenses because they have their home in their district where they represent, and they just can’t afford it and to pay for their kids to go to school. And $174,000 I believe is the congressional salary right now, which sounds fairly attractive. But when you’re taking that out of the most expensive place in the nation. DC is probably certainly in the first five most expensive places. And then if you represent an area where it’s expensive. Say you’re from Seattle, or, or San Francisco, or any of these really expensive places. That 174,000 really doesn’t go very far. So I don’t know that we could afford any time in the future to have someone in DC lobbying. But, yeah, we are encouraging people to make phone calls. I think he’s a little disappointed that I’m not as optimistic that those phone calls are going to be beneficial. And we can start breaking that down. We have an article about a representative that serves from the district serves in Congress from a district in Northern Virginia, Bobby Scott. And we could tie these two together, if you like. Where we can talk about what an elected official can do. But what I can tell you that that’s not going to happen is this legislation has till the end of this congressional session, which is not in December, but it has the entire year 2022 for it to move through the process. And as the year begins to move closer and closer towards primaries and elections in 2022, there’s going to be more and more interest in this bill. Right now, it doesn’t seem like it’s moving. And it’s not because there’s a lot of other things on the agenda. But this is going to become probably something that moves in 2022. And if it does gain traction, which we’re hoping it doesn’t, but if it does, it’s going to be very difficult to stop it. Because here’s the analysis: you’ve got the Democratic party who’s already on the ropes for being soft on crime. And I think we talked about last episode. They’re demolishing the bail system. They believe everybody should be able to get on their signature. So it’s a catch and release program. So that’s one talking point. The Democrats are for catch and release. The Democrats are for defunding the police. The Democrats or for doing away with qualified immunity, which protects the good officers who are out there doing their best and happen to make a mistake. The Democrats are for softer sentencing for letting people out of prison. And I just don’t see the Democrats signing on in great numbers to have another talking point used against them. Now, I’m not trying to scare people, and I’m not trying to be negative. I’m just applying the political reality to the situation. You’ve got a Democratic party who’s already vulnerable to being weak on criminal justice. Do you think they would want to add PFRs to the attack ads? I mean, that’s the question. What do you think? Do you think they’d like to add that to the attack ads that are coming out them?

Andy 08:33
I was gonna pile on to that. Like they only have six seats as the majority, I think? And a lot of those are under threat. So no, they’re not going to be in a position to expend any political capital and go against what would be popular by the public.

Larry 08:46
That is correct. So if representative Smith, who happens to be a Republican from New Jersey, he’s the one who is big on this stuff. If he manages to get this thing gaining traction, and it goes through the committee process… Now, at this particular moment, the Democrats would have a very slight majority on the committee, and they would also have the chairmanship. The chairpersonship, I should say, which would mean if they wanted to wreck the train, they could. Because chairs have a lot of power, and the calendar is controlled by the Democrat Party. But do you think they would want to take the abuse for slowing this train down if Smith goes on the attack?

Andy 09:34
Can we back up for a minute? I was having a conversation with some other people in my state regarding lobbyists. And I was trying to express that you could certainly spend all of the money and get right in Mitch McConnell’s face, and that’s got to be some exorbitant amount of money. And I’m using that just because he’s a wildly well-known individual and scale things down to your local House and Senate representatives. But you’re paying for access. You could find a lobbyist that’ll charge you hundreds of dollars, probably, but they’re not going to have the clout to get in to be able to speak to represent your issue. Can you expand on that a little bit?

Larry 10:13
I’ll have to agree, except I doubt in DC would find anybody who would do anything for hundreds of dollars. That would be 10s of thousands of dollars. (Andy: Right. Right.) But at a local level, in the State Assembly, maybe in Wyoming or somewhere, you might could find somebody to do something for 1000 bucks. I doubt it. But McConnell is not going to go against his constituents. You are right, he would get access. Lobbyists do make donations. That’s one of the things that goes on in our in our system. They are notorious for making donations. And that donation buys them access, but it doesn’t buy… people think that somehow if you’ve made a donation, that you’ve bought that vote. You haven’t, because McConnell is gonna vote what he perceives to be the will of the people. At least that he hears from. And people saying, Larry, you don’t understand. Everybody doesn’t support that? Nope, I understand that actually, quite well. But it’s all about 50% plus a few, not everybody. And the political analysis is how can I keep my support above 50%, you’re never gonna get 100%. You’re never gonna get 90% in all likelihood. So you’re trying to analyze what keeps you above that threshold so that you can stay in office. Mitch is not going to go against the will of the people of Kentucky very often. If he does, he risks not being there.

Andy 11:39
All right. Um, so basically, what you’re saying is, rots of ruck in getting anybody to go against this?

Larry 11:50
Well, I’m hoping that there are so many distractions with things going on that it just gets buried in the busy schedule. I mean, there’s a lot going on. We’ve got a national debt crisis coming in early December. So that means that nothing is going to happen in terms of any substantive legislation. They’re going to be focused on the build back plan. And I don’t know if they’re gonna vote on that this week or not. They did already vote on the bipartisan, which is on its way to the President. But they’re going to be distracted a lot. The question will be, how much will they be distracted in 2021? What will the solution to the national debt crisis be? Because we’ve punted till December. And the Republicans are taking the position that they’re not going to increase the debt limit and that it’s the Democrats’ problem, and the Democrats are taking the position that you have helped us create this mess because we’ve all spent this money together. Most of the spending is on automatic pilot. These are commitments that are already made before this president were sworn in. And people say, well, Larry, you don’t understand. He’s proposing big new spending. Yes, he is. But it hasn’t been approved, the trillions of dollars that we’re currently spending, those are decisions that were made before he ever got here to the presidency. And so that probably will be a very distracting thing. And then depending on economic conditions and the pandemic, depending on how the economy, which is stellar right now, but the economy could very well sputter at early next year, because of the extreme labor shortage we have. So the economy could distract. There’s all sorts of things that could keep this from moving. An international crisis could keep this from moving. I mean, we can go on and on with things that this may not move. But if it does start moving, what you said… what was that terminology you said about stopping it? Could you repeat that one more time? (Andy: Rots of ruck.) That was that one. I don’t know what the transcriptionist is going to pick up on that. But if there are not sufficient distractions, and if this thing starts moving, I do not foresee any meaningful opposition. And I realize I’m not supposed to say that, but I don’t see where it would materialize. I do not believe the Republicans will oppose it, being that they’re sponsoring it. That doesn’t seem like – I mean the Chiefs sponsor. People are gonna say, well Larry, I looked at the list and there’s more Democrat co-sponsors. Yes, there are. But the leader of this is Christopher Smith. On this particular resolution, HR 5150.

Andy 14:29
Okay, let’s move along then. This one came off of YouTube, off of our Registry Matters YouTube channel. Says regarding Registry Matters 200 where we rediscussed the new SORNA stuff. How does this work if you were removed from the registry already? Especially if you took a plea and got 10 years on the registry prior to the implementation of AWA in 2012 in Pennsylvania. Those people were taken off the registry due to the Muniz case

Larry 14:58
And just for clarity, the AWA actually passed in 2006 by the Congress. The 2000 date he’s throwing in is when it became applicable in Pennsylvania when their legislature adopted it. I believe they adopted in 2010. And I believe it became effective in 2012. If my memory is good. What we have here is a question that’s just floating around in all types of form all over the land right now. And if he’s off the registry, in Pennsylvania, as a result of the Muniz case, my advice would be, do not leave Pennsylvania, do not move to another jurisdiction. Because as long as you have been relieved of registration obligations in your state, and you have a document reflecting that. Some people would have been removed by court decisions in other states, they filed a petition that’s been granted, they have timed out like in New Mexico on the 10 or 20 years, they will receive a letter, you will receive a letter. If you have officially been relieved of registration obligations, then there’s no expectation that you would know anything about registration at that point, because as a general rule, most people don’t check the law every five minutes to see if it’s changed. So you would be notified if the law were to change. The officials will be amazingly efficient at finding you. Trust me on that. If they need you to come back and register again, they will let you know. They will check the driver’s database, the driver’s licenses, they will check all sorts of databases that you’re in, that you don’t even know you’re in, and they will find you. And they will serve you a certified letter, they’ll knock at your door, and they’ll let you know you need to register again. In the meantime, go live your life and keep a close eye on what’s going on in the legislative bodies. Because what I fear is going to happen across the country is that states are going to adopt a catch all phrase they are going to put into their registry scheme. So it’s gonna say- even the states that have removal petition processes – they’re going to say that the judge shall grant not this petition, if the granting of the petition would be contrary to federal SORNA. And they’ll have another part, it’ll say that a person shall register in this state… Like, for example, if you move to a new state and you’ve been released, they will have an additional catch all that says, and if you would be defined as a sex offender, pursuant to the AWA and federal standards. So that that’s the Trojan horse that people need to be worried about, is does their state already have that language that says, if you’re defined as a PFR, by federal law, or if there’s a proposal to put that in there? Because that’s the easy way to do it, is to put a provision in that says, a PFR shall be defined as all the convictions that you have on your list, or any person that would be defined as a PFR, pursuant to federal law, and then you’ve got it. And at that point, arguably, the Feds would have that jurisdictional hook to prosecute you, even though you’ve never left the state. And this is what I really fear the most is that right now, there’s a lack of jurisdiction. If a person was convicted in the state, and they never left the state. I don’t see how the feds can prosecute, because they may be an independent duty, but if that state has terminated your registration obligation, then you’re done. But what happens if they put that clause in there that you have to register if you’re defined as a PFR by federal law. So you’ve timed out under your state requirement, but the feds say, Well, wait, not so fast. There’s a provision in Pennsylvania law, hypothetically, that says that you have to register if you’re defined as a PFR by federal law. And then I think they’ve got a more valid prosecution. This is complicated stuff, folks. And the truth is,

Andy 19:11
yeah, you just went all 4-D Chess on me right there.

Larry 19:13
Yeah. We don’t know the answer to all this. People are wanting answers that we do not have. And you can call to you’re blue in the face to the PFR offices. They don’t know. You can call the SMART Office. They don’t know. They can tell you what they think their opinion is, and it’s usually going to be biased in terms of what they would like it to be. But no one knows. And I think we have a quote, do you have the unknown unknowns that you can play? Because this is an unknown unknown. We have the Sixth Circuit with the Wilma decision saying there’s an independent federal duty to register. Well, I happen to personally disagree with that. But I’m not a court. I’m just a citizen. But within the Sixth Circuit, there has been an independent duty to register, but good luck enforcing that. If a state of the Sixth Circuit says you don’t have to register and since there’s no federal registry, good luck trying to enforce that. Where would you go register if the state says we won’t register you? But what if they put in the state law that if you’re defined by federal law as being a PFR, that changes everything, doesn’t it? (Andy: Yes, it does.) And that’s what you need to be afraid about. You need to stop calling the PFR offices, you need to stop raising all these hypotheticals that nobody has an answer to. You need to start watching what’s going on in your legislative assembly bodies and through your regulatory frameworks. Because as regulations are changed by the process, they normally have to publish them and give a comment period. And you got to make sure they’re not sneaking any of this through the regulatory process to require a person to register because there’s a federal independent duty. But that decision is only binding in the Sixth Circuit states. It hasn’t been decided in most of the other circuits to my knowledge. They could choose to go a different direction. They could say no, there is not an independent duty. So asking questions is fine, but no one has the answers. We don’t know.

Andy 21:13
And apparently I never saved that clip. But Donald Rumsfeld famously said, we have known knowns, known unknowns, unknown knowns and unknown unknowns.

Larry 21:23
So yes, and this falls into that category. People, the safest thing you can do is not leave your state if you’ve been discharged. And when I say leave, I mean, as far as becoming a resident or a student, I’m not talking about a 24-hour trip, or 48 hour trip. I’m talking about becoming a resident of new state. If you stay put, you have the strongest defensible position if you’ve been discharged from registration. And people say, well, Larry, you don’t understand. I want to travel. Yes, I understand that quite well. I like traveling as well. But as you travel, these questions arise that we don’t have answers to, and neither does the law enforcement apparatus. Because it’s that complicated in terms of what can and can’t be done. This is a developing piece of art. The Adam Walsh Act is only 15 years old. This is not hundreds of years of experience. This it’s relatively new.

Andy 22:21
Do you consider this to be something somewhat unique in what it’s covering as far as quote unquote, civil regulatory scheme? Not punishment, even though everyone gets punished by it?

Larry 22:32
It is very unique and novel because the federal government questionably doesn’t have jurisdiction to do what they’re trying to do. So they clearly know that they don’t have a federal registry. Now, you know, they could theoretically create a federal registry for the federal family of crimes. But it’s doubtful that they could create a federal registry and impose a registration obligation for state crimes for a person who doesn’t ever leave that state. But when you leave that state, the AWA chose to invoke the Commerce Clause. They say that that once you cross state boundaries, your vessel, yourself, has engaged in interstate commerce. Is that a proper use of the Commerce Clause? We don’t know. Because the court hasn’t given us that guidance in terms of the Supreme Court. There’s been lower court decisions, but we don’t know if that’s the proper use of the Commerce Clause. There’d be people that would say it’s overreach, there’d be people say it’s just fine because of the greater good. I mean, there’s all these different judicial philosophies. We will know if that’s a proper use of the Commerce Clause when the Supreme Court tells us.

Andy 23:41
Okay, um, and in chat, someone asks, am I understanding Larry correctly that the Sixth Circuit states do have a binding case to register federally? Tennessee is in the sixth. I hope you can extrapolate from that.

Larry 23:53
That’s what the Willmann case. We talked about that on this podcast. That was silliest case I’ve ever seen in my life where they threw everything but the kitchen sink in the argument trying to crash the registry and the court shot down every one of those arguments. So there is that decision dangling out there if there was an independent federal duty. If you’re already a lifetime in Tennessee, it doesn’t make any difference. You’re a lifetime registrant. So isn’t Tennessee a lifetime state? I mean, I don’t, I can’t keep up with when you can get off in every state in terms of what the duration of registration is, but Tennessee is actually one of the tougher states.

Andy 24:30
Is that the case with like 90 attacks against the registry?

Larry 24:34
Yes. Yeah, yeah, we talked about that on here. So that holds that there is an independent duty. I don’t get to vote on that, but I disagree with it. But at this point, the Feds theoretically clear could prosecute you. But still, there’s a knowing requirement. So if you’ve been finished and concluded your registration obligation, unless you’ve been notified of that independent duty to register there, they’re not going to show up in the middle of night with a black limousine, or those SUVs and cart you away about something you didn’t know about. They will notify you of this independent duty. So everybody’s getting paranoid over something that there’s no reason to be. As we said when we played it a few weeks ago, there’s nothing to fear except fear itself.

Andy 25:26
Okay, we should move along, sir. This one came off of the NARSOL social media site, please go over and register there. It is It’s a fun place to be. Hello, everyone. I’m writing this due to a neighbor moving in across the street from me and wanting to open a daycare there. I own my own home, and would be forced to move. My wife and I are fighting the license for the daycare application by the city and was wondering if anyone knows what else can be done. And I shared that with you. I believe that was from Illinois.

Larry 25:58
I do believe it was from Illinois. And I didn’t catch it the first time when you sent it to me. I did a glance read of it. But as he’s mentioned that, the case law is all over the map on this. I think they’re places where they can force you to move with the arrival of a park. And they’re places where the statute says they can’t. And in case of Kentucky, I believe the case law says that they can’t do that. There was a decision many years ago in Kentucky by the state Supreme Court that said you can’t do that. What I would recommend he do and you said he was quite up in years, so I don’t know that he can actually approach the city leaders. But I would of course try to stop it if there is the retroactive component. But I would, if you can’t stop it, you need to find out if he’s grandfathered, so probably you’d want to do both to make sure that they don’t have that ability to force you out. It would certainly be applicable to someone who would want to move in. But if you’re already there, I find that very problematic from a constitutional point of view that they could force a person to leave. (Andy: Isn’t that what happened in Rhode Island, though?) Well, that’s what almost happened, except for that injunction was granted, but that is what they were going to do. But Rhode Island is a slightly different situation, because they don’t have the one size fits all approach. That was only applied to the highest risk people, not the highest tier, but the highest risk. And I think they are still a risk-based system there. So you’ve got some due process in a state that has the risk base registry. If you have a categorical approach, there has been no due process. Just simply the category of crime that that your offense is listed. That’s where you are on the tier system. And we’ve spent episode after episode going through tiers versus risk. And they’re not the same. So this is another opportunity to say that Rhode Island has a risk system to my understanding. We had the lawyer on a couple of conference calls from ACLU, but they’re the ones who are working on that case, which has been stalled by the state fighting everything that they can come up with. And it’s great because the injunction lasts until the conclusion of the case. So if the state never wants it to go to trial, that’s great. We’ve got the benefit as if we had won the case, because with an injunction you could never enforce your law until the court holds it constitutional. So you stall all you want to.

Andy 28:29
So that one, so you think probably he’s safe? Is that what I heard you say?

Larry 28:32
He needs to talk to an attorney that knows the law there. But I would say the odds are that he’s safe if he’s already there. But anybody certainly won’t be able to establish residence there if that daycare goes in. But he may be safe, but he may not be. He needs to talk to an attorney. So I would hope he safe.

Andy 28:54
Right? No kidding. Oh, this is uh, this is another one. It says, I kind of threw this on you. I’m gonna hit you with this one cold. Says good morning, serious question from the last episode of Registry Matters. And we this is kind of going on the whole SORNA thing. What were the changes made to SORNA Larry? You did great job of talking politics. But did he ever say what changed? Or did I miss that part? It’s kind of the throwing some tomatoes at you, Larry.

Larry 29:21
So well, I don’t know what question he is asking. There’s two things that’s going on. There’s the HR 5150, which is a legislative proposal. And it’s so lengthy that I have not analyzed it. And then there is the regulatory proposal that was put out during the last year of the Trump administration, which is not a legislative proposal, which we’ve talked about. So I’m not clear what the question pertains to. Does it pertain to the regulatory changes or does it pertain to hr 5150, which I’m woefully unprepared to talk about? But the regulatory stuff is what I’m more prepared to talk about.

Andy 30:04
I just think that because we don’t know what is changing, then maybe the conversation last week kind of meandered because we can’t go, Hey, if you have, I don’t know, I’m going to make something up. If you didn’t have 1000 foot living restrictions, you do now. So like, there was no side by side comparison of what was and what will be that to tell you what has changed, what people have to worry about, what roadblocks and whatnot are in your in your path that are going to trip you up.

Larry 30:35
Well, in terms of the regulatory proposal, remember, this is the existing law. The Adam Walsh Act passed in 2006. It’s been the law for 15-16 years now. And each administration has been dealing with trying to convince the states to substantially comply. So the first regulations came out during the Bush administration, promulgated by Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez. Now everybody says AG Garland. Attorney General Garland never even saw this stuff. He has no idea what’s in it, never looked at it, but it’s his office. But the Attorney General’s through the succeeding administrations have been trying to put forth a framework to help the states to comply. They have not been successful. The states have not been able to beat the rigorous criteria. So what this is, as simple as I can make it, this is the most creative proposal yet to try to allow more regulatory flexibility so that there won’t have to be things changed by statute. That’s component one. Component two of what they’re trying to do is to make things more federal, like the independent duty now that they have that Willmann decision, the SMART Office in DC, they’re on board with there being an independent duty. If you look at their correspondence, they are reminding people on the listserv that we chat on. There was a person who pointed out that they mentioned the independent duty and then the state has the right to have its own registry and the person said is that a conflict? Yes, it is. It absolutely is. So what they’re trying to accomplish is to help the states by every creative hook they can come up with to comply. One of the ways to get the people in the states to comply is to provide the paperwork like happened in West Virginia about a year and a half ago. I think in the summer of 2019. They sent every PFR a letter and said you need to sign this and bring it in saying that you will notify us of any international travel pursuant to the 21-day provision that’s in federal law. The state of West Virginia has not adopted that. So using regulatory processes rather than laws, the West Virginia State Police I believe it is sent those forms to everyone. And they dutifully went rushing down and signed them saying that I will do this. So now they’re on notice that there is a notice required prior to international travel. But had they not signed those, since there was no law at that time, and I don’t know, our guest last week might tell us if they actually had passed that law putting that in statute. But since there was no law at that time, hypothetically, if a PFR had told them, I’m not signing it, there would not have been any way to prosecute them for not signing the form that said, I’ll do this. Now I will need to qualify that by perhaps West Virginia has a catch all provision that says that your duties as a PFR is to do all these things, giving your DNA and blah, blah, blah, your fingerprints and place of employment. There may be a provision that says as such ever other things as substantially aid in the compliance and intent of furthering this act? Well, that’s blatantly unconstitutional, because that is so vague that you have no idea what you have to do. But despite the fact those things are vague, they’re in statutory schemes. So it could be a person in West Virginia who said no, I’m not doing that. They might have prosecuted them had had there been such a clause. All these things are complicated, folks. So when you’re going to ask a question, the best thing to do is to try to find a competent attorney that actually can tell you if such a clause exists in your law. But I don’t sign nothing. I shouldn’t say that. That’s an absolute. I try not to sign anything that imposes an obligation on me unless that obligation is in the law and that is what is the best approach, but even that may cause you problems. Because the PFR registration office doesn’t like being questioned about the documents they had you. I mean, have you detected that they would be happy if you want to have a discussion about the documents?

Andy 34:56
Yeah, I pretty much just go in there and sign and walk out because the longer you stay there, the more chances for something to go bad.

Larry 35:03
You are correct. So again, that’s the reason since this is a civil regulatory scheme, we need to get it out of law enforcement hands. This is not a proper function for a law enforcement agency. This is more appropriately handled by an agency such as motor vehicles where all they do is process regulatory compliance. There’s no reason for you to be dealing with the police. This is simply providing information and keeping it current, like you do with your driver’s license. Motor vehicles is well equipped to handle that. They’re well equipped to take a picture of you. And then the next question will be well Larry, you don’t understand. There are state’s out there where they do that in motor vehicles, and a person has to pay a whole bunch of extra money. Well no, that doesn’t have to be in the statute that you have to pay a whole bunch of extra money. There doesn’t have to be a driver’s license issued every year or every six months or whatever. All that’s not required, you could get a regular driver’s license, just like everybody else. You can stand on the line just like everyone else. There would be no reason to have a special line for PFRs because all you’re doing is going in and updating a form. But when you go up there, you could print your form online and say this is a PFR update. And you could go ahead and hand it into there and if they need to update your picture, they could do it just like they do a driver’s license when they update your picture every four or six or eight years or whatever. There’s no reason for people to have such fear of Motor Vehicles handling it. There’s usually more motor vehicle offices throughout the state, gives you more options, more locations, and they’re generally open more hours. And they’re a lot more friendly than the sheriff’s offices as a general rule. That would be my expectation. You’re going to get treated more courteously, than you’re going to be treated by law enforcement where sometimes you have to put in a jumpsuit, you have to be locked behind a locked door while you’re waiting to be processed. I’ve never heard of that at motor vehicles, have you?

Andy 36:55
No, no. To be fair, though, Larry, on even on our Discord server for the podcast, like it’s nonstop chatter between half dozen people just constantly going back and forth. And I’m not saying that they aren’t unwarranted fears are conversations. They there’s just a furious amount of conversations going back and forth, scrutinizing every line almost, it seems.

Larry 37:16
well, on this one, the motor vehicles really scares people, because the first thing they say, is I don’t want to sit for four hours. Well, first of all, you never sit for four hours at the motor vehicle office. That’s an exaggeration. In fact, I don’t think I’ve ever sat more than 20 minutes to the motor vehicle office in the state at the most.

Andy 37:30
And it’s because I give you an old age, like privilege, head of the line thing.

Larry 37:35
So I think I think that’s an exaggerated condition. And there’s no reason for there to be a special line. Now they do have special lines for like commercial driver’s license, because it’s a special test to process. And you have to get more background information. It’s a little more thorough than a regular driver’s license. But they’re quite competent at verifying identity. And they can do everything that’s required for registration. And the home verifications, since it’s the regulatory scheme, those are not necessary. Those are something that sheriffs do because it’s makes them feel good. Most of the time, it’s not even under state law. There are a few where it says the sheriff shall make contact once or twice a year. But that’s really not necessary. If you’re out of compliance, then the prosecution penalties could kick in with a civil regulatory scheme. If you don’t comply, you can be prosecuted. So if a person doesn’t keep their obligations up, it doesn’t matter who the registrar is, it matters that you stay current on your information. And all that stuff can be filed electronically. We have technology these days where people can actually update their address, their employment. All this stuff can be done electronically. I mean, am I missing something here?

Andy 38:45
No, but the question in chat is, did you get your license while they still had horses?

Larry 38:50
So well, not quite that long ago. But yeah, it’s been it’s been a while. But the biggest problem we have with motor vehicles nowadays is thanks to the REAL ID Act that was passed after 9/11 by the Conservatives is that you have so much information you have to come up with all over again, even though you’ve been in the system 40,50, 60 years. You have to provide them real source documentation. So you got to go in with a with a real birth certificate, not a photocopy. And you have to let them scan it into a big ol’ federal database. And you have to give them your social security card, you have to give them several documents to prove where you live. And that you are who you say you are for real ID compliance. And that is the biggest thing in motor vehicles. But once they get you in a system, then it’s back to normal, you just go in and take your eye test as long as your license is not suspended. Renewing your driver’s license is not a really big deal.

Are you a first-time listener of Registry Matters? Well, then make us a part of your daily routine and subscribe today. Just search for Registry Matters through your favorite podcast app. Hit the subscribe button and you’re off to the races. You can now enjoy hours of sarcasm and snark from Andy and Larry on a weekly basis. Oh, and there’s some excellent information thrown in there too. Subscribing also encourages others of you people to get on the bandwagon and become regular Registry Matters listeners. So, what are you waiting for? Subscribe to Registry Matters right now. Help us keep fighting and continue to say FYP.

Andy 40:32
You put something in here to cover a particular politician named Bobby Scott from Virginia. And there’s a voting record chart that you want me to show. Otherwise, I don’t really have any idea what you’re going for here.

Larry 40:47
Sure. This was a conversation that happened between a fellow board member. We were chatting just a few days ago. She says, Well, wish we had more people like Bobby Scott in the Congress. I said, Oh, do you now? She said, Oh, yeah, that’d be wonderful. I said, really? And so let’s just talk about that. So Bobby Scott represents a district that he’s represented since the 1990s. I think he was first elected in 1992. So he’s been in Congress, almost 30 years. And I said, but think about what you’re saying. Bobby Scott has a lot of political capital. So we’re going to talk a little bit about political capital or the absence thereof. Bobby Scott is a pretty progressive liberal democrat representing a district in Northern Virginia. I think it’s in the Hampton Roads area, I didn’t spend a lot of time. But he was originally elected in 1992. And he ran them first time in ‘86. And he lost. But then every 10 years when they redistrict, after the after the 10-year census, they created a newly drawn district. And he won in 1992. So that’s where I wanted to start looking at the chart of his of his Electoral history. So I’m just going to look at it in the original source, and I’m not looking at what you’ve got up there. But in 1992, he won his office by 79% of the vote. He did it again in 1994, cause House members come up every two years. So he won by 79% of the vote. And then he increased it to 82%. And you can see that after that, people quit running against him, because they realized the futility. So starting in 1998, he goes through 3 elections with no with no opposition.

Andy 42:49
I got a question. How do you only get 76% of the vote with no opposition?

Larry 42:55
Well, you had write-in independent. So you had an exceptionally strong third party candidate in ‘98.

Andy 43:05
Wow. Okay. Oh, I see that over there. All right. All right.

Larry 43:06
So So, but, but So you, as you look through here, you see a person who either faces no opposition, or they smash their opponent. And the most recent 2020 election, he didn’t have any opposition and in 2018, but he had only token opposition in 2020. He still got almost 70% of the vote. And so that that’s an individual who basically can do whatever he wants to do. And he can, and he has spoken against the PFR laws. And he has been someone we would identify as an ally on this issue. But almost everything else that our conservative leaning audience would be in favor of, he’s against. You’d be diametrically opposed to him, because his politics are very moderate, to left. So therefore, you would find yourself not aligned with him on everything else. But that’s really not the point of this. The point is he has the safety of those numbers. If I could convey anything to the audience, when you’re trying to figure out what a politician or elected official is going to do, this is the first step you do, whether they run for city council, State House State Representative, or whatever office they’re in. This tells you what they’re capable of doing. This is the first step that tells you what they’re capable of doing. This guy’s capable of doing almost anything, because he has a lot of political capital at he numbers he wins by or people just don’t even bother to challenge him because they know it’s futile. So he has a lot of political capital. And his district, although probably they’re not fond of PFRs, they’re fond of Bobby Scott and if Bobby Scott says it, it makes it so because they trust him. He’s been there almost 30 years now delivering for them, and representing them in a way that they want to be spoken for. So Bobby Scott can do what few people can do. But I asked my colleague, I said, so you really would like to have people who cannot be defeated. I said, Now think about what you’re asking for right now. If we had 435 members of Congress who could not be defeated, would you really like that, particularly if they have positions that you’re so opposed to that you can’t stand them? Their politics?

Andy 45:37
I know that this isn’t a great comparison, because it’s house versus Senate. But Joe Manchin is the inverse of this, who may be in favor of every issue, which isn’t really the point. But he is so close to very down the middle about how people are going to vote for him, it’s a very red state versus him being a Democrat, like he is in the opposite position of Bobby Scott,

Larry 45:58
You’re spot on with that. Joe Manchin has very little political capital. Now, political capital is not the same thing as political power. So political capital is not the same thing as political power. The capital I’m talking about, this comes from the voters. If you are very popular with your voters, that’s political capital, at least that’s my definition of it. He has political power, because the Senate is evenly divided, and his vote is essential. But he doesn’t have a lot of capital to burn, because of his ratio of victory last time was 3.2%. We looked that up after the show. And that was pretty close to what I said, from my memory of 3.2% I believe on his last election. So he doesn’t have a lot of political capital to burn, it would only take one bad decision for him, and he’s no longer senator. In the case of Bobby Scott, he could make a few bad decisions and his voters are not going to renounce him. They’re just not, they love him. And Joe Manchin is not in the same position that Bobby Scott. So you can’t expect Joe Manchin to do what Bobby Scott could do. He just can’t. And we talk about Governor versus the Congress. But still, he cannot take a position that’s just totally adverse to his position. But when you have a limited amount of capital that Manchin has, you’re trying to build capital, you’re not trying to burn it. And if he were to do anything, he’s in such a tough position because the administration is pressuring him for the bill back better plan, which I can’t even understand I was going to pontificate about that later in the extra edition. But he doesn’t have the political capital to risk for positions that this administration is advocating for. So that’s why he’s having to stay right on that fence. And he’s trying to placate the state of West Virginia. And Bobby Scott is not in that position. But if you’ll do this analysis, this is the first thing you want to do is figure out how long your person’s been in office, and what type of margins they’re working with in terms of political capital. When you conclude that they have some political capital, then the next step is to figure out where they’re positioned in the legislative process. If they serve on a committee that’s vital to what you’re interested in. If they’re a committee chair, that’s awesome. But if they serve on a committee that’s likely going to review legislation for PFRs, you can’t do any better than that. Because then you’ve got somebody who’s in the decision making process that’s going to really have a lot to say about our issue. So that’s who you want to go to. And I can refer back to the 2012 national conference that happened in Albuquerque, we brought in a state senator named Cisco McSorely. He’s no longer a senator. But he was at that time, and he’d been in office since ‘84. So ‘84 to 2012 would have been how many years? He got elected in ’84.

Andy 49:01
Almost, what 40 years?

Larry 49:08
Well, quite a while. He had for a long time, and he had lots of political capital. He had elections where there were no opponents. And when he had an opponent, he had numbers like this, like we’re seeing here. So McSorely was able to come give a nice inspirational speech to the attendees to the conference because he had the luxury of being able to do that. But you cannot expect everyone to have that kind of luxury. And I mentioned it to him later after what I said that you really came down hard on people. He said they didn’t have any courage. And part of it that’s not so much courage is that they just can’t do what you did. They haven’t been there 30 years, and they don’t have the kind of margins of victory that you have. So he had a lot of capital burn. And his constituents were not going to abandon him if they disagreed with one issue. In fact, he fought like crazy to prevent us from having a state lottery. And his constituents did not agree with that. But they agree with him on so many other things that they were not one issue voters. He represents an area around the University of New Mexico. Here, he did represent an area around the University of New Mexico. And even though they were pro lottery, that gave him a pass on that. So figure out what their election margins are, and where they are sitting in the legislative process. That will help you know what they can do for you. If they are not connected in the legislative process, where they’re going to be directly reviewing the stuff, their vote is important on the floor. But if this stuff makes it to the floor that you’re opposed to, they’re going to vote for it. Trust me, they’re going to vote for it. You can’t take the hit politically for voting. Now McSorely could. Bobby Scott can. But a person who’s with 52%, 53%, they don’t have that luxury of being able to vote against a PFR bill. They’re not going to take the political risk of doing that and be vilified in the next election cycle. And as I’m so fond of saying, I don’t make these rules. I’m here walking you through what they are, but I don’t make these rules.

Andy 51:26
Okay. Let’s move over to the next segment, which is where we’re going to discuss the unseen consequences of probation revocation. And you brought up something to me recently. We’re dealing with two people that we know closely that both had probation revocations recently. And so we know these two people that had probation revocations recently, and one of them is not going to max out his sentence, I guess is the way to word it. So he’s still going to have probation time after he gets out from the revocation. Where the other person, he would have had time, but they actually collapsed the back end of it. He had three years remaining. And they gave him two years of a revocation. And they smashed the back of that said, Hey, we’re done with you. And you have started describing how detrimental this is going to be to him and any future. I don’t know if it’ll impact his… I guess it would impact his advocacy work, because he would be something of a tarnished entity. But what are his chances of trying to petition to get off the registry in the future, perhaps?

Larry 52:30
What we’re talking about is an unsatisfactory discharge from supervision. And the one individual that you’re talking about of the two, he has been given an unsatisfactory discharge from probation. So therefore, they didn’t deem him fit to continue with probation. So they’re giving him to the rest of his time. He’d already served time in prison before he came out on probation. And they’re deciding that he’s not a good candidate for probation. And therefore, they’re going to final him out. And when you final out, at least in this state, and I’m assuming it’s similar in other states, when you final out your supervision in custody, the paperwork will reflect an unsatisfactory release from probation. You are released because you’ve finished the duration of your sentence in a custodial setting. But that is not a good thing. Because when you’ve been relieved of supervision because you can’t comply, Imagine what would happen if you were to be in trouble again, which is something we don’t yearn for, but it can happen. If the prosecutor is negotiating with your defense attorney, and the defense attorney is saying, I’d like probation. The prosecutor is going to say, well, you know, counselor, I’d really like to help you out on this. But back in 2021, your client was revoked for substantial violations of supervision that went to the very core of the underlying offense. He used the internet for the same thing that got him in trouble on the internet. So he had great difficulty with probation. So I’m not sold yet on why should I agree to probation. So that’s step one, you’ve shot yourself in the foot unless a lot of years go by before you need probation again. But beyond that, it’s even more insidious. Because if you file removal petition, which Georgia allows you to do… remember, you serve those petitions on the prosecuting attorney in the jurisdiction where you’re convicted unless you have a non-Georgia conviction. So this individual in particular will be filing a petition for removal in the county that revoked his supervision. So what’s gonna happen is the prosecutor… you’re gonna make that journey that I always advocate to go see the district attorney and see what they’re going to say. So you say, Mister/Madam District Attorney I’d like to talk to you about a removal petition for my client. And yeah, I remember your client. Yeah, I remember him quite well. And as I remember, we had to send him to prison because he was on the internet, breaking every prohibition that we had imposed on him. And that was his original crime. So let me make sure I’ve got this straight. You’re asking me to turn the lights out on the registry so the public won’t know about a guy who did not do what he was supposed to do. And he had to final out his sentence in prison? Do I have that correct? That’s what the prosecutor is going to say. And your response, pretend you’re the defense attorney, what would your response be when the prosecutor said that?

Andy 55:51
That would be correct. Yeah, I did. Uh, we maxed him out.

Larry 55:56
Okay, so you’re asking me to turn the lights on this guy out and let him disappear into the general population, and he was misusing the internet, thumbing his nose at supervision requirements. And as far as I can say, he might have committed another crime, had we not caught him breaking those rules. So you want me to turn the lights out on him? And let him disappear? Is that correct? (Andy: Yeah, that’s correct. That sounds like a great idea.) Okay, so that’s what the prosecutor was going to say. Now, you can counter that. I mean, that’s not the end of all life as we know it. You could counter that with a person who comes out of prison, and without being required to goes and gets treatment, and successfully completes a real program of PFR specific treatment. And they can show that along with a psychosexual evaluation, along with a period of stability of being in the community successfully complying with registration. But you’re in a much weaker position trying to petition off after this has happened. And it’s gonna take some time to recover from this. So, if he gives the PFR office any problems with complying with registration, it’s only going to compound the problem. So that’s the bad thing about this. Now, in terms of his advocacy, I don’t know if it’ll diminish his advocacy, but it certainly is going to be an impediment towards him getting off of the registry by that petition process. I would be very surprised if any prosecutor would concur with that. My expectation would be that they would rigorously oppose his removal petition. And I think they would be on solid grounds for doing that.

Andy 57:46
I’m acquainting this to getting from the military, a DD214. And you get an honorable or dishonorable discharge, and even just getting like a less than honorable one, it’s not like… bad things can happen to you. But when an employer goes and looks at your record, they’re going to find that this was not a stellar person, and you couldn’t follow those rules. How do we know you’re going to follow our rules?

Larry 58:09
That’s a great comparison. And so I feel bad for the individual. We all like this individual. And this is so tragic. But it was, I think we talked in preshow about decisions that people make. We’re all faced with decisions in our lives. And this was a series of bad decisions that had consultation been sought, I would of strongly urged not to do that. I urge everyone to comply with their conditions of supervision. Unequivocally, I say that. I don’t like the conditions. But as long as they’re on you, and as long as you’ve been able to successfully petition that they be removed, you need to take every condition of your supervision seriously and to comply with it. Because if you don’t, you’re subject to revocation. I don’t make those rules, either. I’m just telling you that compliance, compliance, compliance. If your PO tells you to do something, even though you have great consternation about it, the right answer is Yes, sir. Yes, ma’am. I will do that. And then you go consult with legal professional as to what the viability of the challenge is to that. What would be the upside and what would be the downside, and you decide if you want to risk the downside of those things. You know, we talk about downside all the time, you know, people that, you know, I’ve got an issue right now where a person contacted me that has been told that they have to register – And I think this is common – that you have to register weekly in this state and you don’t. You do not have to register weekly if you’re homeless. No such requirement. But guess what? They are at risk if you tell the PFR office, you’re not going to do that. I think we talked about one last week where the person has to text in at Barrell County, Georgia. (Andy: Yep. Every night) That’s not in the law. But they’re certainly risk. So you tell the person gently, I certainly want to comply, can you help me understand where that is just so I make sure I’ve got all the requirements that I’m supposed to do. Because I haven’t heard that one before. But you don’t tell them you’re not going to do it. And see, I’m telling people to do things that are not realistic for someone to do. If you’re homeless, you probably don’t have a lawyer on call. You call the organizations like us, we don’t answer the telephones, because we don’t have full time staff. And then, when we call you back, when we do choose to call you back, you don’t answer yours. So we have a catch 22 where no one can ever talk to anybody because I don’t leave numbers when I call people back. So this is good time to pontificate about my phone policy, don’t you think? (Andy: Nope, nope, nope, nope, nope, nope. Nope. Not doing it. We’re gonna move on to the next one) You don’t want hear about my phone policy?

Andy 1:01:07
We’re already at an hour. I’m trying to move on and you want to keep talking, haha.

Larry 1:01:10
All right, let’s, let’s move on.

Andy 1:01:13
Alright, well, these next two segments are… ones kind of about making poor decisions. This one is from East Idaho news. Utah PFR Opened Door nude invited trick or treaters inside his house. Police say. There’s a guy that’s on the registry, and probably not supposed to be doing Halloween stuff. But maybe. And he wants to open up the door nude. There’s nothing even say other than like just facepalm. Yeah, dumbass. That’s what someone says in chat. Totally.

Larry 1:01:42
Yeah, he has a new conviction from 2019. And it was only a Class A misdemeanor. And he was on probation at the time. So he was probably told, I’m guessing, this is all conjecture on our part, but I’m guessing he had restrictions on Halloween and he was supposed to not answer the door. Certainly not be handing out candy and certainly not be inviting kids in.

Andy 1:02:05
And not be nude doing it.

Larry 1:02:08
I’m going to give the benefit of there may be some embellishment in this which media can do. But if this is 50% true, the guy made a series of bad decisions. You don’t answer the door nude. Yes, you technically have a right to be nude in your house. But when you answer the door, then perhaps other people might see you. So don’t answer your door nude. Don’t invite minors into your home when you’re on probation for something sexually oriented, like indecent exposure was. That’s the offense he had, although they didn’t call it that’s, that’s what it essentially was, indecent exposure. The best advice I could give him now is you better hope that the judge has a sense of humor, because your probation is going to be revoked.

Andy 1:02:59
Right. Okay, and then this one is super disturbing. We’re not going to cover this for very long but this one showed up again on the NARSOL social site. And hopefully I can make all my things work. I’m not going to play very much of it because it’s really annoying. This is a guy over on Tik Tok. And he went up to a drive thru and here’s how this interaction went.

Tik Tok Video 1:03:23
So there’s a fucking sex offender working here. Hi welcome to *something something* can I take your order? Hi. If I place an order, will the sex offender be making my food?…

Andy 1:03:37
Alright, I don’t want to give this guy a platform at all. But that’s a that’s what I wanted to hit with. He goes to the drive thru at a restaurant in a fast food joint in Tennessee. And asks is the PFR gonna deliver his food, cook his food. This is obviously Larry, the problem with having a business’s address listed on the registry.

Larry 1:04:00
I agree. This is one of the many problems with having the business address listed. Unfortunately, a lot of states do it. And it’s a part of the AWA compliance package that at least for the tier two and tier threes. The tier ones do not have to be on the website. But the tier two and tier threes have to be on the website and at least a pinpoint location where you can follow a link that shows you the location. You don’t have to actually list the name of the business. But what difference would it make if you do a pinpoint location? It wouldn’t be that difficult to figure out where the person’s working. So this is apart of the compliance package that’s in the federal SORNA recommendations. And some states have been creative working around it to some degree by not putting the name but actually just putting that locator on there, but I would prefer it not be there. But unfortunately it is.

Andy 1:05:01
I got to think that makes a very tepid, cold response to getting our people hired. Even, as that video goes on, they say he works and back, he just does dishes and stuff. So he’s got a meager existence at best just doing dishes at a Popeye’s. And if people are going to come up to the speaker box, and almost like ridicule you for it, that’s gonna make them have a very cold response as far as hiring our people.

Larry 1:05:28
Well, it does. And we had one when we were doing more generalized practice of law. We had an employer who posed a very good question, you know, what do you want me to do? I mean, I’ve got these people. And I’m getting harassed for being sympathetic and hiring people on the registry, what do you want me to do? My businesses is not to… I mean, they have a line of people at that drive through. They don’t want to have to stop and explain their corporate policy of forgiveness and second chances and all that kind of stuff. I mean, they were dumbfounded, I’m sure when someone drives up with a question like that. You’ve got people who would not know what to say, they would not have been prepped for that. They would not have been expecting that. And that’s just a distraction of business doesn’t need. And you remember, when the baseball player out of Oregon State was gonna be a big hit in national baseball success, and I said no team will pick him up. And people said, oh, Larry, there you go again. Remember that?

Andy 1:06:24
I do. I want to say he’s playing for Japanese team. But I could have that wrong.

Larry 1:06:29
Yeah, but that’s a distraction that no major league baseball team would have wanted. This is a distraction that no business wants. But this is also an opportunity. Because this is something that conservatives should be able to understand. They have a predisposition to want to accommodate business. Now, that’s not bad, that’s a good thing. We need business. They have a predisposition to want to be accommodating to business needs. So this is something where you ought to be able to do what Texas Voices did, and to reach out to business trade associations like the Chamber of Commerce, the New Mexico Association of Commerce and Industry and all these different trade associations and ask them to work with you to approach conservative leaning law makers who are pro-business to make a case that this should not be on the registry. The registry information should not be listed as a part of the profile where that person is employed, because it’s detrimental to the business community. They’re not going to give a crap about the PFR or their family. But business is something that they will relate to. This is an opportunity for conservatives to help our cause. Because if they’re intellectually honest, they do want to help business. They don’t want things like this stuff that we’re gonna talk about in the patron extra about all the stuff that’s being imposed on business by about vaccine mandates. That’s something conservatives usually rile against. And this is an imposition on businesses that’s very destructive to them. And I think that’s where your traction is. And if you could get the conservatives on board, I think you can get the Democrat party to go along with this. But I think you’re going to need the conservatives to take the leadership on this.

Andy 1:08:14
One final thing before we hit the Who’s that Speaker? is just to acknowledge a long letter from Frank, that will take a little bit of time to digest, I suppose.

Larry 1:08:25
So we’re gonna send it to our research staff in New Mexico that we just talked about.

Andy 1:08:34
Oh, excellent. Alright, then. Alright, well, then last week, I played this one.

George HW Bush
My opponent won’t rule out raising taxes, but I will. And then Congress will push me to raise taxes. And I’ll say no, and they’ll push, and I’ll say no, and they’ll push again. And I’ll say to them, read my lips. No new taxes.

Andy 1:09:07
And like, before we even finished recording the program Larry, we have a winner named Peter. And he said, read my lips, no new taxes is a phrase spoken by American presidential candidate George HW Bush at the 1988 Republican national convention as he accepted the nomination on August 18, 1988. And I did that because that one was so super easy. It was like, come on, you got to give me more than just saying it’s Bush. So that’s the right answer. (Larry: Who’s that winner?) That was a Peter with a C as an initial.

Larry 1:09:42
Okay, well, I’m just wondering if Peter is my sidekick for political discussions, or if he just did Google research really quickly to figure out that backdrop, because that is not something the average person would have known from memory. In terms of all the detail he provided. I mean, you would have heard the quote, you would have heard him saying that, but very few people would be able to set that up the way he did.

Andy 1:10:04
He was even like chomping at the bit to answer it in chat. He’s one of our patrons. So thank you very much for being a patron. Because he was listening live too. (Larry: That’s the $1,400 a month one, right?) Probably, yes. Yes, yes. Yes. And all right. So this one, probably similarly, because, gosh, if you don’t know who this one is, I got nothing for you. But so you’re gonna have to tell me more than just who this is. But you’re gonna have to give me some context around who sang it and where they were and what was going on at the time.

Who’s that Speaker?
Because people have got to know whether or not their president’s a crook. Well, I’m not a crook.

Andy 1:10:40
Alright, I, I’m telling you, if you don’t know who that is, you need some help.

Larry 1:10:44
I’m struggling with that one. Play that one more time. Okay, one more time.

Who’s that Speaker?
Because people have got to know whether or not their president’s a crook. Well, I’m not a crook.

Andy 1:10:52
Is that enough? Did I capture enough of that Larry?

Larry 1:10:56
It’s Yeah, it sounds like that person might have been, maybe, I’m not gonna say, but they might have been the president, Maybe?

Andy 1:11:01
Maybe? I mean, gosh, if you want to give it away, jeepers.

Larry 1:11:06
So all right. Well, that sounds like an old audio. That may go back 100 years?

Andy 1:11:12
Could be could be. Yeah, even Jen knows who that one is. And she’s like, 30 or something. Um, all right, new patrons. Kirk became a bigger patron. So thank you very much for Kirk for doing that. And then also, we had a new patron named Joey, thank you very much to the new patrons and the increasing patrons. Thank you very much. Do we get any snail mail subscribers? You’re gonna say, you didn’t check?

Larry 1:11:35
No, no, new subscribers, but we’re getting a lot of inquiries wanting a sample issue. And that usually has led to many subscriptions after they see the fabulous job that our transcription service does, and how beautiful it comes out and how reliable it comes out. Usually, they leave our Global Operations Center on Monday. And they’re usually handed out to most prisons by Friday. So that’s the timeline. We record on Saturday night. Transcript goes out from global operations on Monday. And usually you’re getting those by Thursday or Friday in your institution

Andy 1:12:15
FYP Global Operations Headquarters, huh?

Larry 1:12:18
That’s right. We have we have the global operation center. And then we have the regional operations centers around the various parts of the country.

Andy 1:12:27
Yes, we do. And sometimes then we even become a mobile operation as well. And then we just record where we are.

Larry 1:12:33
Well, let’s do a tease. We might have a guest next week, possibly. We’re working on having someone to talk about the registry petition process in Georgia. But it’ll be a different guest than what you’ve heard in the past when we’ve talked to this person. We’re working on having a brand new guest about getting off the PFR list in Georgia! (Stay tuned!)

Andy 1:12:56
Very good. Yeah. Do you want to dig more into that or like just leave it there?

Larry 1:13:01
This is a Fabisch young attorney that’s been at our conferences, and he is willing to talk about other issues. But the issue of getting off of the list is very important, because the Georgia assembly has had under its consideration this last year changing the process and forcing people to wait longer. So those who are contemplating wanting to get off, now may be the time to do it. Because that bill will likely resurface again. And I don’t know if Georgia lets it carry over to the next year. Our state doesn’t. So the first session of the legislature, when it ends, the legislation dies and you go into their two year sessions. The second session, you have to start all over. But I’m not familiar if Georgia lets it carry over.

Andy 1:13:46
I think Georgia let some carry over because there’s been talk about how it passed this house, so it just has to go past the other one next time. That’s ridiculous.

Larry 1:13:55
If that’s the case, then then see, we have a better system here because we can kill stuff that has to start all over, be vetted all over again. But that is something that people in Georgia need to be thinking about. If you’re trying to get off the PFR list, you’d better be listening to episode 203 if it turns out we’re really working on having him on the next weekend. (Andy: You can’t count, it’d be 202.) Oh, this is 201, so it’s be 202.

Andy 1:14:24
Alright, well then I we can close everything down here you can find all the show notes and everything over at The voicemail 747-227-4477. if you want to send me an email message. And of course as always, the best way to support the program is matters. And thank you so very much for the patrons and thank you every month everyone for joining in on the live stream. It’s a lot of fun to have everyone around and poke fun at me while we have technical problems while we’re recording. With that Larry I hope you have a wonderful weekend and I will talk to you soon.

Larry 1:15:03
Thanks for having me. And that is why I am here.

Andy 1:15:07
Oh, see I can do that. (Audio Clip: That is why I am here.) There you go. Have a good night.

Larry 1:15:14
We haven’t done that for a while

You’ve been listening to FYP.

Transcript of RM200: New SORNA regulations (Again)

Registry Matters is an independent production. The opinions and ideas here are that of the hosts and do not reflect the opinions of any other organization. If you have problems with these thoughts, fyp.

Andy 00:17
Recoding live from FYP studios east and west with one edition transmitted across the internet. This is episode 200 of Registry Matters. How are you, sir?

Larry 00:29

Andy 00:31
We are we’re right on time, aren’t we? It’s 15 minutes afterwards, we’ve been dealing with some minor tech issues and getting everybody situated with the hundreds of people that are listening in for the 200 to 200 episode. How are you?

Larry 00:43
But actually it is a larger audience than normal. And, and we are grateful that you’re here. And my lovely fiancée is here. So welcome.

Andy 00:54
Your fiancée is is a married woman, Larry,

Larry 00:57
doesn’t matter. I do not discriminate.

Andy 01:01
I see. All right. Is everybody they’re on board with this whole plan?

Larry 01:08
I don’t see any objections so far?

Andy 01:11
All right. Well, excellent. Do you want to tell me what we have this evening?

Larry 01:16
We have a special guest from the great state of West Virginia that’s going to be balancing my liberal Do goodism. As you know, we’re going to be taking a couple of questions, three questions, I think two from behind the walls and one that came in from gatekeeper at NARSOL. And we’re going to be talking about public policy and when people should whether they’re in Congress or whether the state legislative bodies are within whether they’re their legislative seats or city council seats or county Commissions when they should tell the people to go screw themselves and when they should actually represent the people and what the contours are for representing people. Talk about we’re going to talk about the Adam Walsh Act pending regulatory guidelines that are actually going to become final very soon here, but we’re gonna kick that around a bit. It’s generating a lot of interest around.,

Andy 02:17
Okay, have we talked about that before by chance?

Larry 02:20
We have indeed. We’ve definitely talked about the Adam Walsh Act and the proposed regulations, that were issued during the Trump administration, and now they’re going to become final during the Biden administration.

Andy 02:33
All right, then well, then, let’s get going from this first one from the NARSOL gatekeeper. This one says, Sorry, I’ve been super busy. That’s just part of another conversation. I live in Bartow County, and I register as homeless. Ever since I became homeless within a week of moving to Georgia, the sheriff’s department has told me I have to text them. Every single night, as soon as I reach my sleeping location, yet, I can’t for the life of me find a single law on the books that state this is a requirement of a homeless registrant in Bartow County, or in Georgia. And honestly, it’s very, very stressful. Because any night I’ve worked overnight, or over time, or excuse me over overnight for over time, I get harassed about it. The one or two nights I’ve forgotten, I’ve been harassed about it. And I constantly worry about being sent to jail over something as simple as not sending a text. It’s one thing if it’s on the books as a law, but I don’t see anything that makes it legal or gives them the ability to enforce it. Boy, I know what the answer is to this, Larry, I totally totally know what the answer to this is. Can I say it?

Larry 03:37
You do indeed. But as we were in pre-show, I was thinking this was Bartow County, but it’s actually a county that I’ve never heard of in Georgia. It is Barrow County.

Andy 03:51
Yeah. Okay. So I read that wrong.

Larry 03:52
Northeast Georgia law had said that I thought it was Bartow. But Georgia has 159 counties, which I think it’s the second highest number largest number in the United States. And I don’t even know them all. But yes, there apparently is a Barrow County, it has a 69,000 population. And it’s kind of looks like it would be there Clark County and Athens area of Georgia. Okay. All right. So you know the answer. So tell tell people the answer, then we’ll dig into it.

Andy 04:20
The answer is they can do it until they are told to stop just like the signs in Butts County. Right?

Larry 04:25
Correct. So we have actually, we meaning NARSOL, and for those who have never heard that before. That’s the National Association for rational sexual offense laws. We have actually litigated in Georgia against sheriffs who have invented requirements that are outside the law. And in pre-show prep, I went ahead and pulled the Georgia statute as represented by the Georgia Bureau of Investigation website. And it’s available there for scrutiny. It was in the shared folder. And as I went through that my recollection was accurate. He is correct. There is nothing in the Georgia statute that requires a weekly text, I mean, a nightly text of a PFR in Georgia. But there was nothing in there that required a PFR. To put up signs. There’s a lot of things that law enforcement invents. But Georgia doesn’t provide in their statute, the opportunity for law enforcement to invent things. There’s no catch-all clause that says and such other things as furthers the purpose of the sexual offender registration statute. And those clauses alone are unconstitutional because they’re vague. And they would be properly challenged to be void for vagueness, but this issue was settled many years ago, I think we talked about it in Pre-Show soft put the case of Santos versus state, which dealt with a PFR, who did not have a permanent address. And the Georgia law used to require them to provide a physical address no PO box, and the Georgia Supreme Court has held 13 years ago now that that, so you don’t have an address, you don’t provide an address. And the way I read from the GBI website, is they have to report within 72 hours a homeless person that if they change their sleeping location, but I cannot find any reference to a nightly text.

Andy 06:19

Andy 06:20
um, so does he just like flip them the two middle fingers and say, I’m not doing it.

Larry 06:28
I would not strongly encourage that. If he would do that they would go what they would do. If he did take that approach, they would go and try to find the places where he is staying because he would be reporting something, they may even be GPS tracking him for all we know, you never know what law enforcement, they do what that what they call that Sting Ray that moves the cell phone tower route. I don’t know all that technology. But for all we know, they’re tracking, they do track people surreptitiously. By attaching devices to their cars, I don’t know if they can do the same thing by cell phone technology. But if they’re tracking, and what they would do is they would contact the entities that control the property where he’s sleeping, it might be privately owned, or it might be a public right of way under a bridge somewhere. And they would get him they make sure he would receive directions that he’s trespassing if he sold that public property, or he’s trespassing result that private property, and they would upset the applecart to where he would not be able to sleep there, if that’s what they would do sauce would not encourage that course of action.

Andy 07:30
Then he has to go through the whole I’m gonna say it, Larry, the Kabuki show of then finding an attorney, and then going through and trying to file a challenge to do something to get the attorney to act on his behalf to go stop.

Larry 07:46
That is correct, and since the organization that I serve on the board. We’re interested in Georgia, we’ve put Georgia on our radar. It’s very possible I can’t be premature, but it’s very possible, we might look at that. And it’s possible, we might send a cease-and-desist letter to Barrow County. But those are all possibilities. Because we work in team collaboration. Nobody makes unilateral decisions. So we would have to consider the pros and cons and that could be a course of action we might choose.

Andy 08:17
Being as this individual is homeless, Larry, I’m sure he doesn’t go into his nightly room and go bathe in all of the $100 bills here and for the day,

Larry 08:26
probably not.

Andy 08:27
So what is the person in that sort of situation? How do they then file a legal challenge against like the state, this isn’t like your neighbor irritated you. And you go to Judge Judy, and you do some sort of small claims court, this is going to be thousands of dollars to do.

Larry 08:44
Potentially, it might be thousands of dollars, or maybe a cease and desist letter to the to the county attorney of Barrow and to the to the Barrow County Sheriff’s Office, possibly. Sometimes on rare occasions, they see the light and they stop doing what they’re doing. So but yes, you’re correct if litigation, were the only course of action. That’s the reason why these things go unchallenged, because a homeless person is in a very weak position, generally speaking, they’re not going to have those resources, nor are they going to have access to them and the organizations that would be available to him. The first thing he would think would be the ACLU and they’re not likely to undertake this cause they’re not.

Andy 09:24
Does this have far reaching implications? As far as like we talked about impact litigation, that’s something that you are you and others are mostly interested in, you’re not interested in helping like the one person but if it has some sort of greater impact for many more people, does this fall into that kind of category?

Larry 09:41
It would indeed it would be similar to what we’re working on in Cobb County, which is a suburban Atlanta County. We’re working on launching an action there because the sheriff there and we don’t know if they’ve changed but the previous sheriff was inventing requirements about work schedules and things that were not in Georgia law that people had to provide. So the greater impact would be, you did put your hand on a Bible and you swore to uphold the law to enforce the law. If you would like to be a lawmaker, all 159 sheriffs in Georgia, you need to run for the Georgia General Assembly. But that’s not your role to invent a law. And you’re going to be slapped down from time to time. Because if we find that you’re inventing the law, there is someone watching.

Andy 10:25
And one final question is about the separation of powers that I’m pretty sure that the sheriff is part of the executive branch, and they don’t have the power to invent laws, which comes from the legislative branch. Do I have that reasonably close?

Larry 10:40
reasonably close? Yes, they are independently elected officials, but they do not have lawmaking powers. He, or she, I don’t know who the sheriff feels in Barrow. But he or she is not able to invent the law. When they tell someone to do something, as I said, they put their hand on the Bible. And they were going to enforce the laws as written. And that is not in Georgia law. I don’t know how they can invent that. Because you just can’t tell people to do what you’d like them to do. You enforce what has been required of them. And they also need certainty of terms of what they can be required to do. That’s the whole reason why we have laws and people don’t just invent it as they go, nobody would ever be safe.

Andy 11:21
Right? Yeah, I mean, that would that would set up the minimum standard of what they’re supposed to execute, but then at the same time, it creates the maximum of what they’re allowed to do as well.

Larry 11:31
So yes, I will I will be further investigating disclaiming and Barrow County. And it’s possible that we could be sending a letter to them.

Andy 11:42
All right. Excellent. And then let’s move over to this is a two parter, but this will be part one. And it says thank you for sending me the transcript of the podcast. I’m glad and grateful that the issues discussed on this forum are being approached in some fashion. However, I’m not sure that the late night show with the live audience is the most appropriate format. The light hearted semi calm comic tone seems a bit tone deaf, to the situation where there are broken lives and broken homes, people languishing in prison for decades and facing lifetime ostracism and exclusion, social disdain until death, there really is very little to laugh about, unless the laughter is a kind of gallows humor. At one point in this transcript, there is a tangential conversation about a gentleman who travels with plumbing tools and his favorite showerhead, that he installs in hotel rooms to avoid the occasional week spray. In prison, we have no such luxuries. And I’m sure that those PFR is doomed to live in public shelters or on the streets don’t either. Boy, oh, boy.

Larry 12:43
Well, that is from Fernando, who’s spending some time with the feds in the state of Texas. We do appreciate the feedback as always, that episode that he happened to receive was recorded at an annual event. And we would have either not had an episode that week, or we thought we would take advantage of that accumulation of 150 people and give them opportunity to see the show the program live and to participate. So yes, there was some laughter. And when we did the transcript, we made sure that the laughter was represented in the transcript, we put that in there purposely so that the people who are reading would feel like they were there as much as you could feel like you’re there. And the terms of the showerhead, the person that’s me, that’s the person we’re talking about with the showerhead. So, yes, I’m quite were well aware that people in prison have, have not the best showers they have. They have short timers, in many instances where you have to press the button over and over again. Sometimes you can invent bypass tools like putting cutting your coffee cup, the plastic and you can put little wedges in. And most of the modern designs they fix they’ll kick that won’t actually kick the plastic out but it’ll turn the shower off even though you have a permanent wedge in there. That’s what people used to do in the old days.

Andy 14:09
But he did it last place I was that it would run like from the time that the showers were opened that thing was on at Full Tilt for I don’t know, six hours just running.

Larry 14:19
So yes, but that that’s not the point. The point I was making is what I travel. I’m getting up in years, and I pay decent money for the lodging and I expect to be able to take a shower but we can’t compare that with prison. In prison you get accommodations that are not intended to make you feel like you’d want to come back when I go to a hotel. I’m they are hoping that I do come back in most instances that’s the whole point of the business is that we want repeat guests they would like to have repeat guests so I I don’t feel any guilt about having a decent shower. But I do recognize that people in prisons are not and luxurious accommodations

Andy 15:02
I would also, there’s like a flurry of comments being thrown out in chat. One of them is exactly otherwise, it’s all doom and gloom. So we’ve had this comment come up before and we beat it around on how much lightheartedness we would do. But that’s exactly it. This all sucks, really, really bad for those that are still inside. And it sucks for a whole lot of people that are on the outside, obviously, to varying degrees. You can’t compare the people that are inside to the people that are outside. Same as you, Larry, you have the privilege and the freedom to travel with a showerhead and replace it, not trying to make that comparison. But at the same time, if all we do is come on here and go, this sucks, and this is gonna make your life worser. And I didn’t say that on purpose, then I, I’m sorry, I don’t, I don’t personally live that way. So I am very snarky. I’m very sarcastic, I have a dry sense of humor. Like, that’s just kind of the personality that I have. And I would apologize to the person sending in the comments that that’s how this program exists. But that’s kind of the character of it too.

Larry 16:09
So, and in fact, I noticed there’s a large number in audience right now they’re muted, but I could probably generate some laughter about my latest bathroom antics. I’ve never talked about but at home. Rather than having a hot lather machine, I have a whole fashion technique for making sure my shaving cream is warm. So what I do is I take the cans of shaving cream, and I put them in a small igloo of hot water. Because otherwise if you put them in something that’s not it doesn’t have some insulating effect to water the cold by the time you get out of the shower. So I get out of the shower, and my shaving cream is nice and warm. It’s in the igloo. And I have nice heated lather and it didn’t cost me a dime. So but it did cost me a dime for the shaving cream, but it’s nice and warm. A friend of mine came over to light my furnace today. And he needed to use the bathroom. But he saw the igloo and he said, Why do you have an igloo in the bathroom? I said everybody does.

Andy 17:10
Of course they do. Larry, everyone has one in their bathroom.

Larry 17:14
Every every bathroom I’ve ever been in the last 10 years at least has an igloo sitting there. So I don’t know what his problem was. Don’ you have one of yours?

Andy 17:26

Larry 17:27
How many of you a chat have an igloo in your bathroom?

Andy 17:33
The answer is gonna be none. But I will then just pile this on. So I think humor can be lost in a text transcript for that listener. He could listen to podcast and then he would hear the humor in the voice. That’s totally true. And if this is the first transcript that this person has received, then there’s also a whole lot of context lost in how much we do play around with what a serious and then what is joking? So yes, and I did receive an F bomb and then a no Larry. So no, there are no igloos at anybody’s houses?

Larry 18:03
Well, I’ve just totally shocked because I’m confident that the TSA finds showerheads and every piece of luggage they screen. And I would be very surprised if I didn’t start knocking on doors and asking about igloos at the bathrooms were full of them.

Andy 18:19
Alright, well, then let’s move on to comment number two from the same individual. It says thank you for the FYP transcripts. I’ve submitted by core links, email request to Registry Matters but have not yet received a reply. I would like to be included in the dialogue as a voice from the inside, there may be some value to my input. We’ve discussed this. I think it’s within the last six months, I’m pretty sure and we You encouraged me pretty much live on the program. It’s like you probably don’t want to get into that because if we do, then we’re going to receive 8000 email messages and we just can’t handle it. I get enough emails from people with questions. They go to you, we pick them up from other sources. I’m not saying that the value the input is valuable. But it would then start to get abused too. And that’s just a hard line to cross. If we had a volunteer perhaps if someone wanted to step up and receive these email messages, we could work something out like that.

Larry 19:14
I would be receptive to that. But I was saying in Pre-Show. I just don’t have the additional bandwidth. I’m already over overextended and I’m trying to downsize so I don’t have the capacity to have any more things thrown at me. So I cannot take that on but I’m not opposed to someone doing it. We have hundreds and hundreds literally hundreds of people who are listening out there on a regular basis. Maybe one of them might want to be our CorrLinks monitor but I can’t do it either.

Andy 19:42
Okay, moving right along then. I guess this will be this is question from Isaac. To Whom It May Concern. I find your newsletter very informative. I’ve even recommend it to others. I have a few questions. However. Rumor is Indiana has talked about going up us going up a civil commitment facility in the near future opening up sorry, opening up a civil commitment facility in the near future. Do you know anything about these rumors? What all states have says civil commitment. And then the third one, I suppose to start lifetime parole when I get off of probation? I’m sorry, I am supposed to start lifetime parole when I get off probation. Shouldn’t this be a violation of my rights? Since that wasn’t in my plea? Fourth, the Second Amendment says the right to bear arms. How am I supposed to protect myself from being the victim of a hate crime? Again, I am part of three minorities and have been assaulted due to two of them. Respectfully, Isaac? Boy, there’s a lot to unpack there. Larry, what’s the first one?

Larry 20:43
Well, I have not heard that rumor. But just let’s be clear, always like to take this moment to educate. As far as I know, all states have civil commitment. So let’s be clear, we’re talking about a different type of civil commandment which has at present 20 states have, but I didn’t check to see which 20 They are, I’m not gonna recite those 20 states and the federal government have a form of PFR specifics civil commitment. It’s not, it’s not a very good system, because there are fewer protections, the standard of putting a person away is much lower. And the process for getting a person out is almost virtually non existent. And some, like in Minnesota, a handful have gotten out in the history of that program. But I do not know about anything of that nature. Being that Indiana is a conservative state, if you were trying to fight that, and I realized he would have limited resources from where he is in prison, but you would want to remind those conservatives in Indiana that they are against big government, and creating new things that will grow exponentially, and you would cite to the states for the programs have grown exponentially like Minnesota, and Virginia. And you would say we just can’t afford this and to hold true to your conservative values, do not create this monster because it will grow and grow and grow. And that’s the best argument you can come up with. And they may adhere to their conservative beliefs, or they may abandon them and magically do a flip flop, which conservatives frequently do. But that’s what I would where I would start if I were trying to argue against that. So I can’t give you the list of the 20 states that it takes care of number two, it lifetime parole, it made, it may be permissible even I mean, there’s just too much there to unpack on this program, because we don’t know what law was at the time. If he’s got lifetime probation at post prison supervision, if the statute existed, they fail to apprise him of that requirement. It could be that he could get out of the plea, that’s probably not his interest. So I’ve got I’m going to dodge that one. And then the second amendment. That’s one of those things where, since 1968, there have been prohibitions against felons and people who have had various Well, they’ve actually added misdemeanor convictions like domestic violence to that prohibition. They’ve also got people who have been committed to mental health facilities against their will, you know, involuntary commitment. Those people were forbidden to have a weapon. So Martha Stewart, who sold stock, and did not tell the truth to the federal investigator cannot lawfully own a firearm, because to my knowledge, she has not received a federal pardon for her federal crime. And I do not believe she can possess a weapon. But so yes, that is a problem. And again, if the NRA was as consistent is it pretends to be about that, right? They would fight for restoration of those rights and a much more narrowly focused prohibition, but the NRA, like most organ organizations, they’re not consistent because they’re afraid that might alienate some of their donors, or maybe many of their donors, so therefore, they don’t take that posture.

Andy 23:53
Back to the point three, about lifetime parole, no lifetime parole when he gets off of probation, isn’t that, to me, that feels backwards. Parole is something that is like prison, but not inside and then probation is what you’re free with restrictions.

Larry 24:12
So Well, like I said, I just don’t feel like I have enough information to be competent. He may have he may have a beef there. In terms of that, I would suggest that to the extent he can he talked to legal professionals. I can’t unpack that. But he may very well have a good cause of action. I think there’s been states like in Tennessee where I think they’ve imposed that on people retroactively, and it was not a part of their negotiations. And just because they they’ve done it doesn’t make it constitutional, but they could do it until their stopped.

Andy 24:45
Okay, but back to that recurring theme. They can do it until they’re stopped. Then last question, boy and I get to read this one. This is gonna be hard to read. Thank you for all the insight you give in your newsletters. They are much appreciated my question to you is this, all states do have registries, which states limit which, which of the registries are listed on the internet. I’m currently incarcerated and do not have internet resources to help out. Thank you for your time along with any help to my question, Larry, can you just rattle off of your head, which states limit who’s on the listed on the internet?

Larry 25:25
Well, let’s, let’s be clear. There, there’s no state in our union, that doesn’t have at least a significant amount of their PFRs listed, I think Minnesota might have the lowest ratio list on the internet, but all states, all states have some segments of their PFR is listed and it ranges all the way from anyone who’s registered to like in Arkansas they have a risk based system and they put the level two, I mean, level threes and fours on the on the website. And Minnesota has a similar system. Vermont has a similar system unless you have an offense against a minor and then magically that prohibition goes away. And they did that a few years back as they expanded their law. And Vermont. But still in Vermont is a little bit better, because they don’t put your physical address they put your city. But in terms of what he’s trying to do, he’s trying to state shop, and we don’t really encourage state shopping. First of all, most people don’t have the luxury of going to wherever they want to go. He may because he’s in federal custody, he may have that luxury. But when you state shop, you’re assuming that the laws are stagnant, they cannot be changed, and they change all the time. If you look at the legislative history, you’ll see that they changed sometimes annually, in certain states, the victim, and the law enforcement apparatus never feels like they have sufficient control. So the victims’ advocates want more restrictions on the law enforcement industrial complex wants more restrictions. So even if you were to have such a list, and even if you didn’t have the resources to get to that state, that does not mean that that’s the way the state’s going to be. Look at two states that had private list, law enforcement only Nebraska, Oklahoma, Wyoming, on and on. And people thought, well, they were safe. And all of a sudden they were not safe. So we just don’t encourage state shopping. But yeah, I appreciate it. I understand. If you could not be on the Internet, what you want to be not be on the internet who would want to be on Internet didn’t have to be

Andy 27:31
definitely not anybody. Nobody I know would want to be on it if they didn’t have to be.

Larry 27:35
Well, not in this. Actually, people want to be on the internet all the time with their social media, but it doesn’t take your social media platform. This is one of those things where people are not chomping at the bit like the Arkansas registration manual said some years back it said that people who have been convicted of these offenses have the opportunity to register it, it was so hilarious, because most people would have been happy to pass up that opportunity.

Andy 27:58
I think I would probably pass that one up as well, to be honest. So all right. Well, so I

Larry 28:08
He’s got a lot of he’s got a lot of research to do to try to figure this out. It may change by the time he gets released. It I didn’t do any research to figure out what his projected release date is, but, but it may be that everything’s changed by the time he gets out.

Andy 28:24
Are you a first time listener of Registry Matters? Well, then make us a part of your daily routine and subscribe today. Just search for Registry Matters through your favorite podcast app. Hit the subscribe button, you’re off to the races. You can now enjoy hours of sarcasm and snark from Andy and Larry on a weekly basis. Oh, and there’s some excellent information thrown in there too. Subscribing also encourages others of you people to get on the bandwagon and become regular Registry Matters, listeners. So what are you waiting for? Subscribed register matters right now. Help us keep fighting and continue to say FYP.

Andy 29:13
Okay, I think then we can move over to the Oh, there’s one. I think we’re ready to go to the future segment. I believe there. I think we’re there Right.

Larry 29:25
I think we are and we have a very, very special guest that’s going to be joining us from connection has held.

Andy 29:33
I hope so. Philip King Oh, so little soundcheck? Yeah. Sweet. You’re still here. Excellent. Yeah. And you have a follow up there. We you are Phillip and you are the head person for the West Virginia affiliate of NARSOL and you’re pretty smart cat. So we thought we would have you on because I made an analogy to Larry in the recent days or weeks comparing the position of Joe Manchin and what is coming down the pike from the federal legislation, I think it’s called the Build Back Better plan. And the position that he is as a Democrat, versus the position of the state being super red. And I’m not trying to play sides on that. That’s just the reality of what they are. But I made the analogy with Larry, I said, Yeah, it’s definitely red. And so I made the analogy that Joe Manchin is in a position where maybe he is a Democrat, maybe he wants all the green things that could ever be. But the state doesn’t really support that. So he has to figure out some line to toe in there. And anyway, and vote according to what would potentially get him reelected, mostly. And so thought you would be an excellent candidate to come on and discuss that. And then also throw in the proposed changes to the AWA we can talk about that. But all that said, Welcome. How are you?

Philip 30:50
I’m doing absolutely wonderful, Andy.

Andy 30:55
We’ve met a number of times at the NARSOL conferences, and I think that you’re a stellar, stellar, great guy. Like you a lot. (Philip: Well, thank you sir.) Yep. So where do we go, Larry? What do you want to do?

Larry 31:11
Well, what Andy laid is the intro is really where I wanted to go in terms of public policy, and how we formulate public policy and talking about as we elect people to represent us, when are those people supposed to flip the middle finger and do whatever the hell they want? And when are they supposed to represent the people that sent them there? And I get all these conflicted. I get all the time, well they should just tell the people to go to hell. Well, of course, that’s your feeling when you disagree with the majority of the people, but they represent, whether it be a city council or county commission or county board of supervisors, or whether it be a state legislative district, or whether it be the US House or the US Senate, they represent the people. So therefore, the people of West Virginia, are not the same as the people of California or New York. So imagine being a member of the Senate and being one of 50 Democrats. And actually, it’s not that many there was an independent, I think, so he’s one of 49. But the other one caucuses with Democrats for organizational reasons. But we’ve got an equally divided Senate. And what is he supposed to do? Because I’m quite certain, if you were to take a poll about PFR issues in West Virginia, I’m doubting that there would be a massive uprising against the registry. And I’m suspecting that the people are pretty much happy with the laws as they exist or maybe want them to be tighter. So if you want Manchin to represent you on the Green Deal, and oppose it, because that’s where the average West Virginian is, they think that that’s Kabuki because they want to keep their industries that they’re familiar with in place. How is it that we can ask him to flip the middle finger on the stuff related to PFRs, and he’s supposed to vote for against the Democrat Party, and he’s supposed to represent the people of West Virginia. It confuses me a lot. When do you get to represent the people and when to get to tell the people to go to heck? Yeah, to go where it doesn’t snow?

Andy 33:22

Andy 33:29
Snow or shine?

Philip 33:30
It’s definitely a challenge, that’s for sure. And you can definitely say that West Virginia is a very red leaning state. And Joe Manchin has been the senator in West Virginia for a lot of years. But Joe has never been a left, left senator, he’s always been a center left. But yeah, in West Virginia, they’re not chomping at the bit to increase registry law and make it harder, but they’re also not chomping at the bit to roll it back where you would see, you know, most reform, liberal movements moving towards. But Joe has stuck around for a lot of years by being a centrist. He’s been in the Senate for a long time. He’s an old timer. He believes in and bipartisanship but at the same time, you know, he’s not looking to gut the entire West Virginia economy and all the coal producing jobs. He still has to have that balance and weigh in with what his constituents want. There’s definitely in West Virginia and Kentucky, coal is a major, major thing. Turning that all over to a new green world is not something I think Joe is totally against. But he certainly doesn’t want to do it in five years, that’s for sure. So it’s a challenge, a balancing act challenge for sure.

Larry 35:12
Well, that’s what the lefties don’t seem to understand. You take someone like AOC, that I can’t pronounce all of her names. So I’m just going to let that go sufficiently.

Andy 35:22
Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez.

Larry 35:25
We can put it in the glossary of what it stands for. But those people are tone deaf to the differences in the United States. So they represent a district or a state. In her case, she’s in the house. So she’s representing a district. And they just assume that since they have broad support from their constituents, that somehow or another, their courage is something that should just translate around to places where they don’t look at things the same way. Texas is not the same as California. We were just there. And you can cite to how many people were wearing masks when we were there. 150 people, what would you say as you scan the audience, how many of the 150 actually wear masks after the presentation? So it was a very small number.

Andy 36:10
I don’t think there’s one person that was adamant about wearing a mask.

Larry 36:14
Had you been in New England, you would have seen a lot higher. Even in New Mexico, you would have seen a lot higher percentage of people. In fact, you have been almost unanimous 100% here, because when you’re in public, you have to be masked and very few people defy that. But in Texas, somehow the lefties don’t get that. But when we’re talking about things as PFRs go, we somehow find such disdain for that they just don’t have any backbone. They just don’t go “fuck the people,” and they just don’t do the right thing. Well, in my view, over time, transitioning away from the type of energy that we’ve been using for 100 years, it’s probably in our best interest over the long term. But it’s going to be disruptive as all change is. It’s going to be painful. As we went from agriculture to industrialization, and we went from industrialization to the technical revolution, when we lost a lot of industrial jobs that paid well and had nice benefits. But in the meantime, Joe Manchin, who’s also been governor of that state, if I remember, right, he was the governor. He served that state for a long, long time. And he has been a centrist and I would say centrist to the right more than to the left. Politically, he’s been at the center, maybe leaning to the right. But that’s where he has to be. He could not get elected if he were out on the lefty land where AOC is. He just couldn’t. The people of West Virginia would not vote for him.

Philip 37:46
Well, it’s absolutely certainly he could not get elected. And if he was to lose his seat, it would absolutely be filled by a Republican.

Larry 37:57
So that’s what I struggle with all the time, when the party is so adamant, “You’ll either vote our way, or we don’t want you.” Well, first of all, the Democratic Party used to be a broad and welcoming party. You had a broad diversity in the Democratic Party across the political spectrum. You had the same thing in the Republican Party. You had liberal and moderate Republicans, and both parties have polarized, but back to the PFR issue. What do you expect when that’s where the people are on the issue. They do not want to see things lighten up on PFRs. And they make that known. Believe me, they make that known. When there’s any hint of lightening up, there is an outcry about it. The news media goes crazy. The phones light up in the legislative offices. I answer them. I know that for a fact. So the people are not ready for that. So what are they supposed to do?

Philip 38:55
It’s a good question.

Andy 38:59
Explain further, Larry, in that, if, so, say you voted for Joe Manchin because he was a coal supporter. And then this registry stuff comes up on the plate. I realize that you would want him to vote for the PFR stuff, but your coal job is there. And I wanted you to go into about the other issues that they may work on. And this is something that like, this isn’t their pet project. A lot of people get elected because they’re like, I’m going to focus on schools, focus on jobs, I’m going to focus on economy. They get there on their signature platform. But then these tangentially, not even tangentially, these other issues come up that it’s not their pet project. What are they supposed to do with those?

Larry 39:43
What they generally do, is, they look as best they can. And I should say we, because I’m a part of that process. We look at where we think the public is based on what we know the reaction is going to be. Well, I can automatically tell you in our state the news media would go ballistic if you started, because that’s where the people are. And that would drive their ratings through the roof. And in a capitalist system, ratings is what you live or die by. So we would say, gee, we’re going to get killed on this in the media. And therefore, we would lay low in the grass. What you do when you’re in politics is you lay low in the grass, and you hope someone that has a little bit safer seat/posture that they’re in. Matchin is not in a safe seat. I mean, he did squeak out a reelection in his last go round. But it was not a barnburner by any means. What was it like three points, maybe?

Philip 40:39
Yeah, I think it was either three or four points.

Larry 40:42
And he is not in a position to burn capital on this issue. So if there would be federal legislation, he would lay low in the grass, and he would let others take the lead on that. And he would vote how he felt that he would suffer the least damage politically, because this is not an issue that he can gain any political advantage with. This is not something that would gain him votes. It isn’t. I hate to tell you, folks, but it would not get you votes to be soft on crime, and particular, soft on PFRs. So therefore, it’s something that is politically toxic, and you’re gonna stay away from it. That’s why the votes are always 100% or very close to it, because you see it as political toxicity if you touch it.

Andy 41:26
Someone just posted in comments, Philip, maybe you can speak to this. Just imagine the attack ads if he didn’t lay low.

Philip 41:32
Oh, yeah, there would definitely be lots of attack ads. He’s up for reelection in ‘24. Not really sure that he’s gonna run again. He’s, I believe, 74 at this point. But yeah, if in a red state like we are, anytime anything is raised that even remotely goes out and wants to challenge the registry, the attack ads just start on the nightly news. It’s the only thing you see on the news, it seems like.

Andy 42:08
So what else Larry, what else is important to know about from the registry side of voting, and then the general population? Isn’t this where it would be really important for things to get killed in committee, so they don’t come to a vote?

Larry 42:22
Absolutely. Everything that we are angry about now, we’re angry because the committee process broke down and finally let it through. At the federal level, the International Megan’s Law, when the Congress was under democratic control, it was able to be bottled up by a few key people, particularly the Senate. But when the majority shifts – people don’t really pay attention to this – when the majority shifts, the committee chairs shift also, because one of the perks of being in the majority is you get to name the chairs of the committee. And the ratios are representative of the ratio of advantage you have over the other party. So right now, the committees are, in the Senate, they’re 50/50, because that’s what the ratio is. So the rule that they’re operating under now is a shared power agreement where anything that can’t pass out of committee, say if every Democrat votes no, and every Republican votes yes, you’ve got a tie. So they’ve agreed as the sharing power process to send that on to the floor. But normally, if they were 52/48, then all the Senate committees would be one more than there is of the of the minority party. And that would mean if they voted in lockstep, you kill it in committee. So when the Republicans took control of the of the Senate in 2014, that shifted the committee control as well. So the committee chair, I believe, was Leahy of the key committee. I’m not sure. It’s been a few years back, but the Democrats had control and the IML was being bottled up. Well, that shifted. I mean, it’s just that magic. When the majority party shifts, committee chairs shift. And the majority party controls the flow of what gets heard in committee. They control the flow. You hear all this time that Mitch was blocking this, he would not allow a vote, Mitch wouldn’t allow a vote. Well, same thing happens in the House. If you’re in the majority, you can block votes. The rules are slightly different than house representatives, but blocking votes, you don’t want this crap to get to the floor, you cannot let it get to the floor. It will be voted, it will be approved on the floor. That happens time and time again. You have to stop in committee. And that’s just the reality of the situation. It works the same way at the state level. If it gets to the floor, it’s going to pass. It’s too toxic not to vote for it.

Philip 44:48
That’s absolutely right. They did distance restrictions in West Virginia six years ago for those who are on supervision. And as soon as that law was passed, I was like, Okay, the next step is all the rest of us, and sure enough, the next year, they introduced it. It was introduced five years running. This last year it got taken out, it was not reintroduced. But for five years, we, you know, obviously we got together and we spoke out against it and it died. We got to die in committee every one of those years, but that was the ultimate goal was to get killed in committee.

Larry 45:29
So, yep, and people are really not familiar with the committee process. The committee is where the public gets input. It’s where the real in-depth dive goes. Yes, they do have floor debate. But the real experts come in and testify in a committee setting. You don’t, when you’re on the floor, it’s debate among the members. It’s not a debate among the public. So your real involvement, and the real expertise comes in the committee process. They have analysts that look at these things. They take public comment, in most states. I’m told that there was a couple of states where they don’t allow public comment. But as a general rule, public comment comes in. And you’re allowed to say what you want to say, you may only get one, two or three minutes, but you’re allowed to speak, and you have every right as a PFR show up at your Capitol. And when I say that, I’m going to get the email from North Carolina, they’re going to tell me, Larry you don’t seem to realize that North Carolina has the capitols within an exclusion zone. And PFRs are not allowed to go there because of that. And I just tell people, well, you know, what, I’m allowed to petition government for redress of my grievances. And I would go the capital anyway. But that’s easy for me to say, because I would fight back. But even if you can’t go to capitol, you can participate other ways in that process.

Andy 46:48
What other stuff is going on in in West Virginia, Philip? Is there any activity at the legislative level that you guys are looking out for and going to try and stop and whatnot?

Philip 47:00
There’s not a whole lot of active stuff going on, we have an annual legislature. So we don’t have you know, a full year running or twice a year. So it’s once a year. The biggest thing over the last couple years has been the distance restriction, but glad to see that it’s not been reintroduced and hoping that it’ll stay that way. We’re looking at trying to raise funds and look at adding on or forcing the legislature to have a way to get off of the registry in West Virginia. Currently, there is no way off of the registry. There’s no legislative process to redress whatsoever.

Andy 47:43
You only have like 50 people on the registry in West Virginia, right?

Philip 47:47
Just a little over 6000. And there’s a handful of people who are designated as what they call violent predators. But West Virginia is definitely not the worst place in the Union to be for registering. Certainly not Florida, let’s put it that way. But they’re definitely worse places to be than West Virginia. But, for example, not being able to get off the registry is something that we certainly want to try and get on to the books.

Larry 48:25
That should be very appealing to your conservative lawmakers who profess such a belief in small and limited government. And the cost, that would be one of your talking points. Now, West Virginia probably offloads this to the counties, which is quite common around the country. There’s only a handful of states where they actually do it at the state level. So you get to you get to disguise the cost of it. It is absorbed by the counties. Is that the way they do it in West Virginia? Do you register with the county?

Philip 48:54
Yeah, you register. The state police control the registration and it’s registered in the counties. It’s centralized, but it’s the county levels that do all the registrations.

Larry 49:05
Yeah. So they get to absorb the cost. And it’s the county officials that come out and check on you, the sheriffs or whoever. Now if you really want to have fun with them, you go talk to a conservative lawmaker, and you say, You know what? I’ve been thinking about this damn thing. And it sure is one of those unfunded mandates that conservatives really profess that they hate. And you know we’re having an unfunded mandate to the local governments who are already struggling to provide basic services. You know, you’re local governments provide your most basic service like trash and parks, and law enforcement, county jail, whatnot. And they’re stressed to the limit. So what we ought to do is remove this unfunded mandate. And let’s make sure that it’s handled by the state or at the very minimum that the state pays the counties for doing it. And then we could get a more clear picture of what it’s costing because right now it’s just being absorbed by the counties. And this is just such a horrible thing that we’re shoving on our counties. That’s your strategy. And you’ll actually be able to find out how disingenuous they might be, or how honest they might be about their belief in unfunded mandates. Because they’ll roll their eyes and say, I’ve never thought about that. No sheriff has ever complained. Of course, no Sheriff, ever would complain, because if you complained about the registry, it would be adverse to your electability as a sheriff. Nobody wants someone who complains about the registry. So every sheriff says, I’m happy to do that. Because to say otherwise would be to jeopardize their electability. So that would be a good way to have a conversation. And let’s find out how conservative these people are about unfunded mandates and how much they believe in not piling things on local government and see if they really are sincere. And, I mean, you can keep a straight face because that is an honest dialogue to have with a conservative lawmaker.

Philip 50:48
So that’s good tact.

Andy 50:52
Do you want to move over to SORNA stuff, Larry, or are we done?

Larry 50:55
Well, I wanted to talk about my picture, because there’s a reason that picture is up there. So folks, there’s a picture of me running a buffing machine. And for those of you who do not know what a buffer is, I’m going to try to make the story somewhat succinct. But to make it as funny as I possibly can, I’m gonna add a little bit of levity here. That machine is used for stripping and waxing and polishing floors. And that’s probably an old thing. Now the machines, they’re big. And you know, they’re bulky, and they run on their own power. But this is a machine that would have been very common. They used in the 70s and 80s. I went to school as an aide to the janitorial staff in the early 70s on a youth summer program. And there was four of us teenage boys. And two of them were very strong athletes. One of them was a large, hefty guy, but not an athlete. And one was a nerdy kind of skinny guy. And I was the nerd. And I just could not understand why the buffing machine was so difficult to operate. Because I saw the strong boys and they were struggling with it after an hour, they would be they would be tired, and they’d be sweating. And they couldn’t operate the buffing machine. Well I didn’t have the strength they did. So I said how the heck? I mean, we got these older guys that were running the buffer who were 60 years old. One of them for sure was in his 60s and I said these old men are doing this and they’re not fatigued, and that there’s a secret I don’t know. So I asked one of the old guys. I said, you know, there’s something that I don’t know about this machine, but I’m doing something wrong. How do you operate this thing? He says, Well, I’m glad you asked. He said most of these strong punks. I don’t think he said punks, but he inferred smart aleck, like kids, teenagers, they don’t care to learn a thing because they already know it all. And he said, now that you asked, he said it’s really easy. The handle, you go up when you want the buffer to move to the right, and you go down on the handle when you want the buffer to move to the left. And you hold it steady and balance it like a bicycle when you want the buffer to stay in one spot. He said it’s just that simple. I started doing it. And amazingly, the buffer did exactly what I wanted it to do. And if you learn how a process works, you can actually be successful. Now I’ve simplified that. But the legislative process, it actually works exactly the way they’ve designed it over our 240-year history. It works the way it was designed. And if you would accept the political reality of we work in a process by which people must stand before the voters and be affirmed. And when the voters are outraged, they’re likely not to affirm their presence. If you’ll accept that, and if you’ll accept that the legislative rules that exist developed over generations, and you’re not going to change them. If you’ll actually learn how to work in that system, you’ll be maybe as successful as I was at learning the buffer, but you’ll actually learn how to be successful, and your success rate will go up if you’ll quit fighting it like those boys did that were trying to struggle to run the buffer with brute strength and actually learn how what is done is being done and why the results are the way they are. It’s really not as complicated as people make it. So, and Philip, I think you could affirm that once you started learning the process, you just described the success rate of, what, five years straight?

Philip 54:28
Yep, five years. And but, yeah, that’s a great analogy.

Larry 54:33
You knew where to go to stop the bill before it got to the floor, because you knew if it got to the floor, what would happen?

Philip 54:42
Dead in the water. That buffer was gonna go all over the place. And I wasn’t gonna like it.

Larry 54:48
So folks, try to learn the process, don’t resent the process. It is what it is. We’re a democratic society. We affirm our leaders periodically, and they are a reflection of who we are and what we want. And I think that was the real point of having Phillip here was that West Virginians want different things than what people in San Francisco, or what Queens, New Yorkers might want. You know this country’s vast and diverse, and what people want, and how they communicate those wants and needs to their lawmakers are different. You have poverty galore. The Mississippi Delta, the needs of the Mississippi Delta are different than what they are in Silicon Valley. So a person who’s answering our congressional staffers in Silicon Valley is going to be dealing with a whole different series of questions and inquiries than they are in the Mississippi Delta.

Andy 55:42
Okay, um, let’s move over to this AWA regulation changes. Larry, I looked up using the Google and I found that we did this on episode 139. Sorry, 138 even, and it came out in it came out August 3 of last year. So just a hair over a year ago is when we talked about this prior to. So there was like, I saw chatter everywhere. Like, when are we going to talk about this? Like, I think we may already have done it. So what are we doing with this?

Larry 56:11
Well, we’re just trying to clarify what’s going on. The Adam Walsh Act was passed in 2006. And it was signed by none other than George W. Bush who was president at the time. And no intent to knock George W. Bush. It got to George W. Bush, and he signed it. If it had gotten to a President Albert Gullah, he would have signed it. If he had gotten to a president, Ronald Reagan, he would have signed it. So this is no disparaging of George W. Bush. But the Congress delegated, the US Attorney General at that time was Alberto Gonzalez, to figure out what the 50 states and the territories, what can be done to achieve the greatest level of compliance that could possibly be achieved with the intent of the federal legislation. And the attorney general at the time published an interim rule. And then they published final rules. Those final rules went out for comment. There was a comment period, nothing changed. I think maybe one thing changed about juveniles. And that may have even changed after the final rule was promulgated. But very little changed from the time the Gonzalez Attorney General Office of the United States put out the proposal until they were adopted and they became the way that the Adam Walsh Act was implemented. Well, there have been some modifications and new rules have been promulgated along in these intervening years. But the bottom line is, this is a law of the United States. It is the desire of the Congress, and presumably the people because they elected the members of Congress, that this be the law of our land. And the job of the executive branch is to implement the will of the people. So the Trump administration proposed an additional set of guidelines which would make it easier for states to come into compliance. Basically, the states would be able to administratively do what legislatures haven’t done. So they kind of came up with a proposal that would allow the states kind of a backdoor way to comply, if they chose to do that. And many states will do that. Well, when Trump did not win reelection, the new administration decided to put everything on hold. They did that not because they had any desire to help PFRs. They did that because they wanted to stop some of Trumps last minute changes. Administration’s leaving power typically try to make changes on things, public policy that they don’t agree with. And the fear was that the Biden administration, they were going to change environmental regulations. That we’re going to allow the open the dumping of toxic waste and all this kind of stuff. And to seem fair, they said, well, we’re going to put a moratorium on new regulations that the Trump people have proposed. And we’re going to look at them and see that they’re appropriate. Well, they looked at these, and they found that they were very appropriate and consistent with the intent of the Adam Walsh Act. And they said, these are good to go. That’s, in essence in three and a half minutes, that’s what’s going on here. The Trump proposal has been accepted by the by the Biden administration, and it’s going to be recorded in the federal register. And the states will have the green light to try to bypass their legislative process and they will try to tighten their rules as they pertain to PFRs. I mean, is there anything else you need to know?

Andy 59:43
Why is there so much chatter all of a sudden then if this has been in place for a year and some change in the pipeline?

Larry 59:51
People have forgotten. Americans have relatively short focuses and short memories. And they forgotten that this is on the agenda. It’s been on the agenda for so long. I mean, there’s nobody that remembers hardly who signed the Adam Walsh Act. It’s like that’s ancient history. But through all the controversy of January 6th, recounts and lawsuits and everything, people have forgotten this. But it’s old news. And the bottom line is that there really isn’t anything that can be done administratively. And I’ll tell you why. This administration is not going to take any political risks. First of all, the Attorney General Merrick Garland, he put his hand on a Bible, and he swore that he was going to enforce the laws of the United States. This is a law of the United States. So he’s going to do his best to enforce this law. But there’s the political angle. He is not going to stick his neck out to throw… Here’s what you’re facing if you wear the democratic banner right now in 2022, which is fast approaching. The midterms, where like the entire House of Representatives, and 1/3 of the US Senate are up for. Reelection. What we’re looking at is a person saying, well, we kind of need to be a little bit soft on the PFRs. Well the Republicans and Conservatives, they’re going to hit them on bail reform. Because the Democrats are making it where people can just sign there. They don’t have to post any money in some of the states because that’s this big thing about cash bail is oppressive. So they’ve got them on bail reform. They’ve got them on defunding the police. So if you’re a Democrat candidate, you’re trying to defund and destroy law enforcement. You’re trying to dismantle qualified immunity, which makes the good officers vulnerable to all these crazy, ridiculous lawsuits. You know, they’re trying to let prisoners go. I mean, they’re for soft on crime. And so you’ve already got that coming at you if you’re a Democratic candidate. So would you want to add the additional stuff about PFRs if you’re running as a Democrat in 2022? I think not. So that’s the reason why nobody in their right mind would do this. But now, at FYP we try to be fair. And there was a Republican president, he was candidate at one time, but he became president. And he got vilified for sticking his neck out. So we have a person who ran for president 1988, who ultimately got elected. But he made a pledge that there was not going to be any revenue increases, because that’s one of the things as a Republican, you cannot ever consider raising taxes. That is a cardinal sin to increase taxes. But the deficit widened 1990 because that was the year Kuwait got invaded by Iraq. And we had a disruption of oil supplies. The budget deficit – the economy was already somewhat softer – the budget deficit ballooned. I mean, it was very small by today’s standards. But there was this talk about fiscal responsibility back in those days, and this person decided that fiscal responsibility was more important than that pledge and decided that taxes needed to be increased. And this person and their reelection campaign got vilified over and over and over and over again with “Read my lips.” It was played relentlessly. And that’s the type of thing. It does work both ways. But see, I can’t undo 30 years of history. I can’t do anything about that. I can’t make that go away. I can only call on people who are doing it today to stop doing it, and they’re not going to stop doing it. So then I have to tell you, that since that’s going to happen, that’s the reason why this administration is not going to pull back on the Trump administration’s proposal. It’s really that simple, folks. Nothing complicated about it.

Andy 1:03:56
I don’t want to leave Philip out of the conversation Larry. Is there anything to direct back and forth with Philip in the in the conversation?

Philip 1:04:15
Read my lips.

Larry 1:04:18
But Philip, do you understand how I’m analyzing this?

Philip 1:04:25
I totally, totally understand it and totally agree with it. I totally agree with the analysis.

Larry 1:04:32
There is not a prayer’s chance that this administration is going to pull back on this proposal. First of all, it didn’t create it. So therefore, it’s merely following the previous administration. So if they were to pull… there’s a former president that used to have like, how many followers before he was kicked off social media? Was it 60 million or… I’ve lost track. But I mean, potentially, this former president would vilify them as well, saying not only have they ruined the economy, they’ve let criminals out with no bail. And they’re defunding the police. And they’re, they’re tearing down qualified immunity, but now they’re turning the sex offenders loose.

Philip 1:05:15
This is probably the one thing that Trump did in his entire time in office that this administration is not gonna mess with.

Andy 1:05:29
I think I just had something that I wanted to bring up but then it left my brain and I forgot it Larry. I think we’re at a little over an hour. How much more do you want to do?

Larry 1:05:39
Oh, I think I’m happy with it. Because basically, what I want to get across to people is that these regulations, it would be the most long shot. I mean, if you feel good sending an email, please send the mail to the Attorney General’s United States Office. If you feel good making phone calls, if all these things make you feel good, please do them. But don’t expect a whole lot in the way of results because this is baked in the cake. If you really want to see change…

Andy 1:06:03
I just remembered Larry. Gundy. Right? This is the administrative state, there’s no voting for this, none of that. This is The Federal Congress level telling the organization that does this, Hey, you guys need to do your job.

Larry 1:06:18
Well, sort of. Everybody would generally assume the Attorney General of the United States would have the capacity to figure out the various state constitutions, and what you could do. No one ever expected to my knowledge that all 50 states would be in substantial compliance, because that’s the reason why they did that delegation. They said, well, we’re not smart enough to figure that out here in terms of all the nuances of the various state constitutions and existing state court decisions as it pertains to PFRs. So they said, Department of Justice, figure this out. Set up a regulatory framework and make it possible for as many states as possible to gain substantial compliance. That is what Alberto Gonzalez set into motion in 2006. And that is what’s continued through the various administrations, through Obama, through W. Bush, and through Trump. And now with Biden. They’re going to continue to seek substantial compliance, as long as that’s the law and the will of the people that we have an Adam Walsh Act. If you really want to see it go away, then seek a member of your congressional delegation to start an effort. And you can start with Representative Bobby Scott, because he’s not big and keen on the Adam Walsh Act. But you’re going to need some Republican support, because you’re not going to get Democratic support until Republicans are on board with dismantling the Adam Walsh Act. But until that happens, it’s really a long shot. We’re going to be challenging. As the states administratively implement this, there will be challenges launched. I will be doing my best to monitor and, with your help, we’ll figure out where to launch these challenges. But this has got to keep going, folks. Yeah, it’s on the books, and they’re not gonna abandon it. It’s their job to enforce the law. Remember, they put their hand- Merrick Garland put his hand on that Bible and that’s what he’s gonna do.

Andy 1:08:08
All right. Larry, someone in chat telling me that they sent me an email message. They emailed me a voicemail message, and boy, oh, boy, I gotta find it real quick, or else he’s gonna get very mad at me.

Larry 1:08:19
Well, let’s just do it next week. We are out of time and you’ve got still got the secret stuff to do. The mystery speaker, whatever we call that segment.

Andy 1:08:27
That is true. Yes. Who’s That Speaker? All right, then. Tell me if it’s really, really important, and we’ll try and get it and squeeze it in. Otherwise, yeah, we’ll move on. And we will do the new patrons this week.

Philip 1:08:40
What about your saxophone?

Andy 1:08:43
That’s coming up after we finish recording because this is for the patron people. This isn’t for the regular Joe’s. That was the whole point of that. (Philip: Gotcha.) Um, while I find the patrons, I will do the Who’s that Speaker? So last week, Larry, we played this one.

Franklin D Roosevelt 1:09:03
A date which will live in infamy. United States of America was suddenly I’m deliberately attacked by naval forces of the Empire…

Andy 1:09:21
Okay, and I cut that off on purpose, because I thought it was going to give away too much stuff at that point. Who was that larry?

Larry 1:09:27
That would be Franklin D Roosevelt.

Andy 1:09:31
And that was given to us accurately by J. S. And wow, something is happening. Okay, there it is. Yeah, J. S. The sections had been duplicated. Alright, that’s what I’m confused with. And all right, so J.S., thank you very much for writing that in. And so this week we have, it’s already sort of been teased this evening, but you’re gonna have to give me a lot of detail about this one because it’s going to be obvious who it is. So don’t just send me the name, and don’t scream it out in chat. You need to send it to And, yeah, so here we go.

Who’s that Speaker? 1:10:07
My opponent won’t rule out raising taxes, but I will. And the Congress will push me to raise taxes. And I’ll say no. And they’ll push. And I’ll say no. And they’ll push again. And I’ll say, to them, read my lips. No new taxes.

Andy 1:10:32
Like I said, you gotta send me a lot of detail. That could be like, where it happened, what was the date of it? Obviously, give me the name. But you can’t just do the easy part.

Larry 1:10:44
Tell us the backdrop of where that happened. Because that should still be fairly easy to figure out. So well. All right.

Andy 1:10:52
There’s a person in chat, Larry, that’s 15 years younger than me. So I don’t even think they don’t know who that is.

Larry 1:10:59
So well, it will be easy to figure out.

Andy 1:11:04
I would think so. I would think so. New patrons this week: we had Audra. And God, I think there’s another one Larry. I really, really, really do. And I do have the message from the individual that I’m going cold play this Larry. And I boy, I hope it works. I will try and do all my things. It’s important for the 200th episode.

Brian 1:11:23
Hello, there. Registry Matters. This is Brian in Louisiana, saying congratulations on 200 episodes and 100 patrons and let me tell you something else. Whether I’m sitting on my oil platform in the Gulf, or down the bayou, or up the river, there ain’t no place I’d rather be on Saturday night than hanging out with Larry and Andy and the rest of you people. Except for maybe watching football in Tiger Stadium. And that’s fasho.

Andy 1:11:54
Ooh, Tiger Stadium. I think that’s LSU. LSU Tigers right Larry?

Larry 1:11:57
I think so. But Philip is probably a better guy on that.

Philip 1:12:01
Oh, when it comes to sports.

Andy 1:12:05
I know, right? Um, but yeah, we had we had Kevin come in as a new patron and then Audra also come in as a new patron. Thank you all so very much. And I think Larry, visit the show notes. Like there’s nothing else to cover. Right? We’re done?

Larry 1:12:19
We’re done. It was really fun having Philip here. And I think we’re gonna have you on a regular basis because you need to balance this liberalism of these two.

Philip 1:12:30
I was glad to be here.

Andy 1:12:32
I really appreciate you coming in on pretty short notice and contributing and yeah, we will definitely put you on the shortlist to come back. And you are the head person in charge of the state of West Virginia…

Philip 1:12:43
Executive Director of West Virginia for Rational Sexual Offense Laws, sir.

Andy 1:12:48
Thank you very much. How can people contact you?

Philip 1:12:52

Andy 1:12:57
Beautiful. Thank you all very much. Find the show notes over at Leave voicemail at 747-227-4477. And as the patrons are about to enjoy, for us achieving not only just going over 100, but like smashing it, that I’m about to play a little performance for you people and so there you go, and that is at With that Larry thank you very much everybody and have a great night. And those that are here in chat, stick around and I’ll take a little time and we’ll do our thing. See y’all later. Thanks, Phillip. Good night Larry.

Philip 1:13:36
Thanks. Good night.

Larry 1:13:38
Goodnight. And thanks for this awesome audience in chat. It’s unbelievable how many people are here. Thanks.

You’ve been listening to FYP.

Transcript RM199: Is Federal Supervised Release Unconstitutional?

Listen to RM199: Is Federal Supervised Release Unconstitutional?

Registry Matters is an independent production. The opinions and ideas here are that of the hosts and do not reflect the opinions of any other organization. If you have problems with these thoughts, fyp.

Andy 00:17
Recording live from FYP Studios, east and west. Transmitting across the internet. This is episode 199 of Registry Matters. Larry, we should just dive right in. Man, are you ready to hit this? What else are we doing tonight that’s exciting?

Larry 00:33
We’re gonna be doing a patron extra for the people who support us. And hopefully we don’t run off too many of our patrons, but we’re going to be talking about the United States economy. (Andy: Oh, are you an economist?) And whether it’s in good condition, or whether it’s in deplorable condition. There’s all these varying views. So we’re going to talk about the economy and do a deep dive.

Andy 00:55
Awesome. What are we going to do on the main feed for the for the regular folks?

Larry 01:00
Well, we’re going to read some letters that were sent to us from people behind the walls and a couple from people who listen to us electronically. And we’re going to talk about a case from a couple of years ago from United States Supreme Court. And it should be a very interesting episode to say the least.

Andy 01:19
I am looking forward to it. I did interrupt I did say how are you and then jump right into stuff. So how are you?

Larry 01:27
I’m doing awesome. I’m looking forward to a week from now, we’re gonna decide a week from now whether Halloween is Saturday or Sunday.

Andy 01:37
When did this become a thing? In my brain, Larry, It was always on the 31st. And it was also dark outside cuz we moved the times zones – not the time zones – Daylight Savings Time in like ‘05, I think. But hasn’t it always been on Sunday, and this Saturday thing is kind of new?

Larry 01:57
I suppose so. But it seems like there’s people that have written to us saying that they’re going to be ordered to stay home both nights because it may be celebrated on Saturday night and the authorities are not sure. So they’re gonna, just to be on the safe side, make sure folks are not out or doing things. They might be tempted to grab a child that’s trick or treating.

Andy 02:18
And even before my little visit with the Georgia Department of Corrections, I just remembered like being here, like, I remember just being on Sunday. But the other thing that’s always been weird to me is trunk or treat. Man, when I was a kid, we just got our little bags, and we started scouring the neighborhood and we went and collected candy and came home with candy. We didn’t have some, I don’t know, structured – doing it in the square of the town or anything – like we just went out and went on our own.

Larry 02:49
I agree. I think that kind of destroys the spirit of trick or treating and figuring out which house to go to judging by the decorations and the affluence of the neighborhood. And what you’ve heard from other trick or treaters To just go to a central location and scoop up candy doesn’t seem to be very much fun. You know, it’s kind of like to me, I enjoy buying Scout cookies from the girls. But when the adults are all there selling the cookies, and there’s no girls anywhere to be seen. I know it stills technically goes to the scouts. But I kind of like the interaction with a shy girl saying, “Hey, would you like to buy some Scout Cookies?” And I say, “Well tell me about those cookies.” And I like to see if they’ve actually been coached in what to say. If they can think on their feet. And like it’s no fun for someone who’s not a Girl Scout to be selling cookies, so I never buy them unless there’s girls selling them.

Andy 03:40
All right, then. Okay, so let’s move on. You did say what we were doing tonight on the main feed? Yes, you did. So we can begin, yes?

Larry 03:49
I think we can.

Andy 03:51
Excellent. Um, so we have an article- a typed letter. Larry, this is another thing. I never had any access to any sort of like mass production of text. Like I type really fast. And I always had to write very fast. It was very disturbing interaction that I had. But so this individual has typed us a little letter it says: Dear Larry and Andy. Hello, guys. It’s Doug again. He’s from the Michigan Department of Corrections. I wish I was writing you concerning something other than this. I’m very troubled over the poor soul you featured through his listener question in Episode 194, recorded on 9/18. In this transcript, his question appeared at the time 11:28 concerned the fact that he is an inmate in the Luther Luckett Correctional Complex in LaGrange, Kentucky and more importantly, the fact that he was attacked and raped by another inmate. I am writing in hopes you could get the following information to him and everybody else if possible. There is an organization out there called Just Detention International, JDI, that I hope he and anybody else who has ever went through this has enough courage to contact. At this facility, we have their contact information posted in every housing unit. The following is their contact information and description of services offered as listed in Prisoner Activists Resource Center 2021 Resource Directory. And I’ll quickly give the address so that it ends up in the transcript, just detention International, Miss Cynthia Totten, Esquire, and lists her Bar number is 199266. That’s 3325 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 340, Los Angeles, California 90010. Yeah, if you have any problems like that, first of all, there’s PREA, the Prison Rape Elimination Act. And then of course, follow that information. This stuff should not happen to you while you’re locked up.

Larry 05:52
It’s awesome that Douglas wrote this to us. And the best way we can share the information is through this podcast. Unfortunately, very few prisoners get it. But since I am the publisher of the NARSOL Digest newsletter, we may run this resource in there because it’s such a significant thing. Traumatic and horrible. And so we may, we may… Thank you, Doug, for sending this.

Andy 06:16
And also, if anybody puts like a piece of candy on your bed, when you get locked up, don’t eat it. Don’t take it. Just leave it there.

Larry 06:24
Tell me about that. I’m not familiar with that.

Andy 06:27
They’re going to come collect that debt. So you want to give them that candy bar back.

Larry 06:33
Well, do you have to pay for the economic value of the bar?

Andy 06:40
Yeah, you’re gonna pay for it. I don’t think there’s gonna be any sort of economic value. You’re not going to trade a stamp for it or something like that. You’re going to… Anywho Alright, moving on Larry Dear Larry, and Andy. My name is Michael, and I am a prisoner in Wisconsin. However, in 30 days, I will be released and sent to Maryland through interstate compact. On several occasions, you described Maryland as being pure as the wind driven snow. Why do you describe it this way? Are you implying that is a great state for PFRs? Or are you being facetious? I don’t know if your description means I’m headed for a good state or dangerous trap. That being said, I know that you’ve been sending rules and regulations for various states from the KlaasKids Foundation website. If possible, could you send me that information for Maryland? I’m enclosing 15 stamps to help defray any expenses. When released, I plan to become a subscriber to your podcast. Currently, my friend Sean lets me read the transcripts he receives. But when I subscribe, I’d like to consider being a patron. What are the differences between just subscribing and being a patron? What are the different patronage levels? Thank you in advance for all the information and answers I’ve requested. I appreciate all the time you guys spent on the podcast, Michael. Thank you very much, Michael. So I’ll quickly describe, we don’t really have anything different as far as the different levels. I’ll reveal the man behind the curtain. If you subscribe at $1, you get the same stuff as you do if you subscribe at the $1,400 a month level, the stimulus check level. However, people find that the information provided is more valuable than others. But we wanted to make it available to everybody because a lot of our people have very severe financial hardships. So people come in at all different levels, but you can get away with just doing $1. But Larry, I’ll let you describe the subscriber side of it versus the Patreon side.

Larry 08:31
Well, that’s easily described. Most people who listen to us either on our Patron distribution or through YouTube or all the different ways they listen to us, they have very little interest in the transcript. The only time they interest in the transcript, we’ve got a few listeners that will go back and use the transcript so they can put some critical comments in YouTube that’s been said. (Andy: That has happened recently, hasn’t it?) Yes, on this last week. If we have time, we may get to that. But yeah, that’s really the only difference. And we realize that most prisoners who are behind the walls are not able to listen. So we wanted to provide content. So this transcript is something different for people who cannot listen to us and it’s actually quite a costly production. There’s labor going into making the transcript accurate from the auto transcribe, and then the printing and the postage and envelopes and distribution. But FYP education is committed to making information available. The people who are behind the balls are going to be outside the walls at some point; most of them. The overwhelming majority of them. And these are questions that arise all the time and we are helping you to know what you’re looking at when you get out.

Andy 09:43
Back to his questions. What did he ask? First of all, is Maryland as pure as the wind driven snow and the best state to transfer your supervision to?

Larry 09:53
It is not, but he’s leaving a state that’s not all that fantastic either: Wisconsin. Wisconsin is that state that sends you the bill for the $100 and tells you that you need to continue to keep your registration current while you’re no longer living there. I’m not aware of any other state that does that. Now, there are other states that will keep you on the website, but they’re not telling you that you must report to them and pay the money. But Wisconsin does that. Maryland – that’s a joke. The executive director of NARSOL and I, when we became friends, she was relatively a novice at advocacy. And we were talking about the treatment, as it exists in most paradigms that exist out there. And I told her, well, in general, this is a collaborative fishing expedition. They use what they can get you to confess to in treatment, and then they turn around and revoke you or violate you in some way. Maybe tightening your restrictions on supervision. And I said, I’m just not fond of that type of treatment. I’m very big proponent of real treatment, but she says, well, we don’t do it that way in Maryland. I said, Well, I hate to tell you, you actually do. Yeah, Maryland is not… I mean, I’m sure that there might be some jurisdictions within the 23 counties of Maryland that try to do a better job. But it’s not pure as the wind driven snow. But it is a very good state overall. They have the benefit of two state Supreme Court decisions, which I was peripherally involved in the strategy and the litigation. And their souped up version that they enacted in 2010, cannot be applied retroactively. So therefore, if he happens to have an old offense, and he’s been in Wisconsin for a very long time, he might very well find himself under the old registration scheme in Maryland, which would be, in many instances, only 10 years. But depending on that those factors, and I’m not going to try to analyze them here, Maryland is not a bad state. The disadvantage he has, he’s on interstate compact. And you remember, you have the conditions from Wisconsin that are on your supervision. And then you have the conditions that Maryland wants to add, as long as they’re consistent with what they put on PFRs. And you have to comply with both sets of supervision conditions. And both violations, whether it’s from a Wisconsin condition, or a Maryland condition can get you in deep trouble and revoked. And due process is hard to come by because even though you’re entitled to a probable cause hearing, those are very difficult to arrange. And people end up just signing their waivers and going back. And then they end up in the state where they might not have even had to go back to had they insisted on a probable cause hearing. We’ve done a couple of episodes on that.

Andy 12:33
Yes, we have. All right. Um, and so let’s be clear. I know that we’ll have to revisit this because somebody will start listening on the next episode and they didn’t hear this. When you say pure as the wind driven snow? Are you being serious? Or are you being facetious?

Larry 12:49
I’m being a little bit facetious. It’s not a bad state overall. They don’t charge you registration fees. I think they might charge supervision fees as a part of their supervision regimen for your punishment, but it’s not really all that bad, Maryland, comparatively. There’s no state I would say ai ideal and perfect, but Maryland is not a bad place to go. So he’s not going from a great state to horrible state, he’s going from a pretty bad state to a much better state. Maryland actually doesn’t even have any residency restrictions, as far as in the law, but there could be that the supervising authorities may impose them while you’re under supervision. So that’s something he’s gonna have to find out when he gets there.

Andy 13:30
And the KlaasKids stuff, the rules and regulations, will you be able to send that? Will that be able to get sent him to about the state of Maryland?

Larry 13:38
Absolutely. We have been doing that. People have actually been requesting those. And I think even though some people say we shouldn’t do it, because it promotes the Klaas foundation, which they’re not actually in alignment with our views, the information they have is largely accurate. It comes directly from the state, and it gets updated annually. And I would much prefer to be able to punt to the KlaasFoundation if something’s wrong, and that FYP education doesn’t own that. We give them full credit. This is their information from their website. And if you rely on it, your beef is with Klaas, not with FYP.

Andy 14:13
Fair enough. And how big is the staff at FYP now?

Larry 14:18
Oh, it’s enormous. We’ve research and… (Andy: I was gonna say I can’t keep up with it.) Just the tip of the iceberg. We’ve got a research department, we’ve got writers of content.

Andy 14:30
Yeah, we’ve got video production and audio production staff.

Larry 14:34
We’re gonna soon overtake the EIB network in terms of the number of people we employ. (Andy: Of course. Of course.) Anybody who does or doesn’t know, EIB is the Excellence in Broadcasting Network that Rush Limbaugh was the originator of.

Andy 14:49
Yes. And alright. Well, then let’s move on to a question from one of our patrons who sent this in. This came from Patrick. Can a federal probation officer based on sex offender loitering zoning laws in Georgia prohibit you from going to church. I guess loitering, loitering is a specific term. Can you give me offhand the legal definition of loitering?

Larry 15:14
I can’t, but he had thrown it in the question. And, as a general rule, to be hanging out with no purpose. If you’re like, just meandering. And if you’re patronizing a business, if you’re sitting at McDonald’s, and you’re consuming your meal, you’re not loitering. But on the other hand, if you stay at McDonald’s for hours on end, because there’s a playground, and you’re not conducting any legitimate business, then that could transfer from being a patron to loitering. And he put all that in his question, and he did a very diligent amount of research, excellent research. He’s got some of the best arguments that anybody could make. And he really needs an attorney. But can they stop him from going to church? Yes. You remember what we say? about can they do it? (Andy: They can do it until they’re told to stop.) That is correct. Now, in some circumstances, they might be able… remember narrow tailoring to the individual offender is the key. If a person had been in a church, I’m trying to figure out how you would narrowly tailor a condition that would be appropriate. If they had committed their offense at a church, I think any probation department that wanted to severely restrict their physical presence in a church would be on fairly solid ground to do that. And particularly if they did that in a setting where they might have had a leadership role; they violated trust and so forth. But, you know, a general situation, telling a person they cannot exercise their first amendment – I believe that’s the first amendment, freedom of religion and separation of church and state – I believe that would be a very serious violation. And he could possibly seek redress through a competent attorney in the state of Georgia. Because the federal probation office, I think, is over the top unless his offense merits that type of restriction on an individual basis, not because they just plucked this out of the Georgia… There is something in the Georgia registration statute that prohibits a PFR from loitering. But loitering is defined, and they refer to the other section of Georgia statute that defines what loitering is. And being there for a legitimate purpose is not loitering.

Andy 17:30
If we were to overlay – and this is me, and my non legal mind – if we were to overlay Packingham, the premise behind that was the person went on to Facebook and he posted a religious message because he didn’t get a ticket, speeding ticket, and he said, Praise the Lord. Thank you, Jesus. Something along those lines. I would imagine that that would be some kind of referenceable material for you going to church that the Supreme Court said, Nah, you can’t do it for that reason. So this seems to be like at least in the same ballpark.

Larry 18:00
Correct. They’re going to have to provide him… if there’s no basis for the prohibition of going to church, it just won’t stand. But if they can come up with something related to you, that somewhat justifies that. Then they’re going to have to provide you an ample alternative means to worship because they just cannot extinguish your right to worship.

Andy 18:20
But that doesn’t apply in the opposite direction. Go ahead Larry.

Larry 18:24
But what that adequate alternative method would be would be subject to interpretation. If they tell you that you can listen to the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, I don’t know if that would qualify as an adequate suitable alternative, an ample alternate means. But if they say you can go to a small church that doesn’t have a daycare and your offense involved hands on with a child, that might withstand scrutiny possibly. I don’t know. All this stuff has not been fully developed in litigation. Some things we just don’t know the answer to.

Andy 19:02
But in Georgia, they were going to go on like almost like a slander campaign against a church that kicked one of our people out. But a church can deny you access. But probation, the government, can’t deny you from going to church just carte blanche.

Larry 19:21
That is correct. Now that’s what’s really puzzled me. I have great difficulty understanding why you want to be where the business or the entity does not want you. And I know people are going to throw eggs at me because there have to be exceptions. It would be someplace like the Capitol. I don’t care if the people in the Capitol want me or not. I want to be there. That’s not the analogy I’m making. But if I’m going to spend my hard-earned dollars, unlike the people on the other side of this microphone, that just rain from the sky, I have to work for mine. That supposed to be funny. But I don’t want to go spend my money if the businesses does not want me. By the same token, I would say the same thing about a church. If a church tells me we do not want your kind here, why would you want to be there? Now the first response would be, I’ve got friends there. I’ve been a member of that church, my family’s been there for decades. That would be their first response. But that’s, still, that doesn’t matter to me. If the congregation does not welcome you, part of the worship experience is diminished. And I don’t know why you would want to be there. But people insist, they have to me. No, they actually don’t. They don’t have to let you in.

Andy 20:32
Totally. Alright, well, let’s move along. And this is from, I forget the name of the person that sent this one in. But it says, to the NARSOL Legal Corner, I am currently civilly confined in New York State PFR management and Treatment Act program. Its sex offenders’ management and treatment act program. If, when I am released unconditionally with a complete discharge from civil management, I would like to travel to North Carolina to stay in visit with friends in that area, then go to Kentucky, and then Ohio to see family in those states for an extended stay. Most likely, I would then come back to New York State to live. My question is a general one that has relevance to a wide number of PFRs. Once I’ve registered in a particular state, and then moves to another state, and register there, do I have to continue with registration on the registry in the state I’ve moved out of and no longer reside in? Upon moving to the third state, am I then required to keep up registration in multiple states? Or is it just the one that I currently reside in? Respectfully, and I still can’t read the name. It’s written in cursive. And I don’t want to put it up on the screen. So do you have to keep registering in the state that you’ve come from?

Larry 21:47
It is from Mark, and this is exactly- folks listen to that question. That is exactly the type of question we love to answer. Because it’s not specific to your case, necessarily. We don’t have to do in depth legal research to try to figure out the answer and risk being wrong. And we know enough from our life experience to answer this as a general rule. As a general rule, when you go to another state, you will have to register. The previous state, your obligations to them will terminate. It’s like, think of it when you take your vehicle. When you move your vehicle from North Carolina, and you take that vehicle to Arizona, and you decide that you’re going to register the vehicle in Arizona, North Carolina will cease charging your registration fee. And they will quit sending you a notice to update. That’s the same thing, as a general rule, that happens when you’re on the sexual offender registry in one of our wonderful 50 states. When you move from one state to another state, your obligation ceases because it’s a civil regulatory scheme that applies to you and you’re no longer there to be regulated. Now, that does not mean they will take you off the website. But a website is a historical record of what was. So, they may leave you on the website. And we’ll get into why that can be dangerous later in my answer, but they may leave you on the website. But generally, they do not require you to continue to communicate with them. The exception being, one exception that we know emphatically is Wisconsin. If you’re convicted in Wisconsin, and you leave Wisconsin, they will tell you that you’re obligated to continue to report to them and pay $200. And when I say report, not physically in person, but sending in their form and verifying your information. I happen to believe that’s unconstitutional. But it’s constitutional until the court says it isn’t. So that would be the exception. Now what I don’t know about Wisconsin, is if someone, if their conviction is from another state, and you move into Wisconsin, and you have a registration obligation, and then you cease to live there, and you connect yourself with another registry, and Wisconsin says we continue to need to collect our $100. I don’t know the answer that. So I know we’ve got dozens of Wisconsin people. So that would be one I would be delighted to know. But in terms of how this can harm, I said I was gonna get back to that, it can harm you in the aspect that you may be in a state where you can be discharged from registration. So say you visited Florida, or one of the several states that never remove you from the website. So you’re in a state that terminates your obligation lawfully through a petition process or you timeout, one of the two, and your registration obligation ceases, you’re still on the website in Florida, or Nevada, or one of the states that never removes you from the website. You’re not having to send in a form or any money. But there’s a likeness of you. And your offense description, there’s lot of stuff on the on the internet that will linger forever. And you will still be hampered by the fact that you were registered. So try not to go to a state that never removes you from the website. I mean, that would be my advice. Do your best to avoid that.

Andy 24:56
Can you rattle off a handful of states that never take you off? Obviously, Florida.

Larry 25:02
Florida, and I know Nevada doesn’t take you off, but they both show you living out of state. But what they don’t do to my knowledge is, if you’ve been lawfully discharged from registration, they don’t show that. They’ll just show the last address that you registered that was reported to them. So when you leave Florida and you connect with the registry authorities in New Mexico, New Mexico will communicate that address to Florida, and they’ll show that you’re living out of state at that address. As far as I know, they don’t continue to update that. I haven’t had any personal experience. But I have been told that that address shown on Florida is very old by a person who actually does live here that has a Florida conviction. So I don’t know that they continue to update it. But if the registration obligation were to end in New Mexico, guess what? You’re still on the Florida website, and people say I’m still being forced to register. No, you’re not being forced to register. They’re carrying a historical record of your registration.

Andy 25:54
Um, there’s somebody in chat saying that he was in North Carolina, has since left, and then he’s still listed on the website. I hadn’t heard of North Carolina being one of those states that when you leave there, you get to stick around and be memorialized so to speak.

Larry 26:10
I think there are a lot more states doing it than we realize. I think our state does that. I’ve heard I think it’s hit or miss with our state. I’ve heard people say that they’re still on the website. I’ve heard people say they took me off. So I don’t know how that works. But it’s very difficult for you to know that. I mean, if you call them and say I’m thinking about visiting you people. And I’m wondering if I visit you people, if you people are going to take off the registry, off your website when I leave. And they’re gonna say, that’s a good idea. Maybe we should change a law. That’ll discourage you people from visiting us. I mean, you gotta be careful.

Andy 26:41
That’s kind of my question. Is that in statute that these places leave it on? Or is it just a clerical oversight that you left and nobody crossed the right t and dotted the right i to have you removed?

Larry 26:53
No, I don’t think the statute addresses it either way. I think it’s just a practice that’s arisen. I don’t think there’s anything in the statute of Florida that says “shall be carried on the website forever.” And I don’t think there’s any such thing in New Mexico’s statute nor in North Carolina, it’s just the practices developed. Now the theory goes, that they’re doing it to get the extra tracking money from the SMART Office in Washington, DC. But I don’t believe that theory. I do not believe that. If the government pays people to do residency verifications on folks that are not there, then we’re in deeper trouble than I thought.

Andy 27:25
That’s interesting. And maybe that’s why if you went around and checked state by state by state, maybe you would end up with the million people on the registry. But that’s because somebody went and visited North Carolina for 15 days and ended up on the registry and then went home. So there’s not just the 80,000 people on the registry in Florida, when there’s only 30 and change, whatever, that are actually registering.

Larry 27:48
Yes, that’s what people misunderstand when they add up all the registrants in one state, and then they go the next state, then they compile the grand total. The reason that’s flawed from the get-go is there’s a component of people that are not listed on registries, in some states. They’re registered but not listed publicly. So you would miss those. And then the people that are registered in more than one state, when I say registered, listed on the website in more than one state. Some are actually legitimately registered in more than one state, because they hop across the border to go to work or go to school. And they have an obligation to register in both states, but there’s so many duplicates. So you need to take all those numbers you here and throw them straight into the garbage because they’re not accurate.

Andy 28:29
And somebody else, one of our friends from Wyoming I think it is, he visited his parents in Sarasota, Florida for two weeks in August. He’s still on the Florida registry.

Larry 28:40
And he will be for the rest of his days unless they change that.

Andy 28:44
And one final question on that there. Larry, do you then have to go visit Florida and like check in, call in, drive down there and say, Yes, I still live out of state or do you do anything? Or is it just almost like a stagnant record, a dead record, that you once visited Florida, you no longer live there, and they just leave you on the website? There’s nothing that you have to do actively to maintain it?

Larry 29:08
Yeah, that’s what I mentioned earlier that they will show the address as it was reported to them, but they don’t continue to impose any obligations on you. And when people say it’s the same as registering, No, it isn’t. You don’t have any residency prohibition, proximity restrictions. You don’t have any obligation to notify Florida before you travel. So it’s not anything approximating the same thing. People like to say I’m still registered. No, you’re listed on the website. You’re not registered. You’re not complying with registration in Florida.

Are you a first-time listener of Registry Matters? Well, then make us a part of your daily routine and subscribe today. Just search for Registry Matters through your favorite podcast app. Hit the subscribe button and you’re off to the races. You can now enjoy hours of sarcasm and snark from Andy and Larry on a weekly basis. Oh, and there’s some excellent information thrown in there too. Subscribing also encourages others of you people to get on the bandwagon and become regular Registry Matters listeners. So, what are you waiting for? Subscribe to Registry Matters right now. Help us keep fighting and continue to say FYP.

Andy 30:28
Alright, let’s move on to the next question. Says, Hey, Andy and Larry, in Episode 198, you were discussing parole and probation revocation hearings. In 2018, the Supreme Court heard a case in United States vs. Hammond, in which Justice Alito said the case had the potential to bring down the entire federal supervised release system, but for the time being, let it stand. In that case, for those of you not familiar with it, Hammond was sentenced to 38 months in prison and 10 years of supervised release. Two and a half years after Hammond began his supervised release, he was violated with a five year mandatory imprisonment term, which the court ruled unconstitutional. Hammond argued that the supervised release statute, which required PFRs to serve up to a lifetime on supervised release was unconstitutional because it exceeded the statutory limits of the actual crime itself. However, since Hammond had not served more time on his supervised release than his statute required, the court threw out that argument. I wanted to get you people’s opinion on those who do serve more time on supervision than the actual crime. For instance, if your crime was for zero to 10 years, you serve 10 years in prison, and then were violated for supervised release violation afterwards, and forced back to prison going over the 10 year statutory maximum. What are your thoughts on that? Interesting, okay.

Larry 31:51
Yeah, this is our main event, isn’t it?

Andy 31:55
Did I jump ahead? That’s, oh, yeah, I think I… alright, fine. I put something out of order then. Alright. Yeah, we’ll do our main event, and then we’ll come back to other things. That’s fine. My bad.

Larry 32:07
Sure. Okay. All right. Well, this is the big discussion item we’re gonna have. And the essence of Jacob’s question is really very succinct. He argued that the supervised release statute, which required PFRs to serve up to lifetime on supervised release was unconstitutional. So that was the essence of it. And so I don’t completely agree with the final part where he said the court threw out that argument. I don’t read it that way. But the rest of what he said is pretty much spot on. But let’s talk about the case, the case is United States v. Haymond, 139 S. Ct. 2369 (2019). The court held that by imposing a mandatory term of imprisonment, after revoking supervised release, based on a finding by preponderance of the evidence, that he had breached his condition supervised release, violated the sixth Amendment’s jury trial guarantee and the fifth amendment due process proof beyond a reasonable doubt standard for criminal cases. The court left for the lower court to determine whether the error was harmless and, if not, what was the appropriate remedy. That’s what this is about.

Andy 33:27
Okay, I bet you I have a whole battery of questions for you. (Larry: Well, I know you do.) Now I understand what is happening. Alright, let me cover some background on the case then. A federal jury convicted Hammond of possessing some CP, which is punishable by imprisonment for not more than 10 years. The district court sentenced him to 38 months in prison and supervised release for 10 years thereafter. The court conditioned Hammond’s supervised release on him committing no further crimes, submitting to periodic polygraph examinations, Kabuki machine, and consenting to searches by his probation officer. It is humorous that Hammond passed several polygraphs, suggesting that he had neither viewed nor possessed any CP since his release, yet when Hammond’s probation officer seized Hammond’s cell phone, he found images of CP cached there. This alone shows that the Kabuki machine is not accurate. What happened next, Larry?

Larry 34:24
Well, you can guess that they moved to revoke his supervised release. And in his revocation hearing, Hammond presented expert testimony that the material could have been put on a cell phone without his knowledge. Nevertheless, the court concluded – this was the trial court – that it was likely more likely than not, remember that’s the standard for revocation, that Hammond had knowingly possessed child pornography in violation of his conditions of release. The trial court ,with reservations, ordered him returned to prison for the mandatory minimum of five years.

Andy 35:01
Wow, five years. I’m guessing that Hammond appealed.

Larry 35:04
He did indeed. And the US Court of Appeals for the 10th circuit reversed the trial court, holding that the mandatory minimum feature of the sentencing revocation procedure violates the fifth and sixth amendments.

Andy 35:18
So what was the basic argument on appeal to the Supreme Court, though?

Larry 35:23
Well, Hammond claims that the Federal supervisory statute, for those legal beagles that’s 18 U.S.C. § 3583, which subjects federal inmates on their release from prison to certain conditions, usually for a maximum of only five years. But for certain sexual offenses, the supervised release term is at least five years and maybe for the sex offender’s entire life. Under the statute, a court may revoke an individual’s supervised release and return him or her to prison by preponderance of the evidence and if the court finds that the individual violated the condition of the release. So that was what his claim was to the Supreme Court, that the whole thing was unconstitutional. Now, I think it was actually the state that appealed because you see, the title of the case is United States versus Hammond. So that means they are the ones who filed the cert petition. So they weren’t happy with what the 10th circuit had done, so they took this up to the Supreme Court.

Andy 36:19
As I understand it, when a court revokes supervised release, it reimprisons the individual for no longer than his remaining time of supervised release. And in any event, for no longer than five years, with an exception for PFRs. Under Subsection 3583(k), a court must sentence a PFR registrant to reimprisonment for at least five years when the court revoked a supervised release based on a PFR offense.

Larry 36:50
That is correct. And therein lies the problem: that subsection that came into being, I think they said in 2006. But that provision was the issue before the court, and if allowed to stand, it would permit a person to be on perpetual supervision that could be revoked without proof beyond a reasonable doubt, which is a fundamental constitutional right. That was really a battle of judicial ideology. The Conservatives took the position that federal supervised release should be treated the same as parole or probation revocation which does not require or provide the same level of due process, because both are forms of conditional liberty. On the other hand, supervised release, as used in the federal system is a rehabilitative period that follows the completion of one’s punishment. Federal parole was abolished in 1984 when the sentencing reform act was passed and signed by none other than President Ronald Reagan.

Andy 37:47
What was the ultimate outcome then?

Larry 37:50
Well, the court actually agreed with the 10th circuit that that those provisions were unconstitutional. Because what you had is a mandatory… no matter how much the person had served, if they had any supervised release remaining, they were required to impose a mandatory five years. So say you made it through your entire period of supervised release to the final six months. And that was all the jurisdiction of the court left, because they gave you all the time that they had available to you. They didn’t in this case, but say they did, they gave you all the time they had available to you. And then you finish that, complete that, and under normal circumstances, they would revoke the remainder of your term. But Congress decided that five years would be the minimum if you violated your supervised release if you were a PFR with this list of offenses. So the Supreme Court actually agreed with the 10th circuit, and they remanded the case back to them to address whether the issue could be resolved by requiring that subsection 3583(k) revocation hearings be conducted before a jury using the standard burden of proof, beyond a reasonable doubt. Because the person is in essence getting a new sentence.

Andy 39:04
Why didn’t they just ask him, if he had new charges, why didn’t they just say, Hey, look, we’re charging you for new crime?

Larry 39:11
That was actually in the decision. The pointy heads on the court pointed that out. That, you know, that he could have actually… but see that requires a more complicated process and a higher burden of proof. And that’s exactly what they said is hey, you know, if he was such a bad guy, they could have charged him because 13 of the 53 images were thought to be for sure, knowingly in his possession. They might not be able to prove the other 40, but they said, Gee, if you can obtain a life sentence and impose… because five years is the minimum amount under Section subsection 3583(k), you would never need to ever convict anybody of anything. You could just simply lock them up. So that’s where the polarity – I have trouble saying that – of the court joined by one of the liberals. He agreed with the outcome, but he didn’t necessarily agree with all their reasoning. It turned out that it was basically an ideological divide. And so I think you’re gonna ask that question, but I’ve already beat you to it.

Andy 40:20
Yeah, that too. I wanted to ask you the question though about because I know that you love it when I always try to do is this a blue or red thing? Which justices took which positions in this case?

Larry 40:31
In this case, it almost was, and often it is – I know that our audience really gets trepidation when I do that, though, because sometimes the conservative judges that are appointed by conservative presidents are spectacular. Scalia would be an example of being spectacular on the Confrontation Clause. You didn’t have a better friend on confrontation, but Scalia wasn’t right on everything when it came to criminal justice. So they’ll latch on to one thing that a justice says in one particular case, and they don’t look at the totality. Generally, the liberal judges are more likely to be sympathetic to these arguments of people who are behind bars and to protect them from the law enforcement apparatus. But you’re correct. I hate for us to frame things that way. But in reality, it does more often then not that the conservative justices side with the law enforcement apparatus. In this instance, the dissenters were all conservative judges who argued that the sky would fall because of what the liberals had done. And they were joined by Justice Gorsuch. So he’s perceived to be a conservative appointed by Trump. But the way it aligned was Justice Alito, who was joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, Chief Justice John Roberts, and justice Brett Kavanaugh, they wrote the dissenting opinion that said that proof beyond a reasonable doubt are not constitutionally required for supervised release revocation proceedings, and that to suggest otherwise has “serious implications.” So if you like that type of ruling, then I’m fine with it. But typically, you’re going to get this alignment on criminal justice stuff. And this is typically the way it unfolds, but not an absolute. We got Gorsuch. Without Gorsuch, it would have gone the other way. I mean, I don’t know what the outcome would have been. But he actually was on the right side of this.

Andy 42:20
I gotcha. Is there anything else on this before we move on? This is super neat. So let me try and kick back and we’ll see… If you got a 10 year sentence, and after eight years, you were released on parole or probation, whatever, and you end up with some kind of revocation and they’re going to then hit you with five years, you are now essentially doing 13 years. And that would be against what the judge initially sentenced you to the 10 years. That’s the unconstitutional part?

Larry 42:50
That is correct. And that’s what he’s in essence asking. He’s wanting to know if this can be used for people whose supervision period has exceeded the maximum jurisdiction of the court, and I believe it can, but again, he would need to consult with the legal professional for particularized legal advice, but I believe it can. But see, they’ve skirted that. And they mentioned that in this long opinion. They mentioned that legislatures and Congress have been very creative in finding sentencing schemes that didn’t exist back in colonial times with the community supervision for life, the CSL. That didn’t exist in colonial times. Probation didn’t even exist in colonial times. All this stuff is relatively novel.

Andy 43:41
And that’s because there’s a mandatory minimum for this thing.

Larry 43:45
Well, for violating supervised release. Normally, it would be you would be subject to the remainder of your supervised release. But they start the clock all over for a PFR. They give you a mandatory five years, despite what you’ve already done, and the five years could overlap the end of what would have been the end of your sentence. And that’s what this is about, as I understood it.

Andy 44:08
Okay, so the two people that we know recently, one of them is going to just finish out their sentence, I think. Or they’re dropping the remaining year, right? (Larry: Yes.) He has three years left and he’s getting two and they’re gonna call it quits when he’s done. The other person has like seven years, and he’s gonna do two, so he’s still gonna have five left. These two things don’t fall into that category because they’re not going to exceed their original sentence.

Larry 44:31
That is correct. But in the case of like, in my state, we have this period of parole, which is really nothing more than supervised release, because you serve all your time. And then you have a five to 20. So like, for example, child solicitation by Electronic Communications device is an offense that only carries a sentence of no more than three years, but yet you can end up serving, if you violate your parole period, you could end up serving much longer than that. A lot of litigation can unfold based on this case out of the 10th circuit. And in fact, on my listserv here in New Mexico, I’ve seen people say, Hey, we need to litigate this because you can end up serving more time than what the crime carried to start with.

Andy 45:14
Interesting, okay. Well, now that I took everything out of order, now I got to figure out where we got to go next.

Larry 45:19
We got to go back to where we were supposed to be.

Andy 45:23
I know. And yes, I don’t have a name on this person. But I’m gonna wing it, Larry, I am a military convicted PFR out on supervised release. Do you think that’s where we’re supposed to be?

Larry 45:35
So well, we’ve already… I think we’ve done this one. I think this is just an extended version of it. But let’s see what it is.

Andy 45:43
Okay, I’m having an issue with my federal probation officers. Oh, yeah, that’s probably that one. Okay, so that’s like supporting stuff. Man, I’m so confused about what’s going on.

Larry 45:52
Yeah, you got old timers tonight.

Andy 45:53
Holy crap, man. I have no idea what’s going on. I don’t know what. I posted that one as question two, blah, blah, blah. I don’t know what question two from Jacob is Larry. I’ve no idea what this one is. Hold on. I’m gonna go find this question.

Larry 46:08
I’ll just do some monologuing while you’re getting it. But in terms of that issue, that was a great question, for sure. And I would like to see the litigation, and I expect to see more litigation on that as time unfolds, and we’ll see what the courts do because there is a limit to how much a person can be punished for the same crime.

Andy 46:30
All right, Larry, I don’t have a question two man. I don’t know what you’ve put in there as question two from Jacob.

Larry 46:36
You don’t have a question for Jacob? I do. Well, I don’t have it up, but I will find it. I know I wasn’t hallucinating.

Andy 46:48
Then I’m going to, while you locate this, I’m going to read something from one of our people. It says Andy, thank you for discussing the article about Tennessee looking into registry changes that I dropped into Discord story ideas. Tell Larry How disappointing his reaction was to me. I jest but he’s probably true. I hope they might do something bipartisan. But as we know, in this political age, that ain’t gonna happen. I promise to follow up with any additional news I hear on this one. He also had a comment in there that patrons- Larry, I didn’t tell you this- the patrons didn’t hear the Who’s that Speaker? last week, because editing podcasts is complicated. And there’s another track and I forgot to bring in the other track. Sorry. And then lastly, congrats on your NARSOL award. And thank you very much. I received an award at the conference. So thank you. Did you find what you needed to find?

Larry 47:34
We actually have done that one also. So yes, that was a great comment. And what I would say to him is, I realize it disappointed people. But let’s have a look, since we got a little extra time, we didn’t take all the time we normally do. We can talk about the political reality. The reason why I made that comment, and I always hope I’m wrong when I make these comments, and I freely come back and say I was wrong when that happens. But what we’re looking at is Tennessee is within the Sixth Circuit, so the Does versus Snyder decision is binding on them. But that doesn’t mean it happens automatically. It means that cases have to be litigated and has to be proven that the Tennessee registry has enough similarities, there are enough similarities that the Does versus Snyder would merit a similar outcome. And I think that article said there were like 30 cases pending. Well, I think the article also said, as I recall that the legislature was considering changes because of what the court might do. Well, there’s where my expertise comes in. I can understand and explain politics. So what you have is a federal judiciary, the Sixth Circuit is a Federal Circuit Court. They have article three lifetime tenure, and they cannot be retaliated against. You don’t get a judge Persky in the federal court system. And that’s for those who don’t remember that was the judge that got recalled that sentenced the Stanford swimmer to too lenient of a sentence. You don’t get judge Persky in the federal system. So what you would have would be people… you’re thinking that people who are elected by the citizens of Tennessee, they’re going to make life better for PFRs because of what a court might do. They haven’t done it yet, but they may do it. That is really far-fetched. I hope it happens. But the likelihood of that happening is very slim, because I would like to be running against you if you did do something to make life better for PFRs and the major cited reason was the court might do something. Can you see the what the ads would look like? You remember the ones we played about the New Mexico congressional race? We played the ad. That’s exactly what that ad will look like. They would say that representative or senator such and such made life better for sex offenders on pure speculation of what a court might do. And therefore, that makes that very unlikely.

Andy 50:06
This is I think where we were going to talk about there was a woman at the conference that really got a little overwrought with her son is in civil commitment. And she started really bashing on politicians and saying that all they’re interested in is getting reelected and so forth. We were going to exchange some comments about not what she did, but the things that she said, and we’re going to talk about there’s a different economy for politics than there are for like a job.

Larry 50:34
Well, not significantly different.

Andy 50:37
I mean, they work for money, but their currency is votes, right? (Larry: Yes, yes.) So then they have to do to some degree what the people in, their district, whether that’s county, state, whatever, they’re going to do what those people want them to do, or else, they will not be doing that anymore.

Larry 50:58
That is correct. And that’s what really puzzles me about the misunderstanding and lack of fully understanding about our democratic process. When you refer to someone as a representative, they are speaking for you, not against you. And they are supposed to represent the views of the people that sent them there. To be irate and furious at them that they are for the registry, when that’s where the people are, it’s really short sighted because that’s where the people are. And what are they supposed to do? Flip the middle finger and say, despite you’re for this, to hell with you people. I mean, we’ve not moved the dial on where the people are. And when we move the dial on where the people are, the political dial will move itself just like it did on same sex marriage. When it all of a sudden became that’s where the people are, that they were okay with it. And they supported it. All of a sudden, you notice how magically politicians, liberal and conservative aligned themselves? I mean, it was very quick.

Andy 51:59
But I’m thinking of like Bernie Sanders. And I would imagine he’s not very pro-gun, but he lives in a very pro-gun state and probably doesn’t vote against stricter gun laws, because he would like to stay in office and do the other work that he’s interested in.

Larry 52:15
That is correct. He willingly acknowledges that Vermonters are not with him. And he speaks for Vermont, he doesn’t speak for another state. And he votes where Vermonters are on that particular issue. And many others as well. But people totally misunderstand. A legislator, they really don’t have a big interest in every single issue. Government is very complicated. There’s a lot of things government do. We could spend an entire podcast going through all the things that government do and does. And what they do that you don’t even realize they do. And most people that are elected don’t understand all that. You wouldn’t find, in our 112-member legislature here, you wouldn’t find two people that really understand the sexual offender registry. And you say, Well, Larry, that’s silly. They vote. Yes, they do, because law enforcement told them to. They told them this is what the other states are doing. This is the model act as recommended by the National Conference state legislature. This is what they do. But they don’t understand the nuances unless they have a family member on it. And so, if they lose their office, they can’t work on what is important to them. It may be improving foster care, it may be on public transportation. That may be where their heart and soul is. It may be environmental. It may be on any number of things. K through 12 education, it may be on higher ed. I could go on and on things that might be that that’s what their passion is. And they’re not going to sacrifice the opportunity to make a difference on where they care so that they can fight for a constituency that’s very unpopular. They’re just not going to do that. That’s the reality. I don’t make the rules, I’m just telling you, as the reality, they’re not going to do that. And I know we’ll get that YouTube commenter that will have something bombastic to say about that. But I don’t write the rules for our democracy, I’m just relaying to you. That is the reality of people you elect. They’re not going to sacrifice their career to fight for something that’s so unpopular when that would prevent them from doing what they would really like to work on.

Andy 54:08
I guess another example, though, is I follow tech very heavily as most of you would already know. With the Facebook files, the release of the Facebook documents that came out with how their algorithms working in teenage girls on Instagram have terrible images, whatever. And but these are, generally speaking, older humans, and they don’t know nearly as much about tech as however much tech is influencing our lives, but they don’t know about it. And we would think that they would have staffers that can do some level of informing them. But that’s not what they’re there to do. That’s not what their forte is. So Rand Paul, if I’m not mistaken, he is an eye doctor. Okay, well, what is he going to know about necessarily how Facebook works and how to regulate it? He would need someone to teach him. It’s not what his emphasis and area of expertise is.

Larry 55:01
So that is correct. He would be very likely to be able to be very helpful on the issues that he understands. But most of the time you rely on, if you’re the federal Congress, the House or the Senate, they have an excellent amount of staff support. As you get into the less populated states, they don’t have so much staff support. And you end up relying on the bureaucrats that tell you this is what you need to do. If the people that were the nice insignia on the uniform come in and say this is what we need to do, that is what they’re going to vote for absent a compelling reason not to vote for it.

Andy 55:39
Okay, well, Larry, I think we are at the point for where we can do the Who’s that Speaker? I think? (Larry: Sure.) I could have that wrong. I don’t think I missed anything else. I’m going to play Who’s the Speaker? from last week.

Winston Churchill 55:54
We shall never surrender.

Andy 55:56
I said it was very short. I don’t recall anybody writing in. I didn’t think that that was gonna be that hard to figure out who it was, but nobody wrote in Larry. So that was who?

Larry 56:07
That was Sir Winston Churchill when he gave his famous speech that we will fight them in the beaches. Will fight them in the streets. We’ll fight them from the trees. We shall never surrender.

Andy 56:21
Yeah, I figured if I put in all of that, then it would have just been too easy, but either nobody cared Larry, or they were stumped by it. And then here we go. Another one of your contemporaries Larry, here we go with another one for this week. So this is this week’s Who’s that Speaker? You can email me at with your answer. If you announce it in chat, I’m disqualifying you

Who’s that Speaker? 56:46
A date which will live in infamy. United States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked by naval and air forces of the Empire.

Andy 57:03
Oh, and I cut it off Larry because that would be the Empire with like the Death Star and the TIE fighters and the force. That Empire?

Larry 57:12
Well, I’m not sure about that. But that seems like that was like, way, way back. That sounds like a crackly voice. Who could that be?

Andy 57:21
I don’t know. Write into if you think you have the answer for this week’s Who is that Speaker? We’re right at an hour. We can shut it down. Oh, we have new patrons to do for sure. Hey, uh, one of the new patrons was in chat and he just left. He doesn’t even get to hear his name announced. Anything before we go on to that?

Larry 57:42
Well, aren’t we going to be doing something special and different tonight?

Andy 57:46
Yes, we are after we finish this. Don’t leave. Don’t leave if you’re there in chat because we’re going to do a Patreon extra where Larry’s going to tell us about how the state of the economy is. Right?

Larry 57:58
What the heck does that have to do with the registry?

Andy 58:01
It has nothing to do with that. I’ve said before that we are teasing the idea of starting like a spinoff program where we’re going to talk about other policy things that Larry has interest and expertise in. And this would be something along those lines. Let’s cover some new patrons. We had two new patrons this week. We had one named Patrick, thank you very much Patrick and Brandon. Brandon just went away from the chat in livestream chat to go watch a baseball game. Like, who cares about baseball? But thank you both very much for becoming new patrons. If you want to sign up and listen to the Patreon feed, you can put your podcast app in there and get it and you’ll get it tomorrow afternoon when I release it. It comes out usually like before lunch on Sunday. Did we have any new snail mail subscribers Larry?

Larry 58:46
Well, I think we may have announced Matthew before, but we received his payment. It was a very large and massive payment for years and years of transcripts to come. But he paid and I think we have announced him, but it doesn’t matter. Welcome Matthew. He is in Rochester, Minnesota as a guest of the BOP.

Andy 59:07
Wow. Guest, huh? Probably not very much of a guest. Probably not really happy that he’s there. But that is all we have for this evening. Again, if you go subscribe over at for as little as a buck a month you can listen to any Patreon extra, any extra content that we put out. Oh and probably unless something bad happens, us achieving the 100 subscriber goal, and me playing a sax solo for you people, that will probably be happening next week live on the air. And so that’ll be happening next week. So sign up for Patreon and you can participate and hear me squeak and honk and be terrible at the saxophone.

Larry 59:48
And are you going to be bobbing and bouncing?

Andy 59:51
There will probably be some gesticulating.

Larry 59:54
All right, I’m looking forward to that.

Andy 59:57
Feel free to go over to You can find all the show notes. You can find links to everything. You can find links to go over to Patreon. You can sign up for emailing when I release the episode, and get notified that way. And you can leave a voicemail over at 747-227-4477. Again, email at And of course, the best way to support the podcast is over at You can find us everywhere on the internet, generally speaking, by searching for Registry Matters, whether that’s on Twitter, on Facebook, on YouTube, et cetera, et cetera. We are all over those places. And without further ado, Larry, I think that is all we have for the evening. And I’ll see you on the other side when we do a Patreon extra.

Larry 1:00:47
Thanks for having me.

Andy 1:00:50
Very well. Good night.

You’ve been listening to FYP.

Transcript of RM198: Probation Revocation Hearings

Listen to RM198: Probation Revocation Hearings

Registry Matters is an independent production. The opinions and ideas here are that of the hosts and do not reflect the opinions of any other organization. If you have problems with these thoughts, fyp.

Andy 00:17
Recording live from FYP Studios, east and west. Transmitting across the internet. This is episode 198 of Registry Matters. Good evening, Larry, what is up?

Larry 00:30
Good evening, Andy. This is awesome to be with you again today in FYP Studios East and West.

Andy 00:38
I appreciate you coming in yet again. In our particular case, Larry,I haven’t really had any hard times trying to find the proper kinds of labor. I see all these Help Wanted signs and employers saying they can’t find good help. But you’re here reliably, and I appreciate it.

Larry 00:56
Well, that is true. I do try to drop in every Saturday if I’m invited.

Andy 01:03
I can’t see anybody else taking your spot to be honest with you. Maybe Paul Dubbeling. You think Paul Dubbeling would be up for this every Saturday night?

Larry 01:09
Probably not. He actually has a life. I don’t.

Andy 01:17
Oh. I bring up Paul Dubbeling because he was one of the feature speakers at the NARSOL conference this past week that was like I don’t even remember anything Larry. Because I drive into town. There’s all kinds of setup. There’s the work the whole time. Then tear down and drive home. It’s pretty brutal for me.

Larry 01:36
We would never be able to make it without these tech gurus. You and Craig and others. (Andy: Craig did an amazing job.) He did. I love those speakers up at the ceiling and putting sound all over the auditorium. It was awesome.

Andy 01:57
Um, then just for a description of it. He all like nerdy about it. I mean, he’s like, whenever you would start bringing up, like dude, I don’t care. Can you just make sound work and just feed me a little cable so I can make the video stuff work? And, but what he did Larry is he put speakers there at the stage for the people that would sit close that want to throw tomatoes at the speakers. And I don’t mean speakers, I mean, the presenter. But then sound has a certain speed that it travels at, like 700 miles an hour, with the amount of pressure that we have here. So then he had speakers midway back in the room that were time delayed, so that the sound would leave the stage and then you wouldn’t hear an echo and things. I was like, okay, man, like, can you just feed me the signal for the, for the live stream? And but it sounded really awesome. not without its own little hiccups and problems. But it sounded really good.

Larry 02:56
It did to me, but what do I know? I’m just, I’m just an old participant who turns up my hearing aid if I can’t hear it.

Andy 03:06
Yes. Right? But to explain one other piece of this, the way that we were doing it before, and look, I don’t know anything about this stuff. It’s like hey, let’s just put a speaker up on the stage, so then the people in the front row are pelted and you can see their hair swaying to the background. And then but the people in the back can’t hear anything. So this helped make it very balanced. It wasn’t too loud. It wasn’t too soft. I didn’t hear a single complaint about the volume of it. So anyway. Anything you want to talk about real quick from the conference?

Larry 03:35
It was awesome. In view of the pandemic, we had a magnificent turnout of people. The presentations I was able to see were spectacular. Well, maybe with an exception or so. But they were good. And I just really enjoyed myself. Met some nice people. Got a new fiancé. I mean, it was awesome.

Andy 03:58
Does this fiancé know about her new role?

Larry 04:02
She has not been informed of that yet.

Andy 04:04
I see. Um, do you want to call her out on this episode?

Larry 04:09
I don’t think that would be wise. I have to let her know first.

Andy 04:14
Haha. Very well. will tell me what we have going on this evening on this fine outstanding program Episode 198. Two shy of 200.

Larry 04:24
We have some listener-submitted comments about CorrLinks in our episode 197. And we have a few questions, I think, that I put in that have been submitted at least one from an incarcerated individual. You can’t say prisoner or inmate anymore. Remember, incarcerated individual. And we have we have a really deep dive on probation revocation process, and then we have some miscellaneous articles and our miscellaneous mystery speaker. Not miscellaneous, but a mystery speaker tonight.

Andy 04:58
Fan-frickin-tastic. I did not get those questions prepared. And so if you take like a 10 second breather, I will get those things queued up.

Larry 05:11
oh, well, I can babble. I can babble for 10 seconds, usually. So while you’re getting those prepared, I can talk about the conference some more. I mean, this was the 13th annual National Conference, and I’ve attended 10 of the 13. And they get better and better. I’m partial to the one that was held in New Mexico in 2012. Because of the venue, and the proximity to eating establishments, it was fabulous; the field trips we took. But this was a, this was a great conference, anyone who has not attended a NARSOL conference, if they can afford to, and take the time, it would be a worthwhile experience. You’ll meet a lot of nice people that you’ll want to have long term relationships with. And it will really inspire you. So look at look at your schedule, and there’ll be one in June in Raleigh, North Carolina, and you should consider coming, or at least watching it on the live stream.

Andy 06:04
I concur with that. I had a lot more fun this time. Maybe just because I just knew more people this go round and just was more involved. And social maybe as a way to word it. I was just looking forward to it more than- I don’t know, I wasn’t so optimistic about it prior to but I’ve had a much different change of heart. And I think next year, Larry, I think that we should leading up to it, we should get maybe some of the speakers to come on and just have some chats about it. And maybe some of the planner people on about the conference before it goes live and all that.

Larry 06:40
I think that would be awesome. We just never got around to it. We have so many things to cover, but having some of the key presenters come on would be great because that would provide a boost to the conference.

Andy 06:53
Um, let’s begin with the one to be read. It says dear friends enclosed is an op ed piece I wrote. It later dawned on me that it might be something of interest to you people. If you have room for it somewhere, and if it seems worthy of use, please give it a good home. If it just doesn’t fit anywhere, put it in the circular file. Either way, I leave the choice up to you. Thanks for all you do. I don’t see another page of this, Larry.

Larry 07:21
Well, the bio is what I was wanting to focus on.

Andy 07:27
Okay. Yeah. My professional and personal life was destroyed when I was arrested for using a computer to facilitate a child sex crime. Basically, I solicited an undercover cop who had an adult profile on an adult website. Now this sounds like the CAGE people. But who later identified as a 15 year old girl. Now I’m trying to put the past behind me and piece my life back together. Yeah, that sounds exactly like the whole story from the CAGE folks.

Larry 07:54
That’s exactly why I put this in here. We had a group called CAGE and you can actually explain that acronym, what it means. But when we had the joint episode with, what’s his name, it’s escaping me at the moment. But we had this joint episode when I was critical of these things. The reason why I’m critical of these operations is because exactly what he just described. If they had started out as a teenager, and they had solicited them, I don’t have a lot of sympathy for him, if he’s an adult. But they don’t do that in the US that way. They start out as an adult, and then they morph into a teenager, into a minor. And oftentimes the adult doesn’t believe it. They believe it’s a part of a roleplay and a fantasy. And this is what the CAGE- What does that stand for? Citizens Against Government Entrapment I think is what it meant (Andy: That is correct, I believe.) And they had they had a booth, exhibit booth, and the exhibitors were awesome.

Andy 08:53
Yes, that was Kathleen, and she will be coming up and being announced as our new patron this week.

Larry 09:00
Well, awesome. But yeah, they had a group of very motivated individuals there that have experienced this entrapment. Again, if they were doing it as the debater on that joint episode, if that’s what they were doing in the United States, I don’t think most Americans would have a lot of tolerance for that. But that’s not what they’re doing in the United States in most instances. This is what they’re doing.

Andy 09:24
I gotcha. Yeah. If you’re on an adult website, I really, I really, really struggle with this one. If you’re on an adult website, like I even asked you this last week on the show, I guess. How is that overly different than you go to a club where everyone gets carded, so you can at least assume everyone is over 18 going in there. So if you’re on an adult website, and you have the presumption that they have verified their profile, they verified their ages, how do they all of a sudden turn out to be 15? And how did you get messed up for doing that? It just seemed like that’s, I think that’s entrapment Larry.

Larry 10:02
Wouldn’t really be entrapment because entrapment would be when the officer is encouraging you to commit a crime. So being at the bar, unless the officer was the 15-year-old, which is not likely a police officer was going to be a 15-year-old. But what you would have in that case you would run afoul of the strict liability offense schemes. You remember Michigan? Zach Anderson? You remember that he crossed into Michigan from Indiana, and he had a romantic affair with someone who was not of age to give that consent. And it never occurred to him because I think the representation had been that the young lady was of the age to give consent. And then they said, too bad. So sad, strict liability. But the difference you’re talking about is very, very blurry. But when you’re at a club, you would have the presumption that the person is of age because they’d have bouncers and security. But if you were in Michigan at that club, it begs the question, and that person was underage, since its strict liability, you may be convicted anyway.

Andy 11:09
Mess. What a mess. Well, then let’s move over to a question. Says dear Legal Corner. This is someone’s Oh, from Virginia again. Firstly, I really appreciate the honesty and insight from the guys on the podcast transcript I received with my question about probation officers helping their homeless clients. Even though they did not have a conclusive answer, it was very helpful. So thank you both. My next question is about internet use. Most, if not all, PFRs have been prohibited from using the internet. Not true. In an age where everything is done in the internet, how can someone on the registry get that taken off a court order? Sincerely. Well, so that’s not really even a true statement. But where do we go from there Larry?

Larry 11:53
Well, I liked it because he referenced a court order, which tells me that it gets in a court order two ways. It gets in a court order because the court ordered it as a special condition that was uniquely tailored to you. Or it gets in a court order because the court signs an order after the probation people have presented you your general conditions of probation, which they consider some of those standard conditions, such as curfew. All the different things that are standard, you know, traveling outside state or the county without permission. It would be adopted by the court because the probation people would have you sign it, and then the court would just blindly sign it because the offender’s been notified of the conditions that is incorporated into a court order. But what I would like to have this writer answer, which I’m sure he will as he writes to us regularly, when you say court order, was that a court order condition of probation at the time of sentencing? Or did it come into it after the fact? Because if the court ordered it at the time of sentencing, it might be it was uniquely tailored to you, in which case, it can more easily survive a constitutional challenge. When they just blanketly apply this condition to everyone who has a sexual offense, therein lies the problem. But they can have severe and extreme restrictions on your internet if they’re appropriate for you.

Andy 13:23
I see, um, well, we’ll get into some internet usage stuff later in the main segment. So I won’t really spoil that here. We did receive some email messages from people with the conversations we had last week about CorrLinks. And so I have it up on the screen, if anybody’s watching on YouTube about it. And I’ll just summarize that, while I don’t think you certainly don’t have direct experience with CorrLinks, and I was getting out just before they were putting tablets in the system where I am for people to be able to do what would be considered like email or text message or something like that. So even related back to the one of the people we’re going to talk about later, I was able to text him. So I’m texting him on my phone. And there’s a kiosk in the dorm that he can log into the kiosk, and he’s receiving the messages. So to me, I’m receiving text messages. And on his side, he’s receiving what sort of looks like an email system. But this is what the person was kind of describing: says CorrLinks is not an email system. Think of it more like a private message system, such as Facebook Messenger. You must add someone. So people have to be on your approved communication list before you’d be able to send messages back and forth out of them. And then… what else does he go into? Obviously, the rules, there are rules from the BOP, but third of you can use third party message systems, which would be kind of funny, maybe you can kind of hack your way around the system, but that’s prohibited by them, which also doesn’t surprise me, Larry. And then he goes into describe that inmates don’t have access to what we would consider the internet. But what they do is they find information out there. I’m thinking like a place like Wikipedia, and they will have things on there end. They do something called scrape. You know, the term scrape? Because we’ve talked about that, where we go get addresses off of the registry lists. (Larry: I’ve heard the term.) And so they’ll go scrape web pages that provide the inmates with some level of internet access, which probably doesn’t work all that well. But maybe you get some level of Wikipedia. Probably like, I don’t know, 90%, 75% of Wikipedia would be stuff that is like, if you go to the George Bush page, what is going to be on there that they wouldn’t want you to have? So I would think that a huge portion of Wikipedia would be stuff that would be approved. I don’t know if you could then get it in there. And then the final piece of this is finally, as for who has access to CorrLinks, this is completely arbitrary. I have a distribution of CP case and was given access. Although the prison I was at said if I used email in your crime, you could not have it. Yet people simply use a peer to peer service to download legal images could not. Also, I had a friend who had email access for six years, and then randomly the administration just took it away. He didn’t receive an incident report or anything, they just changed their minds. So CorrLinks is a very tricky situation for a lot of people, especially PFRs. Just thought I’d clarify a bit. They’d still be able to key in on every word, Larry, if you said any word. Like if you said bomb or escape, they’re probably gonna know about it, and you’re gonna have a talking to.

Larry 16:48
Well, I really appreciate that information. I was vaguely familiar because I did have a CorrLinks account. And I finally found it too difficult to manage because of the requests. They were numerous. And then the emails were numerous as well. And they wanted very personalized responses. So I just quit answering and quit accepting any new requests. I think it just kind of died. But I’ve heard those stories about having access for years and then going to a new institution or maybe a new warden or a new administration coming into an institution and that access being terminated without any answer to that whatsoever. So that is consistent with what I’ve heard through the years.

Andy 17:30
Gotcha. Oh, I’m sorry. Let’s move on to this first one before some fun. And this came from another individual and had a whole bunch of information similar to CorrLinks. But this was part was different. Says Oh, as an aside, as I mentioned, I had a hands-on offense. The other four guys in my therapy group were also hands on. The few CP guys were weeded out due to not taking enough responsibility for victimization. It is sometimes hard for CP offenders to see the victims as real people, as you probably know. But I bring this up because well, I just did an inventory in my head and out of my circle of maybe 15 friends, 13 were hands-on and not CP. I don’t know what the circumstances led them to be on the feds. But this admittedly nonscientific sample shows that Larry’s broad categorization of almost everyone in the feds being CP doesn’t seem accurate. No, they weren’t on Indian reservations. Many, like me also either had either concurrent or consecutive state sentences to serve as well. Well, that’s a key piece of that component, Larry, I think.

Larry 18:38
Well, that could. That would not be something I had considered. But the hands-on offenses, if that is the only offense, they’re going to be prosecuted in the states with rare exceptions because of the lack of federal jurisdiction. When you commit a sexual assault, if you haven’t crossed state lines or not on any of reservation or any federal installations, you’re not committing a federal crime. And wouldn’t it be great if the feds could just come in and prosecute everything that they don’t like the way the states are doing it? And in some instances, they can. (Andy: I was gonna say, don’t they do that Larry?) In some instances, they can do that, because they would be… In drugs, there’s concurrent jurisdiction and porn possession, that’s concurrent jurisdiction with the states and the feds. And some instances, the state will beg the feds to prosecute. Like in our state, our sentencing is less severe than the feds. So in a repeat offender, the district attorneys around the state will say please Feds Will you take this? And oftentimes they do if it’s a well put together case. They don’t like cases that are not put together well, because they intend to extract a plea, or be able to convict you if if you have the courage to go to trial and pay that trial penalty. Which we’re going to talk about, possibly one of the articles that came up about the trial penalty. But yes, if you were to ask the BOP for the statistics, you would see that overwhelmingly the number of sexual offenses would be computer related. Be it internet solicitation, crossing state lines with intent of engaging in sexual activity, or possession and distribution. But that is like you have said to me of fairly unscientific sampling of just 15 people.

Andy 20:19
If you lived in a city like I think Louisville is right there on the border with Indiana, I think that’s correct. Or in Augusta, Georgia, you’re right there next to South Carolina, it would be super easy to without really… Like being in the middle of the state, how far are you from a state line, Larry?

Larry 20:40
Well, merely traveling to another state to break that state’s law doesn’t give the feds jurisdiction. So that alone isn’t enough. If you travel from New Mexico to Texas, and you commit a sexual assault in Texas, you haven’t broken federal law, unless you arranged that online, that it was in somehow facilitated through those mechanisms of Interstate. But if you just simply get in the car go to Texas and perv on a minor, you haven’t committed a federal crime.

Andy 21:04
I’m sorry, what did you do Larry?

Larry 21:08
If you were to, if you were a perv on a minor.

Andy 21:13
Hahaha. I don’t think you’ve ever termed it that way on the program before. I might need you to give me the expert analysis of what that term…

Larry 21:25
Perving would be something that was by either by legal or societal standards, not acceptable sexual behavior. So you could actually be doing something that’s legal, but it would be considered perving by society. So an example that’d be like a 60 year old, hitting on a 25 year old. That would be completely legal, but a lot would consider that perving.

Andy 21:47
I see. Okay. Hey, Larry. Let’s have some Halloween fun. Are you ready for this?

Larry 21:51
I have heard of 60-year-olds perving on 25-year-olds before.

Andy 21:55
I’ve definitely heard of this. Like 25-year-olds even. What do you think? 25-year-olds?

Larry 21:59
Yes, that’s what I said. I’ve heard of 60-year-olds perving on 25-year-olds very recently.

Andy 22:03
Okay, nevermind. I had the numbers wrong in my head. Alright. Um, a couple people reached out to me over the past week or so and they sent me their registry office, their Sheriff’s Office restrictions for Halloween and I have a funny one at the end.

Larry 22:21
Funny? Now nothing’s ever funny with you. So, I’ve got to see this funny.

Andy 22:24
This one’s funny at the end. The first two are like, if you don’t follow the rules, you’re going to die. This one comes from Florida, says Be advised that your status as a state registered sexual predator or offender could prohibit unsupervised contact with children. You may be prohibited from participating in Halloween activities. Be aware that displaying Halloween decorations could entice or lure children to your residence. The Hillsborough County Sheriff’s Office will be monitoring activities on or about October 31, 2021, to ensure compliance with prohibitions relative to the status of being a sexual predator or offender. Failure to comply with these prohibitions may result in a violation of Florida state statute and you may be subject to arrest. That’s pretty serious Larry.

Larry 23:15
It does sound very serious. It sounds as though just merely being registered that applies to them, which is not generally the case. At least not in my state.

Andy 23:24
You’ll see when we get to the next one how the way that it’s worded, it says basically the same thing. Different state. What did you just send me? Oh, you sent me another one for the basically the same thing. What state is that?

Larry 23:41
That’s New Mexico.

Andy 23:43
Okay. Do you want me to put up on the screen? (Larry: Sure.) Okay, let me… course you send it to me in the most awkward way possible.

Larry 23:52
Well, how would you like it? I’ll send it to you another way.

Andy 23:55
If you could email it to me. You do that while I do this.

Larry 24:00
I’ll be delighted to do that.

Andy 24:02
I just didn’t have an easy way for me to get that out and up on the screen. So this one comes from Georgia. It says… now listen to the words carefully Larry, it says all registered sex offenders or offenders with sex offender special conditions supervised by the Georgia Department of Community supervision shall adhere to the following instructions for Halloween. These specific instructions will expire on November 1. All court ordered conditions will remain in effect. These Halloween instructions are only for Halloween and do not change your daily curfew requirements. This is the part that I find really funny Larry. You will have a curfew on Saturday 10/30/21 and Sunday 10/31/21 from 6pm to 6am. Do not decorate inside or outside. Do not wear Halloween costume. Passing out candy or other trick or treat activities are prohibited. You will not participate or attend any Halloween festivities to include festivals, if you were scheduled to work during the times, blah, blah, blah, remain inside your home with all outside lights off. If there’s an emergency and you need to leave your residence, there must be verifiable proof of the emergency and you have to contact your officer immediately. Any unauthorized contact with minors could result in a violation of your supervision. That says all registers, all PFRs. Larry.

Larry 25:30
But it also qualifies it as supervised by the Georgia Department of Corrections. I mean, it does start out saying all, but it does qualify. There’s qualifier in there.

Andy 25:40
So when does all not mean all? I mean, this does say the Dept. of committee supervisions. For those that are not on supervision, is that where you’re going with this?

Larry 25:48
When you said all persons required to register, there’s a part that says supervised by the Department of whatever it said. (Andy: Mhm?) So, that qualifies it.

Andy 26:01
I don’t know, man, it says “or.” So the first four words all registered PFRs, or offenders with special conditions supervised by the Department of Community supervision.

Larry 26:10
okay, I didn’t catch that part. So yeah, it does sound like that’s everybody. So that is very vulnerable to challenge because there’s no law in Georgia that tells you that you can’t do that. Those are conditions supervision. So there again, if I were in Georgia, I would be tempted to tell the sheriff served that one me to go take a flying leap. I said be tempted. I don’t know that I would do it. I’d have to evaluate everything, but there would not be anything they could prosecute you for if you’re not under supervision.

Andy 26:38
But the second part of that, though, is the Saturday part too. I was like sweet, Halloweens on Sunday this year. Like let’s go out and have fun on Saturday night. Oh, put the brakes on that. Saturday is also included for this.

Larry 26:51
So even though they couldn’t prosecute you, here’s what they could and likely would do. Even though they would not have anything that could put in a criminal complaint in the state of Georgia because it’s not against Georgia law last time I looked. But what they would do is they would hassle you regarding your registration. They would try to find the technicality because failure to comply is a significant offense, and they would find some nuance of registration… if nothing more, they would go with a nice glossy eight by 10, or 11 by 15 photo of you and they would go shopping around to your neighbors saying, you know, if you see anything suspicious about this person, make sure you let us know. They would give a hotline number and all your neighbors would be terrified of your presence. So even though they couldn’t prosecute you, they could make your life a living hell. So I’m not advising anyone to do that. But I’m just saying I would be tempted to do it.

Andy 27:41
I understand. So Alright, well then let’s move over to the third one, and I have to explain one little piece of this. This is from the Maryland. The one with the weird flag Larry. Says to all comet supervisees, and I said what the hell is a comet? Do you know what a comet is?

Larry 28:02
Well, I think I remember Halley’s Comet I was here the first time it went around the solar system.

Andy 28:09
Comet is collaborative offender management enforced treatment program. Wow, that’s a word salad right there. So to all COMET supervisees. Halloween is a holiday focused almost exclusively on children and the enjoyment they experience wandering through their neighborhoods interacting with neighbors, and strangers alike. The arrival of Halloween, however, can also lead to increased concern among other family members over the safety of their children. This is due in part to their awareness of the presence in their neighborhoods of individuals who have been convicted of sexual offenses. We know that you have concerns of your own about the often-negative reactions of your neighbors to the knowledge that you are living among them. It is not as apparent to them as it is to us that most of you are genuinely engaged in the difficult task of rebuilding your lives, of trying to find a stable home, as a steady job and some small measure of peace and happiness. This is where it gets super fun Larry. This holiday provides an opportunity for you to clearly display that determination to the community. To demonstrate that you are making a sincere effort to change the direction of your life and thus regain their acceptance. For this reason, and also to protect you from possible misunderstandings and allegations, we are requiring your commitment to the following approach, which we believe will allow everyone, children, their families and you to experience the holiday without undue anxiety. Wow Larry. We would like you to be home between five and 9pm on Halloween. Keep your porch lights off and do not answer your door to trick or treaters. This commitment on your part represents a quiet but very meaningful contribution to an enjoyable, uneventful Halloween. It will also hopefully convey to the community a more positive message about you than it is likely to get from any other source. Wow, Larry, this is for you, not for us. But for you.

Larry 30:22
You have to give them credit. They did put a lot of effort into creativity and composition. And they didn’t come across heavy handed, like “you will not” and “You shall not” like the way the previous ones and the next one you’re going to read does. You have to give them credit. They tried to be gentle about it.

Andy 30:42
They did, they did, they did. I agree with you. I just find it to be funny that they put the onus on you saying that you are going to comply. It’s just a funny way that they worded it. And in one second, Larry, I will have this thing pulled up on the screen. This one is our final one. And it is from New Mexico. And this one is… and I really don’t want to have that person’s name up there. But you agree to the following rules for Sunday, October 31. And understand that failure to abide by any of the rules listed below will result in my immediate arrest and full violation of my probation and/or parole. I agree to be at the adult probation parole office from four to 10 PM. Holy crap. And when I return home, I agree to the following: I will keep my porch lights off on that day. I will not set up any Halloween decorations outside or inside my residence. Because you know, Larry, the people on the outside, they can see inside your walls, and they can see that you have spooky decorations on your walls. I agree that I will not pass out candy or to trick or treaters. I agree I will not open the door. I will not have any guests. Wait a minute. I can’t even have guests? Why can’t I have guests, Larry?

Larry 32:03
I don’t know, you’d have to ask New Mexico probation.

Andy 32:06
I don’t get that one. Like it. So you’re just supposed to sit at home in the dark and hang out by yourself? That’s ridiculous.

Larry 32:14
Well, what they would argue would be that, during that period, they’re going to be doing home visits. And this would be disruptive because the guest wouldn’t understand when we come in with guns and we might toss your place. Truthfully, they don’t want that. But that would be one reason they would not want anyone there is in case they come to toss your house.

Andy 32:35
But you just spent six hours… Says be sure to bring your own food and drinks and a lunch bag, you are required to wear your mask during the times. You’re gonna wear your mask for six hours now. And social distancing will be required. So not only do you get to spend six hours, basically by yourself with a mask on, then you get to go home and be alone for the rest of the night. It doesn’t say when it ends, though. You will remain on house arrest until 6am November 1. Holy crap. Back to the GA one, I spoke to the person who sent me that and I said, why are they doing it two nights? And they said because the community hasn’t decided which night we’re going to do Halloween, whether it’ll be Saturday night or Sunday night. So they’re just covering their bases by locking you up for both nights.

Larry 33:24
So that doesn’t surprise me. And the other answer is because they can.

Andy 33:30
Yeah, right, right. Right, right. Oh my god, this is ridiculous. And I’m sure we’ll have more. So I guess I’ll set up that if you find one that first of all, if it’s funnier than that Maryland one, by all means, send it in. And if it is far shittier than these other ones, by all means, send that one in. If it says anything about being bounding, gagged while you’re at home by the probation officers and whatnot, then by all means, send that one in. Good grief, man. So that’s all of that. That’s all.

Are you a first-time listener of Registry Matters? Well, then make us a part of your daily routine and subscribe today. Just search for Registry Matters through your favorite podcast app. Hit the subscribe button and you’re off to the races. You can now enjoy hours of sarcasm and snark from Andy and Larry on a weekly basis. Oh, and there’s some excellent information thrown in there too. Subscribing also encourages others of you people to get on the bandwagon and become regular Registry Matters listeners. So, what are you waiting for? Subscribe to Registry Matters right now. Help us keep fighting and continue to say FYP.

Andy 34:47
We are at our feature segment, I believe.

Larry 34:50
Well, we’re gonna do new patrons later, I guess? Okay. (Andy: Yeah. We always do that at the end.) All right. I’ve got old timers.

Andy 34:58
Yep, I know. It’s been a while since we’ve had some sort of run sheet to follow. Let’s go here. It says, we want to spend some time discussing revocations, because two of our close personal friends have recently had their probation revoked. And I think it would be good if the audience understood some key points of the revocation progress. Are you people okay with that, Larry?

Larry 35:21
I don’t guess I have any choice if that’s what you people have decided we’re gonna do tonight

Andy 35:26
It is definitely what I want to do. Um, and we both know both individuals. And so do you want to head down this path?

Larry 35:39
Sure. I know both individuals. And I think this is a wonderful topic. And I think we can do it some justice. I just want to clarify, we’re discussing probation revocation, rather than parole revocation or supervised release revocation.

Andy 35:57
In this case, Larry, both people, they were on probation and not parole. It’s okay to say the state at this point Larry? (Larry: Sure.) This is both in Georgia, one of them been out for a decent amount of time, one of them not a decent amount of time. Can you explain what the difference between revocation for parole versus revocation for probation would be?

Larry 36:23
Sure. Let me begin by saying, when I use the term supervised release, I’m referring to the federal system only. Some states also use that terminology. And I’m not qualified to talk about supervised release as it exists in the various states. But probation is a sentence imposed by a judge, which permits an offender to serve the sentence in the community provided that the person abides by conditions that are attached. And it’s very important to understand that probation can only be revoked by a court, usually upon the request of the supervising authorities. And on the other hand, parole is entirely different. Generally speaking, parole is a conditional release from prison of a person prior to the expiration of their sentence. And it’s granted by the parole board or various administrators. That conditional release can be revoked administratively via a process which a person never gets to see a judge and in many instances are not even permitted to have an attorney present. So that’s the big difference. A court is going to revoke your probation.

Andy 37:23
All right, but before we dig into the nuances of probation revocations, I’ve heard you people talk about meritorious parole versus parole, as it exists in New Mexico. Can you explain meritorious parole?

Larry 37:37
Sure, I can do that. Meritorious parole is an early release from prison that an offender earns by good behavior and participating in rehabilitative programs while in prison. For example, the person may have been sentenced to 10 years, but the laws of the state by permit parole after serving a specific percentage of that 10-year sentence. Maybe it’s 30%. Maybe it’s 40, who knows? But for purposes of this discussion, let’s say the person was granted parole after serving four years. The offender still owes the state six more years, which they are serving in the community. That conditional release from prison on parole can be terminated for even a minor transgression by an administrative process. The offender will likely appear before a parole board hearing officer rather than a judge and without the assistance of counsel in many instances. That is what meritorious parole is. You get out early. New Mexico doesn’t have meritorious parole.

Andy 38:33
Okay, so then how was parole different in New Mexico?

Larry 38:38
Well, New Mexico is more similar to the federal system. Actually, it’s practically identical in that we do not have meritorious parole. An offender must serve their entire sentence which is only reduced by good time, which can be up to 50% or it can be as little as 15%. Once the sentence has been completed, the offender is then required to serve a period which we call parole that is generally two years. Unfortunately for PFRs, the parole period is indeterminate. That PFR is under the parole board’s control for that period, which means he or she can be revoked administratively for the slightest violation. So basically, what you have his two sentences. You have your sentenced of your 10 years which you served, either 50 or 85% of assuming you didn’t lose any of your good time. Then you roll into your second sentence, which is imposed by statute, which in most cases is two years. There’re a few offenses for which the prescribed period of parole is one year, but for many of the sexual offences, it’s five to 20 or five to life. But again, you’re under the parole board, and they can yank you around without that due process we’re going to talk about that exists for a probation.

Andy 39:45
Well, then let’s move into a probation revocation proceeding. What is the most common process used for initiating a probation revocation proceeding?

Larry 39:57
Now that’s relatively identical or very similar across the country. The probation officer will initiate the process through the prosecuting attorney’s office who will file a motion or petition to revoke the person’s supervision. In some states the probation officer also has arrest and detain powers, which means that the person can be arrested simply on the order of the PO before the judge is even involved. In other states, the court issues a warrant for the arrest of the probation which results in the person being booked into jail, or what is referred to as a PV. In very rare instances, the person might be issued a summons to appear before a judge regarding the PV but that is exceedingly rare.

Andy 40:36
Can expand on that? A person might be issued a summons to appear.

Larry 40:43
Well, that would like the same as being arrested. It would be if you don’t respond to the summons, you would be arrested. But rather than arresting you, some states allow leniency, particularly for minor technical violations. The offender would be summoned to court rather than being arrested. And failure to respond to that summons would also result in your arrest. But that’s rare, but it does happen. There are cases where a person is given a summons rather than being arrested.

Andy 41:11
Okay, so once the person has hauled into jail, just like the normal side of things, like the normal felony side of things, you can make bond, right?

Larry 41:21
Unfortunately, it doesn’t work that way for violations of probation. In most instances, the person will sit in jail pending the outcome of the judicial proceedings.

Andy 41:32
So I heard from, I mean, at least one state lets you get bond. And that’s North Carolina, as far as I understand. And I could have that wrong. But I heard that while we’re going through all this one, these people were sitting in jail for three months and someone in North Carolina was like, why don’t they bond out? Because we don’t have it in this state. But apparently, they have it in North Carolina?

Larry 41:55
Well,many states the statute will read that a person can be released on bond, but it just doesn’t happen very often. Because remember, you have been convicted of an offense. And particularly depending on the seriousness of the of the probation violation, as it’s alleged, It’s subjective whether or not the community would be protected by allowing you to be out on bond because you’re already convicted person. Remember, when you get bond, initially, you’re not a convicted person. There’s a presumption of innocence. You do not enjoy that presumption once you’re convicted, and you’re on probation. But yes, most states have it. Our state has that, that a person can be released on bond, but it rarely happens.

Andy 42:32
I don’t think Georgia has it at all.

Larry 42:35
I think they actually do, but it is seldom happens.

Andy 42:38
Um, and so in my brain, in my little feeble brain, Larry, parole is you are literally still in prison, they have just decided to let you go home early. And probation is kind of like when you go to a new job and you’re on a probationary period, you have completed your prison sentence, but we’re going to keep a closer eye on you for a period of time. So you’re still within the system, you’re just not completely… you don’t have all of your rights back, particularly your Second Amendment, you probably don’t really have all your first amendment ones, and you definitely don’t have Fourth Amendment ones.

Larry 43:13
Well think of probation a little bit different. I mean, that scenario does exist a lot in Georgia where they do split sentences where you’ll get five years in prison, or you get 20 years in prison and some probation. But oftentimes people never go to prison to start with, they get probation from the beginning. So you’ve never gone to prison from the beginning of your offense, and that seems so shocking to people. But we’ve had many episodes recently where we’ve talked about people who got probation in the beginning. It does happen, maybe not so much in Houston county or the rural Georgia counties, but it does happen.

Andy 43:48
Alright, well, let’s go into the actual process of a revocation and maybe discuss some general terms. The two individuals we both know, neither of them was released from jail pending the resolution of the probation violation, and both of them wanted a full blown revocation hearing. I thought you people said that most plead guilty. Neither these two chose to plead guilty. Can you explain the process that would have transpired since they denied the violation?

Larry 44:14
Sure, the person is not actually asked to plead guilty or not guilty as they do in a regular criminal proceeding. The person is actually asked to admit or deny the violation(s). In most instances, the attorney representing the offender negotiates with the prosecutor for an outcome that minimizes the penalty for the violation. If the two sides come to an agreement, the offender admits and the sentence is pronounced. If they cannot agree, as was the case in this situation, then the PV proceeds, the probation violations go to a full-blown revocation hearing. And the court decides if there is sufficient evidence.

Andy 44:52
Does this include like a jury, any grand jury, anything of that sort? Or is this almost like a bench trial?

Larry 44:59
It’s always like bench trial. You’re already convicted, so revocation will be before a judge.

Andy 45:07
All right, let’s move over to the case from the southern part of the state first. The PFR was found in possession of more than 50 nude images of adult women on his phone. In addition, he had his own polygraph device. As far as I know, Larry, it’s not illegal, nor is it a violation of probation to own your own Kabuki machine. They searched his phone because he had shown deception on a polygraph exam. You people have pontificated for years that no one has ever been revoked for showing deception on a polygraph test. Are you finally ready, Larry? Do we need to put you on the couch and have like an intervention? Are you ready to admit that you were wrong?

Larry 45:46
Well, I think I admitted at our last podcast, I was wrong. But I’m not ready to admit that on this because that’s not the situation. The petition did not say… because I actually was provided the petition by you. It didn’t say was be revoked for failing a polygraph. The petition was brought to the attention of the court because of the images they found on his phone. He was not revoked for showing deception. Reality is that they stepped up his supervision based on his showing deception on the polygraph test. And then they found the incriminating photos as a result of that stepped-up supervision. But they did not petition to revoke him because of him showing deception on a polygraph. So no, I can’t make that admission today.

Andy 46:35
You know, I don’t think I’ve ever shared with you: I called down there to get that the revocation hearing document, and the woman asked me to email her, and then she would reply to me with that document. I said, Great. And I had the Registry Batters Gmail account pulled up, and I emailed her from that account. (Larry: Hahaha.) Whoops. Um, but on that part, is it just that easy to get the revocation document? Just like call the clerk and say, Hi, Matilda, can I get this thing? And they send it over to you?

Larry 47:11
Yes, they are public documents. You actually had a very sweet experience. Trying to get the document on the other offender from Northern Georgia, it was a lot more difficult to get that petition, but I did ultimately see that one as well.

Andy 47:25
Oh, did you? Okay, I didn’t know that you had finally gotten it. All right. Well, you are correct, that there’s usually an offer made to get the person to admit. In the first case, the original offer – I had to edit this a little bit Larry – In the first case, the original offer was seven years. And if he took it there when he went to his initial court hearing, it would have been five. But then when they finally got to the hearing, the offer was four years and his attorney obviously sought time served. The sentence was two years. Does this mean that his Attorney won?

Larry 47:58
Oh, absolutely it means that it’s an amazing outcome. When the prosecution is seeking seven or five years, and you only get two, that is a win, because even though he did suffer revocation, the court was not convinced that this was so serious that it merited a long prison sentence, although two years is a long time. It really is. But yes, that is definitely a win.

Andy 48:22
Hey, can we dig around for a second? There’s another thing I want to go over. But for this part, we’ve talked about, he thinks it’s possible that he’s going to get home early, like after nine months, let’s say. And I was wondering, when you go back on some kind of violation, do you go back in there under the original crime or you going in under just the violation? You know, probation violation level jaywalking, as opposed to… because he didn’t have a new felony. So he’s just in there for some technical violation. So shouldn’t he have just a couple years to do.

Larry 49:01
I don’t believe that would be the case. He’s actually in for the sexual offense, the offense he’s convicted of. He violated the grace of the court to be allowed to serve that sentence in the community. So it doesn’t change what he’s in serving incarceration for. He’s a convicted felon for the sexual offenses as shown on his sentencing document. And I do believe that Georgia Department of Corrections will calculate his time as if he had been sentenced from the get-go to that amount of time. Because that’s the type of offender he is. I hope I’m wrong, but I don’t believe it’s gonna make any difference.

Andy 49:32
I don’t want to be like a jerk and argue with you, but the mandatory minimum for the crime would be five years. So we’re already outside of those guidelines. (Larry: What do you mean we’re outside those guidelines?) For the crime that he is in for, it’s a mandatory minimum of five years, but he’s only going to do two, so that’s outside of what the mandatory minimum would be.

Larry 49:55
Didn’t he already get the sentence to begin with? He’s out of prison already.

Andy 50:00
True. So this would just be on top of… (Larry: Yes.) So this isn’t his 12 year sentence, this is now 14 year sentence.

Larry 50:06
Well, no, it’s all gonna fit within the original sentence. I mean, they don’t gain any additional jurisdiction. So whatever the maximum sentence was at the time, that’s all he’s gonna have, but he’s serving the remainder, or at least a portion of the remainder in custody. He’s already met the mandatory minimum.

Andy 50:25
Yeah, no, I okay, I got you on that. So he did 12 years in. So now we’re just going to add two more, which will make it 14. He has a 20-year sentence total.

Larry 50:34
So he’ll come out with some more probation. Some more supervision.

Andy 50:38
Yeah, I gotcha. So how was a probation violation proceeding different in terms of testimony and admissibility of evidence? Yes, this is definitely a subject that I want to get into. And what do they have to do to prove whatever that you’ve done the wrong things when they go into court? Is it the same standard that you would get when you go to a jury trial?

Larry 50:58
Oh, no, not even close. The process is far less structured than what’s required for a person in the guilt or innocence phase of a normal proceeding. It’s much easier to get hearsay admitted, and the burden of proof is far, far less.

Andy 51:14
What is the burden of proof in a PV proceeding? And how is it different? So like, I guess for a criminal, it would be… what’s the term? I always forget the term. (Larry: Beyond a reasonable doubt.) Beyond reasonable doubt, like I beyond a shadow of a doubt. No, it’s not that high. So beyond a reasonable doubt, and it’s similar to this.

Larry 51:38
Not at all. When a person is accused of crime, there was the presumption of innocence and the prosecution must prove that beyond a reasonable doubt. In a probation violation proceeding, the person stands before the court as a convicted person who’s serving their sentence in the community as a matter of grace. Therefore, the burden is far lower as it should be. The burden varies from a preponderance of the evidence, which is slightly more than 50, to in some statutes like in Arkansas, it’s more likely than not. There’s also generally a willful component, but that must be shown by the prosecution. For example, say a person is stranded late at night, and they happen to live in a community that has public transportation, and the last bus has already come and gone. And they accept a ride from a stranger. The police pull over the driver of the vehicle, and they find drugs. So technically, that’s not a good situation for a probationer to be in. But the probationer, their defense would be that there was no willful element of that violation. Yes, there was drugs within three feet of me. But I had no idea that they were there. Nor did I intend to be in the proximity of drugs. I was merely trying to get home. I missed the last bus because I worked late. So they would never be able to meat the willful element. But so in that instance, I would suggest that the person might want to go to a full blown PV hearing on that, because I don’t think they could show the willful violation.

Andy 53:05
In the case of the PFR from the southern part of the state, he is adamant that he wants to appeal and we can go into that in a little bit. But his attorney, I finally like held his attorneys’ feet to the fire, and I said, would you recommend that he file an appeal? And he was like, it’s probably not going to work for him. Why would the attorney not want to make an extra X amount of dollars?

Larry 53:27
Well, because this would be an example of an honest attorney. Based on my knowledge of the facts of this particular probation violation, there are actually no meritorious grounds for an appeal. Any appeal of a probation revocation is almost futile from the beginning because the person is already convicted and serving their sentence in the community. Since the legal standard for revocation is very low, an appellate court is not likely to overturn the trial judge’s determination that there was evidence that was sufficient to merit the revocation. In this particular case, there was plenty of evidence. The polygraph machine had nothing to do with it. It was the images that had everything to do with

Andy 54:07
Let’s stick around that for just a minute if you don’t mind. We’ve talked about something where they have the right to come in and check your stuff whenever they want to. They can come in and do it whenever they want to. In my experience, the guy would come around monthly and he would like walk through the house, he would open up the fridge and see if there was anything inside but he did not go toss my house. They could have confiscated my computers whenever they wanted to, I suppose. But this individual is adamant that because of the polygraph, that’s why they were able to come in the house, and they word it that way. And without that, then they would never have found the images on the phone.

Larry 54:56
He’s correct on all accounts. You’re correct that they have the right to come in. You’re extremely fortunate. In this jurisdiction, they would toss your house just because they can. The respect you enjoyed is not often afforded to people here. It’s just a matter of, they’re going to check their little boxes on their list and see when the last time they tossed your house. And if it hasn’t come up recently for a tossing, you’re going to get that here. But in his case, the Kabuki machine, as you refer to it, is what caused them to step up supervision. That’s exactly what they would have done here if you showed deception. They would have increased your supervision. They would not file a petition to revoke your probation because you showed deception. But they would, depending on the subject of the deception and concern of the polygraph examiner, they would increase your supervision to try to identify if you were doing those things that were showing a reaction on the machine. And that’s what they did. They decided “well, he’s showing some deception.” I don’t know what the deception was because I don’t have that question. But they decided to examine his devices. And guess what? There were things on the devices.

Andy 56:10
There was a term that you had used though and I completely blank on what you had said. But they can come in six deep whenever they want to, if they want to as just part of their normal monitoring, supervising whatever the terms are that you want to use. They can just do whatever they want to just cause.

Larry 56:31
I don’t want to say they can do that in all jurisdictions. But there may be protections in some states where they have to have some kind of level of cause, some reasonable suspicion of a violation. But in this jurisdiction, no such statute exists to my knowledge. And here, they can do it because it’s a matter of thorough, comprehensive supervision. And they would come in and do it when they felt like it and there wouldn’t be anything you could do about it. You couldn’t get a redress, because the statute doesn’t prohibit them from doing that. But I have heard, I think even in Georgia, I think that a former attorney that used to work with us said that there had to be some level of suspicion. But I think again, the deception on the polygraph would raise their suspicion. See people confuse the fact that it’s not admissible in court to mean that it can’t be used in any way, shape or form. They didn’t use it in court, they used it to increase supervision and guess what? It paid off.

Andy 57:28
Would there be any exceptions to this? When would a revocation be overturned on appeal? is Going back to being so hell bent on having an appeal done?

Larry 57:39
Well, if the argument on appeal is that the evidence was not sufficient, that argument is doomed from the beginning since it only takes the slightest of evidence. You have all these conditions you need to abide by. And if the evidence is more likely than not that you violated those conditions, then sufficiency of evidence would not be great for an appeal. So that would be doomed almost from the get-go. But an appeal might be successful in situations where the trial court sentences the person to more time than was actually authorized by law. For example, Georgia gives credit for all time served on probation against the remainder of the term of probation. If the judge miscalculated and sentenced the person more than what was authorized by law, that would be overturned on an appeal. Another example might be if the person was not represented by counsel and had not actually waived that right, that revocation might be overturned on appeal as well, because you do have the right in probation revocations to have counsel. So that person would not get out free, they would not get to go home from jail free, but it would be remanded with instructions they get that person lawyered up, and they ordered them to have a new probation revocation hearing. But it’s really an extreme longshot. In this particular case, it’s such a long shot that I think that he would be better off to save his money for canteen.

Andy 59:01
This is a question that I definitely want to want to get into. So the person that we’ve been discussing genuinely wants to help others. He’s really interested Larry, in pushing the ball forward and having good case law that we can use to support the cause. Does his facts as you know them make it possible for such an appeal to be beneficial to the universe of PFRs supervised in Georgia?

Larry 59:26
I’m afraid not. The only way this case would be beneficial to PFRs as a group would be if he had argued to the trial court that the special condition that he stands in violation of that forbade him from looking at provocative images was unconstitutional as applied to him since they were adults. As far as I know, he did not make that argument below, meaning before the trial judge which means that it’s very unlikely that an appellate court would even consider that on appeal. But that was how he would have set it up. He would have he would have said Hey, Judge, this is not constitutional as applied to me. This is an unreasonable condition because I am trying to rehabilitate, and the rehabilitation has worked phenomenally. And I’m looking at appropriate images, which is what the therapy environment has encouraged us to… There’s a segment called thinking errors. And they try to focus on getting you beyond thinking errors. And he would say it’s worked beautifully. I don’t have those thinking errors, I’m thinking correctly now. And this is a condition that is totally appropriate. Now that would assume that his conviction related to a minor. If he’s now focusing his sexual urges on an adult, he could say this condition is too broad and too intrusive. But he needed to make that argument before. He can’t make that argument on appeal now. The only thing he could do now is throw his lawyer under the bus and say his lawyer was totally ineffective. And he suggested all this strategy and the lawyer poopooed it. But other than that, he doesn’t have an appellate claim because it wasn’t raised below.

Andy 1:01:01
That sounds like summary judgment. I’m not saying it is. But it sounds very much like summary judgment, the way that you’ve worded that, that if he didn’t raise the condition, the situation, during his court hearing, then you can’t bring it up to the appeals court.

Larry 1:01:14
Sort of, but the theory behind that is that… I mean, everybody likes a second bite at the apple. So if you think of something as an afterthought that you should have done, appellate courts are very unlikely to review that because it wasn’t argued below. So the evidentiary record wasn’t built below in terms of that it hasn’t been developed, which is what you’re getting at. There’s nothing for the appellate court to review. The appellate court won’t know if this condition was unconstitutional, as applied to him, because they won’t know all the nuances of how this condition came to be, and what his argument would have been. Why the condition was unconstitutional as applied to him. So they’re not going to do all that fact finding, and they’re not going to give him another bite at the apple. The only way he would be able to get that bite of the apple, in my opinion, would be if he said, My lawyer was ineffective, and that’s a tough one to make. Because this lawyer was a very effective, and the appellate court would look at that and say you were looking at seven years, and then five, and you got two. There’s not an appellate court that I can think of that wouldn’t find that to be a very effective representation, because the outcome was spectacular compared to what the potential bad outcome could have been.

Andy 1:02:27
Larry, something that came up in this with my conversations was that you have conditions of probation, and then you have the special conditions of probation. And so a condition of probation is something like following your curfew. Whereas the special conditions of probation as it relates to PFRs are things like what we’ve just been describing of looking at nudie images of adults. When you do have some kind of revocation, does it matter if we compare it. If one person is just late for curfew a bunch of times and then one person has these 50 images, are they going to treat you the same when you finally go to court?

Larry 1:03:05
Special conditions are generally looked at as they’re more important, not that conditions of probation…. the standard conditions are important, but those are going to be applied to everybody. You’re going to be told to follow the instructions and report as directed, you’re going to be told not to leave the jurisdiction without proper permit. That that’s going to apply to any offender. But a special condition is theoretically tailored to you. That’s why it’s called a special condition. So if you’re disregarding the very thing that allowed you the conditional liberty… For example, if you need counseling, and the court is convinced that you would not have committed that offense without counseling, this is outside the universes of sexual offenses, but any type of offense. If you have an anger management problem, and the court’s convinced that you’re a great person, but you’re having issues managing your anger. If you’re not seeking to comply with that condition to manage your anger and to get the treatment, the court is going to view that a lot more seriously than if you miss a curfew. Well, you don’t need to be missing curfew, you don’t need to be missing a report to your probation officer as directed. But if you’re thumbing your nose at counseling, which is going to help you become a law-abiding citizen, that’s going to be more significant in terms of the level of severity when the judge looks at that violation.

Andy 1:04:27
Interesting. Okay. I have two final questions, Larry. Says when this happens to one of your people, a family or friend gets sent up the river, someone has to step in and take care of their affairs. Depending on the length of time for the reincarceration, if it’s short enough, if there are resources available, money in the bank or income coming in, maybe just maintain course, like just keep paying the utilities and pay the bills. Just put things on a holding pattern until the person is released. Is there liability for the person that steps in to take over these roles?

Larry 1:05:01
Now remember, that’s outside of any formal legal training I’ve had.

Andy 1:05:05
But I’m saying this is as like Uncle Larry, that has worked near law for umpteen million years,

Larry 1:05:11
I would say that there would be risk for that because financial matters are very sensitive and personal. And if there’s any level of decision making you need, you or whoever that person is, would need permission to make those decisions. So that’s usually achieved by a power of attorney or some document that’s drawn up giving the scope of that authority of what decisions can be made. And I would feel very uneasy managing someone’s affairs without their permission to do that. I would very much admire a person who was willing to step in and do that, fulfill those roles, because they’re needed. People can end up losing everything, because nobody to take care of things. So if there’s a person who step forward in this case, I would encourage them to work with the person’s attorney, get some kind of document drawn up. If that attorney doesn’t know how to do it, go to another attorney and get a document drawn up. And if that person’s already in prison, it’s gonna be a little bit more difficult, because the visits gonna have to be arranged at the state prison, wherever he’s assigned in Georgia to get that document signed. I don’t know that it can be done by just mailing it. It needs to be witnessed, and someone’s got to witness it, make sure that it’s legit. (Andy: There’s notaries in prison if I’m not mistaken.) If they do, that would be a good thing to do to get a document representing the scope of the services and get that signed. And I would want it from whenever this person stepped in, I would want it to say effective on that date. Whenever that administration began.

Andy 1:06:40
Okay, well, that was my final question. I was like you do work in the legal field, right, Larry? I was gonna ask you that question. So something of a power of attorney… can it just be like scribbled down on a piece of on a napkin and go, Hey, I’m going to take care of your crap while you’re gone. Sign here. Is that enough?

Larry 1:06:59
Well, the more legit, the better. I would try my best to have it drawn up professionally. You’re talking about a few $100. I would not put it on a scrap piece of paper. I would want it to look authentic and be enforceable. Because this person could come out of prison angry. This person right now is angry that that the two years was imposed, and I’m very disappointed. I wish it had been time served. But the prosecution wouldn’t budge. They weren’t interested in doing anything. They said, this is the second violation. And you know, this guy needs to pay dearly. He’s lucky he’s not paying more dearly than what he’s paying. But two years is plenty of time.

Andy 1:07:39
Do you recommend using any of the services like Legal Zoom or anything like that to do a power of attorney?

Larry 1:07:46
I’m old fashioned. I would prefer to, since the unique circumstance of this person being in prison, I prefer that a person understands the unique situation that they draft this. It’s up to you. Everybody wants to do it on the cheap and on the fly.

Andy 1:08:04
Yeah, yeah. Yeah. All right, Larry, I think we’ve covered this for, like 30 minutes about, and I think we have covered it like, magnificently.

Larry 1:08:14
Well, I was glad to be a help. This is an area where I actually do have considerable experience helping with PVs. And I feel like that there’s enough similarity around the country that you’ve got the basics of how it’s gonna work. And someone’s gonna write in and say, Well, no, it doesn’t work that way. And yes, it might work slightly different in your jurisdiction, but we’ve covered the basics pretty thoroughly.

Andy 1:08:37
Then, let’s quickly cover this article that showed up on the radar in the last couple of days. It says Tennessee lawmakers discuss changes to keep the state’s PFR registry from being struck down. This is this coming from WPLN National Public Radio. It’s a really short article, but it appears Larry… is Tennessee in the same district that Michigan is in? I think that’s correct.

Larry 1:09:03
Yes, they’re in the same circuit. And this is actually evidence, of what will – and one of our listeners, several listeners raised the question about when the courts decide a precidential case, why don’t the other states follow suit? – Well, this article makes reference to dozens of lawsuits that are pending, based on the Does versus Snyder decision out of Michigan. And this is the Tennessee lawmakers saying, gee, we might get stuck in the same situation because we’re in the same circuit. And we have applied these things retroactively, and they’re considering what they might do. Let me tell you what they’re gonna do. They’re gonna do absolutely nothing. They’re gonna look at this, and they’re gonna say, this is too politically risky for us to peel back any of our requirements. So we’re gonna let these cases be decided. And then we may appeal. We know that the outcome is going to be that the Does versus Snyder’s gonna be controlling, but we’re gonna be able to point at the court and say we wouldn’t have made the life easier for these PFRs except the court made us do it. So they’re gonna do absolutely nothing.

Andy 1:10:05
It says as 30 virtually identical lawsuits are pending against the state of Tennessee, you’re saying that the politicians are going to be a bunch of pansies and punt? How much money will they spend defending lawsuits like this versus just doing the good work that they’re supposed to do?

Larry 1:10:32
They may spend millions, but no, they’re not going to do it.

Andy 1:10:36
They’ll spend millions versus effectively spending zero and getting ahead of it.

Larry 1:10:43
Well, would you like to take the leadership on lightening up on PFRs and examine your political future after you take a leadership role in that? That’s why they’re gonna do nothing.

Andy 1:10:52
Oh, I’ll do it in Tennessee, I don’t care. I don’t have anything to lose. It’s a garbage state anyway,

Larry 1:10:57
But the people in office there do and they’re not going to take the leadership on that.

Andy 1:11:03
All right. You think they’re gonna do nothing, but here it is Larry that they have… okay, I will, I will, I will accept your answer. But that just sounds ridiculously ridiculous that they wouldn’t then take this opportunity to go fix it before it turns into be a poop show for them.

Larry 1:11:25
That’s logical, but politics is my business and, no, they won’t do anything.

Andy 1:11:31
Alright, um, let us move over finally, Larry to Who’s that Speaker? and then we will close it out with new Patrons and letter people. That was two weeks ago, then the conference shows up, like every time we do this, Larry, we have to then skip a week because something gets in the way of continuing to do this. But last go around. I played this. And as I asked, if I’m not mistaken, I like, obviously, you know who that is. But you got to tell me when and what were the circumstances. And out of all the people that wrote in, Ray was the first one with the answer. He said, your speaker was JFK delivering that amazing line during a State of the Union address, I believe. Was that his inauguration? Or was that just the State of the Union?

Larry 1:12:27
I’m not even sure the exact circumstances. I was hoping to learn something. But that is an old clip that get’s played a lot.

Andy 1:12:35
Yes, it does. It’s actually even in the rock song by a band called In Living Color. How about that?

Larry 1:12:41
So I think it was in his inaugural address, but I’m not even sure. So whoever says that, I can’t dispute them, because I don’t remember. I was only 102 when that was delivered.

Andy 1:12:57
No doubt, no doubt. Alright, so then this one, this one super short. So listen carefully, and write into with who you think this is, and if you’re in chat right now, if you say it, then I’m banning you from the server forever. So just don’t even do it. And your answer doesn’t count. So again, you can write me at If you know who that speaker is. And please put something like Who is the Speaker in the subject line so I can find them somewhat easily. I would definitely like to extend a thank you to Kathleen, we had her on just briefly last week at the conference. She is part of that CAGE group, and I can’t thank her enough for becoming our new patron this week. Thank you very much Kathleen and hope to have you on. She’s talking about coming on the podcast like early in November, she’s got some other obligations and whatnot and by the time she puts everything together it’ll be roughly around November when we have her on as a guest which I think will be awesome. And Larry, you have a new snail mail subscriber this go round.

Larry 1:14:05
That would be Timothy. He’s a guest in the United States military disciplinary facilities in Fort Leavenworth and he has served our country. So thank you Timothy. And welcome. (Andy: You never thank me Larry.) Well, that’s different. You served it because you were getting that big paycheck. He did it because he was he was doing it just because he wanted to.

Andy 1:14:28
Oh, I see. Well, thank you, Timothy. I appreciate that very much. And I hope all is well and you stay safe where you are. And Larry that I think concludes our program this evening. Is there anything else that you want to cover? We have, I don’t know, 60 seconds or so that we could banter if you want to?

Larry 1:14:43
Well, there was a tragic shooting in Houston Harris County which is where the NARSOL conference was. I think early this morning if I got the story right, the Harris County Sheriff’s… I think they call it constable. I think. It’s not sheriff, but constable. But three of the constables or deputies were ambushed, and one of them is dead. And when you’re doing your job and you get ambushed – no one should ever be ambushed – but when you ambush a symbol of the law that is the lowest of lows. I know like I’m on the cops all the time about things that they shouldn’t do that I don’t agree with. But no one can say anything but sympathy. I don’t have any breakdown on the family if they have children or not. But three ambushed deputies is a tragic thing.

Andy 1:15:32
Just because they do a lot of terrible things, I don’t think that they necessarily deserve to die when they go to work every day.

Larry 1:15:37
And these guys may have been the good ones that have never done a terrible thing. But we don’t know the details other than they were ambushed at a nightclub. They were working extra security. But as we are so fond of saying in America, our thoughts and prayers go out to their families. That sounds corny, but really that’s all you have to offer them is we hope the best for your family.

Andy 1:16:04
Very good. Well, everyone you can find the show notes and everything else. If you want to find any links if I go over them too quickly here, you can find them over at Not .com, but .co. People ask me all the time. I don’t remember what it is Larry. And leave voicemail at 747-227-4477. Email at and of course support us at And I hope that you have a wonderful rest of your weekend Larry. And with that, I bid you adieu, have a great night.

Larry 1:16:40
Thanks a lot for having me and good night to all of our fabulous listeners.

Andy 1:16:47

You’ve been listening to FYP.

Transcript of RM196: PFR Challenged Internet Restrictions Pro Se in Georgia

Listen to RM196: PFR Challenged Internet Restrictions Pro Se in Georgia

Registry Matters is an independent production. The opinions and ideas here are that of the hosts and do not reflect the opinions of any other organization. If you have problems with these thoughts, fyp.

Andy 00:17
Recording live from FYP Studios, east and west. Transmitting across the internet. This is episode ­196 of Registry Matters. Larry, look, we’ve got like, I don’t know, 200-dozen-1000 people in chat already. Thank you very much for all of the patrons that have that privilege of hanging out and listening to us recorded live. How are you, Larry?

Larry 00:39
Awesome. It is a beautiful day in the Land of Enchantment. It was in the 70s. Clear, crisp Fall day. Wonderful.

Andy 00:48
That’s very enchanting, Larry. See what I did there?

Larry 00:53

Andy 00:54
I’m already losing my voice. And I don’t know why. I didn’t talk the other night on the program. I didn’t talk very much today. And it just feels like my voice is about to disappear on me. But with that, Larry, we have a very, like, meandering all over the map program tonight. Tell me what we’ve got going on.

Larry 01:13
We have questions, questions, and questions. We have questions from incarcerated individuals. We have questions from, from the telephone conference call we had Thursday night that were submitted electronically. We have, we have all sorts of stuff. We have a deep dive in a case out of Georgia from the Georgia Court of Appeals. And so we’re going to be on here for hours and hours tonight.

Andy 01:40
I think that sounds great. Maybe it’ll be long enough that we can split it into two and then I can release this while we’re gone next weekend. Because next weekend is what Larry?

Larry 01:50
that would be the NARSOL annual conference in Houston and we will be recording an episode in the Port Lavaca room. And last time we did that in 2019, we packed that room to the gills and we had people standing outside banging, wanting to come in.

Andy 02:07
I think I remember that. Um, do you want to plug the live stream or even any last minute? If you want to attend Houston? Or at least attend the live stream?

Larry 02:16
If I knew how to plug it, but if you know how, go ahead. I don’t know where they go to sign up. But there is a website where you can go register for like 35-40 bucks to watch the 3 day conference.

Andy 02:28
It’s $40. Yeah, if you are unable to make it to Houston. And I’m kind of a big fan of this. I’ve always been like, “Why do I have to travel halfway across the country to do these things, when I could just sit on my bum and turn on my TV and watch it?” Which is what you’ll be able to do with this. But it is 40 bucks, find it over probably But just go to And you’ll find links all over the place for it. I would strongly encourage you, if you don’t even attend, it’s worth the money to support the cause. I think. Anywho, there’s a bunch of different speakers. I’m running all the technology to bring it to you in your home and then released later on the YouTube.

Andy 03:12
We are going to start Larry. While we were doing the program Thursday night, I was having sort of like a chat battle, I guess you could say with someone on YouTube. And I just kind of collected a handful of questions that seem to be going around from a particular person. And almost like a frequently asked questions that come up. So here we go. Are you ready, sir?

Larry 03:32
Let’s do it.

Andy 03:33
So you, Larry, repeatedly say that even if the AWA, Megan’s Law, all of them, were to disappear instantly, why would there still be 50 plus registries all over the country?

Larry 03:46
I don’t know if I have said Megan’s Law. That that I don’t believe I said, but I said the Adam Walsh Act itself, which is the successor to Megan’s Law and the first version of the federal law that encouraged states to adopt their registration schemes. If the federal government no longer were encouraging, since there is no federal registry, if the federal government said we got it all wrong, and we no longer encouraged state registries. What would happen? Do you think that all the legislators would convene an emergency session and repeal the registries?

Andy 04:23
Yes, I think that they would do that immediately because they’re very unpopular with the public.

Larry 04:27
Yeah, sure they are. That’s what I’m saying that since the registers are state operated, or territory operated in case of the US territories or in the case of the sovereign Indian nations. These registries are independent of the federal government. They have been encouraged by the federal government, but they’re not required. Any state could abolish their registry tomorrow if they wanted to. They’re not going to because there would be an influx of people, of folks that are having to register under these harsh, horrendous conditions; if they had the option of moving to the state without a registry, they would be foolish not to do it. And that’s exactly what many would do. But that’s what I keep saying that if the Adam Walsh Act were to go away, and there would no longer be the federal funding for the compliance checks, the federal government doesn’t fund the registries. Largely that ends up being funded by local governments. Most of the states run a hybrid system, meaning that they share the responsibility with the local jurisdictions throughout their state. The state itself may operate the website, and they may give technical assistance, but the local law enforcement units are tasked with managing and keeping track of those offenders and doing the processing. And in most of the states, they don’t get any compensation directly from their state. Now with exception of Maryland, I think they get paid $250 per offender by the state of Maryland. But I have not seen a registration scheme other than Maryland where they get direct compensation for the care of fulfilling those duties and carrying out the responsibilities. So therefore, you have something where the funding is already being provided by the locals. Now the Adam Walsh Act, it does provide compliance money for the states. There was an initial 10% bonus if your state complied within the first year or 18 months or whatever it was, after adoption of AWA, if your state was deemed substantially compliant, you got some early money. And also you risk losing 10% of your federal crime fighting funds under the Byrne program if you don’t have a registry that’s compliant with those federal recommendations, but you don’t have to comply and some states have announced that they have no intention of complying. Now the problem is the states that have announced that largely are more severe than what the AWA requirements are. Texas would be an example. Texas has proudly proclaimed we won’t comply. They like to have their own energy grid and all the stuff that crashes in the middle of the winter. But they have said they’re not going to comply. But in many regards, Texas registry is already tougher than the Adam Walsh Act. Not in all aspects. But in many regards, it’s already greater than.

Andy 07:09
But what about the federal registry? Larry?

Larry 07:15
But there isn’t a federal registry. That’s a mythical thing. There’s only a federal website that links all the state registries and all the territorial registries together, but there’s no federal registry. I have offered a reward to anyone who can show me a federal registry office, but there isn’t.

Andy 07:30
And then, so why can’t we just plop a case right onto the doorsteps of the Supreme Court, I can just see us walking down there through the Washington mall area, and we bring our big textbooks, our big cases, and we just plop them on the front doorsteps of the Supreme Court and go here, this thing is unconstitutional, make it unconstitutional.

Larry 07:49
But wouldn’t that be great if you could do that, but the Supreme Court is not a court of original subject matter jurisdiction with exception of a few things I’m not smart enough to explain. But there are some things that the Supreme Court would be a court that would take evidence on. That would be like conflicts between the states. There are certain things that that go directly to the Supreme Court as original subject matter. But the Supreme Court is the final appellate tribunal, which means that the case has been filed below at a trial court. And it has gone through all the appellate process if it’s a state case. It has gone through the state court system, and it’s gone through the highest tribunal of the state. And then at that point, if it’s a state court denial, if the party feels aggrieved by the decision and the highest tribunal in the state court, that they can file what’s called a petition for cert. They can do that in the US Supreme Court and they grant about 100 or 150-something. They don’t grant that many. They just don’t hear that many cases because nine old geezers and the complexity of litigation today it’s kind of hard to, unless they were working 24 hours a day, seven days a week, there’s just not that many cases they can review. And it’s dropped precipitously over the decades. They used to hear about double the number of cases that they hear now.

Andy 09:04
You used a jargon word a second ago. You said cert. And that’s certiorari or something like that?

Larry 09:09
Certiorari. That means that they’re agreeing to hear the case. It doesn’t mean that they have an opinion necessarily. It means four justices out of the nine have agreed that this is something we should take a look at. And they may, of the four, have different reasons. Everybody says oh, well that means we’ve got four votes already. No, that doesn’t mean that at all. Because you could have had four justices, four different reasons decided that they would like to hear the case.

Andy 09:41
But Larry, we all know that the registry is unconstitutional, why aren’t there civil rights attorneys knocking on pick your advocacy group that you want to fill in? Why aren’t they knocking on the doors to help rally these causes and champion them and strike them down?

Larry 09:57
Well, first of all, I don’t know what that refers to the registry is unconstitutional because we don’t know. It has not been established that the registries are unconstitutional. In fact, it’s been established just the opposite. The registry is very constitutional. Last time the US Supreme Court looked at it in 2003, they said, registration as it existed in Alaska at that time was very much constitutional. There have been some subsequent decisions, where, because of the enhancements and all the add-ons, that there have been things that have been problematic in terms of the registry, and they have declared various components of the registration schemes around the country unconstitutional. Recently the state of South Carolina State Supreme Court said that lifetime registration without any due process is unconstitutional. That’s not the same thing as saying that the registry is unconstitutional. That’s saying that, if you’re going to put everyone, categorically, required to register for life and they don’t have any opportunity to be heard or reviewed, that’s unconstitutional. But you can’t extrapolate from that that the registers are unconstitutional. No Court has said that the registry is unconstitutional.

Andy 11:04
Can you give me some examples of constitutional registries? Not in the framework of being a PFR registry, but just registries period?

Larry 11:11
We just register so many things. I mean, most people will come back and say, well, Larry, you don’t understand. Those things are voluntary. You don’t have to do those. Yes, I understand that, with one exception. Young men, aged 18 to 26. They don’t have a choice. They’re required to register for the draft. And if anything would be unconstitutional based on gender, that would be unconstitutional. I don’t know if there’s been such a challenge made. But there’s a clear gender bias that only males have to register. I don’t even know how cuz we’re gonna inevitably going to have someone say that they’re gender fluid, that their birth certificate is no longer accurate. And therefore, they’re exempted from registration. That’s going to inevitably happen if it hasn’t already.

Andy 11:54
I haven’t thought about that one Larry. I hadn’t even thought about that. But okay, I see that coming. I see where you’re going.

Larry 12:00
Draft registration is not unconstitutional. Merely putting people on a list, requiring them to list themselves is not unconstitutional. What makes the registry for sexual offenders so unconstitutional is it’s a disguised way to impose punishment and continual monitoring and tracking and disabilities. It’s disguised as a civil regulatory scheme. That’s what makes it unconstitutional. But those are the things you have to argue you can’t just argue to the registry. The mere act of registration is unconstitutional because the mere act of registration is not unconstitutional. When we talk about constitutionality, there’s facial unconstitutionality and there’s as applied unconstitutionality. Facial unconstitutionality refers to there’s no set of circumstances by which you could have anything along that line operate constitutionally. There are sets of circumstances by which you could have a sexual offender registry that would operate quite constitutionally. We don’t have very many of them in existence right now in this country. But there are easily I could design a registry that would be constitutional. It’s just silly to say that the registry is unconstitutional. The registry as it exists in most states is unconstitutional. But the mere act of registering, if I just simply snapped your picture on conviction date, and said, we have written down your offense, title here, your date of conviction, and your photograph, you’re now registered, your name will be entered in a registry. Go on and have a great life. That would not be an unconstitutional registry, there would be no disabilities or restraints, there would be no requirements imposed on you to do any continuous follow up reporting. There would be no information gathered that was not a part of the original conviction, which is what they said when they decided Smith versus Doe. They said this is just merely an assimilation of what was public at the time, but what they assemble now is not what was public at the time. It totally has nothing to do with the conviction. But if they merely did that, that would be a constitutional registry.

Andy 13:55
Um, you did it again, with some jargon. You said disabilities and restraints. Where does that come from?

Larry 14:00
Well, it comes from the Smith versus Doe, US Supreme Court decision. They said they’re specifically the reason why they held that Alaska’s registration requirements were constitutional is because it did not impose any disabilities restraints, meaning that people could live where they wanted, work where they wanted to, traveled as they pleased and did not impair their life in any way. That it is merely a recitation of the facts. That’s no longer what a registry is. It’s no longer merely a resuscitation of the facts. When a young man registers for the draft, that’s all it is. It’s merely a resuscitate- a recitation. Not a resuscitation. Hopefully you don’t need resuscitation. It’s a recitation of the facts. It’s a fact, hopefully, when you file your registration, that your name is what you say it is, and you’re living where you say you are, and your communications – I think they gather now electronic communications and stuff in advance. When they need to contact you for mobilization, all they’re doing is collecting that information. But they don’t tell you, now you can’t move. You can’t travel. You can do anything you want to as a young man while you’re registered for the draft.

Andy 15:02
The piece of that that I was asking for was the Supreme Court case that brought that term. I think that’s where you have referenced it, I believe. What was the court case?

Larry 15:12
Many, many times, the Smith versus Doe, the infamous case out of US Supreme Court.

Andy 15:18
But the Kennedy Mendoza thing is the disabilities and restraints.

Larry 15:21
that is one of the components but in the Smith versus Doe, where they actually used that test. That’s where it came. “We found this registry requirement to be constitutional.” And they specifically said, because it doesn’t impose any disabilities or restraints. That’s the biggest takeaway from that case. If you folks will quit filing for summary judgment. And you’ll actually build an evidentiary record in a trial court below, which may cost you a little bit of money, which is part of what we fight, not having enough money. But if you’ll actually build an evidentiary record with experts showing the disabilities and restraints and how debilitating these things are, in terms of your life, we might could win these cases because the Supreme Court didn’t say you can do anything you want to. They said you can do what Alaska is doing. That’s the issue that was before them.

Andy 16:07
And finally, Larry, you know that the recidivism rate is so low. It’s like 3 to 5%. Shouldn’t that be enough to bring that to a legislator and go, Hey, dumb-dumb, don’t do this because it doesn’t make any sense?

Larry 16:21
No, it isn’t enough.

Andy 16:25
Why isn’t it enough? Wouldn’t we want policies based on evidence? I mean, shouldn’t all policies be based on evidence?

Larry 16:31
Well, that’s the famous ‘should be’ versus ‘is be.’ Do you actually think all of our public policies are based on evidence? (Andy: They should be.) That’s ‘should be’ versus ‘is be.’

Andy 16:44
So we can throw mountains and mountains of evidence on them that these things don’t work and why would a politician then continue to support it and be in favor of having registries? And by golly, all the 50 states try to make things worse every year, every legislative session. But there’s evidence that say they don’t, but why do they keep doing it?

Larry 17:06
Because we live in a democratic society where the will of the people carries an enormous amount of weight. And the will of the people right now is that we are going to have sexual offender registries. They’re very popular. They’re what people want, and the people get what they want. And that’s what the people want. And it would be politically very disastrous, often suicidal if you were to oppose registering. You would become in your state, if you were proposed to dismantle the registry, the registry as we’re talking about for PFRs, there would be an influx… you’d be vilified and you’d lose your election. I don’t care if you’re in the most liberal part of a state. That’s not a sustainable political position.

Andy 17:46
Hmm, I think you win this one. So we will move on, Larry. I will try and challenge you another day and try and beat you down and make you see my way of thinking. Okay? (Larry: Sure.) We received a voicemail message from Brian, who is from New York, and he talks very New York-ish. But here we go from Brian.
Brian (Voicemail) 18:05
Good morning, or afternoon, whenever you pick this up, or evening. This is Brian, how are you, from New York. I just wanted to say that last podcast was excellent. You will gain another membership shortly. I’m just trying to make enough money to raise and to at least be a Patreon for a while. And I loved it. It was almost the opposite of when you had that other guy on who you were trying to convince that the registry was doing damage and things. That podcast made me frustrated and angry because I think you guys missed a lot of points. And it also sounded like he was set in stone about, you know, the registry was good. And all this stuff and I was really frustrated at that last one. But this one was excellent. Something that you know, I do believe I will not go [to the EU], but I would like to go. I’m just a little bit older. And I don’t know if I had any such skills to transfer over there. But I would go because we know what’s going on here in United States: the vilification, tough to get employment and living places is very, very difficult. And it sounds like with a lot of the population, it’s getting worse. And fyp, have a good day.

Andy 19:30
Larry, he said he’s a little bit older, and that may prevent him from considering going over there. You’re a little bit older and you’re also sort of thinking that you shouldn’t go over there.

Larry 19:40
Well, there’s no one alive as old as I am. So I doubt he’s…

Andy 19:46
Thank you for hitting the soft ball that I gave you.

Larry 19:48
I doubt he’s my age, but I get his point. As you age, you don’t you don’t think that it’s going to be easy to transition, to make such a dramatic transition. And he’s a little bit leery about his being able to support himself, I’m sure.

Andy 20:06
On the other part about we were talking about it a little bit in pre-show about the TJump episode where we were trying to have a discussion on a different platform about the registry. I didn’t really get the impression that he was just so on board with it, only until we he got kind of cornered. And he was like, Well, in that case, yes, I do support it. But I think in general, he was more so in our camp than not. That he saw that it was ineffective and didn’t serve a whole lot of purpose and benefit.

Larry 20:34
He did say that. He did say both. He said it was ineffective. But he also said that he didn’t have any problem it violating the Constitution, which was greatly troubling to me that he makes such a statement. If that’s your position, then we really don’t have a way to prevail with you. Because if something’s for a worthy enough cause, you don’t care about the Constitution, and I do care about the Constitution. I believe in in all aspects of the Constitution. I don’t carry a gun. I believe that everybody has a right to at least carry some sort of firearm because that’s what the Constitution says. And I can’t pick and choose what parts of the Constitution I like. If you truly are believer in the Constitution, you believe in all of it. I believe in religious rights. I believe in the Freedom from Religion as well. I believe a lot of things that people are inconsistent about. I don’t want to cram any religious belief off on anyone, push anything on them, but I will defend their right. I defend people’s right to protest. I don’t care if I agree with their message. I don’t care if it’s politically correct. There was an episode I think in ‘77 in Skokie, Illinois with the KKK and the ACLU actually defended their right to protest. I doubt they would do that today. Because they would be under a lot of political pressure from their donor base, that they have to be a little more PC than they were back then. But I would defend the KKK’s right to peaceably assemble. You can’t pick and choose the Constitution. You either believe in all aspects of it, or you work to amend and change it. I believe in the Constitution. And anything that I don’t believe in, if I’m not willing to work to change that, to amend the Constitution, I have to accept it, don’t you?

Andy 22:10
I was just gonna relay what Brian in Louisiana said. If you don’t believe in a part of the Constitution, there’s a mechanism to change it. Perfect.

Larry 22:18
Yep, that’s exactly my feeling. But in the meantime, whether or not I personally would carry a weapon, that’s not relevant. I do believe that, as Justice Scalia said in the clip we’ve played more than once, that there would be limits on what weapons a person can own. We don’t know where those limits are, because the right case has to come up to establish those limits. But clearly, the right to bear arms is not an absolute right. Scalia has said that. I agree with that.

Andy 22:48
I thought you were going to say constitutional but stupid.

Larry 22:51
There’s one thing that’s different about the Ex Post Facto Clause, it doesn’t have any wiggle room. If it’s an imposition of criminal penalties, it is an absolute. There’s a bar against any penalty, any punishment that was not available to be imposed at the time of the commission of the Act. That is not negotiable. There’s no wiggle room. There’s wiggle room in the first amendment in terms you can’t say fire in a crowded theater. But there is no wiggle room, folks. Do you believe in the Ex Post Facto Clause or don’t you?

Andy 23:24
I gotcha. Let’s move over Larry, to I got I’ve got one to be read here. You ready for it to be read?

Larry 23:32
Yes, it’s not that long. But yes.

Andy 23:36
Thank you for the transcripts. Although they were the answers disappointing to my questions. They were not surprising. What was surprising was your legal counsel, Larry, assumed that I was in prison, I could not afford an attorney gor this type of crime. I’m 65 years young. I’ve had a very profitable 30 years as a restaurant and bakery owner and operator. I retired in 2000. I have spent over $100,000 on these so-called expert attorneys and got nothing. A jailhouse lawyer got me a win from for me by identifying my case was not a capital crime. Let me worry about the money part and give me a name and address of this or these expert lawyers dealing with these complex issues such as mine. The nature of my case was described in my first letter. So Larry, you stuff it, because this guy’s got cash.

Larry 24:34
Well, that’s what I did. I tried to figure out how to pick that cash out of his pocket. So I contacted an attorney. And we’re sending them out. But seriously, I did refer him to an attorney in Florida. And hopefully they’ll connect, and he can interview the attorney to the extent you can from the position he may find himself in. But I did do that. And I will make a subsequent referral if he’s not happy with the response he gets. But it is reasonable to assume that most people in prison don’t have a lot of money. But anytime you generalize you, end up with… it would have been helpful if he would have said I’m ready to retain an attorney and pay for an attorney. If that had been included in the communication, usually there’s either the implication of pro bono, or they just simply don’t say anything. And we assumed that. And he put into his letter, I think he put something to effect that they didn’t have the guts. And guts is not usually the situation. It’s usually one of two things. They don’t have a credible cause of action. And the attorney would possibly be sanctioned and disciplined for bringing something that lacks any merit and any possibility of success because it’s already foreclosed by existing case law, or they don’t have funding for the complexity of the challenge that’s going to drag on for years. That’s usually what it is. But in this case, he apparently has the money. So let’s hope he goes for it.

Andy 25:57
Okay, moving over to one from one of our patrons. Larry, I think I looked it up. I think it’s three years that this individual has been a patron. Thank you so very much. Hello, Larry. And Andy, you mentioned something about being leveled. And I know someone in Ohio that got their registration changed from tier two to tier one. Can you explain how that works? Also, does each state determine which crimes go in which tier because I see a lot of inconsistency in that. Thank you. I’m a patron that listens every week. Yes, 2018, sometime in there. Thank you, Patty, really, really appreciate it. You’re wonderful.

Larry 26:33
Well, there’s a lot of confusion between tiers and leveling, and I’ll try to make it as succinct and clear as possible. Leveling refers to a process by which there’s an assessment of the individual and their characteristics and the likelihood that they would offend again in the future. That is a system in place in Arkansas and many states. Not a majority, but several states have a system by which they assign a person a specific risk level that they pose to the community. In the case of Arkansas, if your level one or two, if you’re risk level one or two, you’re not displayed on the internet. That’s one of your fringe benefits of being a low-risk offender. When we talk about tiers, that’s a part of the Adam Walsh Act recommendation to the States. They have recommended that the that the states adopt a tier system, which is I refer to as a categorical approach. That means if you look at the state statute, it’ll say if you have been convicted of this list of offenses, you’re tier one. If you’ve been convicted of this list of offenses, your tier two. If you’ve been convicted of this level of offence, you’re tier three. That’s the categorical approach, because it didn’t look at you and your risk, it looked at what you did. And it doesn’t change. The offense you did does not change. So the only thing that would change your tier level would be if the statute, if the categorical approach was changed, where they either abandoned it, or they put them in a tier two where they were previously in tier three, which is commonly what happened. Many offenses are put in tier three that really aren’t required under the federal recommendations to be a tier three. Example: In New Mexico, any possession of child porn is lifetime. Now we don’t have the tier system, but it’s a lifetime requirement. But that’s not recommended to be a lifetime requirement by the feds. You don’t have to categorize that under your tier structure as a lifetime offense. States do. That’s okay with the feds if you go more than what’s required. So that’s a whole different thing than a leveling system. Now, your tier system creates a problem when you move from state to state because if you move from one state, they first have to figure out what your offense translates to. So you may have been a tier two in one state and the categorical approach in the next state, if they have the tiers, you may be a tier three. And that’s their prerogative to do that as well. Now you might have a process by which you can argue that you shouldn’t be a tier three, that they didn’t interpret the translation correctly. But that’s gonna require the expertise of an attorney and probably a court hearing to challenge that. But in terms of if your conviction came within the state to start with, if it’s an in-state conviction, that tier system is in your lawbook. It’ll list where you would fall in the tier system, you don’t need to have any fancy analysis, it’ll be right there in the statute.

Andy 29:44
With what you were just describing, if you move across the two different states, there’s even differences in the language. The one that just comes to my mind is “substantially similar” or “equivalent.” There’s different legal language that would even try to give you a guide on how to translate it.

Larry 30:00
That’s correct. In many of the states they have language that is “substantially similar.” In our case, we have equivalent, which is a stronger standard for the offender. The substantially similar allows a little bit more latitude because they can say “Well, it is pretty similar.” In our state, they can’t say, “Well, it is pretty similar.” They have to say this would be the equivalent if you had done this conduct here. Equivalent is fairly, fairly strict in terms of what conduct you did that would constitute a sexual offense in our state. But yes, if you’re in a tier system in one state, there could be some problems in trying to figure out what tier you would belong to because you wouldn’t be on that state’s categorical list. Now, a state could overcome that if they wanted to by saying that they would tier you consistent with the state that you came from. So, if they have such a tier system, they could put in their statute that you will be registered here at the same care level of the state. That gets very complicated in and of itself, because all states don’t have tiers. So anything you do, since there is no national and federal registry, anything you do is complex. It’s complicated because of the 50 separate sovereigns.

Andy 31:17
I was just gonna bring that up, because I don’t think just generally Americans realize that we are 50 independent little countries that each operate their own… I know within some like sort of bottom level framework. But the speed limits are different, health care insurance. That was a big thing with Obamacare was being able to sell insurance across state lines. Like if you live in Augusta, Georgia, you are 10 feet from South Carolina, why can’t you buy insurance from someone in South Carolina? It’s a different country, so to speak. And I don’t think that Americans generally appreciate the magnitude that that has.

Larry 31:53
They don’t. But I hope that answered the patron’s question. (Andy: I hope so.) We have a lot of confusion about tiers and leveling. And to me, it’s doesn’t seem as complicated. But it turns out that it is very complicated.

Andy 32:07
I think the words are similar enough, Larry, that people think that well, a level and a tier, like they’re similar. But in this particular context, they are not even remotely the same. Well, let’s move on to a question. This is literally question number one, as you put it, but obviously, it’s number two, because Patti just asked a question. Says, Dear NARSOL personnel, obviously, we have a relationship with NASOL where we pull and push some information back and forth. I am sending the $9 to order your magazine. I also have a few questions if you could help me. Is California doing away with the PFR registration stuff? Do you want to just [answer], like that’s easy Larry? (Larry: No, they’re not.) No, they’re not. Okay. Number two, could you send me the requirements for Oregon and California? I don’t have access to the Wikipedia page here and need this info for registration in these states for my parole plans?

Andy 33:03
Do you want to stick with that for a second?

Larry 33:05
I can send those. What I will do is I talked to him about the Klaas Foundation website. And they have a summary. I can’t send you the statute, they can be 30,40, 50, 60 pages. And that’s just not economically feasible. But I can until this becomes too large of a request. I mean, we’re gonna get more and the more we do it, the more were receive. But I can send I can send from the Klaas Foundation’s website, what they say is what the requirements are for Oregon and California. We’ll do that.

Andy 33:37
All right. And then finally, it says I asked in my last letter, which states are most kind to or open minded to individuals who are PFRs. Please send me this info as I am at a loss without it. Family is elderly and cannot work a computer. I hope that since I’m ordering your publications, you might see that I’m not just a freeloader looking for info at your expense. I value your time and effort. I know information is not free. Thank you for your time and effort and God bless.

Larry 34:07
And that one we cannot do and we could do it except we won’t do it. Because if you understand how prisons operate, everything is scanned and retained. And NARSOL is an organization and even FYP Education is organization. We don’t support and assist people with state shopping because all we would do would be make those states that are a little bit less hostile, more hostile once it got back that we were recommending that you got to those states. So that we’re not able to do.

Andy 34:37
Gotcha .All right, question number two. Larry, I like this one a lot. This one’s fun. And I’m going to have a little rant with this one. Says dear Andy and Larry, I have a question regarding the BOP’s, the Bureau of Prison’s power in determining risk-relevant materials. Why is it in BOP SOMP yard, no idea what this means Larry, manga books as a whole have a blanket ban even if it shows nothing remotely sexual, let alone pornographic. Who makes such determinations for the BOP as a whole and can they even be locally challenged on a first amendment basis? Larry, what in the world does SOMP yard mean?

Larry 35:22
Well, since we learned in pre-show banter what it means, but otherwise I wouldn’t have known at the time I read this letter: Sex Offender Management Program.

Andy 35:31
And then yards. Yards is being like a dorm. I had no idea. Someone helped me out. I really appreciate it. Don’t send us jargon. Like please spell some stuff out. Like I’ve never heard of this one before.

Larry 35:42
I’ve heard the term yard before, but I’ve never thought of prison as being a yard. But I’ve heard that regularly that apparently you sleep in yards, maybe I’m not sure.

Andy 35:51
I’ve just never- like yard call. Go outside and go work on the barn and play basketball or whatever. I’ve never heard of a yard being a dorm and someone writes in the chat says yard equals prison. Says no, it’s just slang for prison. Got me, man. So anyway, so sex offender management program yards, or dorms or prisons themselves. I understand now the question that’s being asked. So who determines what material is appropriate or not? This sounds very similar to me, Larry, where Georgia prisons wouldn’t allow you to have like Dungeons and Dragons games, because you’re going to invoke deities and whatnot. But I was like, what in the hell is y’all people’s problem?

Larry 36:30
I can give an answer. But it’s not going to be one that most people will like. The federal prison system has evolved a lot. But it’s still very decentralized, even though there is a bureau of prisons with a headquarters in Washington, DC, and it’s overseen by the Department of Justice so the attorney general is technically in charge of the Bureau of Prisons. But what happens, I think, into the 1930s. And people, we have so many people in the audience right now, they can research me on this, I think in the 1930s, that they created The Bureau of Prisons. Prior to that there was no bureau. There was a couple of federal penitentiaries. And they were funded as a separate line item in the budget. But as more growth was occurring and more people were being incarcerated, they decided they needed a prison system, and they created the bureau of prisons. But even with that, administrative office in DC, these prisons were all across the country. It’s not like a chain of Wendy’s stores where there’s a group manager that oversees them that pops in unexpectedly at all hours and time. The bureau of prisons are largely isolated. You just can’t walk into them. So members of Congress just can’t come rolling in at will, going into a secured facility that way. So there’s always advanced warning that people are coming. So I think that a lot of these decisions, even though they have guidelines about prohibitive material… they have policies, they have lots of policies on the BOP website. But the decision maker is generally the warden and the warden’s senior staff. And some wardens are going to be very representative of the states where these prisons are locate. They pick them from the community. They don’t import them usually from the outside. So you’ll find a warden that’s working in a prison that grew up somewhere in that in that part of the country. If you’re manager for a Kroger store, you might end up being in Atlanta and you you’re from Valdosta, but they may put you in a whole different division. But oftentimes those people work where they live, and where they’ve grown up. And the attitudes are different in different regions of the country. So some wardens are tougher. The administration offices within that particular prison are tougher, and they interpret things differently within those policies, and they say we’re going to restrict more reading material. The only way we’ll know that you’ve gone too far would be if someone files a challenge. They go through the grievance, exhaust their internal grievance, and they file a court challenge.

Andy 39:02
Brian in chat: this is the beauty of having people that have been in all these different scenarios. The national SOMP program decides and issues guidelines to the individual prisons. The reason that manga anime often features children in adult situations, and even if nonsexual, is inappropriate for PFRs, most of whose offenses involve children. Maybe. I don’t know. You can’t blanket all of manga to be that way. I don’t think maybe. So, all right. I think the person is stuck.

Larry 39:38
Well, without legal action, they’re stuck because you’re gonna have to file the grievance process. Exhaust that. And then you’re going to have to find legal counsel that’s willing to undertake the cause. Generally speaking, for a person who has limited or no money with exception of the letter we just talked about, but generally speaking with a person who has little or no funding, and it’s just not that practical to do the litigation, so you end up with no forward progress.

Andy 40:04
Very good. Question number three, which is number four. Dear Mr. Larry and Mr. Andy, thank you, thank you very much for the excellent information from Episode 195, the River interview. I have hope once again, as well as many questions. Is there an address, PO Box I could write to, to contact River? Um, I can sum up most of these questions, just look for his website. It is a Common Sense Laws. And if you type in that and River, and/or Steve Whitsett, you will totally find anything about him. So his website is Common Sense Laws that’ll get you all of that information. As far as direct contact information, I don’t have that that I can easily give out to you for that. And then the third question is, is there any possible way you could send me a transcript of the bonus 30 to 40 minutes, I don’t think we can do that. Do you wanna explain that one Larry?

Larry 41:00
We had concerns about doing that because of some of the factors that were involved in his movement out of the country. We don’t want the prison sensors to blacklist us from being able to get our material into the prison. We’re trying to help you. But if we were banned, we’re not going to be able to help you. And prisons have great latitude in terms of what material they can censor, if they can cite any security concern for both their personnel and for the other inmates. Their job is to keep people safe and keep the institution secure. And we respect that. We understand it’s a tough job to manage a prison. And if they can cite to something that’s going to cause them any security or management concerns, they can ban that material. So we just don’t feel like we can send that to inside the institution. So we’re really sorry about that. I believe Andy, that there is more to their letter that we will discuss next time, right?

Andy 41:52
Yes. Although next time will be the conference so the episode after. And I agree. Very sorry. It was a very entertaining interview. But no, I don’t think we can send that inside. Sorry about that. And then over to question number four. It says, Dear Andy, and Larry, thank you so much for doing your podcast, it means so much. I’m currently incarcerated in Illinois and your podcasts are helping me feel prepared for when I released and have to register for life. I just read that you sent the laws, rules and regulations out for Illinois. Can you please send me a copy of those? Also, is it true in all states, I am no longer able to have children because I’m a PFR? This is coming from a woman. Larry, I’m going to go with no, I can’t imagine that they would restrict a woman from actually like having kids. They might restrict who you can have a relationship with, but they’re not going to restrict that you can actually give birth. Fair?

Larry 42:42
I’m not aware of any state that says you can’t give birth. But it never ceases to amaze me at some stuff that I didn’t know about. But I’m not aware of that. Now, I have heard that until you receive clearance, for example, a person who has been in prison. And they did have children while they’re on the street before they went to prison, that they need clearance and approval to have access to their children again, which I’ve had great trepidation about the constitutionality of that. But they, as far as saying you can’t have children, I’ve never heard that. I don’t know how they would enforce that. I would love to see a petition to revoke probation, specific allegation: condition that a person is not allowed to have children. Probation officer became aware that that probationer became pregnant. Therefore, seeking revocation. I would just love to see that petition.

Andy 43:41
Again, so even people saying in chat, like they could see you have them restricting who you have a relationship with. But once you were like, Hey, I’m pregnant. Like who’s the dad? I can’t imagine them having any jurisdiction over saying that you’ve done something that you can’t do and lock you up for being in a state of being pregnant.

Larry 44:07
I don’t believe that would be something that they can do. But we have to admit that we’re shocked all the time. They come up with new stuff. The behavioral contract in New Mexico grows longer and longer and longer.

Andy 44:21
What controls that? Is that legislative or is that just your handlers?

Larry 44:25
That’s the administrative division of the Department of Corrections, probation/parole division. They sit around in staff meetings and think of new things to put in the behavioral contract and they expand it every year.

Andy 44:36
Is this the delegation thing? What’s the word when the administrative office is the executive branch that they are given their framework, but they go to decide how to implement? What’s the word I’m thinking?

Larry 44:50
All supervising authorities have conditions of supervision. But for a PFR supervision, they have specific contracts that they tell you you can’t do this, you can’t do that. So you’ll have your conditions that come from the court. But then the probation people impose their own conditions and they do that here with a contract. And the behavioral contract grows exponentially. You can’t, for example, you can’t rent a hotel room without prior approval. You can’t have a storage facility because you might go hide something. All that’s in the behavioral contract.

Andy 45:27
Remind me. We had a court case, Larry, where they were talking about the delegation. What was that case a couple years back?

Larry 45:35
I don’t remember the name of it, but this is not the same thing.

Andy 45:39
Okay. Okay. That’s my question. Okay.

Are you a first-time listener of Registry Matters? Well, then make us a part of your daily routine and subscribe today. Just search for Registry Matters through your favorite podcast app. Hit the subscribe button and you’re off to the races. You can now enjoy hours of sarcasm and snark from Andy and Larry on a weekly basis. Oh, and there’s some excellent information thrown in there too. Subscribing also encourages others of you people to get on the bandwagon and become regular Registry Matters listeners. So, what are you waiting for? Subscribe to Registry Matters right now. Help us keep fighting and continue to say FYP.

Andy 46:32
I think Larry, we can then move over to this this whole big shebang that you put in here for the case out of Georgia. Was there anything you wanted to do before we hit this?

Larry 46:40
I think not. This case from Georgia is fascinating. Where did you find this?

Andy 46:46
One of my people sent it to you people and then we have crafted everything since that point about that.

Larry 46:54
Right? Well, it was an interesting case. And I think people will like it, but they won’t like some things that I say that we talk about. But it is a great case in terms of how we can help people to understand what you can do while you’re under supervision. That’s the whole reason this case is being talked about in depth because everybody says Packingham, Packingham, Packingham. Well, we’re gonna find out about Packingham.

Andy 47:17
Alright, well, this case is named Rutledge versus State and I assume that state is Georgia. For the legal junkies it is 861S.E.2d 793 What is that, Larry? Is that second edition? That can’t be second edition.

Larry 47:32
If you were going into the old fashioned Law Library, there would be reporters, each region of the country has a reporter. So Georgia’s in the southeast region. So that would be southeastern reporter. So you’d go look on the shelves until you went to volume 861 of the southeastern reporter, the second edition. That means that they’re in the second edition of the southeastern reporter, because the country’s kind of old. Some are even on 3d. You see third edition. So you’d go to volume 861 of the second edition, and you would turn to page 793. And you would see this case would appear there.

Andy 48:09
Okay. And then the Court of Appeals of Georgia, and I’ve read every word of this decision, Larry and I’m intrigued about the ruling. Rutledge proceeded pro se and pro se means what Larry? (Larry: Without an attorney.) Okay. And I know how you hate pro se litigation because you claim that pro se litigants are often guilty of creating bad case law. Is that what happened here Larry?

Larry 48:33
Well you are correct that I frequently caution against pro se litigation because of the danger of bad case law. However, in this case, I’m not sure that the outcome would have been any different had he been represented.

Andy 48:46
Well, let me read the basic facts of the case. The facts as proffered by the state of Rutledge’s plea hearing were as follows. In August of 2007, the Twiggs County Sheriff’s Department conducted a sting operation to apprehend sexual predators who targeted children on the internet with the assistance of Perverted Justice, a private organization. Hahaha, named their organization Perverted Justice. As part of the sting operation, an adult working with Perverted Justice posed as a 13 year old girl in an internet chat room. Rutledge initiated communication with the adult posing as the underage girl and had several conversations with her. During their online conversations, Rutledge sent her numerous pornographic images and solicited different kinds of acts. Rutledge also arranged to meet her for more acts at a location near the interstate in Twiggs County on August 9th of 2007. But he was arrested when he arrived there. Investigators obtained a search warrant for his computer and found the internet chat logs reflecting his conversations with the adult posing as the young girl, as well as images of Rutledge’s junk. Gee Larry, that sounds exactly like what we’re discussing with TJump on episode 191. As I recall, you weren’t a big fan of sting operations. So I suppose it’s okay to do what Rutledge did with who he believed was to be a 13 year old girl?

Larry 50:15
Well, therein lies the problem. Based on what we have, in the way of facts in this court decision, it’s not clear that the officer posing as a 13-year-old girl began the chat being a 13-year-old, we don’t know that. But it has been my experience that the officer pivots from being a minor initially. I mean pivots from being an adult to being a minor later in the chat after having an adult profile in the beginning. If that is what occurred, I oppose that type of sting operation. If, on the other hand, the officer set up a profile of a 13-year-old, and she was approached by an adult, I have no problem with that type of prosecution, which is what I said on the TJump program. But I tried to explain to the guests that that’s not the way they do it in United States. These people morph from being adults to minors after they’ve had some level of conversation with the person who has an adult profile. That’s my concern.

Andy 51:12
Then in January of 2008, Rutledge was indicted for criminal attempt to commit aggravated CM. Rutledge entered a negotiated plea of guilty under North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U. S. 25, 91 S.Ct. 160, 27 L.Ed.2d 162 (1970). Larry, I can’t read these things.

Larry 51:30
Just skip it. Yeah. Okay. Everybody knows that case. So skip it.

Andy 51:36
Yeah, you’re looking for North Carolina versus Alford in 1970. Rutledge was sentenced to 25 years, with the first 10 in confinement and the remainder on probation. I have heard the term Alford plea. Did Rutledge enter into an Alford plea and if so, what is an Alford plea?

Larry 51:54
An Alford plea is different from a plea of no contest and nolo contendere, which those are the same. The Alford plea permits the person to say that they’re innocent, but they go ahead and do the offered plea because it’s an interest. So they say I’m innocent, but they acknowledge that the prosecution has the evidence that would convict them if they were to go to trial.

Andy 52:17
I see. Rutledge was sentenced to 25 years with the first 10 years in confinement. When they say confinement, Larry, do they just mean within prison? Or do they mean like solitary confinement? (Andy: They mean just prison.) Okay, okay. Okay, cuz I’m like Damn, that would be harsh. And then the remainder on probation. The conditions of Rutledge’s probation included a certain special condition applicable to PFRs, including condition eight that provided: you shall not possess or subscribe to any sexually oriented or sexually stimulating material to include mail, computer television, nor patronize any place where such material or entertainment is available. And that is PFR condition number eight. Rutledge’s probation also included special computer related conditions of probation, including condition number two that provided: probationers must obtain prior written approval from the supervising probation officer or designee to use an electronic bulletin board system, services that provide access to the internet or any public or private computer network. That is computer condition number two. This sounds like a really harsh sentence compared to someone with similar offenses who just gets probation. Why did he get a 25-year sentence do you think?

Larry 53:30
Well, before I answer that, I’d like to mention that from what you are saying there, it appears that this is a standard condition of supervision for PFRs, at least in that jurisdiction in Georgia. But as we go through this interview, you’ll see why that is so important because of the unique characteristics of Rutledge. But he was he was sentenced in Twiggs County, Georgia, which is a very conservative law and order place slap in the middle, I think it’s practically the geographic center of Georgia. (Andy: Just to the east of Macon.) Yeah. In addition, it’s a lightly populated place with around 10,000. In 1910 they had 10,000 people; 2021 they have 8000 people. They have lost 20% of population in the last 110 years. But the place is around 10,000 which means they don’t see a lot of crime and when they do, they want to send a message. That’s just the way it is in a small place like that. And unfortunately for Mr. Rutledge, he was not a local with any ties to Twiggs County, which created the perfect opportunity for them to be really harsh because he did not have anyone to ask to intercede on his behalf.

Andy 54:49
And then it seems very similar to one of our patrons who has a case in Cook County and you said something similar to me about him not having any favors to call in. Is that what you mean?

Larry 54:58
That is exactly what I mean. When you’re an outsider, they hometown down you. Because when you’re in a small jurisdiction, there’s so many people who know everybody. When think about an entire county having 8000, 10000 people can tell some people. Well, everybody’s gonna know of someone who knows that person. It’s just the reality of a county of that size. When you’re in a county that size, you say, what about such and such a person? Yeah, I know his family. You might not know that person individually. But that provides an opportunity for there to be a request for leniency and for pressure to be applied. When you’re from outside of one of these small, tight knit communities, that’s the perfect storm because you don’t have anyone to ask to help. So this is precisely indeed what I mean by a person outside the community is an ideal candidate for very harsh treatment.

Andy 55:52
Rutledge’s PO filed a petition to modify or revoke his probation for violating PFR condition number eight and the computer condition number two. The probation officer alleged that Rutledge had several pornographic images on his cell phone. These sounds very, very, very familiar, Larry. And accessed the internet without permission in order to post and respond to online advertisements for casual sexual encounters. In December of 2017, after conducting a hearing, the trial court found that Rutledge had violated the special conditions of his probation. The trial court revoked part of Rutledge’s probation sentence requiring him to serve five additional years in confinement and then serve the remaining time of his probation under the original conditions of a sentence. I’m guessing that Rutledge did not like the additional five years, thus the appeal.

Larry 56:43
You are correct. He did not seem to like the additional five years. In December 2019, Rutledge filed pro se a motion to modify the terms of his condition, the conditions of supervised release, intending that sex offender condition, eight and computer condition two unconstitutionally restricted his free speech rights. And that as a result, these conditions should be removed from his probationary sentence. The following year in September 2020, he filed an additional pro se motion to vacate and void the sentence asserting the sentence was void because there was no section 42-8-37.1 in the official code of Georgia, OCGA, as referenced in the final disposition sheet. None of that did anything for him. In November 2020, the trial court issued a single order that denied both of his motions saying that the sentence was void, and the conditions were void, that which resulted in the present appeal.

Andy 57:42
In his appeal, Larry, Rutledge contended that the trial court erred in failing to modify the conditions of his probation to strike sex offender condition number eight and computer condition number two. Special condition two, related to the use of computer, it sounds like Packingham him to me, Larry, does it not?

Larry 58:00
Well it does, but it doesn’t. That is what he argued. Unfortunately, he did not prevail with that argument. The Court of Appeals, this is the Georgia court appeals, noted that probation is a matter of grace upon the granting of which conditions may be imposed. And a person occupies a special status while on probation, during which time his private life and behavior may be regulated by the state to an extent that would be completely untenable under ordinary circumstances. Which you’ve heard me say that repeatedly on this podcast. You don’t have the same rights when you’re being punished as you as an ordinary citizen.

Andy 58:40
Very much on the Fourth Amendment side of things where they can just come in and toss your stuff and look around whenever they want to. Um, you’ve pontificated about conditions of supervision can be very broad and intrusive, provided they are specifically tailored to the offenders conduct and not just indiscriminately applied to everyone with a PFR type offense.

Larry 59:03
I have indeed said that many times. And that’s the troubling part of this case. It does appear that these conditions are indiscriminately imposed on all PFRs in that jurisdiction, but the problem is, as the Georgia Court of Appeals just said, the same thing here. I’m going to quote, when a defendant is convicted of a sexual offense facilitated through online communications with a minor, or a person whom the defendant believes is a monitor that included the transmission of pornography, which was his junk. A restriction of the defendant’s internet access is rationally related to the circumstances of the offense, and the rehabilitative goals of a probationary sentence. As such condition does not unduly burden the defendant’s free speech rights, and they cite the US Constitution amendment one and a Georgia constitution Article One, paragraph five. So that’s where my consternation comes in because the right offender that this was just indiscriminately imposed on them, they might have had a case. But since this guy was pro se, I’m guessing his attorney said, you don’t have a case because this is credible and a reasonable condition for you. But he went for it anyway.

Andy 1:00:20
Right. If you have a case that’s completely unrelated completely, if you have something that gets you there with having some kind of relationship with an adult, didn’t involve the Internet, and then they tell you that you can’t use the internet, then you would be the person that would have a case.

Larry 1:00:35

Andy 1:00:39
In the decision, Larry that Rutledge agreed to the conditions that he subsequently contested, is it fair to say he agreed to the conditions? So he originally contested it, and now he’s going to go along with the game?

Larry 1:00:53
Well, he originally agreed to it then it contested, but I think it’s fair to say that. As the court noted, in some instances, a condition of probation involves a waiver of defendant’s rights, including those protected by state or federal constitutions. However, the conditions of probation are not imposed in voluntarily, but are accepted by the convicted criminals as a condition necessary to avoid incarceration in the penitentiary. He did indeed have a choice. That choice was the penitentiary.

Andy 1:01:21
Rutledge, however, contended that the computer condition two violates his free speech rights in light of the United States Supreme Court decision in Packingham versus North Carolina and that was from 2017. Why didn’t that work?

Larry 1:01:34
Well, it didn’t work because in Packingham, the Supreme Court addressed the constitutionality of a North Carolina criminal statute prohibiting registered PFRs from accessing social media websites where the PFR knows that the site permits minor children to become members or to create or maintain personal web pages. And that’s a quote. But the court noted, quote, contrary to Rutledge’s contention, Packingham is distinguishable from the present case in several material respects and does not control the outcome because the statute at issue in Packingham prohibited all registered PFR from using certain social media sites, even those offenders who had already served their sentence, and were no longer subject to supervision of the criminal justice system. Rutledge on the other hand, has not yet completed his sentence and the restrictions on his internet access is a condition of his probation. And as the Supreme Court has held, and they cited the case that I didn’t put it here, a court granting probation may impose reasonable conditions that deprive the offender off some freedoms enjoyed by law abiding citizens and nothing impacting him undermines that principle. Folks, you don’t have the same rights while you’re being punished, particularly when the conditions are narrowly tailored to you. The only problem is, this is apparently an indiscriminately unnarrowly tailored condition that’s imposed on everyone, but it happened to fit perfectly for Rutledge.

Andy 1:03:04
The court also pointed out that the statute in Packingham apply to all registered sex offenders as you just said, irrespective of whether they used the computer or the internet in connection with their underlying offense, and the Supreme Court noted that its opinion should not be interpreted as barring a state from enacting more specific laws than the one at issue. Here in comparison, Rutledge used the internet to facilitate commission of his offense by communicating online with the supposed underage girl in order to solicit acts from her and to arrange for a meeting location. And by transmitting pornographic images to her. Now I see why you don’t think an attorney would have made any difference in this case. Probably why he couldn’t get an attorney to begin with, because he couldn’t get one to be hired unless he would have walked in there with a suitcase full of cash.

Larry 1:03:53
Well, that was my thought. I don’t know specifically. So I don’t need a letter of people telling me I don’t know, because I admit I don’t know. In general, you have the right to at least one appeal, and the state, if you’re indigent, will provide that. But I’m guessing that the attorney said this appeal is without merit. And I may face a sanction if I filed this because these conditions are relevant for you. And therefore, I won’t do it. That’s my guess. So, but the attorney probably told him that. That his reliance on Packingham was misguided, but he didn’t want to hear that. It was something he did not want to hear and he chose to move forward himself. Now we have an appellate decision that makes it clear that restrictions on internet usage in Georgia is constitutional. I’m guessing that this may not be the first appellate decision in Georgia that has affirmed that right since it’s well established that one’s constitutional rights are severely diminished while they’re being punished.

Andy 1:04:47
Ah, Larry, why can’t you bring us good news? See, we talked to River and he provided us all kinds of good news about moving across the pond. And then we come back and we just have you and all we get is negative Nancy.

Larry 1:05:00
I don’t know, I just can’t help myself. But I thought that people would be very interested in this because we get question after question after question about can they do that? And yes, they can, under certain circumstances, not indiscriminately. If you write to me and tell me that I did something that was totally unrelated, then I would have a different answer. This guy was a perfect candidate for the restrictions that they imposed on him. So therefore, his appeal was misguided.

Andy 1:05:29
It feels like he was like the answer for these restrictions. Even if you have that kind of crime, like that’s what you did. And you tiptoe very politely around, you could use the internet to function watch YouTube and download podcasts and look for jobs. But apparently, he didn’t like even that aspect and wanted to go push the envelope.

Larry 1:05:51
Oh, he pushed it all right, he got himself 5 more years.

Andy 1:05:55
Um, is there anything else you want to cover before we would get on out of here because we are really getting close on short on time.

Larry 1:06:04
I think we’ve done a great job tonight. It’s a pleasure for you to do so much research on this case. It’s almost like you read it more than once.

Andy 1:06:12
I had to like really, really nitpick, fine tooth comb, look for the individual points and write all that out. Yes, that is how that went, Larry.

Larry 1:06:18
You’re going to soon not need me any longer.

Andy 1:06:21
I’m looking forward to that day very much, Larry. Very, very much. Um, let’s see here. Let’s do the Who’s that Speaker? So last go around. I played this:

Larry 1:06:35
Billy Bob Thornton: Bible says two mean ought not lay together. Other Caller: Well, neither two women, but I like to watch ‘em do it.

Andy 1:06:43
Remind me why we put that in there Larry?

Larry 1:06:47
Well, because we want to see if people remember that old movie from ’95, ’96, whenever it was.

Andy 1:06:52
And I had one response that I could find and that was Captain Crazy. Is he patron number one? I always forget. I need to look. He says it was Billy Bob Thornton from Slingblade. He also liked French fried taters with mustard and biscuits. I wish he would have called in and said it because he is from like, nowhere-Ville, Kentucky and he talks. *Accent* I like the way you talk. I like the way you talk too. He sounds very much like some Slingblade stuff. It’s quite funny.

Larry 1:07:21
Yeah, well, people make prank phone calls using his voice because he’s not well easily recognized.

Andy 1:07:32
And let’s see here. So this week, I think Larry, we’re going to kind of like, if everyone doesn’t know who this speaker is, I’m just kind of ashamed to even say that if you listen the program, you should probably go listen to something else. So you have to do a little bit more work. You have to tell me when this occurred. And what were the circumstances behind it. Is that fair, Larry?

Larry 1:07:54
I think it’s fair because this has been repeated for decades.

Andy 1:07:58
All right, well, here is this week’s Who’s that Speaker?

Who’s that Speaker? 1:08:00
Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country.

Andy 1:08:11
Fanfreakintastic. Write me an email message at And you will get your five seconds of fame as I announce your name on the next episode. I think we can probably do it at the conference. Larry, I think we can, I think we can, I think we can. We also Larry had a monster number of patrons sign up which I think my plan worked. We had Charles, John, Scott, Carl, Ryan, and Josiah. Those are all the new patrons that we’ve had in the last two weeks, and we not only broke 100 patrons we kind of smashed it. So as you can see here in the video, I have my saxophone out. I’ve been swamped. I can’t practice to get ready for it. It’ll be after the conference, but it’s coming. I’ll play the song. I promise it’s coming.

Larry 1:09:04
Alright, well not only that, we picked up a new subscriber in a facility in San Diego. We picked up Michael and we don’t we don’t have enough subscribers yet. And folks, we can really scale this subscription service out and reduce the cost per unit if we have more people doing it. So we need to we need to build our subscription base.

Andy 1:09:25
I like it. Thank you very much to the new subscribers on the snail mail side and also Patreon. I really, really I’m honored and and genuinely humbled by all the patrons that we have. Larry, we we need to go. Is there anything else?

Larry 1:09:40
I think we’ve done a great job. Pleasure being here.

Andy 1:09:43
I appreciate all the work that you do and thank you. We had a whole bunch of people in chat tonight and good conversation people being silly and whatnot. Helping me do on the fly research which is awesome as well. You can find all of the show notes over at People have a hard time. You can find pretty much everything there. You can find the phone number there. 747-227-4477 email again is and as the six people that joined found Twitter, YouTube, Facebook, all of those things are there. If you do become a patron, then you get to join along on the on Discord and listen to listen to us record this live and be silly. There may or may not be a Patreon extra this week. We had a little sideline conversation completely unrelated to what we normally talk about. Alright?

Larry 1:10:44
It was so far disconnected. We’re probably gonna have negative feedback, but we did it.

Andy 1:10:51
That’s possibly true. Larry, I appreciate it. I hope you have a wonderful rest of your weekend. Thank you everybody in chat and I will talk to you all soon and see you next week at the conference if you do show up. Come by and say hi.

Larry 1:11:03
Thanks, Andy.

You’ve been listening to FYP.