Transcript of RM195: Steve Whitsett

Listen to RM195: Steve Whitsett

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 195 of Registry Matters. Good evening, fine, sir. How are you?

Larry 00:27

Just doing fantastic. How are you?

Andy 00:30

I am very well. Let’s just dive right in. What do we have going on this evening?

Larry 00:35

Well, we have a guest from across the pond and I’m looking forward to it.

Andy 00:39

Yeah, it should be a great interview I’ve been trying to schedule this thing for many, many months, and just between different schedules and whatever was going on, couldn’t quite get there. We are interviewing Steven, who goes by River Whitsett. And he spent some time in the Florida criminal justice system. And then he even ended up doing some time in civil commitment and has now relocated himself to Germany. He recently released a book. And I think, unless there’s anything else, without further ado, let’s just move right on over to that interview with Mr. Whitsett.

Larry 01:10

Let’s do it.

Andy 01:12

Cool. We are super privileged. The reason why we’re recording this out of band is because we have an incredibly special guest. There are a bunch of you that have been following this guy on YouTube. And he’s kind of like something of an internet sensation. But yeah, I know you’re over there like why are you doing this? But joining us is, is Steven Whitsett, going by River, correct? (River: Correct.) And you’re a Florida native, and you’re championing the rights of PFRs. You’ve battled with prison guards, croocked psychologists and government destined to destroy your humanity, which has led him to become one of the most outspoken advocates for the rights of PFRs. You are familiar with the term PFR now I imagine? (River: I am now. Yes, I have been educated.) Excellent. We spoke a couple days ago and figure this all out. So welcome River. I really honestly and like truly, I’m very humbled that you decided to join us and graced us with some time. I know you have a family visiting you. They’re out in the other country across the pond. So thank you so much for joining us. I really appreciate it. Welcome.

River 02:15

Thank you. It really is my privilege. This truly is an honor. Thank you for inviting me. I don’t know why… this is Episode 194. I’m not sure how you got 193 guests before me but.

Andy 02:28

We don’t normally do guests. (River: I’m teasing.) Well, the nexus of the program is I reached out to Larry and said, look, I don’t know anybody that knows the legal stuff, the policy stuff. No one knows it as a lobbyist the way that you do. And so we need to do a podcast. And Larry goes, Larry, you want to say it the way you normally say it? (Larry: What is a podcast?) Yeah, yeah. So that’s where I was like, Okay, we got a long way to go. But then over the next handful of months, tried to put things together. And here we are 193 episodes later. But we don’t normally do guests is really what I was getting at. (River: Really?) Yeah. (River: Oh, okay.) So usually there’s very frequently there’s some kind of court case that directly impacts us, or Larry uses his mojo and voodoo skills to figure out some sort of angle that this law could have positive or negative consequences for PFRs in the States, whether that be things like polygraphs or registration or… they just they actually kind of keep coming like almost on a weekly basis. Larry, is there something in the in the backfield that that’s coming down the pike that we are going to talk about here soon? Or did I miss something?

Larry 03:43

Well, I would just give an example. We receive questions since I participate with another organization, and production of the newsletter. I received question all the time from people who are in prison or not in prison, but more are in prison. And we select those questions. And we do our best to try to answer those questions for people. And we’ll answer them on the podcast because if it’s a question that is going to impact beyond the person’s conviction, we try to provide that information to others. So an example would be I’ve got a question that I’m going to answer in the upcoming edition of the of the newsletter. It’s called the Digest. But here would be… if I can get my computer, my ancient computers to actually open. But here’s a question that I’ve got to answer. And Andy, you need to be talking while I’m trying to find this question. But yeah, we try to come up with stuff that’s exciting that would enlighten folks with knowledge that they don’t have and I do that on a regular basis. On the podcast, we’ll answer questions.

Andy 04:46

And I would then need you to like step aside so I could say something. We’re trying to even find things that are novel because if everyone’s like, do I have to register in this state? The answer is probably yes. And we’ve answered that 400 times before. Hey, so let’s look for something that’s kind of neat and that we could explore that something interesting to talk about. We don’t want to talk about the same things over and over.

River 05:06

I assume next week, you’ll be talking about the new amendment that’s been proposed to the international Megan’s Law?

Andy 05:12

That is definitely something on the radar. (River: Okay, just a question. Just a question.) That is totally, totally on the radar.

River 05:18

I’m still on vacation, but it still managed to come across my desk today.

Andy 05:22

And the source that I got that particular article from, I don’t want to call them out, then the article then disappeared. I sent it to Larry and Larry comes and goes, I get a page: can’t be found. So then, like, maybe someone just made this up, but… (River: No, no.) That Chris Smith piece of crap in New Jersey is trying to make it where if I understand right, he’s going to try and make it so that we can’t leave the country.

River 05:47

That’s not my understanding. However, because I had an hour-long conversation with one of my legal analysts right before I called you this afternoon. But I’m one of those people that would rather not talk about something until I have actually read the text for myself, had a chance to dissect it and, you know, speak with a couple other people. It was only a question of if you were going to deal with it. I can tell you that the summary that I was given today, Europe would laugh in the Americans faces. I’ll just leave it at that for the moment.

Andy 06:17

Right. Larry, did you did you pull up your example?

Larry 06:22

Finally did and this is going to be in the newsletter. What is the law for visiting another state? How long can you stay there before you must notify authorities? Can you provide me with a list of all the states that have no registry? Well, the third one will be the easiest one to answer. There’s no state that doesn’t have a registry. But what I’ll do is I’ll dig into it. For example, I’ll say well, there’s not a US state that doesn’t have a registry. But there are states in the US that do not display. There’s like Minnesota, only a small fraction of the people that are registered are publicly displayed. But they do in fact, have a registry in Minnesota. But that’s the type of thing. But on these two questions, it’s kind of nuanced. So I’ll end up spending 700 words answering these questions. And it’ll be helpful to more than just the person. If you write about your case and say, How can I undo my conviction? We just, we don’t have the resources to get into that.

River 7:18

I agree.

Andy 07:20

Let’s begin. Tell me a little bit about the book that you just released. As soon as I saw it, I guess you sent out a message over Patreon that you had released a book and you were all excited and elated and all that. Tell me about the book real quick because I mean, certainly I’m honored that you’re here, but certainly go plug the book too.

River 07:38

Okay. Well, thank you. The book was an accident, believe it or not. I don’t remember – my mother who is visiting right now was asking me about this the other day, and I actually cannot remember why I was in the captain’s office that particular day. But after I got off death row, after I got out of isolation, they put me in general population in the most violent prison that Florida has to offer. That’s where they dumped all their bad children. And I was in the maximum-security dorm. And we were only allowed out of our dormitory to go to the chow hall and come back. That was pretty much it. Once a week we were allowed to go to get haircuts. But for some reason that I just can’t remember I was in the captain’s office one afternoon, and just he and I, and he was telling me that he was getting ready to retire. And that he was thinking about writing a series of books about all the things he had seen in the prison system or had himself done in the prison system. And he told me that I should write a book about it. And I laughed it off because who really wants to read about this stuff, really? And he told me that he thought I was mistaken. That he thought that there would be quite a few people that would like to hear what really happened. And so I think I would say it was the final four or five months of my prison sentence as I was, you know, almost at the door, going home after 22 years, that I started sitting down at my bunk every afternoon and writing.

Andy 09:02

Okay. So you were doing this while you were still gone? You started taking notes.

River 09:06

Yes. Yeah, and I’m one of, you know, for anybody who’s followed my videos, I’m one who believes in substantiating what I say. Anybody can get in front of a YouTube camera and say anything. That’s the easy part. My training is as a lawyer, and I still think like a lawyer. If you say it, can you back it up? So in my book, when I talk about certain incidents, I give the names. I give the dates. I give the exact locations. When possible, I give you the report numbers. You know, if there was a disciplinary report that I write about, I give the disciplinary report number, told you who wrote it, what day it was written, where it was written, and oftentimes quote it. Those kinds of things are very important for me. And I was a meticulous record keeper in prison. I mean, really, what else did I have to do all day? And so I had a plethora of documents that I was able to draw from including court records so that when I say something in the book, I can back it up. Or you can go on the internet and yourself very easily find it. So that’s kind of how it started. And then I finished it right before I got out of prison, and then did not do anything with it for the next six years. It literally sat in a box.

Andy 10:21

Okay, so you were able to go back and find all the notes you wrote, though.

River 10:26

Well, I had the text. I had the actual documents, and then I just sat down and typed them, and I cleaned. When I say cleaned up some things, cleaned up my language in a few places. I try very hard to be objective. I don’t think that there’s a point in being subjective. I don’t think that we ever make good decisions when we’re overcome by our emotions. We always make bad decisions when thinking emotionally. So I try to think of things objectively. I try to see them from multiple viewpoints. Because for every person who says, oh, I’m a victim of the system, there’s somebody out there saying the system didn’t do enough to you. And we need to try to consider both aspects. Because I mean, obviously, it’s a spectrum. People fall on a spectrum. And if I could just make one more point before I try to finish my answer, I probably said too much. I know for a fact, most people in prison are not innocent. I know some people are. And then there are some people who are guilty, but they’re just not guilty of what they were convicted for, or vice versa. And I tell people, that you can use the rule of thirds in prison when trying to understand people. A third of the guards that go to prison, to work in a prison, are psychopaths looking for an outlet for their personal issues. A third of those guards are just coming to work to do their jobs, get a paycheck and go home at the end of the day. It’s nothing personal. And then there’s a third – and of course, I say third, it blurs. And I’d say there’s a third that actually come in trying to do some good, that actually tried to help people. Not all guards are maniacs or assholes. Certainly not all of them are saints. Everybody falls somewhere in between. But the same is true with inmates. A third of them just are incorrigible and are always looking for trouble and are always going to find trouble. A third of them are trying to… just, they’ve accepted they’ve done wrong, they’re trying to do their time and they’re trying to go home. And then you’ve got a third that, you know, they’re doing the absolute best they can to clean their lives up, get the hell out and stay out. So I think we need to keep that perspective. Sorry.

Andy 12:38

I think that’s fair. That’s fine. That’s, no, that’s perfect. We don’t really necessarily have much of a time limit. If we have to split this across into multiple interviews, I don’t care. I want to get this out because I’m super happy that we have you here. (River: I don’t want to bore you, either.) Um, tell me this: why do you think the registry is something worth fighting against? And why should the roughly – we can quibble about this number – 750,000 people, 280, whatever, I don’t care what number we want to pick up with. Why do you think that the people, the PFRs, should step up and fight back against the registry?

River 13:10

Okay, I agree with you that there’s no firm number that we can use. So if it’s between 250,000 or 850,000, I don’t care. If it’s one person, we still have to fight the registry. Now I’m a student of history as well. I have always enjoyed World War II history. I’ve always enjoyed trying to understand the Nazi mentality. And yes, I’m going to go there. In Nuremberg, they enacted approximately 19 laws. Depends on how you want to interpret which laws because some of them blend together. But let’s say they enacted 19 laws that over time took the Jews out of society, took them out of social life, made them outcasts. The Nazis were able to blame the Jews for everything wrong with Germany, in the economy, and this, that, and the other. And these 19 laws went from something as simple as they cannot share the same parks as other people to they have to wear identifiers on their ID cards, just like the Florida drivers license, they have to have signs in their yards. They were not allowed to travel. Their passports were revoked. At one point, their passports had a stamp on them, identifying them with capital J. At the end of World War II, we executed people. The people that passed those laws were executed for human rights violations. If you read those 19 laws, and I have in both German and English, and you compare them to the American Sex Offender Registry laws, we in the United States have enacted 18 of those 19 laws. Are we supposed to sit back quietly and wait until we get to the 19th and they start putting people in boxcars? We already have concentration camps. They’re called Civil Commitment Centers.

Andy 14:56

Right. Now there was a boat that got turned away by the US coming from Poland if I’m not mistaken, and we turned it back somewhere in World War II.

River 15:04

So are we supposed to wait until people are being dragged out of their street out of their homes in the streets and beaten by mobs? Are we supposed to wait until they’re standing in front of firing squads? The answer is no, no, no. I will not tolerate it. And if nobody else does anything about, by God, I’m gonna be there.

Andy 15:21

Like you’re getting a little heated about this.

River 15:23

It pisses me off. But I live in a place where these people were actually rounded up and shot. In the town that I live in right now, there’s a plaque in a little Plaza where we have a café, that actually says on this date, in this Plaza, 140 men, women and children from this town were rounded up, put on a boxcar and sent to their deaths. It’s reality here. It’s not hyperbole. I live in a place that still marks where these things happen. No.

Andy 15:51

I saw in one of your videos that you think you went by a monument that represented like, “We want to remember this.” And it was: we want to make sure that we do not forget this past so we don’t repeat it. Not to revere it. (River: Absolutely.) I’m drawing a direct comparison to something in the US that we have.

River 16:13

It’s ironic, though, that arguably, the Germans, and I’m using that term very loosely, because not all Germans were Nazis, let’s be clear about that. But that Germany was the worst violator of human rights in the last 2000 years. Now, it’s where people come to protect human rights, because they are determined to make up for what happened. You cannot make up for the, you know, the random deaths of up to upwards of what 13 million people if you include all the Eastern Europeans and whatnot, you’re never gonna make that up. But by God, they’re gonna try. Love it.

Andy 16:51

So in your case, though, you were listed as an SVP or a sexually violent predator. And as I was reading your book, it doesn’t sound to me, like you did any of the things to be classified as an SVP. What exactly is the legal definition of SVP? And what exactly did prosecutors have to prove to have you be classified as SVP and are predators – like the actual ones… well, I guess not the ones that are classified as, do they get separated from the general population of PFRs?

River 17:19

Okay, that’s a complicated question. At the moment, I have a case in front of the German court, a German Constitutional Court in which I am challenging the American Sex Offender Registry as being violative of international human rights law. And the judge there asked me what is the difference between – now this is Florida – a sex offender, a sexual predator, a sexually violent predator, and a mentally disordered sex offender? Who the hell can keep up with all that? And does the average person on the street know the difference between those things? Of course not. Everybody’s lumped together. The mentally disordered sex offender was a program they had back in the 80s and early 90s, it’s gone. So we can forget that. A sex offender in Florida is anybody who has been convicted of a sexually related offense, doesn’t have to be a sex offense. But that does not rise to the level of a forcible sex act. Forcible rape, or sex with a child younger than 13 gets someone designated as a sexual predator in Florida. Now, sex offender, sexual predator and mentally disordered sex offender were all criminal classifications. So Florida came along in 1999, and created this new category of sexually violent predator. It is a civil definition. It is not based on criminal law. And their definition of sexual violence is any sex related offense. Period.

Andy 18:55

Unpack that then.

River 18:57

Child pornography is considered sexually violent in Florida, under the civil law. Exposing oneself, distribution, streaking would be considered sexually violent, even though there’s no… soliciting someone online is sexually violent, even though you don’t actually come in any physical contact. And in fact, it may not even be a real person. It’s an undercover officer, which means it’s an imaginary victim. So non-contact with an imaginary victim is still considered sexually violent. Now, in order to be classified as a sexually violent predator, someone has to have a sexual offense of any sort including – I use this in my book, I think – including if I go to a store, to a grocery store, and I steal a banana which is retail theft, to take that banana home to us as a sexual toy with my boyfriend or girlfriend or what have you. That is a sexually related offense, which would qualify me for being a sexually violent predator. There are two criteria. One is the person is convicted of a sex offense. The other is that the person suffers from a some sort of mental disorder that predisposes them to commit acts of sexual violence. Now, what does it mean to have a mental disorder that predisposes someone to commit? What sort of mental disorders? Kleptomania? Insomnia? I mean, let’s be honest. And in Florida, well in the United States, a psychologist only needs to claim that the connection is there, in order for it to count. So, if the person is convicted of a sex offense, if a court appointed or state appointed psychologist determines that this person suffers from some sort of mental disorder, then they are a sexually violent predator who can be locked away for the rest of his or her life, for treatment, just like we treated the Jews.

Andy 20:55

Right. Larry, do you have anything to pile on there?

Larry 20:58

It’s fascinating, because that term, he used mental disorder. That’s a common theme in the 20 states that have sex offender specific civil commitment. And I want to clarify, I think all states have civil commitment, but the unique track that they use for people with sexual related offenses, that is common, boilerplate language, that they have a mental disorder. But what is a mental disorder?

Andy 21:23

Wouldn’t it have to be something identified by the DSM?

River 21:29

It can be anything. Pick something out of the DSM. Just flip through it, open a page, point your finger. Excuse me, Larry, for stepping on you.

Larry 21:38

So yeah, the mental disorder, the very reason – one of the reasons, not the only reason – but one of the reasons why the people who run the traditional civil commitment facilities, they don’t want PFRs in their facilities because they say these people don’t have mental illness that we can treat. They do not have anything in the DSM that covers them. We’re on number five now, right? There’s nothing in the DSM-V that relates to these people. And therefore, they’re not appropriately housed in a regular mental health care facility where you’re trying to treat a mental illness. Go ahead.

Andy 22:13

That kind of goes to the next question. Go ahead River.

River 22:16

I’m sorry. I was gonna point out, though, that this very question that we’re all three discussing at this very moment is the very reason that the European courts have already reviewed the civil commitment schemes in Minnesota and California and determined them to be human rights violations. Because in order to justify incarcerating someone for treatment, they must have a mental disorder that means they cannot even go about their daily lives unless they are an immediate danger to themselves or others. Immediate. So you don’t just get to pick something out of a book. And because the European courts determined that not only could that happen, but is happening in the United States, the European Union as a whole has already denounced these schemes as human rights violations.

Andy 23:02

Larry, this is kind of a question towards you. Does the US care about that designation from the United Nations?

Larry 23:10

I really don’t think so. I mean, we’ve been called out for our putting children on the sexual offense registries as a human rights violation. And I think that since Americans primarily do not go outside US sources for their news, they don’t hear this kind of thing. And they’ve been schooled to believe that America is the beacon of human rights. I mean, we are what the rest of the world looks to for protection of human rights. And I don’t think any of it resonates with the average person that we have all these human rights issues within the United States. I really don’t.

River 23:42

if I could counter and I very much agree with you that the average American doesn’t give a damn. And I think that the American government doesn’t give a damn. But the rest of the world, which includes the European Union, is not necessarily looking to the United States as a beacon of hope for human rights protections. I think where it begins to matter is once the EU – and we’re hoping that it will be by before the end of this year – declares that the sex offender registry also is a human rights violation. That would mean that any American citizen that could get onto foreign soil, by innertube, by bicycle, whatever, would be immediately entitled to protection by that government. And the US would not… (Andy: Really?) Yeah, that is what we’re after. Absolutely.

Andy 24:27

Um, have researchers ever figured out a link between the various mental disorders to tell them who would become an SVP?

River 24:36

As far as I know, no, and I cannot claim to be an expert in that particular area. But as far as I’ve read, or I have heard, no. No connection has been drawn.

Andy 24:46

Let’s move over to the treatment center that you were living, I’m sure lavishly, with palm trees, and people with like fans like making sure you were staying comfortable. (River: I appreciated the sauna.) What was the name of the place? (River: Martin Treatment Center.) Martin Treatment Center, MTC. How was it different? And how would you say it was similar? Like, tell me about the place as far as what… most of our people, I guess would have some level of experience with what the prison system looks like. So was MTC this, like awesome place to get treatment?

River 25:25

If treatment were provided there. Now let’s keep in mind when I was at this treatment center, and it has since my adventurous departure from that facility, they renamed it to the Florida Civil Commitment Center. It used to be called the Martin Treatment Center. The Martin Treatment Center was originally built as a jail and sits on the very same grounds as Martin Correctional Institution run by the Florida Department of Corrections. If I told you nothing else, that right there should tell you everything else you need to know. (Andy: It’s almost like an annex then.) It was. (Andy: Like a work detail outside the wall kinda of place?) At one time it was. (Andy: That’s what I was picturing.) This particular facility of course had the mandatory double perimeter fences with the motion detectors, the x-ray, the rolls of barbed wire – or not barbed wire, razor wire – on top, there were two armed roving patrols. In order to get into the facility, like if your family came to visit, they had to go through searches, they had to go through the metal detector, they had to be on an approved visiting list. And although the “treatment aids”, and I’m using air quotes, wore khaki pants and maroon shirts, every single one of those treatment aids was either recruited from the Department of Corrections next door or recruited from the local sheriff’s office. All of them were law enforcement. Treatment: none of them were qualified to give any treatment, again, if treatment were being offered. But inside of our dormitories, I think there’s it’s 55 square feet is what the laws require. They’re what the department is required to give each inmate in a prison setting. But because this technically wasn’t a prison, none of those rules applied. (Andy: You would think there would be more then.) You would think. And since there is no other type of mental health treatment facility like this in Florida, there was no law governing how much space a person should have, or what type of treatment they should be given. None of that was in the law. As far as I know, it still isn’t. So in a space that was, like, literally at one point I was in a dormitory that had maximum capacity – I don’t remember off the top of my head, I don’t remember – maximum capacity 18 people in this particular open bay let’s just say. There would have been about 36. The beds were packed in there so tightly that you literally had to turn sideways to get across the room to the toilets. Although, I should mention the toilets, the showers had no covers on them because they didn’t want anybody going behind these shower curtains and doing anything they shouldn’t. There were no doors on the pissers and sh*tters. Which means if you showered, sh*t, or masturbated, somebody was watching you. Because there were cameras in there, of course. And, of course, four times a day, they would come in and blow their whistles, which meant you had to sit up on your bunk, feet on the floor, no talking so that they could count you. Now, draw your own conclusions.

Andy 28:21

I’ve never understood the no talking part. Like is it really that hard to count if a couple of people are…

River 28:28

Have you seen the people they hired to work in these places? Yes, it’s that hard to count.

Andy 28:32

Come on, Larry. Who said, was it Paul Harvey that said, (River: Yes, he did) or somebody that said, you want to see the scum of the earth, go to any prison at shift change.

River 28:42

But it is true because when I was there, we had I think like 110 people. How do you have a recount on 110 people?

Andy 28:52

It’s tough man once you break into the double digits, when you have your two hands and when they’re fully covered…

River 29:00

Time to take the shoes off, yeah.

Andy 29:04

Yeah, right. So you were sent to MTC because you committed some sexually violent offense? (River: Yeah.) And I say that tongue in cheek.

River 29:11

I can’t say that I can laugh about it now, but I can certainly poke fun at it. Yeah, I went to prison. I was a 22-year-old university student studying psychology. And I was arrested for having a consensual relationship with a 15-year-old. Who, by the way, testified in court that absolutely everything was consensual and there was no violence. There was no question on the record.

Andy 29:38

But of course, the 15 year old can’t consent because they’re are minor. Right. Right, Larry?

River 29:47

That’s the law in the United States.

Larry 29:49

See therein lies the problem. How can you characterize that as violent? It is not violent. There was no violence if there was testimony and credible evidence that there wasn’t, and I really resent us labeling all the things like solicitation as violent. We destroy and weaken and dilute those who do experience sexual violence by calling things violent that aren’t violent.

Andy 30:22

Let’s move quickly over to when you finished your court assigned sentence. What obligation should and does a person convicted of some form of sexual offense, what should they be obligated to do in your opinion?

River 30:36

My opinion? They should be obligated not to commit a new offense. It’s that simple.

Andy 30:44

Right. So when you finished your probation or supervision, whatever terms you want to use, then you just go about your life?

River 30:52

I absolutely think it is a human right for someone to be able to rehabilitate their lives and move on. I think it benefits the community to encourage people to go back to school, to get good jobs, to become invested in the community. Because those folks who are invested in that community want to see that community protected. It’s that simple. If you kick someone out of the community and leave them as an outcast, they have no stake in society. If they have no stake in society, society is not safe from that person.

Andy 31:25

But what about NIMBY, man? Not in my Backyard. They can live over in that neighborhood, but I don’t want them living in this neighborhood.

River 31:31

Okay, well, that goes back to one of the founding principles that we’re arguing in the German court system right now. Under international law, you have a right to privacy. Part of what right to privacy means is when I’m finished with my prison sentence, I should be able to move on with my life. Nobody should be told that I’m a convicted felon. Because if people are told I’m a convicted felon, how am I going to get back into university? How am I going to get a decent job that’s going to allow me to support myself and pay restitution to the victim? Or, you know, pay my court costs or what have you. I think it is a gross injustice that people are not allowed to learn from their mistakes and move on.

Andy 32:14

I’ll let Larry chime in, I’m obligated to say you are here at FYP Studios for a reason, right? You know what that means now, correct?

Larry 32:24

That is, I mean, your view is consistent with mine. When people say, “Well, what will we do in lieu of the sex offender registry?” And I say it’s very simple. When people pay their debt to society, we forget about them. And if they offend again, we deal with them again, as a repeat offender.

River 32:40

I’ve had that exact conversation with German policemen and German lawyers. It’s no secret that I’ve been assisting some people in starting their lives anew in Europe. And we had that question. Should we filter or screen the people that we’re helping to come to Europe because we don’t want someone to come over here and commit a new offense and blow up the whole program. We’re trying to establish human rights, not destroy them. And my closest friend here in Germany, he’s a German, and he is not involved in the sex offender issue at all. His statement was clear, if someone has finished their sentence, they should be entitled to move to Germany and start their lives over. If they come over here and commit a new offense, then let the criminal justice system deal with it. It’s that simple

Larry 33:29

It’s a complicated concept. I mean, it really is. I don’t know why people have such a hard time understanding it. You pay your debt, you move on. You break the rules again… now we have a lot left to be desired in our American prison correctional system. We don’t do much in the way of rehabilitation. And sometimes they’ve never been rehabilitated to begin with. We’re very weak in that area. But whatever happens after they are released again from paying their debt, we deal with that at the time. But we don’t get into this predictive model of when they’ve done this before, the recidivism… I don’t care if the recidivism rate is 275%. When you’re done, we take it at face value that you have paid your debt, and you’re fresh again with a new start. If you break the rules again, we will deal with you when that day comes, if it comes.

Andy 34:23

And the court system, the judicial system would be able to reflect back and go, Oh, we’ve seen you before and obviously you didn’t learn from the kid gloves, maybe, that we hit you with last time so now we’re going to put on some big boy gloves, maybe?

River 34:36

Correct. Well, yeah, because the flaw in the logic is that if I buy a car on time and I make all my payments and satisfy the payment of the car, why am I continuing to pay for the car thereafter? In other words, if you say to me, this is the penalty you must pay to pay back society for you’re wrong. But then you continue to punish me for decades beyond then, then you should have just told me from the beginning that I’ve been given a life sentence. (Larry: Correct.) Stop playing games. If it’s a life sentence, call it a life sentence.

Larry 35:08

We were on a podcast recently where we had that very discussion. And I wish I would have been better prepared to have made that issue. But like if you get a DWI, the penalties, the community sensitivity in most states about DWI/DUIs are quite elevated now. But how would you feel after you have paid whatever that penalty was – If it’s $1,000, fine, and an interlock license, and counseling and whatever – how would you feel if 15 years later, 20 years later, sometimes even more than 20 years later, they came back and say, Well, you know, we’ve decided that we really could have done a better job fashioning protection for the community. So here’s what we’re going to impose on you now. And you gave him a whole list of restrictions, you can’t drive, unless you’re going to work, we’re going to give you a new restricted license. You have to come in every six months to have this license renewed. And these are things that you never would have dreamed about. They’re now your obligations, and you have to pay to be monitored, because we feel that you’re a risk. We would not tolerate that. Not even for drunk drivers, we would not tolerate that. But yet, we have openly embraced that for people who’ve been convicted of sexual offences. They have exited the justice system, and they got knocks at their doors decades later. Decades later, that, guess what? You have to come down to the police station and register, you will now be restricted in where you can live, where you can work, who you can associate with and you’ll have to disclose a lot of stuff about yourself, your relationships, and we will put that on a public website. Except for maybe we won’t put your social security number, but everything else goes on this website. What you drive, where you work, we would never have tolerated that for any other offense.

Andy 36:52

Larry, certainly you’re chiming in enough, and I love it. But what resonates with the public as far as what politicians can win points with their constituents? What gets their hackles up? Is it the burglars? Or is it the PFRs?

Larry 37:11

The heightened sensitivity of course with what sexual offenses, because the demonization… you take these high-profile cases, and they get repeated over and over again. And people imagine that that’s the norm. That this person who has repeated because the high profile cases sometimes are repeat offenders. You hear about it. Well, they had a prior conviction in 1994. And then they’ve done this again. Some people automatically… You have to admit, the average American is not that smart. They’re too busy watching NFL today. We’re doing a podcast today. But most people are focused on the NFL, because it’s Sunday. And they don’t know this stuff. And they assume that the scare tactics that our commercial media has told them about how bad crime is. Actually, crime went down for 30 years, but people just don’t know. So yes, the most serious thing that can scare people is people with sexual offenses. After that, there’s some sensitive crimes, DWI being one of them. Domestic violence. But sexual related stuff is the most heinous as far as politicians. That is the most frightening thing when it’s to deal with those who have been charged with sexual offenses.

River 38:23

I could not agree more. I absolutely could not agree more. But I also think that that shows the illegitimacy of the argument that they raise about protecting society because someone who goes to prison, and I’ve known several, for killing/murdering children are not on any register. They’re allowed to come out of prison and move immediately next door to a school. No public outcry. That’s absurd. Those are the ones that should be monitored. But and what’s the whole point? What’s the whole point of not allowing people to be next to a school when it is a crazy minority of those who are arrested commit crimes inside of the schools? It’s the teachers that are committing those crimes. So bar people from being teachers. Okay, fine. But who in their right mind – really? – who gets out of prison and immediately goes in into a school to sexually assault a child? Can you name a single case where that’s happened? Give me one. Name one.

Andy 39:23

But we’re trying to save one, Larry. Come on, right?

River 39:27

Oh, so we violate the rights of 1000s of people in order to protect one mythical child?

Andy 39:32

One potential. Moving over that. (River: Sorry, I need church band). Yeah, um, we aren’t a political show. But politics always enters into this conversation. Our policies are, after all, driven by politics. What does one political party do? Excuse me, does one political party do more harm than the other? I was reading a section in your book where you seem to have an actual like pointed conversation with some of your fellow gatherers about this subject. And definitely, Larry, I know that you’ll chime in with all kinds of fun stuff.

River 40:07

What I might have said 20 years ago, I don’t know if I… I can’t even remember what I wrote in that particular section. But I will say now that there is no political party which represents me, there is no political party that is out to make sure that my rights are being protected. No political party is going to stand up and say that these laws have gone too far. When these laws get enacted, proposed and enacted, is there ever a dissenting voice from either party? Because for the one person who votes against those laws, it’s almost certain political death. (Andy: I was just going to bring that up.) So and let’s keep in mind, and I, regardless of my political views, I can name democratic presidents who have signed these laws, these bills, into law, and I can name republican presidents who have done the same thing. So as far as I’m concerned, both parties have their hands dirty.

Larry 41:02

Well, I generally tend to agree. What I caution people, though, is, when you look at that… Political reality is when something makes it to a president, they’re going to have to sign it when it is of the sensitive nature. (River: Yep. Yep.) You have to keep it from getting there. It wouldn’t make any difference who was president when IML was presented, or who was president when the Adam Walsh Act was presented. But there were people who tried to oppose the Adam Walsh Act. And there were people who stalled the International Megan’s Law for years and years and years. I mean, I think it was stalled, for eight maybe 10 years. But those things, once they make it to the executive… I mean, we could have a whole program about the politics of veto overrides, and the nuances of that. And most people really don’t understand what goes into a veto override decision in terms of which way you’re going to vote. But yes, every president or every governor is going to sign this stuff. The key is what’s happening beneath the surface, and who’s running the legislative- who controls the chambers. The Conservatives are very likely to demonize progressives who want to do improvement. You can just find that over and over, and I challenge our podcast audience to show me democrats criticizing republicans for criminal justice reform, and we will bash them as harsh as we possibly can. Because it’s not about politics, it’s about policy. But that’s what happens. The demonization takes hold. And therefore, you’re afraid of that demonization, because you know that that’s going to happen to you. And unfortunately, the demonization really comes from the right. If someone dares to stick their neck out for criminal justice reform, they’re turning loose a tidal wave of crime on the citizens.

Andy 42:48

River, towards the end of your story, which you now live in Germany. And I want to cover in a separate segment how you may have arrived there in Germany, but we’ll cover that in a little bit. I’ve seen some videos where you have been testifying before the UN about human rights violations that the registry commits. This isn’t China or the Uyghurs, this is the United States. So what is happening in that avenue? In that arena?

River 43:24

When you say what’s happening in that arena, can you narrow that down for me Just a little?

Andy 43:29

I mean, the one that I started watching, I think it was like an hour long or something like that. And you were introduced, I’m pretty sure this was done over Skype or something like that. And you said, who you were, and how, like… what is your mission statement there?

River 43:43

Well, the mission statement there was I was specifically going after the involuntary civil commitment laws. As I’ve mentioned, I live in the EU at the moment. And the EU has already said that these civil commitment laws are human rights violations. So I was testifying before a United Nations crime Criminal Justice seminar. Not seminar. (Andy: Panel?) Panel. (Andy: Symposium?) Symposium. That’s the word I was looking for. Thank you. Yeah, well, my English is getting lost in learning German. And I was giving personal testimony as to what really goes on in these facilities and what’s really happening. And I did end my talk with a request for a formal condemnation of the United States for those human rights violations. (Andy: Was that received?) It was received. Unfortunately, these things move very slowly. Many things are hinging on my current court case here in Germany. A lot of entities are holding back their opinions or their own agendas until the German court makes this particular determination. If this court makes the determination that we expect them to, let alone hope that they will, there are a lot of doors that are going to be open to us. At this moment, we just have to wait and see. Just a brief update, what we’re waiting on is we’ve already had hearings in the German courtroom. And the judge in this case ordered the Embassy in Washington DC to conduct a particular type of investigation to verify all of the facts and statements that I made in the hearing. The German court system works a little different than the United States. But if on face value, everything I said was true, then the court is obligated to make a finding in our favor. Before the court makes that finding, the court wants to make absolutely certain that all of our facts and statements are 100% correct. Now, in a court case this important that’s going to have reverberations like this, particularly against an allied nation like the United States, you can understand why the court is going to tread very, very carefully.

Andy 46:03

I was just thinking about like, so obviously the US has massive ties with China. And they have like a million people on lockdown in western China with the Uyghurs. And as far as our relationship, I guess our number one relationship would be with the UK, with England. And then I’m thinking number two would probably be something like Germany, maybe Canada would be thrown in there, too. But there’s only like 25 people that live in Canada. So the next biggest relationship that we would have would be with probably Germany. Larry think about the political side, what would the ramifications be of a country like Germany throwing those darts in our direction? Like, they’re not going to cut off trade, we’re not going to stop buying beamers and whatnot.

Larry 46:46

Well, it would depend on who the Chief Executive is at the time that comes out. With this current Chief Executive, there would be some receptivity to looking at these violations. I’m not saying that they would magically make changes. But if we had the prior chief executive, he would just simply bash the Germans and say that the system is rigged, and that they’re nuts, and he would do what he did for the whole four years. He would just be very condemning of them in saying that they don’t really care and understand, and he would blow it off. That’s what would happen.

Andy 47:19

We have a whole faction of people that want to have us removed from the United Nations anyway or fund it less. Like something along those lines.

Larry 47:25

That’s exactly what I’m getting at. He would use this as an opportunity to say that’s wrong with… I mean, he was bashing Europe for the whole time, you know, they weren’t paying their fair share of NATO. And he was fixing all that and taking us out of all these horrible treaties. And I’m not trying to be political, he asked the question, you asked the question, what would happen? It would depend on who the Chief Executive is. The current chief executive would at least be receptive. They would look at it and say, hmm, do we have anything? We need to put some kind of lipstick on this pig and we need to have a response. The response would be very diplomatic from this administration. The response from the previous administration would have been very condescending, and they would be very dismissive.

River 48:08

May I suggest that we also consider the ramifications on the other side of the pond? This side? (Andy: Yeah.) Because if this court case comes down, any person whose name appears on any of the American registries – arguably, the British and Australian registries as well – would be entitled instantly to asylum the moment their feet touch European soil. That has to be considered also.

Andy 48:35

I’ve not heard of this at all. So if that becomes a thing, any one of us 750,000 that are listed… So these are the people that are on the registry, very few of them have gotten off the registry. (River: Correct.) As soon as they stepped anywhere inside the United Nations…

River 48:56

It’s European soil.

Andy 49:00

European soil. Then we would be automatically allowed the political asylum? That we wouldn’t be extradited back?

River 49:06

Automatically. Think of it: when the European courts determined that Syria was a nation engaged in the Civil War, and the population was put at risk. German Court made that decision. Every Syrian citizen who touches European soil and can prove that they’re a Syrian citizen is automatically entitled to protection. They don’t have to present anything further. Here I am, here’s my passport, here’s my Syrian driver’s license, birth certificate, whatever. That’s it. There is no further discussion, and those people are generally processed in the immigration camps within two weeks. Now, that means they come out of the immigration camps with our version of a green card. You get this plastic card and it says this person has permission to reside in Germany indefinitely, to work in Germany indefinitely, to go to school, to do everything except vote.

Andy 50:01

Larry, you were gonna say?

Larry 50:04

Well, was gonna ask a question and you may not have fully processed this since it’s coming to you cold, but an American court system would be cognizant of the political fallout of making hundreds of 1000s potentially eligible for reaching land. This is similar to a Cuban – if they can reach dry land in America, they’re allowed in and they’re protected. Would the German court system be politically insulated from… I can only imagine that that even as progressive as Germans might be, that the thought of having 10s of 1000s of PFRs coming for asylum would be somewhat daunting. Is there enough political separation within the German court system that they could render such a decision without an adverse fallout like you would have in the US?

River 50:58

That is an excellent question. And yes, we’ve considered that. Let’s address first the issue of the possibility of 10s of 1000s of offenders coming over here, or registrants coming over here. I don’t think that’s realistic. I really don’t. How many of the – and I’m picking a number arbitrarily, but let’s say 750,000 registrants – of those 750,000, how many can afford the airline ticket to get over here?

Andy 51:27

I’m coming, man.

River 51:29

You’re a minority, then. You’re a minority.

Andy 51:32

And you say anywhere? It’s like 27 countries in the EU? 26? What is it?

River 51:35

I don’t know. 27, 26.

Andy 51:38

That’s a pretty large distribution of people. That’s roughly the same population as the US if I’m not mistaken.

River 51:44

But let’s also keep in mind that the German people are very well aware of what’s going on in the United States with a lot of this craziness. They’re not in the dark. You have people going to prison for soliciting 17-year-olds online. It is legal in Germany, and I’m not advocating people come over here and do this. But it is legal to come over here and have an actual relationship with a 14-year-old. Germany doesn’t give a damn about your imaginary 17-year-old victims online. Do you follow what I’m saying? They understand that United States is just out of control. Because you know, one thing we don’t talk about in the United States is the sexual rights of teenagers, as though teenagers have no sexual rights. But that’s a whole different ballgame. That’s a whole different ball of wax. So just to sum up, I don’t think they’re going to be that many people that would actually have the nerve or the financial backing to come over here and change their lives like that.

Andy 52:50

It’s a little disruptive. It’s not like moving into the next state.

River 52:52

No, it’s dramatic. It’s dramatic. And the second part of that is yes, I think the German people are, generally speaking – you’re always going to have your outliers – but I think by and large, the German people are smart enough to be able to figure this issue out rather quickly for themselves. I can tell you that every German I’ve run across without exception, including my colleagues, and the people that I work for all know exactly what my history is. And think it’s incredibly unfair.

Andy 53:21

Um, I want to move over to a different subject. And it’s not anything that we talked about, I want to I want to talk about your life in Germany. You got there. You went through immigration. I assume you went through, like, where they stamped your passport and so forth? You went through that whole… I mean, you didn’t like come in by boat in the middle of the night. (River: On an innertube? No, haha.) Um, and did you have issues getting through immigration with anything like that?

River 53:53

If I can approach this from two perspectives, separately. The first is when I came here, one of the reasons I came when I came is because a couple days after the legal challenge to the IML failed and we knew that the IML was going to go into effect, I felt that if I didn’t get out of the country then, there was a very real possibility It was never going to happen. That the walls or the, you know, the doors would be closed to me. So when I departed, there still was no International Megan’s Law for at least, I want to say I was about a week ahead of it. I’d have to look at the dates to be sure. So I left. I flew out of Fort Lauderdale, and flew to Oslo, Norway. And I will tell you, I sweated. I was so scared of being stopped by the marshal service that my family actually dropped me off at the airport a mile from the airport, because they didn’t want their car on the surveillance cameras in the parking lot of the airport. That’s how paranoid we were. And I don’t think we were wrong for taking those precautions. And I think it was like an eight-and-a-half-hour flight from Fort Lauderdale to Norway. And I could not sleep as you can imagine, I, of course, I was nervous. I’m thinking that the police are going to be on me at any moment. So, the next morning when we landed in Norway, got off the plane. And as I approached passport control, you know, in the Oslo airport, the guys smiled at me, reached out and he looked at my passport. He says, oh, you’re an American, opened it up, never looked at it, opened it up, laid it down on some scanner, then stamped it, handed it back and said, enjoy your stay in Norway. And that was the end of that. I passed through Norway, and eventually made my way down to friends who were willing to hide me, inside of Germany. And by the time I turned myself into the German police, I turned myself into the German police because I was terrified of the Americans snatching me off the street. And I wanted some kind of protection. And I was interviewed by the German Federal Police, which is their version of the FBI, for, I don’t know, five-six hours. And they did a very comprehensive examination of my situation. And at the end of it, the police actually wrote a report saying that I should be afforded political protection and forwarded it to the immigration office. And the lead investigator, actually told me that he was sorry that I had been born in the wrong country.

Andy 56:24

Larry and I have been somewhat dubious of how successful our people would be of just picking up and trying to land a plane somewhere over that way (River: … and everything will be perfect.) Well…

River 56:36

Well, let me say this. I said this was a two-part answer. Let’s talk about the second part. Let’s talk about the people who have come here after the IML went into effect, because that’s more pertinent. I can tell you that I personally have been to the airport to welcome four different people. Personally have been there to welcome them. Two of them flew into Frankfurt International Airport. And as they passed through customs, actually were stopped by the police. And both of them said, you know, well, the Americans sent us emails saying that these horrible rapists were about to enter the country. And in both instances, the police basically balled up the emails, threw them in the trash, stamped these guys passports and sent them on their way. And that was as recent as two weeks ago.

Andy 57:25

And these are people of modest means, these aren’t wealthy, wealthy people buying their way through the system. Just Joe Schmoes?

River 57:33

The four that have come so far, three were Joe Schmoes. One had the means but didn’t need it.

Andy 57:43

So just bought the five-seven-hundred-dollar plane ticket?

River 57:47

He flew into Charles de Gaulle Airport, and they didn’t even look at his passport.

Andy 57:52

That’s so weird. Larry, please, please, fill in.

River 57:55

I can tell you that there are two people who do have means who will be here next month in October, and a friend of mine who’s already been here once is coming back again. He’s coming this time to stay. So I’m telling you, I’m looking into the camera directly. Germany doesn’t give a ___ about people coming in.

Andy 58:14

What did you say? (River: My mom’s in the house somewhere) Okay, right, right. Right. Larry, go ahead, please.

Larry 58:22

No, I’m good. This is amazing stuff that the Germans are… And I can say from my experience that in my earlier life, I was a residential property manager. And I dealt with a lot of university students right near the university here, and we had significant European presence. And the Germans in particular were just so impressive to me always. Their organizational skills and how they would have a community car rather than an individual car. And they would organize the schedule of the use of that vehicle. Because in most American cities, with few exceptions, having public transportation as your sole source of movement is very limiting. And so therefore, they were always impressive, but their knowledge of America would exceed mine. They would ask me about some city I’d never been to or a government structure in a state that I’d never thought about. And they would say, well did you know that they did such and such in South Carolina? No, I really did. So their knowledge of us is far more than what our knowledge of… I mean, we don’t have much knowledge of people outside the US. We don’t really even understand what’s going on in the US. But as far as the average American, they don’t think about what’s going on other nations. The political system, it’s we’re the best at everything. Our health care is the best, our universities are best. Everything’s the best. If you don’t love it, leave it. I mean, the average American.

River 59:47

Okay, yeah, I left. Let me let me say this, if I may, just to add something. I personally don’t care for anecdotal evidence. So when I say four people have come here, this, that and the other, on our YouTube channel, we have already published one man who was willing to sit for an interview who looks directly in the camera and says I am a registrant from South Carolina. This is what happened to me and I’m in Germany. Here I am. With a picture of his passport that has the stamp in it. You know, the sex offender stamp in it. And we have an interview that we made two weeks ago with another guy that just came in, and we should be publishing that either tonight or tomorrow night. But we want to make sure that the public sees these are real people. This is not anecdotal. Oh, I heard this or there was a guy. No, no, no, here he is speaking for himself. So, because I’ve read things online where they say, oh, they’re pulling sex offenders off the planes in Europe. No, they’re not. Stop it. No, they’re not.

Andy 1:00:48

There is a website it’s the Registrant Travel Action Group, it’s, I believe and that individual, that group, it’s just self-report. What country did you go to? Did they let you in? Do they allow relations? What do their laws say? And you just get this basically a Google spreadsheet view of continent. (River: I’m familiar with RTAG) Yeah. And many places over your way in Europe, they’re letting people in as far as the way that is reported. I think there are a handful of countries that are not.

River 1:01:23

And anybody who wanted to challenge one of them, because… but again, part of the problem is I’m hearing this story. And if I hear it one more time, I’m going to choke myself to death, about this guy that was denied access to Greece. They don’t give us a name. They don’t give us a date. They don’t give us a city. They don’t give us an airport. Stop with it. If you’re not willing to put a name out there, if you’re not willing to give us details to check to see, because when you say someone was denied entry into Greece, why was he denied?

Andy 1:01:50

Yeah. Did he have weapons with him? Maybe that’s why he was denied.

River 1:01:52

Maybe he had an active warrant. Come on. So stop with this, “just because, just because.” No. there is no “just because.” There’s always other reasons.

Andy 1:02:03

Um, one thing that we brought up before we started recording was, so last night, we recorded an episode about polygraphs. And I wanted to get how the polygraph system works over in Germany in comparison to here where they’re using it – first of all, it’s Kabuki machine. Which I don’t need to go over this again about how much of a not-scientific tool- I hate this thing so bad, you have no idea. And but they use it as a witch hunt device here of asking you all kinds of very probing questions just to trap you into admitting that you did something.

River 1:02:37

And it makes you wonder if some of these people are just perverts that want to hear the private details of your life.

Andy 1:02:42

We’ve had conversations about that, too. There may be some kind of deviant attitudes behind it of the people that are asking these questions.

River 1:02:50

Correct. Don’t you ever wonder? I’m sorry.

Andy 1:02:53

So anyway, how is the polygraph set up, the regime in Germany handled?

River 1:02:59

It’s very simple. The law itself – we’re not talking about court cases. The actual written law itself, which anyone can look up online in English, says that polygraphs are forbidden in courtrooms. Period. End of discussion. One exception. The one exception is if the results of a polygraph tend to prove someone’s innocence. (Andy: That’s so weird.) That’s it. There is so no other exception.

Andy 1:03:24

That’s so opposite to what we do here.

River 1:03:27

But it’s written into law. So I mean, it’s not even up to a court opinion where a court could be overturned or you know, a court ruling. Precedents can be overturned. No, this is the written law, end of discussion. We’re not discussing it further.

Andy 1:03:39

So should we beat this dead horse or like no, can’t do it?

River 1:03:42

Can’t do it. Unless intends to prove innocence. And that’s part of the problem I have with the polygraph is because, you know, they were… something we didn’t talk about earlier is, and I don’t generally talk about it much, but my victim recanted 13 years later. So all those years that I kept saying, I didn’t do this. I didn’t do this. “Oh, you’re in denial.” (Andy: Right. Right.) So when the victim recanted, do I get an apology now? No, of course not.

Andy 1:04:16

No, and no. And the court won’t go back and reverse things. Larry, fill me in on this one.

River 1:04:22

No, the court would not overturn it. We did appeal it. The court said listen, you were convicted only on the testimony of the victim, therefore, was the victim lying in 1994 or is the victim lying today? And since we don’t know, we have to assume that the victim was telling the truth in 1994 because you must have found a way to intimidate or bribe the victim into recanting.

Larry 1:04:45

Gee, Andy that sounds exactly like what I say on the podcast when people say recantation. I say it’s not worth a bucket of spit.

River 1:04:51

it’s not worth anything.

Andy 1:04:54

Yeah, that’s what you’ve said a bajllion times.

River 1:04:55

Under Florida law 794.022, the law says the victim’s testimony need not be corroborated in prosecutions for sexual battery. What that means is the victim’s testimony alone, if the victim tells a good enough story, it’s all the evidence they need.

Andy 1:05:14

Larry is there anything, River is there anything you want to cover before we close this part down? We’re going to do a little bonus episode. But I want to close this one out.

River 1:05:20

I feel like I talk too much. I’m sorry.

Andy 1:05:23

No, I love it. I mean, we can go for the next four hours if you have the time. I’m perfectly happy if we got to split this up. But I want to do this little extra bonus section of the things that we can’t release to the general population.

River 1:05:34

Oh, this is where I sing my favorite Christmas… Okay.

Andy 1:05:38

No. Larry, do you have anything that you want to ask before we move on?

Larry 1:05:43

It’s been amazing. It really has. And I hope we can actually have you back.

River 1:05:49

Oh, you’re too kind.

Andy 1:05:47

Oh, yeah, I would like to establish a relationship with you that we can cross-pollinate on a pretty regular basis, collaborate, whatever.

River 1:05:55

I like that: cross-pollinate. I like that.

Andy 1:05:56


River 1:05:57

You’re very kind. Thank you. If the schedules work out, I’m all in favor.

Andy 1:06:02

Well, you are on a slightly different time zone than we are.

River 1:06:05

Slightly. Six slightly different time zones. Oh, no, no, no, I think I’m eight ahead of Larry. (Andy: You are. You are.) Six ahead of you. And my job just changed a little bit to where I’m now going to have every Sunday free. Which means Saturday nights for me are very doable.

Andy 1:06:24

Excellent. Um, Larry, what were you going to say?

Larry 1:06:29

I don’t even remember. But it’s amazing. We’re gonna try to continue to poach your viewers and cross-pollinate because we do the same thing in terms of trying to inform people, which is what you’re doing.

River 1:06:40

Yeah, it’s not poaching. This is not poaching. (Andy: You can share this.) No, we are a service to the community. This is not a competition. I don’t see it that way. It’s not a scorecard. I’m not keeping track.

Andy 1:06:52

Oh, well, not to diminish that. But you have many, many more YouTube followers than we do. And we would like to have a similar number, not for monetization, but we’re trying to get the information out. And apparently, we are all swimming in the same pond and we keep getting the same fish. So the program we did a two or three weeks ago was a debate show about morality. And I had a connection with a YouTube host to get us in that arena to try and get stuff because he has almost 10,000 subscribers. Do the math. He has 20 or 30 direct PFRs is in the audience, let alone if you extrapolate out to friends, family and whatnot. So that’s what we were trying to do there. (River: Exactly.) River. I can’t thank you enough, man. Tell me the name of the book. Tell me the name of the book.

River 1:07:42

Just Facts Not Fear.

Andy 1:07:44

Excellent. And tell me how to… Go ahead.

River 1:07:46

No, I was gonna say the sequel is being written right now. And that is the other half of that story, which is my life in Germany. How I got to where I’m at today.

Andy 1:07:55

How fantastic. And you have a YouTube channel I understand? (River: Yes, sir.) And how would people find that one?

River 1:08:02

Type in my name: Steven Whitsett, or Common Sense Laws, or Just Facts Not Fear. But I suspect that if you type sex offender YouTube channel, I’ll probably pop up.

Andy 1:08:15

Maybe. Or us. (River: Pretty sure I will.) Those are good search terms for people but I think you’d end up finding every Sex Offender Registry on the planet too when you type in that.

River 1:08:25

You might. I don’t know. I’ve never tried to find my channel. So I don’t know.

Andy 1:08:29

Common Sense Laws is where it is. I don’t remember how I ended up finding it. Maybe someone just posted it somewhere.

River 1:08:34

See, I’m interested to know that. It surprises me that people watch my videos. I still surprised. It surprises me every time.

Andy 1:08:42

We feel the same way. Larry, wonders how we have people that support the program the way that they do. But this is the reason why is because you having the biggest cojones that anyone has ever imagined to do what you’ve done. That’s why you have followers is because you have a story that is unreplicatable.

River 1:09:03

Well, let’s see where we go from here. (Andy: Very well. I love it) I’ve done this much. How much further can we go? Because I am convinced that this truly is a human rights issue. I am convinced. And I believe that lives really, truly are at stake.

Andy 1:09:18

I can’t agree more. That is a perfect way to close it. And with that I bid you adieu. This has been a Patreon extra for our supporters and I cannot thank you enough. You are the bomb. I appreciate it so very much. Have a great evening and enjoy your time with your mother.

River 1:09:32

Thank you sir. I’ll very much do so. Auf Wiedersehen! [Goodbye in German]

Andy 1:09:36

Very well. Bye-bye. Larry, that interview was absolutely phenomenal. What did you think?

Larry 1:09:45

Oh, it was one of the best guests we’ve ever had in our – how many years have we been doing this? – almost four years now.

Andy 1:09:51

It’s coming up on four. We are going to move into our fourth year here shortly. He was phenomenal. He was very engaging. He was articulate. He was a lot of fun to have.

Larry 1:10:02

He really was. Actually, when you get ready to fire me, I think he would be a good replacement. He is so balanced and reasonable and very intelligent. I just really enjoyed having him on the program.

Andy 1:10:15

What are your thoughts maybe about him and his, shall we say, relocation? What I really want to know is do you think that’s a viable, let’s call it, a vehicle if you have the resources? Do you think he’s full of poopoo? Or do you think he’s legit?

Larry 1:10:33

I think he’s legit. I even thought about it myself. But I’m trying to figure out how I would have a skill that I would offer in that part of the planet, because I’m not sure that my legal skills would really transfer very easily. Unlike your computer skills that go anywhere.

Andy 1:10:51

They are very, very, very transferable. How about the part… what was I just going to ask you? I believe he’s absconded, and about the human rights violation part, that’s why I wanted to go. Do you think that the EU would actually label the PFR regime here in the US as a human rights violation?

Larry 1:11:19

They’re going to be under a lot of pressure not to. The US economic pressure of the United States is enormous around the world. And it would be very dissatisfactory to the American government if they did that. So we shall see. I mean, the European Union, when you combine the entire economic output, they’re on par with the United States. But the United States is the currency of the world, reserve currency of the world, and it’s gonna be a shocker if they do that.

Andy 1:11:52

If you’re hearing this, what you need to do is you need to become a patron because there’s about a 30- or 40-minute extra part of this interview that is released only to patrons, and you’re missing some really, really incredible content [accessible only online]. And I’d strongly recommend that you get yourself a hold of that. As always, you can find show notes over at You can leave voicemail at 747-227-4477. Email us at Of course, support us on patreon at That’s You can subscribe on YouTube. Follow us like us on YouTube and Twitter, and all of those places just searching for Registry Matters. With that, have a great night and I will talk to everyone soon. Have a good night.

You’ve been listening to FYP.

Transcript of RM194: PA DOC Stalling in Release of PFRs

Listen to RM194: PA DOC Stalling in Release of PFRs

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 a problem with these thoughts, fyp.

Andy 00:17

Recording live from FYP Studios, east and west. Transmitting across the internet. This is episode ­­194 of Registry Matters. We’ve been doing Time Warp stuff, Larry. My brain is very confused about trying to pretend that it’s this time versus that time. But this is actually Saturday night, September 18th. Right?

Larry 00:38

I think so.

Andy 00:40

I did receive a comment from someone that listened to our Patreon extra that we’re going to actually talk a little bit about later, that they normally listen to podcasts at a very accelerated rate on podcast apps. You can accelerate them to 1.1 speed or two. This is compressing it by like 10 and 20. And this person normally listens to it at 40%. So you knock out an hour long podcast in like 40 minutes. I talk too fast for this speed that it turns into gibberish. No comment?

Larry 01:13

You think so, do you?

Andy 01:16

That’s what they said. I don’t have anything else that I can even comment on it. Well, Mr. Larry, what do we have going on this evening?

Larry 01:27

Well, we’re all over the map. We’ve got questions from people that are in custody. I’m trying to figure out the politically correct term because I never get it right. incarcerated individuals. We have questions from people who are not incarcerated individuals. We have a letter to a state legislator to talk about. We have an update on a case out of Pennsylvania. And we have one article about a 12-year sentence for coupon fraud.

Andy 02:04

For coupon fraud? Way to get like Al Capone or something. Okay. Haha.

Larry 02:14

I think we have some comments about our polygraph episode that we recently did.

Andy 02:19

Yes, we do. Fantastic. Well, let’s dive right in. Larry, the first thing that we have is a question from someone that is in Illinois. And he says:

Listener Question

Dear NARSOL, my question for you is, your for your organization is the following. What are the rules and regulations and laws for the state of Illinois? Second question is if there are any states without sex offender registration laws, if any. I would like the laws, regulations and rules for all of the United States or one that you’re able to retrieve for me. Finally, any lawyers in the state of Illinois that represent PFRs, hopefully, pro bono, respectfully.

Wow, Larry, they’re kind of asking for all of the wiki site that NARSOL has with all of the rules and regulations for all 50 states. I don’t even know that NARSOL has all 50 states published in there. There are probably some gaps.

Larry 03:26

Well, I’m going to take the easy ones. Number 4, any lawyers in the state of Illinois that represent PFRs. Hopefully, pro bono. That’s going to be a tall order. Probably not going to find that very easily. So we’ve done one question. Any states that don’t have registration laws, there’s no state in the United States that doesn’t have a registration law. So we’ve knocked out two of them. Now, within the United States, there are states that have less onerous laws, but every state registers and every state has some portion or all of their offenders on the internet. But there’s no state without a registry. So we’ve knocked out two of them. The rules and regulation for the state of Illinois, I’m going to send them. There in the DropBox folder. I’m going to send them to this writer. I get to plug another site that really annoys people. It’s the KlaasKids Foundation, which most people would not find them PFR friendly because they are for more strict laws. But they have, as far as I’m concerned, the best resource. It’s not a perfect resource, but it’s the best resource where you can readily assimilate information, because they get it straight directly from the state itself. They’re in constant contact with the state registrars and they get the number of people registered and the current iteration of the law. So I have produced a copy from that website, compliments of the KlaasKids Foundation, and I’m going to send that to him. So that takes care of the rules and regulations for Illinois. The rules for the entire country. I mean, that’s just not doable. I mean, we would have to send you a UPS truck with all of that

Andy 05:07

There would be a lot.

Larry 05:11

So, but there’s a lot of similarities in the registries, you know. When you take out the states that are eminently reasonable, then there’s a lot of similarities beyond that, you know. They’re just consistent with what you have to do. So if you if you’ve have gotten any information about registering in one state, it’s very similar in another state.

Andy 05:32

And almost just states that are nearby are very similar to their neighbors, kind of sort of, generally. If you’re in the southeast, they’re all basically kind of crappy. With this one has extra restrictions here. This one has extra restrictions there.

Larry 05:50

Generally true. Now, in the case of like Georgia, the registry is not as harsh as the surrounding states. You’ve got Georgia legislators who think that Georgia should be similar to the other states. And in fact, there was legislation to make the removal process in Georgia more difficult to make it more consistent with the surrounding states. Like for example, in Alabama, you can’t be removed. But the states that that do have removal processes, Georgia has a more reasonable process than the surrounding states. So amazingly, Georgia wants to be like other states when it comes to some things.

Andy 06:23

American exceptionalism, man. Let’s be exceptional at making this just diabolically terrible across the board. Is that all for this particular question before we move on?

Larry 06:34

That’s the best I can do. But I will send that to the writer in Illinois. The FYP Education Administrative Division will make sure that he gets that.

Andy 06:46

The FYP Education Administrative Division. Oh, wow, I didn’t realize we had staff, Larry.

Larry 06:53

We have to make ourselves sound really official to FYP.

Andy 06:57

That’s awesome. All right. Well, then question number two. Let’s see here it says:

Listener Question

To the NARSOL Legal Corner. I am serving out a 25-year sentence in Kentucky Department of Corrections. When released, I’ll be on conditional discharge for five years after serving 85% of my sentence. I have very little family left. And what family I do have is now in Illinois. I’d like to do an interstate compact to Illinois, but I have no access to Illinois law here in Kentucky. I don’t know if Illinois has codes or statutes, or what the laws are on PFRs coming from other states on conditional discharge. I also have no access to Illinois registry. Please send me info to contact necessary people to get info I need on Illinois registry and laws. I know some states, you’re better staying where you are at because of the registry laws. How do I find out if this applies to me going to Illinois from Kentucky? And thank you.

Larry 07:59

I like that question because it builds upon the previous question. But I can use the same resource, which I will. But it allows us to talk about the interstate compact, which is always an interesting issue for our listeners, particularly for our prison audience. He is very fortunate in that Kentucky does not charge an outbound application fee. And I did that research before the program. Oftentimes the state that you’re in that you want to apply from, known as the sending state, they impose these huge fees. Kentucky’s got it right. There’s no fee for a parolee, there’s no fee for a probationer. He is correct. He’ll have to apply for the interstate compact, because if your post prison conditions include any reporting… it doesn’t matter what they name it. They’re calling it, like if you look above here, they’re not calling it parole. They call it conditional discharge. That’s one of the deficiencies in the old interstate probation / parole compact that was improved by this present compact, the interstate compact for adult offender supervision (ICAOS). Because every name that a state has may be different. The key that determines whether you’re going to have to use that vehicle of interstate compact is whether you have a reporting obligation. And if you have a reporting obligation, you’re a covered offender. So he will be required to do the interstate compact. Fortunate for him, there’s no fee. And when he gets to Illinois, if he’s accepted, if he has sponsors – they have some strict residency rules, apparently, from what we’ve heard from our audience – But if he is able to be accepted, he will have the registration requirements of Illinois. Kentucky is no longer in the picture because he’s not going to be living there, but he’ll be required to comply with the registration statute as it exists in Illinois. And his supervision requirements will be what Kentucky imposed plus what Illinois wants to add that’s consistent with how they supervise their PFRs. So he may pick up additional conditions, but he will definitely have the conditions that Kentucky gives on him for his conditional discharge conditions. When he signs that paperwork that allows him to leave Kentucky prison, those conditions follow. They don’t go away. As I’ve said before, wouldn’t it be magnificent if you could change your sentence by just simply crossing state boundaries. You can’t do that. So those conditions will follow you.

Andy 10:33

Okay, and what are we able to send? And I know that this is coming from the NARSOL Legal Corner. So what is FYP going to be able to do? And what is NARSOL going to send on his behalf?

Larry 10:46

Well, NARSOL will send a letter saying that we answered this on the RM podcast, Episode 194. And then he will receive the transcript of 194, as well as the one that says Illinois SORNA in Dropbox. And that came from the KlaasKids Foundation website. And it’ll explain the basics of Illinois registration. So that’s what the two people from Illinois will get. They’ll get this transcript, plus the Illinois page from the Klaas Foundation website.

Andy 11:19

Larry, you put two things in here related Illinois. This sounds like you’re kind of cheating.

Larry 11:24

Well, I don’t control who writes us.

Andy 11:28

Alright, this one is a very disturbing letter. This comes from an individual in Kentucky, it says, again:

Listener Question

To whom it may concern. Hi, I’m an inmate at the Luther Luckett Correctional Complex in LaGrange, Kentucky. My name is blah, blah, blah. I’m doing eight years on second degree rape. Since I have made it to prison, I have been treated badly. Other inmates steal all my things, call me names, and all kinds of different things. Plus, almost one month ago, I got raped by – it’s been redacted – one of the inmates. And they do not have PC, (PC is protective custody). So I’m in the hole. (Andy: Which I think is protective custody, except for you probably have a bunkmate) and I’ve been in here for the last 23 days, with only a smock to wear. And I’m waiting to get shipped to a different prison. The inmate that raped me is a gang member. And I asked for PC and I got denied. So now I have to go to a different prison where I will possibly have to fight because the inmates put a hit on me, maybe even get killed. I don’t know. But I’m scared for my life. I do not find it right that inmates with any kind of sexual charge get treated very badly. They have to pay to walk the yard or do sexual favors. And if not, they get treated bad., get everything stolen from them. It’s not right that we get treated like this, and now to protect oneself. Will you help me change this, please and thank you?

And oh my god. So there’s PREA, there’s the Prison Rape Elimination Act. And I’m not saying it doesn’t happen. But that’s a federal thing. Does that apply to the States?

Larry 13:19

Well, it’s a goal for the states to get their precious resources as I understand it. If they can show that they’ve taken these steps to eliminate or reduce, you’re never gonna eliminate, but to reduce prison violence, in particular rape. I feel bad for this guy. I don’t know what we can offer him. I put this in here, mainly because I want to pose the question. I’ve never been to prison. But I find it appalling what the hierarchies are in prison, and I know what this podcast isn’t going to change any of that. But I find it appalling that the people who kill are at the top of the pecking order, the food chain. They’re admired, as I understand it. And the people they have this hierarchy of disgusting individuals, and PFRs are at the very bottom of the pecking order in terms of what he’s describing. This is not all that uncommon. I’m not saying it’s common. It happens in every prison, but I hear quite a bit of this. And what really puzzles me is prisoners are forever filing grievances about due process and presumption of innocence and ineffective assistance of counsel and that they should be treated… They constantly complain about collective punishment. You name it, prisoners are complaining all the time. If you want people to respect you, why is it that you – this is the rhetorical question for you people behind the walls. I would like you to write and tell me how these hierarchies come to be. And why is it that you demand to be treated with respect and with due process and all this, but yet you don’t treat anybody with any presumption. A person gets arrested even pretrial, and they get thrown into county jail. If it’s determined that it’s a sexual charge, they get beat, and all sorts of things because they’re automatically presumed guilty. But yet you turn around and you say, don’t presume me guilty. I’m entitled to this. I have no idea how to explain it. I think you’ve been to prison before. Do you have any insight as to where this culture comes from? And how it is that they demand that they be treated, but yet they don’t treat anybody with the same thing they demand for themselves?

Andy 15:28

The answer that I have is, is certain, like my experience, and then all of those around me. I made, like, I don’t know, maybe they were camps that had a high number of people there with these kinds of charges. So like, then it was just like, it wasn’t a one off. But I never had a problem. But is that because I’m tall and maybe broad shouldered? I don’t want to say that the person that we’re talking about looks soft because I know nothing of this. But they decided to target this person. And I mean, once you get the guys of gangs, once you’re on their radar, you are… like, he’s gonna have problems probably in every place that he’s at. And he’s, that’s all I could really speak to is I made friends, I guess you could say. I had store call. So like, I didn’t pay the piper. But I just was, hey, you need a soup? Man, look, don’t go hungry on the weekends. Georgia only feeds you four times a week. So if somebody needed a soup, I always had an extra soup in my box to give people. So I was generous in that regard. And maybe that kept me off the radar. I kept to myself, I didn’t bother anybody. But once you end up on there as a target, I don’t what to tell you.

Larry 16:44

Well, I’m gonna have to, think I heard you say that Georgia only feeds you four times a week? There’s 21 General meals. So 21 meals a week that GA reduces that to four a week from 21?

Andy 16:55

No, I’m saying, well, it’s four days a week. So you get three meals. I’m sorry, I only mean that on Friday, Saturday and Sunday, you get breakfast and dinner. You don’t get lunch. Because since nobody’s working, no one’s going to education, all you need to do is just lay there in your bunk. So like you don’t have any of the extra calorie requirements so we can drop you at a 600 calorie lunch or 400 calorie lunch.

Larry 17:19

So there’s no lunch on Friday or Saturday or Sunday in Georgia prisons?

Andy 17:24

Correct. Correct.

Larry 17:28

I did not realize that.

Andy 17:29

Yeah. And pretty much all programs, I guess is what they call them, everything, as far as any vocational classes, any GED classes, none of that stuff happens. Which again, like I said is I think that’s just an excuse to have fewer staff to keep you just locked in you’re in the dorm or in your cell, not cell, but just in the dorm for the weekend. There’s not any extra yard call or anything like that. It’s just completely like everything’s a holiday and everything is shut down. For the most part. It’s, like I said they’re shutting down on having lunch, which all they’re giving you is four slice of bread, two pieces of Bologna or something like that. And like four ounces of some sort of fruit cup. It’s really not that much of a lunch anyway.

Larry 18:14

Well, I tell you, you should have thought about that before you got locked up.

Andy 18:19

Without a doubt. I will tell you though, that at some point in time, when I was in the army, I remember driving through I want to say it was Texas, and saw people on an actual chain gang. And like 10 guys all strapped together with like hoes and they were beating on the ground, you know, doing farming kind of stuff. And I was like, yeah, that’s what those people should be doing for breaking the law. That’s karma for you, right?

Larry 18:48

So well, I have slightly a different view. I mean, when we put someone in a cage and they cannot fend for themselves, we have a duty to take care of them. That includes their safety, their nutrition and their health. And that’s part of the cost of caging people. When you don’t allow them to take care of themselves, you have to assume that responsibility. So feeding them is one of the things that’s required.

Andy 19:16

I gotcha. Um, the other thing, so the Prison Rape Elimination Act, as far as I understand it, is something that this person should be able to file some kind of very heavy grievance. I don’t know what it is. It’s not a charge, not charge. I mean, maybe you’re charging the prison. They’re in charge of protecting you to a certain degree. That they should be aware of this, and they should be able to respond to it to keep you to some degree safe. It is prison, so it’s not always going to be safe. But that’s what that whole act is. At least here, they made a big stink about it. If you have problems, then you should be able to talk to somebody and elevate and escalate that really quickly. Certainly not an expert and don’t want to even be considered this. But I’m pretty sure there’s a chain of command. There’s a procedure that you should be able to get assistance in this regard if you’ve been raped.

Larry 20:11

Isn’t that only gonna bring more problems to him though? Because doesn’t he become a snitch, then? He goes to the man for protection?

Andy 20:19

Well, then how did he end up asking for PC? And then they say they don’t have PC? So he just said, I need PC because I don’t feel safe. He didn’t say? And we don’t know the details of this. Like, yeah, then then you get labeled a snitch. And that certainly becomes far worse for you as well. Ah, all right, I’m deeply sorry for this person.

Larry 20:36

But my point about prisons is that if we’re going to cage as many people as we do in this country, and we are the top in the world, I mean, the graphs of nations, that we identify ourselves as being similar to, we are so far beyond anything of our comparable allies in terms of our rates of incarceration. If we’re going to do that folks, be prepared to pay the bill for it. These people cannot protect themselves. Everybody in prison is not a mean gangster. They’re just trying to serve their time. If you’re going to put people in these cages, be prepared to pay for enough staff to oversee them, to keep them safe, be prepared to pay for the health care, be prepared to pay for their nutrition, be prepared to do these things. And if you’re not prepared to do this, then you might want to talk to your elected officials about having fewer people in custody, because one of the things that makes prisons difficult to manage among many, is overcrowding and too many people. Every system in our prison breaks down when you have overcrowding. They’re designed for a certain number. And actually, ideally, a prison will never run at capacity. Because when you’re running at full capacity, that’s stressing everything. In security classifications, although you may have 1000 cells for just round numbers, of those capacity of 1000 beds, doesn’t mean that those beds allocate to the type of inmates you have. So you may need more beds for one type of classification and fewer for another. You see what I’m saying? (Andy: I do.) So you may end up having beds that are empty, bunks are empty because they’re in the wrong classification.

Andy 22:12

That almost mean you need 10 or 20% extra capacity in the whole system, where Georgia is running at like 105 or 110 percent of capacity.

Larry 22:23

Correct. Prisons ought to not be at capacity. And folks, if want everybody locked up, it’s gonna cost you some money to do it.

Andy 22:33

Okay, then well, we are going to move on. PREA. That’s all I gotta say is PREA, Prison Rape Elimination Act. And maybe on that I’m being naive as to how effective it is. And anyway, so we’ll drop that. Here we have a letter that you put in there. This is a letter from a constituent in the New Mexico. My name is redacted and I live in Albuquerque, New Mexico. I am a senior at New Mexico Highland University under the social work program. And I’m also an advocate for Casa Fortaleza, a nonprofit organization for sexual abuse awareness and prevention. I’m writing regarding New Mexico statute 30-1-8 for ages 18 and older, which sets a six-year statute of limitations for commencing criminal prosecution against sexual offense. I’m aware that in the 2020 New Mexico New Mexico government session, you proposed to revise the bill for the statute of limitations for sexual abuse of minors, but did not obtain a majority vote. It is sad to hear about the outcome since data suggests that sexual assault and rape continue to be a public health and a public safety problem in New Mexico. in 2018, New Mexico ranked as the seventh nationwide for most rape and sexual assault cases, and 3,640 sexual assault incidents were reported to law enforcement agencies. In 2013, the cost of reported rape alone in New Mexico was close to $219 million. On the other hand, in 2018, only 34% of sex crimes in New Mexico were reported to law enforcement. According to the US Bureau of Justice Statistics, it is believed that only 15.8 to 35% – that’s a big range – of all sexual assaults are reported to the police. Victims find themselves in denial, shock or still are confused about what happened and fail to report the crime to law enforcement. Hence, because sexual assault and rape crimes are underreported, New Mexico statute 30-1-8 is not effective for all. Jessica, my eldest sister, as an example, was raped in 2009 by a Christian pastor when she was 37 years old. He claimed to be a man of God, and there was much confusion in Jessica’s mind after the assault. It was not until recently in 2019 that she reported the abuse to the police. However, the police report noted that the case was out of the criminal statute of limitations. Supporters of New Mexico statute 30-1-8 argue that a longer interval to commence a criminal charge against the offender can alter the physical evidence, while a reasonable time gives the offender a just conviction. However, an expiration date to a sexual assault also denies the victim time to seek justice through the legal system. Consequently, the statute should be amended to unlimited statute of limitations on sexual assault crime. Can we amend this law? In this way New Mexico citizens will know the problem is being attended to by their state legislature. Thank you very much for taking the time to read this letter and your consideration. Boy, oh, boy, Larry, I know that you are going to have some things to say about this.

Larry 25:40

I am indeed. I agree with her on the underreporting. I can’t confirm the numbers. I don’t know that. But there are a lot of sexual crimes that are not reported. Sometimes, they only become a crime after the person is coached to believe that a crime is committed. And sometimes they are not reported because of the things that she listed. But regardless of the reason why they’re not reported, I will say this: a fair trial becomes more and more difficult with the passage of time. Our system is intended to be fair turn to not only to you, the victim, it is intended to be fair to the accused. We’re trying not to cage people without solid, reliable evidence. As time passes, that evidence is not solid and reliable. Witnesses die, their memories fade, physical evidence is lost or tainted. So many things go wrong as a case ages. Alibi witnesses if they’re not there. And I think that I ended up coming down on the side of Judge Moore in Alabama. Was it judge Moore that ran for senate? Somebody ran for Senate. (Andy: Yes. His name was Doug Moore.) Yeah, that had…

Andy 27:06

… A 40 year allegation of consensual sex with a minor, or at least a relationship. An inappropriate relationship with whatever. He was 30 as the DA in Alabama, and the girl was 15, the family was all on board with it, but they wanted to call him out for being a dirtbag.

Larry 27:22

And I said the same thing. So it’s not political, although there’ll be listeners out there that will try to say it’s political. It’s about fair trial. Our process is supposed to be fair to all the parties, not just the victims. As a victim, that’s hard to understand, because I’ve been a victim of violent crime. And I’ve struggled with that. I really did. Because I couldn’t understand why the accused, the person that was accused of assault was getting so much consideration. I was very young, and I didn’t understand it. But before we put that person in a cage, and ultimately, the grand jury no-billed him. But Before you put that person in the cage, they’re entitled to the presumption of innocence, robust defense, and they can’t get that robust defense as the decades wear on. So for whatever it’s worth, I will be opposing this letter writer. But there will be enormous pressure from the victim’s advocates. This is an example of the mail that comes in on a regular basis, prior to and during the sessions. And this is an issue. If you find yourself on the wrong side, it’s politically almost suicidal, if you find yourself on the wrong side of the issue. Because they come in crying and telling how their life was forever destroyed. Because they didn’t report this. And it held back their success. And I mean, it’s just unbelievable the things that they say. And you can’t say anything. The lawmakers can’t say anything to question them. Because that would play very well on YouTube, don’t you think?

Andy 28:59

Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah.

Larry 29:02

So this is a difficult position. The legislators of all the states that still have statute of limitations are under enormous pressure now because of some high profile cases. Some of the states have already eliminated them. You know, we talked about Illinois with Dennis Hastert, the former Speaker of the House. And you’ve got all these high-profile cases with Dr. Nasser, and what was the coach’s name in Pennsylvania?

Andy 29:29

[Jerry] Sandusky.

Larry 29:30

Sandusky. You’ve got all these people that have caused these overreactions in my view. My opinion is the abolition of the statute of limitation is an overreaction.

Andy 29:41

Didn’t New York make it 50 years or something like that?

Larry 29:46

They did indeed change it. I can’t say specifically, but this is a nationwide thing. Your state if it hasn’t done it, will be facing this type of effort. We’re no exception. And I just wanted people to know that this is the type of thing as a PFR, if you’re already convicted, you may think it doesn’t matter. But it does even if you’re already convicted. Because guess what? There may be old allegations lurking in your past that may be able to put you back in prison. So rather than having this thing about going to Hooters and staying under the radar, you ought need to be paying attention to this because this may come back for you.

Andy 30:29

I think I probably shouldn’t chime in, because I’ll get all the hate mail.

Larry 30:33

Well, I’m sure I’ll get some, but yeah, we’re on the constitution, I mean, to me, this is a constitutional issue, although the statute of limitations is not in the Constitution. But what is in the constitution is the presumption of innocence and the fundamental fairness, and you can’t have a fair trial with evidence that’s decades’ old. You really can’t

Andy 30:56

I gotcha.

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 31:47

Well, Larry, we are going to now talk about this thing from Pennsylvania. So you people put this document in here today and didn’t give me any time to read it and tell me that it was coming up. And this is a case named Lacey Stradford, et al. v. John Wetzel, Secretary Pennsylvania Department of Corrections. I thought this case sounded very familiar. So I checked out our FYP archives. Yes, just a little while ago in 168. Recorded back in March. I’m guessing that you want to update some folks on aspects of this case since it was just a few months ago. What was the piece about?

Larry 32:26

It was about different things related to PFRs.

Andy 32:31

Oh, great. That’s helpful.

Larry 32:32

We discussed it on episode 168, which everybody didn’t hear or everybody didn’t read. So, as we discussed from the district court’s opinion, the plaintiffs claimed that although they had been granted parole, that they’re release from prison, and placement and DOC-operated halfway houses, had been significantly delayed because of the DOC’s policy of considering community sensitivity to a criminal offence in making these placements. And because the consideration of community sensitivity, disproportionate delays of placement of parolees with the sex offence classification, the plaintiffs have been subject to prolonged incarceration following the grant of parole. So this means that they have been approved for parole, but the parole board has decided that the community sensitivity is too high, and they just can’t place these people anywhere. So these individuals with that classification have had to endure a prolonged incarceration. So that’s what this case was about.

Andy 33:33

I see. And I read the order and it contains several components. The first of it is is the order prohibits the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections from considering the community sensitivity or opposition when deciding on CCC or CCF placement. Can you remind me and the audience what that is?

Larry 33:53

Community Corrections Center or Community Corrections Facility.

Andy 33:57

I see. Okay. Well, that helps. And then you have more to go on with that, don’t you?

Larry 34:05

So, yes, they have been ordered to stop doing what they had long done with PFRs. So the court had previously held that DOC’s policy of considering community sensitivity and delaying the release of parolees with a sex offense classification on that basis violates the equal protection clause and the 14th Amendment. The court further noted that the DOC’s concern with community sensitivity is not a legitimate basis for delaying PFR’s release following a positive parole action. So that’s the first component of this order. They order them to stop doing that.

Andy 34:40

I vaguely recall that the district court’s opinion regarding community sensitivity was based on a decision from the US Supreme Court. Do I have that right?

Larry 34:51

You do. That’s exactly what they said in the opinion that we talked about back in March and I believe it was on page 15 from my notes. But yes, the district court’s opinions stated that the Supreme Court has recognized that mere negative attitudes or fear unsubstantiated by factors which are properly cognizable are not permissible basis for treating one group differently from another. And they base it on a case out of city Claiborne and I didn’t look that case up, but that was in the decision. So I don’t know the details, but that was the court decision that they based that upon.

Andy 35:28

All right, well, then, Larry, if I recall correctly, the DOC asserted that it has legitimate interest in ensuring that no one CCC and surrounding community be required to house a disproportionate number of PFRs. The DOC also claimed, without evidence, that if it were to release PFRs without delay at the same pace as other offenders, the CCCs would be overburdened with PFRs, which would in turn overburden the communities in which the CCCs are located. If the community’s sensitivity to this category of individual cannot justify the differential treatment of one PFR, then it follows that it cannot justify the differential treatment of multiple PFR. Isn’t that what the next segment of the order addresses?

Larry 36:15

Yes, it is. The court ordered the Department of Corrections secretary to direct the Bureau of Community Corrections, the BCC to review at this time the DOC’s pending release on parole list and to reevaluate individuals that have been on the list for the greatest length of time since a referral was made to the BCC following the issuance of a positive parole action.

Andy 36:43

Does this mean that the people will finally get out of prison?

Larry 36:51

Depends on what you mean by the word finally. I do not expect the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections will be in a rush to effectuate this order. If you read the following sentences of the order, you see there’s additional opportunity for them to stall, which is exactly what I expect they do.

Andy 37:10

So just to clarify, these are people that have been told by the Department of Corrections that they can parole out and parole is in my mind is like, you’re still in prison, but they have let you out. So you’re not inside confined inside the walls, but you still have a lot of those same sorts of rules. Anyway, and they all have to go to one of these, like a halfway house kind of place?

Larry 37:33

Well, apparently, that is where most of the people end up going, since I’m not in that state. But apparently that’s where people… that’s their transition to the community when they make parole. But these are people who have met all the therapeutic obligations, as we discussed in 168. They’ve done all the things and they’ve gotten the parole favorable recommendation; they’ve been approved. But in order not to inconvenience the communities and disturb their sensitivity, they’ve decided to continue to hold him in prison because of those community factors where they’ve been ordered to cease doing that and to expedite these people’s release. I don’t think they’re going to do it. That’s what they’ve been ordered to do.

Andy 38:15

But if they’re not letting them out just because they don’t have a place to go… I mean, I guess parole is a privilege. I think that’s probably where this goes, isn’t it that it’s a privilege for them to not be confined inside the walls?

Larry 38:27

Well, they do have a place to go. They will not put them in the CCCs that have beds because they don’t want to disturb the community sensitivity. It’s not because there’s not open beds, it’s because they don’t want too many PFRs in a particular CCC or CCF.

Andy 38:43

Interesting. It seems like this is almost like what we talked about, what we will talk about… when you get placed on civil commitment: “Hey, today’s your day that you’re getting released. Oh, wait, we’re sending you across the street because we’re not done with you yet.” This sounds similar, Larry.

Larry 39:04

Absolutely. It’s a tragedy, but our state’s even worse. It is a privilege to be released before your sentence expiration. In our state, your sentence expires and they continue to hold you. So at least that’s one step above us. Pennsylvania, your parole is of discretionary act because you serve a percentage of your time. In New Mexico, you serve all of your time. And then there’s a period following your prison sentence that’s called parole, but it should be more appropriately called supervised release. And you’re already in that period of supervised release. But if they do not like where you’re going to live, then they continue to hold you in prison. That is unconscionable in the United States of America, but it happens here. There are dozens and dozens and maybe even well over 100 people that are trapped In prison here.

Andy 40:02

That’s a lot of people Larry because you probably don’t have all that many people in prison for there to be that number like disproportionately represented.

Larry 40:12

Well, our entire incarcerated offender population hovers between 6,500 and 7,000.

Andy 40:19

Georgia has got that almost tenfold. Almost. Okay, um, all right. Larry, I have a question for you. I received a phone call from a friend and I actually have a similar, I’ve been thinking about the same question. But the difference here for this is he is on unsupervised probation, whereas I’ve had my sentence terminated. So I’m no longer on supervision at all. The question that he brought up, though, is Halloween is kind of around the corner. And can he decorate? And I said, and he was having an argument with his fiancé about it. And she says, I don’t want you to get in trouble. And he’s like, I can do what I want. Because I’m on unsupervised probation. And I said, you’re both right. What I believe is going to happen is that I think the sheriff’s office is going to come around with that little handy clipboard and they’re gonna say, hey, on Halloween, five o’clock curfew, don’t have lights on, don’t have decorations, no candy, blah, blah, blah. I am certain that the sheriff’s office is going to come around and do that for me and for him. And you cannot abide by them, because I don’t see that they have any jurisdiction over this. But I don’t think that it would be the best of ideas to do this.

Larry 41:33

I agree with you. But let’s talk about where is he? What county is he?

Andy 41:39

He is in I think it’s a Spalding County. Now he used to live in a very rural county and just moved a little bit north of there. So he’s kind of like in like, you know, not a metropolis, but a suburb of a metropolis.

Larry 41:53

Well, if he is in Spalding County, I tend to agree with you. But I think that that may lend to his benefit. Because Spalding is one of the two counties that were sued about Halloween with the requirement to erect signage on Halloween. The National Association for Rational Sexual Offense Laws (NARSOL) filed a suit a couple years ago against Spalding and Butts County. And the Butts county litigation is on appeal. But the county of Spalding decided to settle. And they paid out a significant attorney fee award as part of the settlement. And I think that the county attorney would be a little gun shy if this were to come to their attention. That they’re imposing another intended requirement, because as far as I know, there’s nothing in the Georgia statutory scheme that in any way prohibits a PFR from decorating or participating. It’s only the supervised offender population. But you are correct. We get reports from counties throughout Georgia, that they show up regardless of their supervision status. And they tell them you’re not allowed to do these things. And people say yes, sir. And that’s probably often the best course of action. But in this case, he may benefit from the settlement, because Spalding may be a bit gun shy to impose that on anybody else.

Andy 43:18

Interesting. In all of that, I didn’t think of that answer that they may be a little bit well, maybe we shouldn’t go mess with those people because we do have somebody gunning for our back. But what was the other county? That was Butts County. Like they may still like come out guns blazing, like nope, sign this here. Right?

Larry 43:38

Butts is determined. Sheriff Gary long, who was reelected last year. Sheriff Long has made it his mission to fight this issue to the Supreme Court because he put his hand on that Bible. And he swore he was going to protect the citizens of Butts County. And he is determined that he’s going to have this all to way to the Supreme Court If that’s what it takes. So we are determined that we’re going to fight this as well. We be being the organization that I serve on the Board of. We’re going to fight this all the way Supreme Court if need be as well.

Andy 44:11

That’s a cheap endeavor, isn’t it Larry?

Larry 44:15

It’s gonna be very expensive, but you can’t invent requirements. You did put your hand on the Bible, but remember the oath was to enforce the law not to invent the law. And therefore, you’re out of line Sheriff Long. And we’re determined to shut you down. And we’re also determined to shut down, we’re actually targeting Cobb County. We’re working on putting together a lawsuit because Cobb County, which is a suburban Atlanta, they are telling PFRs that they have to do things they don’t have to do, including giving their work schedule. That is not a part of the Registration Act. Now your probation officer can very much demand your work schedule because they may want to visit you at work, and they have that prerogative, but you do not have to give your schedule. It’s done in the Georgia statute. But that’s just one of the many things that Cobb County is imposing. We were hoping it would get better with the elections. We have not gotten any evidence that it’s gotten a lot better with the new sheriff that was elected that replaced the previous sheriff, Neil Warren in Cobb County.

Andy 45:15

Very interesting. So I guess we will follow up with you the first or second week of October and tell you if anybody has come to visit, because like I said, I am positive that the sheriff is going to come knock on my door about it. But you do know of people, like, I’m not I’m not exaggerating that there are people that are just on the registry, not on supervision, that get rounded up on Halloween and/or have insane curfews and can’t go out and express themselves. Right?

Larry 45:48

Right. I hear it all the time.

Andy 45:50

Okay, I just want to make sure and you, if I’m not mistaken, I’m not trying to put words in the mouth. But answer, you believe that this is a First Amendment violation for freedom of expression?

Larry 46:01

Absolutely, I do. I believe it is more than that. It is that and association. You have the right to associate with whomever you choose on a holiday. And association of interacting with people that are under adult supervision, knocking at the door, that is your prerogative to express yourself and to associate with them. And there is no law in Georgia. Now, they will very likely in the upcoming session of the General Assembly, they will propose such a law. We anticipated that. And they may very well pass that law. We have already anticipated that. And we will challenge that because we don’t believe it’s constitutional either. We do not believe that you can do that. But we’re not going to be surprised if they pass a law that says that you can’t participate in Halloween.

Andy 46:49

Very bizarre. I mean, it seems like all of us, forgive me, all of us should change our religion to something pagan-oriented that that has like Halloween as their day of holiness. And then we claim it as a religious testament just like the guy did. Packingham posted the religious message on Facebook. That’s, I’m pretty sure that’s how that got elevated so quickly is that he posted a religious message. And he was only on the registry. Had he posted something like Hey, Mom, everything went great. I don’t think it would have had the same sort of impact that he said, praise God that of that that went down for Packingham. So if we all convert to a religion that has Halloween as the day of holiness, then maybe we can make a claim.

Larry 47:36

I never thought of that.

Andy 47:40

Okay, Larry, let’s move on. What? Go ahead.

Larry 47:43

I did hear from an attorney in South Georgia that said that, in his particular county, which I don’t want to name at the moment, but he said that they do tell everyone on the registry to show up for housekeeping. They want to supervise them on Halloween. It’s not a large County, so wouldn’t be a lot of people. But they do that. So it’s not uncommon.

Andy 48:06

But it’s lucky this year. Halloween is on Sunday. So like last year, I’m pretty sure it was on Saturday or Friday. Wait, is this a leap year? This is 21. No. So last year, it was not, it would have been on Saturday night last year. Like that, that impinges on everything right there. If it’s on Friday or Saturday, like go have fun. Like I don’t think they’re going to bother you on Friday or Saturday. They’re gonna bother you on Sunday night.

Larry 48:29

So, well, we’re thinking about doing one of those Halloween marathons. If we can find a person to assist us with the long marathon. We didn’t do one last year because Halloween was greatly curtailed because of pandemic related concerns. But we’re thinking about doing one. Do you know anybody that might want to help one of those together?

Andy 48:47

Help in what capacity?

Larry 48:51


Andy 48:53

I don’t know anybody that does production work like that at all.

Larry 48:57

You don’t? Well, that’s what my concern is. We were thinking about putting one of these together.

Andy 49:01

Okay. It’ll be a Sunday night, man. I don’t care. Let’s move on, Larry. So that was that question about Halloween lights and curfews and all that stuff. And then I received a couple comments from people about the polygraph episode that we did. I’ve totally lost track of numbers. I think it was last weekend. So it was 193 that we did the polygraph. And so that was where we partnered with one of the affiliates and we did a phone call over zoom and we took some questions and stuff like that. We talked about the polygraph. But a friend of mine wrote in and I think you’re gonna get a big kick out of this Larry. Or he called me we talked about this. He said, he said, the day before he was going to go take a polygraph, he would have a friend come over and like swear man and be all official and say, Look, I need you to give me a polygraph test. And the friend would be like, Alright, I’ll give you a polygraph and go through and answer Some questions and whatnot. So then when he goes in for the real polygraph, and they go since your last polygraph, have you abided by all the rules and your special conditions and he would go Hmm, in my mind, my last polygraph was last night. So yeah, I’ve been a perfect person in the last 12 hours. That’s an excellent strategy.

Larry 50:20

That is funny. I don’t know that I would recommend it, but it is funny.

Andy 50:26

In my mind, Larry, if you can convince yourself of the thing, then you’re not lying. This is I like, this is just my own little like tactic of dealing with stuff. But if you believe that you’re not lying, if you can believe that what you’re telling yourself is true. So if your last polygraph was last night, then you’re not lying. And then we received another comment from a person that’s here in Georgia. He has a conviction from another state. Says, Hey, Andy, just passing along some info I got today. I, because I’m still after 19 years on supervision CSL from New Jersey Nets community supervision for life and mandated to take polygraphs in New Jersey for 11 years. I never took a poly when I moved to Georgia. It was mandated every six months until I inquired about it. Like why would you inquire about it? And then it became magically annual. I was scheduled for a Polly next week. The polygraph company called me and said I was no longer required to take a polygraph because I’m not in therapy anymore. And I haven’t been in therapy for a decade. And I verified this with my DCS officer. Just info. So like, you told me a story recently about like, let sleeping dogs lie, Larry. Like don’t go poke that bee’s nest. And if you’re not required to do something, don’t bother them.

Larry 51:45

Yeah, but we have a hard time convincing people of that. I don’t know how we are on time, but I can tell the story about the social security person.

Andy 51:53

That’s the story I’m referring to. I was not trying to out anybody.

Larry 51:57

Yeah, so got an old client from way back that had taken disability and gone back to work in ’98. ’99, and then got back on disability benefits. And for some reason, it’s an overpayment during some of that period of time, then the person went back to work again in 2020. And by going to work, that disturbed the file, because they had to look at are you entitled to another trial work period? Several components of the file had to be closely examined, and they saw that those payments were made in 1999, 2000 that shouldn’t have been. So they assessed an overpayment. So then that fired up us again, as representatives, to try to negotiate a settlement on the overpayments. So we submitted an offer and compromise which had been sitting since April or May. And the person just could not live with it anymore. I have to have an answer. Are they going to take my offer and compromise? Well, while it’s being considered, the payments the that the person was making toward the overpayment, the reimbursements were suspended. They were paused. But Social Security had forgotten to submit the offer to the right department, because of the level of the overpayment. There’s various levels that each aspect of the administration can approve. So $1,000 or less is one level, then as you go up in amount, there’s various levels. And this had to go to about the highest level of approval, because the amount. And so when we checked with Social Security, they said, Yep, you did have a pause in your payments while we were making the decision. And the decision was never going to be made, because it never did get submitted to the right unit. But now that you’ve brought it to our attention, we will submit the request and if it’s denied, you need to start back making payments. So the person could have conceivably gone for the rest of their life without making any payments, but they had to know. They just couldn’t live with it, couldn’t live with it. So now they know.

Andy 53:54

Couldn’t live with it. So those are the two comments we got a lot about… Go ahead.

Larry 53:59

A lot of stress goes with people when they have things pending. And I’m not a psychologist or expert to know how difficult it is, but it really bothers people when they have things pending and they just can’t let it go.

Andy 54:13

Very well. Um, and then I guess we can… let’s do this article real quick that you put in there. Virginia woman, This is from MSN. Virginia woman gets 12 years in prison for one of the biggest coupon scams in US history. Um Larry? Coupons? Coupons!? This isn’t Al Capone and like doing all kinds of prohibition kind of things and tax evasion whatnot, but this is coupons.

Larry 54:41

It is but it was a huge scandal and I don’t know what the answer is. I only put it in her really to pose a question. The victims were defrauded of millions. Kimberly Clark Paper Company Products, 8.9 million, might as well say 9 million dollars. Procter and Gamble, 2.8, might as well say 3 million. Unilever, another manufacturer of consumer products, two and a half million and Henkel, which makes cleaning supplies, 1.7 million. So it was a large scam, but as I’ve said about Martha Stewart when she was in prison, we should put people in prison that we’re afraid of that would hurt us if we’re out walking our dogs. I want to recover these millions of dollars. And to me, that’s the best solution. But you know, this couple, the husband got seven years. I guess he was a lesser part of the scam. But she’s been sentenced to 12 years in federal prison for that, which she’ll serve 85% of. So it’s not just PFRs that get harsh sentences. 12 years is a long time for making phony coupons. But the volume of it is what got the 12 years. It was a large scam.

Andy 55:52

I gotcha. Still. All right. Larry, let’s do something. We have an episode that is coming up that Patrons have already listened to. And it is an interview that we did with an individual who is now living in Germany. His name is Steven Whitsett. And I have received personally a whole lot of feedback from it from people. And like I said, so I think I released it on Wednesday, and it went out to Patrons. So only our Patrons are able to hear it. And on top of that, they got the full interview. Whereas the non Patreon listeners are only going to get the first hour-ish of the interview. And I wanted to get some feedback from you on what you thought of the interview. And then I also wanted to share some of the comments that people have given us as far as feedback.

Larry 56:47

If it wasn’t my favorite interview in the time we’ve done this podcast, it was very close. It was an awesome interview. The guy was articulate, very well researched, he understood what he was talking about, about German law and European law. He was very reasonable in how he described his experience with law enforcement and his experience with the correctional system in Florida. He gave credit for what they could have done to him versus what they did do to him. I just found him to be amazing. He should be at the top of the list for guests if we can get him back.

Andy 57:26

One of our, I think he may be patron number one, says holy poop and I adjusted what he says. You make me proud to be a Patron. You guys are working hard at getting info out and grow your audience and our team. This Steven Whitsett River episode was awesome and also gave me inspiration and hope for better days. Bravo and encore. Can’t wait to hear him again. Best episode ever. I’m sure River got some new subscribers after being on your podcast. He got at least one. Yours truly. Just an awesome podcast. He was. He was a lot of fun. He was certainly very articulate. I ended up speaking to him a handful of days prior to to get everything set up to make sure that all the tech and all that stuff would work and all that. And like instantly, just like a connection, we got along. We’re similar ages, we have sort of similar backgrounds, we were both in the Navy back in that timeframe and all that stuff. So we just we had a very, very it was just an easy conversation, where some people you have to like push really hard or pull really hard but he was just super awesome. And then another one of our Patrons, a regular who’s actually listening to us in chat tonight he says I freakin’ love this guest. Hell yeah. More of this fella. So I think I’ll leave it at that. I have a few other ones that I could if anybody wants to know. But I assure you, you will not regret. Go over to, sign up for the Registry Matters podcast. And just even a buck a month will get you there. You will not regret becoming a patron to hear the bonus content that comes along with this episode. With that, Larry, I think we are ready to go over to Who’s that Speaker? You probably don’t even remember who the last one was.

Larry 59:11

I remember everything we’ve ever said on this podcast.

Andy 59:13

Everything? Alright, well last week, or actually it was two weeks ago. I played, well maybe it was last week. I really don’t remember when this was. It was this one.

Ronald Reagan (Audio Clip) 59:24

Run by the strangest collection of misfits, Looney Tunes since the advent of the Third Reich.

Andy 59:30

And yeah, that was last week. We played that while we were doing the polygraph episode. And I was kind of surprised that we got a whole bunch of responses because like you recognize the voice Larry, but I don’t know that anybody would recognize the quote per se, but that is, of course, who was that, Larry?

Larry 59:49

That was Ronald Wilson Reagan.

Andy 59:51

That is correct. We got like a bunch. So Carl was the first one to write in. And he got the answer. That’s Carl in Missouri. Thank you so very much. This one is a little bit off the beaten path, this new one. And, um, so yeah, we’re not going to do it next week because we’re having a little bit of a schedule conflict. So there won’t be this. So in two weeks, we will figure out who wins this one. But this is the Who’s that Speaker? this week.

Who’s that Speaker? 1:00:22

Speaker 1: Bible says two men ought not lay together. Speaker 2: Well neither two women, but I like to watch ‘em do it.

Andy 1:00:27

Why did you pick this?

Larry 1:00:34

Well concentrate more on the first speaker where it says the Bible says that… that’s who we’re trying to identify. I put that in there because that is a distinct voice. And I’d be very surprised if we don’t have multiple people get that one right. But yeah the second voice was just for kicks and giggles because of his reaction.

Andy 1:00:52

Yes. And I think that may… so many of the people in our sphere have had some sort of same sex type of crime. And in the case of Mr. Whitsett, his crime involved same sex and, like at the height of gay fear. I don’t know if that’s the right term. But uh, like, that’s, anyway, that’s what that’s a reference to, at least in my mind. So what you got to do is, email Tell me who you think that is. And the first person to get it right will win a prize of me telling your name on the program next time we go around for this. Larry, I don’t think we have anything else. We’re right at the right time slot. Is there anything else you want to cover before we get out of here?

Larry 1:01:42

Do you want to promote the NARSOL conference and the special guest that we’re going to have thanks to our loyal Patron. We have awarded that prize and that person’s coming to the conference. And it’s going to be an awesome experience.

Andy 1:01:55

That it is. So yes, our generous Patron offered up to help sponsor someone to go to the conference. And that has been taken advantage of and when I had the dialogue with the person, and he tells me his name. And I see the last name. It said like the Von Behrin, and it was kind of coincidental because we had just done the polygraph episode. So we talked about Von Behrin during that program, and Von Behrin is the person from Colorado who pled the fifth about taking a polygraph, I believe.

Larry 1:02:32

That is correct.

Andy 1:02:34

And so I was like that one? He goes, Yeah, that’s the one. So if I’m not mistaken, Larry, we are going to pull off, we’re going to do a live program at the NARSOL conference, probably Saturday night, which I think is the 10th. It might be the 11th of October, in Houston. And he’s going to be our special guest. So we’ll do a live program with him, which is going to be awesome. But then also you asked about promoting the NARSOL conference. Like a whole bunch of the people that listen to this podcast are going to be there. So by all means, come up and say hi, I’m sure you know what I look like by now if you’ve been watching YouTube videos, and there’s a whole mess of speakers. There’s Emily Horowitz is going to be there. Jill Levinson, Paul Dubbeling, of course, you’re going to be there. I don’t know. Are you doing a presentation?

Larry 1:03:17

Not this time, but we will be doing the recording. And I believe that since the conference kicks off on the eighth on Friday, that would be Saturday night, the 9th and then we’ll include it on Sunday, the 10th.

Andy 1:03:33

I gotcha. Yeah. So that would be the 9th. You’re right. I agree with you. But certainly, I guess tickets are still available and hotel rooms are still available.

Larry 1:03:42

Yes, the overwhelming demand. The hotel extended the cutoff date. And we signed an addendum to have more rooms added to the block and they’ve extended it through September 30. You get a hotel room with a buffet breakfast up to two individuals for $104 at the Marriott. This is not at the Dewdrop Inn, but it’s at the Marriott at the Houston Hobby Airport. If you’re going to come to the conference, book in our block. You get the perks of the free parking and the breakfast that’s included. And if you’re going to fly on an airplane, use Southwest Airlines, they don’t rip you off. They don’t charge you ticket change fees. They don’t charge you cancellation fees. They don’t charge you bag check fees but go to You won’t find them on any of the third-party bookers. So people tell me all the time, well, Larry, I didn’t find any Southwest flights. Well, you didn’t go to That’s the only place you’ll find Southwest flights.

Andy 1:04:41

I have been poking around their website personally lately for flights. Also I will tell you like personal experience, we did this at the conference a couple years ago. And it’s a really I mean, it’s a certainly nice hotel, big atrium thing. So the restaurant and all that stuff’s like in the center. It’s a great place to meet people. People that are active in the movement. And you’re certainly going to walk away with a whole bunch of information and get recharged that this is something worth fighting for and with people that are actively fighting it. (Larry: Absolutely.) Larry, we got a new patron. This came in actually at the somewhere during the polygraph episode last week, and we got a new patron named Michael, and we are at 99, Larry! We’re at 99 patrons. And when we hit 100, I was practicing today, you can see my saxophone right there. I will be playing a saxophone solo with a song of your choice, and then I will play a song for Patrons. I gotta probably promote that thing again and get people to vote. I’m pretty sure I know which song they’re going to pick. And thank you very much, Michael, for becoming a Patron. And here it is Saturday night. That’s when we normally record the podcast at 7pm. Eastern, and you can find all of the show notes over at You can leave voicemail at 747-227-4477. Email me at and support us on Patreon which is With that, Larry, I bid you a happy, happy, happy weekend for the rest of it. And I will talk to you tomorrow or Monday or Tuesday or sometime very soon. I hope you have a great night.

Larry 1:06:27

Thank you for having me back.

Andy 1:06:29

Of course. Bye.

You’ve been listening to FYP.

Transcript of RM192: Q&A Episode | Homeless | Terms of Supervision | Treatment

Listen to RM192: Q&A Episode | Homeless | Terms of Supervision | Treatment

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 a problem with these thoughts, FYP.

Andy 00:16
Hey everybody a quick announcement before we begin the program. We’re doing a special call-in show in partnership with Florida Action Committee about polygraphs. We’re going to answer questions about how it works and how your supervising authorities use this information. Head over to for calling details. The Zoom info will be posted there. This is going to be Saturday night at 7 PM, our usual recording time again, head over to The call-in information will be posted there. Recording live from FYP Studios, east and west. Transmitting across the internet. This is episode ­­192 of Registry Matters. Larry, Labor Day weekend, what do you doing? We shouldn’t be doing a podcast on a holiday weekend.

Larry 00:59
That’s what I was trying to tell you. But it fell on deaf ears.

Andy 01:04
Oh, yeah. I’m a slave driver like that, I suppose. You got any big plans this weekend?

Larry 01:10
I’m going to go out doing some sightseeing once we get finished here if there’s any daylight left. (Andy: There should be. It’s like noon where you are.) Not quite, but four o’clock.

Andy 01:22
Give me give me an idea of what we got going on this evening.

Larry 01:26
We’re going to be talking about the case from Indiana. The one we talked about a couple episodes back. Touching on a couple of issues in that case that would be Hope vs. Indiana Commissioner of Correction. And we’re going to be taking a plethora of listener questions because we haven’t done very many lately. So, we’re going to be catching up on listener questions that have come in on the internet and through snail mail as they refer to it. I prefer to call it postal mail.

Andy 01:56
I definitely call it snail mail because it is not fast, Larry.

Larry 02:01
If you so say.

Andy 02:02
No, for real. Here’s a real-world example. I work for a company that is in a very rural part of New York. And where I happen to live is in a rural part of Georgia. And when they would send me my physical paycheck, I would not get it for seven days. That’s not speedy.

Larry 02:20
Well you shouldn’t live out in the boonies.

Andy 02:22
I totally agree with you. But that’s how long it took me to get my mail. And that was kind of important, because that’s how I got food and food is somewhat important to me. You know? (Larry: I’ve heard that.) Alright, um, you have a comment from Mark about civil commitment?

Larry 02:40
I’ve actually received a number of letters about civil commitment in recent. And the reason why is because of the protests that have been organized in Minnesota. And people want us to talk about civil commitment and some of the letters have said that they don’t understand why we don’t understand that it’s unconstitutional. (Andy: We don’t understand this?) And we understand that we wish that the courts would declare civil commitment as it is practiced for those who have been convicted or charged with or those related to our issues, we wish that they would declare it unconstitutional. But civil commitment on its face, just that the idea of civil commitment is not unconstitutional. All states have a form of civil commitment. Therefore, each civil commitment scheme has to be examined for constitutional deficiency on its merits. And the courts throughout the land, including the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in Minnesota, have not agreed with them. So therefore, I want to talk about civil commitment. I’d like to have an episode where we have significant discussion about PFR civil commitment. But not liking it does not make it unconstitutional. If anybody’s listened to this podcast for any period of time, simply disagreeing or not liking our law does not somehow transform that law to be unconstitutional. It’s not unconstitutional to commit people.

Andy 04:08
And you’ve described this before, so let me sort of paraphrase. You go stand up on the top of the water tower and you say I’m going to jump and provided you don’t jump and go splat, someone is going to come and when you do come down, they’re going to put you in a little paddy wagon, whatever. And they’re gonna put the little white jacket on you where you can’t move around much and they’re going to hold on to you for a few days.

Larry 04:29
That is correct.

Andy 04:32
And that is being committed, you’re being held against your will you’re not necessarily being charged with a crime, though you may get something like disorderly conduct or disturbance, whatever. But they’re going to evaluate your mental stability to see if you’re a danger to yourself or the public. And I guess after that, then they send you home. Forget all the other charges that may come after that.

Larry 04:51
Absolutely. The really sad thing about this type of civil commitment that exists in 20 states and the federal civil system is that it’s a disguised extension of incarceration. It’s not about help. The civil commitment you just described, the sole purpose of getting you committed is to get you the help you need so that you can be released. And that’s a real shortfall in this type of commitment. This is disguised incarceration, and they’re trying to hold on to you as long as possible. Now people do get discharged from civil commitment. They get discharged, but not in the numbers of what they do in the regular civil commitment. Even John Hinckley, who attempted to assassinate the President of the United States, was released from civil commitment. And that’s a pretty significant undertaking when you shoot the president, and you shoot the press secretary, and you shoot three, I think there was a total of five people hit in that barrage of bullets by John Hinckley in 1981. But he was released. The travesty of this PFR civil commitment is that the goal is not to release these people. The goal is to figure out how to keep them in custody.

Andy 06:08
And they’ve built a model of saying that this is treatment, and we’re going to help you. But look, if they wanted to get you help in the x years that you spent before 510 20 years that you spent leading up to your release prior to this extra civil commitment, there would have been treatment of some kind, that perhaps maybe you could have, quote unquote, graduated from treatment before you were released.

Larry 06:31
Correct. And very little treatment happens in prisons as we know. (Andy: Yes. All right.) But we are going to talk about civil commitment when I find the right guest that can talk about it with some intelligence, and maybe even a person in civil commitment. They do have, in some civil commitment facilities, they have a significant amount of access to the internet and to communication so we may be able to reach someone in civil commitment. So we are going to talk about it at some point.

Andy 07:02
Okay. Um, let’s go and go reverse back in discuss the thing from Indiana from a few weeks ago. (Larry: Okay.) And it was Hope vs. Indiana Commissioner of Correction.

Larry 07:18
I believe I vaguely remember that case.

Andy 07:21
Yes. Okay. So the case was out of the seventh Court of Appeals. And it’s sitting en banc reverse the previous three judge panel. Tell me again what en banc is real quick.

Larry 07:29
That would mean all the judges in the Seventh Circuit heard the case with exception of one person that recused themselves because they had not been on the court when the case was being discussed. But yes, that means all the judges sitting as one court.

Andy 07:45
Okay. And then the panel had affirmed that the trial judge’s decision in favor of PFRs. I was reading it and noticed that the district court had granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs on all claims, and enjoined Indiana from requiring them to register. And on appeal, a divided panel from the Seventh Circuit had affirmed the district court’s decision. I know how you cringe, Larry, when the cases are decided by summary judgment. Did summary judgment come back and bite us in the tuckus again, in this case?

Larry 08:15
Yes, it certainly did. The court noted actually on page 17, that quote, the prior out of state residency represents neither causation nor perfect correlation for the application of SORA’s registration requirements. And there is no evidence that anyone in Indiana intended to deter travel through the other jurisdiction provision. That was the provision that said if you have to register in another jurisdiction, so there was no evidence, but without the benefit of a trial, it’s difficult to have sufficient evidence. And that’s what you need to strike a statute. Remember declaring a legislative enactment unconstitutional is an extreme remedy. It’s an extreme measure, and it’s only to be used sparingly and when a challenging party has put forward overwhelming evidence and proof. In fact, the standard is the clearest of proof. If you don’t have a trial, the evidence record is always bare.

Andy 09:19
We’ve talked about before. It becomes more and more clear to me. I think that I learned best through like a drip method, Larry where like the same message gets repeated to me over time, and then I get time to fester and process it and then you say it again, and I get to hear it again. This always seems to me when we go through summary judgment kind of stuff that the attorneys were lazy. That’s how it almost always feels to me when this happens. Someone’s like, I can take the shortcut and take summary judgment and I don’t have to do all this extra work.

Larry 09:48
I would love to think that that’s not the reason. Remember, I’m in this business and I try my best to defend attorneys when there’s justification for defending them. And I think that that may be a small factor that they’re going to move the case faster and with less expense on their part. But folks, attorneys, I know we’ve got hundreds of them listening to us, these decisions are going to be appealed. You’re seldom going to win a constitutional challenge at a lower court. First of all, you seldom gonna win at the lower court. But if you do win, the state is going to appeal. Remember, you need the strongest evidentiary record behind you. But I think they do that because they want to get the case moving faster. I mean, it takes years and years to litigate these things as we saw with Michigan when they passed their law in 2011, 2012. And here we are almost a decade later. So I don’t want to say it’s laziness. I think it’s a lack of understanding what the consequences are going to be down the road. They want the victory now. It is nice to gloat about a victory. I mean, that was an awesome victory when the district court… I mean, we were ooing about it on the podcast. But the victory did not survive appellate scrutiny.

Andy 11:07
And even the way that you word that, I would then go, Okay, so they were lazy because they didn’t understand. We are hiring these people to be the experts. It’d be like, Hey, can I get this mechanic that just finished out of the mechanic school, he’s a lot cheaper, and but he’s not necessarily going to have all the experience and expertise and maybe not someone such as yourself that can not “see the future.” And I say that with all kinds of scare quotes. But you have a lot of experience that you could advise a very young attorney or one that you’ve worked with for a long time. Hey, you don’t want to do this because of watch out for this train wreck coming behind you that they wouldn’t do these summary judgment things. It still sounds like they’re being lazy, Larry.

Larry 11:51
Well, I can’t argue with you. I think that could be a component in there. But and also, you want the case to be moving. When you finish your discovery, when you exchange all the things related to what might come out in a trial. You want the case… there’s two choices. You can tell the court we need a trial. Or you can ask the court for summary judgment. Well everybody wants to ask the court for summary judgment. I guess the correlation would be when if you ever have watched a criminal trial. Have you ever watched a criminal trial, even though you may have only watched part of it? At the end of the criminal trial, the defense attorney will move for what’s called a judgment of acquittal. They’ll say that the evidence wasn’t sufficient. They move for that knowing it’s going to be denied 990 out of 1000 requests for summary judgment. It’s the same thing on the criminal side is that we accept everything that was said here is true. There’s not enough evidence. No reasonable factfinder could find sufficient evidence; therefore, we should get a judgment of acquittal. They’re never granted. But they ask for that. Well, the same thing. They finish discovery. And then they say, well, let’s just go for judgment. Because we’ve got evidence on our side. Yes, you’ve got some evidence on your side. You’ve got some stipulations, usually from the state. They don’t contest every single point of your pleading. But there are significant things that you need to prove out with evidence that are gonna bite you in the butt later if there’s no evidence, and this is one of those instances where it may have done just that.

Andy 13:32
Let’s keep going then. And I drew my own map, Larry, of where in my particular county where I could live. I used a Google Maps program where I could draw 1000-foot circles and every place that I could find that was a church, school, daycare, whatever all those things were, and I drew out circles. There were a lot of places where I could live. But none of them had any houses or places that seem appropriate for me to live. Like out in the middle of nowhere, nowhere where I didn’t want, like there’s no food around. But anyway, I can’t get over residency restrictions are not considered banishment, because you could end up in a highly populated area. I think of a place like downtown New York City, there have to be daycares on the 40th floor of one of those high rises, that you’re not just talking about 1000-foot feet out. You could be talking about 1000 feet up and down too. Like there would be no place somewhere in New York City. They could live you’re talking about a 360 degree, like a globe of 1000 feet.

Larry 14:30
So well, on page 26, the court stated the plaintiffs raised that issue. The plaintiffs also suggest that SORA’s residency restrictions are akin to banishment, but we rejected this assertion by evaluating the Illinois sex offender registration statute. and that was in the case of Vasquez, 895 F.3d at 521. They rejected that. We reasoned that although residency restrictions limit offenders living and employment options, they do not amount to banishment, which traditionally meant that persons could neither return to their original community nor be admitted easily into a new one. Okay, that’s the end of the quote. Now, is a very standard and reasonable interpretation of an originalist point of view. Remember, words are, by an originalist, words are to be afforded the meaning as they were understood at the time they were written. So banishment as it was understood in colonial times, does not extend to what you’re describing. Banishment was when you were told you can’t come back into town. Ever. And I’m not aware of any banishment that says you cannot be in the town. They just make it very difficult for you to sleep in the town, but you can shop and spend your money. You’re not totally out of town. So you are an originalist? Aren’t you, Andy? You do believe in strict interpretation. This is exactly what that point of view. And I’m not saying it’s right or wrong. I’m merely telling you, that’s how they got to that outcome. Because this block of conservative appointed judges. Remember, we went through the list, and only of the 11, only three were appointed by Democrat presidents, and eight were appointed by republican presidents. And of the eight that were appointed by Republican Presidents only one had any sympathy for the arguments of the PFRs. And of the three Democrats, two of them, both of them were in favor of the PFRs. The other one didn’t participate because she was just confirmed and she didn’t participate in the case. So therefore, she didn’t vote, but it wouldn’t made any difference if she did vote. But when you vote for people for president, remember, they make these appointments to the federal courts, to the Circuit Court of Appeals, and to the US Supreme Court. You’re voting for a judicial philosophy, and your senators and your states confirm these people. And we’ve had Mitch McConnell at the helm for four years with massive approvals with very little scrutiny of these judges. And a lot of these judges are of the very conservative political persuasion. That’s how they got there. If you believe and words are to be interpreted as what they’re meant at the time they’re written, this was a very reasonable outcome.

Andy 17:32
Okay, well. I get what you’re saying. Like you’re not forbidden from being here. You just can’t stay here for very long. That’s like banishment of a different word.

Larry 17:45
But that would be evolution. We would have to evolve what the word banishment meant at the time it was written, and we can’t do that.

Andy 17:57
Evolution. That’s a that’s a taboo word on its own Larry. There is no evolution.

Larry 18:01
That’s an evolving standards of liberal mumbo jumbo, evolving standards of decency. And we’ve played Scalia’s clip a few times on this podcast, where he says that the reason why he doesn’t bide to evolving standards is because things that can evolve in a positive direction, can also evolve in a negative direction. Therefore, and he cited his example, I’m trying to be fair, his example was that the Confrontation Clause had all but evolved its way out of the Constitution until he and some fellow conservatives restored it to its original meaning, which meant the person shall come into court, and they shall be confronted. He said, if you buy into evolving standards, evolution can be both positive and negative. That’s why he didn’t buy any, any such evolution. The words mean exactly what they meant at the time.

Andy 18:51
Okay, I’ll let you have that one. I’ll come back and beat you up on this one later.

Larry 18:55

Andy 18:58
Oh, this one came in through an email message that I have channels to. And I thought I might throw it your way to get some clarity on at least your interpretation. Again, we are like a legal policy podcast. But neither of us have any authority to give you like the specifics. We’re not attorneys to give you the specific legal advice. But here’s some big brother advice, so to speak. And here’s a question. My son is on the registry, but not on probation, in Washington State, and has decided to move back home to Georgia. He would like to live with us until he’s able to secure employment and a place of his own. My husband is a hunter, and we have guns in a locked safe in the house. Would it be in violation of Georgia law for him to reside with us with guns in the home if he has no access? I thought that was kind of a neat question, Larry. So if he’s not on any sort of supervision, just on the registry, obviously a convicted felon. I believe felons can’t own firearms. At least at least you’d have to go through some sort of petition policy to get that right back.

Larry 19:57
That is correct. Here’s the nuance. We would have to look at Georgia law. First of all, the registry itself does not have any prohibition. I can tell you that. I’ve looked at Georgia registry over and over. There’s nothing that says you can’t possess a weapon as a condition of registration. But it kind of goes without saying, since the overwhelming majority of sexual offenses, bar a handful, are felonies, you would be barred from possessing a firearm, federally, and in most states. But here’s the rub. When you’re merely registering, and you’re not subject to any intrusions of a supervising probation or parole officer, they would have no basis to enter your house to find you in possession, even though there may be in the house. So there’ll be two questions. What does the Georgia case law say in terms of what constitutes possession? Is possession, has it been construed to include being in a proximity where they’re not your weapons? If they’re in your parent’s room, are you possessing the weapon? I wouldn’t know the answer to that, in terms of what how Georgia law has evolved. I would tend to want to guess that Georgia law, being that Georgia is one of the more conservative southern states, not as conservative some, but I would guess that it has not evolved to be that broad. But the probation department would be able to come into your house and do such a search. The sheriff where you’re registering will not be able to do that. So the second problem for law enforcement would be although they know you’re not allowed to possess a weapon, in most instances, because of the prohibition, they would have no basis to determine if you have a weapon or not. Because they don’t have any basis to enter. Unless, of course, when they say can we come and look around, if you say yes, and you have guns hanging on gun racks, which is very common in rural areas. It is very common. I grew up in rural Georgia, and they would probably put their long guns up on the wall on a gun rack. And she said in a locked thing, but it would be very common that they would hang their guns up, and they would be readily visible. So if they could get into his home. And if they saw evidence of a weapon, here’s what they would do. They would go down, and they would secure a warrant to do a complete search. And they would come back and they’d say we saw evidence of weapons. And we would like to do a thorough search. And then when they got into his area that’s directly under his control, they’d ask him which room do you sleep in, and they would go looking in that particular room. If they were out to get him, that’s what they would do. So I would tell you this, make sure that the weapons are far from him as possible, and they’re clearly in your possession and under your control. Because as a convicted felon, he’s not allowed to possess a firearm.

Andy 22:51
Very good. And that is relevant to a friend of mine and his fiancé is going to get her I think concealed carry even. She’s going to get her permit on a handgun. And I was like, to me, that just seems like really just tempting fate of getting in trouble. But they wanted to go that route. So like, I mean, it sounds roughly similar, so he’s not on supervision anymore. And she wants to carry a gun for personal protection. Okay, so what is she gonna do? Slip it under the pillow, therefore you don’t have access to it? I can’t see how that works out well at all.

Larry 23:25
If she’s living in an urban center in Georgia, they probably are not going to have a huge amount of interest in this because of just the sheer volume of offenders they are monitoring. If you go to Cobb County or Fulton County, they’ve got so many offenders that they’re just not going to have the time to do that. But if they have any particular angst with you, individually, they will find time to try to get something on you. So I can’t tell you that they would not try to get something. I mean, it could be just a one thing you tell them when you’re registering if you question one thing, even if you’re in a more liberal County, like Fulton, which is Atlanta itself. If you were in Fulton County, and you start giving them what they consider a hard time, and a hard time includes questioning anything that they tell you to do. They might give you the type of scrutiny that would cause that to become an issue. So, I would say that it would be a long shot. But I would check if you want to be really safe with a Georgia practicing attorney and find out what the case law interpretation is on what constitutes possession of a firearm.

Andy 24:34
All right, then, from our conversation that we had last week, we had a question over on the YouTube channel. It’s says I’m not sure I understand this correctly. The courts have made the decision that the registry is not punitive. Yet many registrants are forced to undergo polygraphs, mandatory counseling and even have to pay registry fees. Why aren’t these mandatory services that require out of pocket expenses on a regular basis considered punitive and/or debilitating?

Larry 25:03
So well, that was a great question. I forgot who it was from. But it’s a great question. And of the things he listed, none of those – well, one of them is. The paying registry fees. There are states that impose a registration fee. But the mandatory counseling, that’s not required. That’s not a registration requirement. Polygraphs is not a registration requirement. Now you can be registered and be under supervision. And you have to take a polygraph or you have to do counseling. But it’s not in the registration law. That’s in your conditions of supervision. So therefore, that’s comparing apples and oranges. We get to do intrusions in your life when you’re under supervision. We get to require counseling while you’re paying your debt to society, because theoretically, counseling is designed to help you improve so that you don’t do whatever unlawful thing you did previously. Now, we all know that PFR counseling with the exception of the state of Maryland, which is pure as the driven snow, but with the exception of Maryland, we know that PFR counseling has a lot to be desired in terms of how they carry out the counseling. But those things are not conditions of being registered. The registration fees, arguments have been made and to my knowledge, they have not been successful, because the fees are so modest, they’re saying that it doesn’t really constitute punishment yet. But give it time, it will because as we’ve talked about, for the last, how many years we’ve been doing this – almost four years. (Andy: Yep.) They can’t help themselves. So if they’re if they’re getting $100 fee, at some point in time, someone’s gonna say, well, why not $250? And there will be a point where it will be clear that litigation could argue that this fee is a form of punishment, but see that will not get rid of the registry. They will declare that component… they will say the registry has evolved, remember the 2006 and 2011 amendments in Michigan?

Andy 27:06
Of course. Like the back of my hand.

Larry 27:09
Yes. Well, that would be what would happen. So the state that tipped the registry to have a punitive component of fees, all they would do is they would remove the fee or peel it back to where the last time it was held to be constitutional. So that would not rid you of the registry. But if they all of a sudden start charging a $500 annual fee, that would look an awful lot like punishment, because that’s a number that is very consistent with what’s imposed with fines. But a $50 fee, maybe a $100 fee, that’s not at the level yet. And then, theoretically, these states have provisions to avoid paying that fee if you’re indigent. I’m not really clear if those provisions are satisfactory in terms of a constitutional standard, because they seem to be very haphazard. They don’t they don’t seem to have any clear guidance of how you apply for that waiver. But theoretically you can avoid paying the fee if you don’t have the financial resources. That’s what I hear anyway.

Andy 28:07
Well, let me relate, like mostly anecdotal, is I heard it personally. And I trust the individual. He was in treatment. Now I understand the difference that you just described between supervision and then just quote, unquote, the registry. So, this person was under supervision at the time. And he was being told by the treatment provider, another fee, that he had to go take a polygraph, another fee. It was right at Christmas time, he had just bought gifts for his daughter’s and whomever else he had bought it for. And because he didn’t have money at the time to go pay the $225-$250 for the poly, the treatment provider says, Well, if you don’t take the poly, I’m going to kick you out of treatment. And that will be a probation violation. And that will send you back to prison. How’s that not debtors’ prison.

Larry 28:48
It is debtors’ prison, but it has to be challenged.

Andy 28:52
So he would have to then go up the river. And then while sitting there in the tank, then file a challenge to show that this is the debtor’s prison.

Larry 29:02
Well, here’s the catch 22. He might not have to go to prison if he had the resources to do a preemptive strike. There are some things that can be challenged without you going to prison if you do it preemptively. So I’d have to know the jurisdiction and what type of challenges might be available on the front side. But most people that if they can’t pay the fee, that’s the whole problem to begin with. If he doesn’t have the $250 to pay the polygraph fee, how’s he going to go out and find an attorney and pay them $3000-$5,000 to do the challenge? He can’t.

Andy 29:34
Absolutely. I knew that’s where you were gonna go with that.

Larry 29:36
Yeah, so I mean, theoretically, it’s there. But when the court does the analysis, they say “well, you didn’t challenge it. So therefore, it’s constitutional.”

Andy 29:47
Right. Okay. All right. So the difference though, just to recap is that while you’re still under supervision, you can have different kinds of fees. I guess an equivalent would be if you have some kind of DUI thing and they make you go to DUI classes, safe driving classes, whatever. You might have to pay for those and that would be the equivalent of going to PFR treatment stuff?

Larry 30:07
Absolutely. And it is a racket in many instances and we’re going to have a question that comes up in this series of questions where they talk about what a racket is. There is an element of sleaziness about it. But when you disguise something as treatment, and you tell the world that we’re treating these individuals, it’s really hard to gain a lot of traction in a legal setting because the court wants people to be treated. They want the community to be safe. And they want the PFR not to be PFRing again. So there’s a lot of deference to treatment, there really is.

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 31:41
Then I guess we can move on to our other battery of questions. And these ones you can see up on the YouTube screen if you want to follow along. The first one comes from Eric. Says:

Listener Question
I live in the state of confusion. I’m sorry, I’m sorry, the state of Virginia and was on probation for a sexual offense I committed against a family member who lives with my family still today. I couldn’t live with my family and have no other family to live with in the area. So I became homeless while on probation. Is it the responsibility of the probation officer to help the probationer or client to find a safe and secure place to live when all other options are used up? Keep in mind sex offenders who are homeless cannot go to homeless shelters because of the many women and children being housed there.

Yeah, this is another one that like you’re just doomed to go find the nearest bridge, it seems

Larry 32:30
I really liked this question because it brings to light the philosophical issue. Remember, folks, corrections departments are funded by states by and large. I mean, the federal system has its own process for funding. But you’re going to have to approach your legislature for funding for supervising authorities. Well, it’s most difficult from a political standpoint to make the argument… I mean, I agree with him. So I’ll get that off in the very beginning, get that out there. I agree with him. It should in an ideal world be the responsibility of a probation officer to help find a safe and secure a place to live because that enhances and improves the chances of success of the person. But when you say secure place to live, tacked in there, there’s the inference that you might have to have some public funds to pay for that place to live, right? Because if you didn’t need funding, then you could have found it yourself. So what we have here is inadequate funding. In a country where we have so many homeless already, have you noticed how many homeless… I mean, you live even in a rural part of Georgia, but there’s homeless, even in places like that now. When you can’t get funding for homeless services for people who are not paying a debt to society, it’s very difficult to convince legislators to grant funding to provide housing for people in his situation. So, he finds himself in a catch 22 with 1000s of others out there. They have no place to go because everything that they would do with family or friends is off limits. Those options are not on the table. They have nowhere to go and no money. So then they end up homeless and then they get violated eventually because of various reasons when you’re homeless that you have difficult to comply with everything else. If you have no home, you lack stability. So it’s a vicious circle. It’s tragic. I wish I had a better answer. But in a political system, it’s very difficult to secure funds for people that have broken the law and particularly something as sensitive as the issue that we deal with.

Andy 34:51
Just how this whole thing cascades. So you’re potentially homeless, which means you probably aren’t keeping up with your hygiene very well. A job potentially opens up at the nearest, whatever, factory or fast-food joint, whatever, and you possibly don’t have a phone because you can’t really get it charged because the bridge doesn’t have a power outlet. How do you receive a phone call? How do you clean up before the job? How do you go present yourself in a condition that you can be a reliable employee? Like everything just within days of this, you would cascade into almost an, what’s the word you, uh, you’re inside of a hole that you cannot get out of. It’s just unbelievably crappy.

Larry 35:31
And I like the fact that as a middle-age, white guy of middle-class status that you can grasp all that stuff you just articulated, because very few middle class people can do that so well. That’s exactly the problem. And in addition, a couple things you left out is whatever struggles they may have that caused them to be in the position. I mean, they may have substance issues that they’re dealing with, which would be compounded by being on the streets. They may have health issues that are compounded. Being on the streets takes a significant toll on your physical and your mental health. All those things cause you a snowball of continuous downward spiral. And very few people, they always say pull yourself up by your bootstraps. Well, we don’t have the ability to do that. We’re in a very sophisticated world we live in now. This is not the old days of the 1800s where you could go knock at a ranch house or farmhouse and say I need some work. And they would say well, you can sleep in the bunk house out there and be up at six o’clock in the morning, we’ll start tending to the to the animals and tending to our crops. Those days are largely gone. Even the farms that exist are heavily commercialized with heavy equipment, very sophisticated computer technology. I mean, the amount of grunt work… there’s still stoop labor out there. I mean, there’s crops that have to be retrieved by hand. But we’re not in that era anymore. So people in a modern economy, when you go down that spiral, the employer doesn’t have the resources. It’s not their job. When you go to a Wendy’s, that management team at that store, they have one job, and that’s to prepare fast food, keep the business running. They’re not in a social service business. They do not have the time or the expertise to figure out how to get you properly dressed, to teach you how to interact with the guest appropriately. All that stuff is not what they do. So all they’re going to do is turn your application down, because they don’t have the resources to deal with all the special needs you have.

Andy 37:31
Okay, I think that horses been beat to death. And I’m like, I don’t know to tell what the Virginia person to do outside of like, I just don’t know. I mean, I’ve personally tried to help somebody that was, like coming up against these kinds of issues. And I tried to support them financially. It is expensive to try and put somebody in a hotel every night to try and help them keep, like food coming in their face. And then especially if they have some kind of dependent. So this person had like a two-ish year old person. It is impossible. I don’t know what people are supposed to do. I have no suggestions for the person in Virginia. And I have an immense amount of sympathy, but I have no answers.

Larry 38:11
Well, prayer was one.

Andy 38:17
Okay. All right, well, then we should move on. This next question comes from Paul. And we’re gonna just cover the question here. So I guess we’ll just jump down to issue one. But I do want to read the title it says, Dear Mr. Espero which I assume that’s Vivante Espero. (Larry: Correct.) All right.

Listener Question
Issue one. What would be the restrictions and terms of my probation if I moved to Pennsylvania or New York City.

Now without any context, like, where are we coming from? But is this person on probation? Or are they just on the registry?

Larry 38:51
They’re going to be coming out of the correctional system in Florida. So that one is an easy one, your conditions of supervision will be everything that Florida imposed on you, in addition to what Pennsylvania or New York may want to impose on you. But those conditions in Florida will go with you. So that’s an easy one. Everything that Florida would require you to do, either by judicial order, or by when you sign your parole certificate. If they have parole in Florida, I don’t know under what supervision he’s going to be leaving, but if he’s leaving under any probation or parole supervision, those conditions will follow him to Pennsylvania or to New York. So that’s an easy one to take care of.

Andy 39:35
Okay, well then issue number two. Is there an alternative to ankle monitoring such as I read about an app on your phone or such device? I think is what that says.

Larry 39:46
That one is almost as easy. If Florida has it specifically as a condition of your supervision that you will be GPS monitored, Pennsylvania and New York have no choice. Well they do have a choice. If that technology had not evolved and was not being utilized there, they would tell Florida that we don’t have that service here. And therefore, we can’t supervise this offender unless you removed that condition. But since, as far as I know, practically all states have evolved to where they’re utilizing GPS technology, it’s not it’s not such new anymore. It’s not anything novel. If it’s required, if it’s in the documents that you signed for your parole, or if it’s an order of the probation the judge put on you, that will go with you, and you will have that ankle monitor on you in whatever state you go to. That’s, unfortunately, that’s, I mean, as I said, on the podcast, wouldn’t it be a fantastic world if you could be sentenced in one state, and you could extinguish the requirements of your punishment by going to another state? Wouldn’t that be a great setup we would have?

Andy 40:55
Another thing about issue two there is that it’s almost like would you like an ankle monitor? Or do you have a smartphone that we can install this app on? Like, I don’t think they give you an AB choice?

Larry 41:04
Well, I think that’s that technology with smartphones is being used. I hear about that, that people are being… but again, it might be that he could not have the earlier generation GPS, but if tracking is a part of his conditions, he will be tracked by some method that satisfactory to the state of Florida if that’s a part of his supervision requirements. It will go with him.

Andy 41:33
For whatever this is worth, I have no idea if this individual in Pennsylvania or New York will end up with this as their supervision technique, but a friend of mine, the same one that his fiancé is gonna have the weapon. He had to do, like there was an app on his phone, and they would call I don’t know, Larry, it was, like 10 times a day, a handful of times during the day, but then it would call like three or four or five times at night. And he had a static code that he would have to give like, here’s my serial number of abcfg. And then there would be a number up on the screen that he would have to read so that they knew that it wasn’t some kind of recording that they were playing back. So it was something that happened now. And he would have to take a snapshot of himself, like take a selfie to send back in. And obviously the phone is reporting GPS coordinates. They always knew where he was. And he obviously had to answer the call, even to the point that he lives pretty much out in the boonies where he doesn’t get cell coverage, he had to get something installed in his house called a femtocell, which is where you are paying to have a satellite, not a satellite, excuse me. A cellular signal broadcast out of your house, so that he could then extend out the cellular range in the property within the umbrella of his house.

Larry 42:39
Well, we created a new button today. And this is a great time for you to use that because I would love to hear the new clip. Fits perfectly for what that story was you just told.

Andy 42:52
Oh, where did I put it? I must have moved it. Give me one second, Larry and I will find the new sound bite. How about this? Here we go. (Audio Clip: That’s about the funniest thing I’ve heard in a while.) There you go. There’s a new button. I don’t have my button pusher with me, Larry. So I couldn’t, I couldn’t just press the button.

Larry 43:16
Now that that is a sad funny though, but having to be distracted. Okay, but remember, you’re trying to hold a job. You’re trying to convince an employer to give you a chance. And you’re trying to be a productive employee. And you’ve got a half dozen phone calls coming in a day where you have to stop what you’re doing. Remember they may be lined up to the meat counter, and you’re on a cash register or whatever they are, at the front of a rental car center. And you say hold on, Madam, I’ve got to take care of my probation officer. I got this code to put int. I gotta make a picture. You just be patient. I’ll be right back. What employer would put up with that.

Andy 43:51
I agree. And what about at night if you’re trying to get something close to eight hours of uninterrupted sleep but four times during the night you got to do that bulls***. Yeah, that’s gonna mess up your sleeping. Your boss be like, Hey, man, why are you so tired today? Um, well, I get these phone calls during the night so I can’t get a full night’s sleep. Every two three hours I get woken up.

Larry 44:11
Well, I have never heard about all the overnight calls but I have heard about people being continuously interrupted in the daytime. So this is a new one about the continuous interruptions overnight. I think, No, I actually have heard about it from one person that they got overnight calls but I haven’t heard that it’s been a big issue.

Andy 44:28
You remember the attorney that used to work with Georgia, the older lady? (Larry: I do.) Her son was one of the people that had something along those lines. Alright, and then the final question is can you suggest an attorney that has the guts enough to help my situation and I guess his end of sentence is 7/20/29. So the person has like eight more years which is a lot more time to go man and I’m sorry to hear that.

Larry 44:53
Well, I’m not so sure that its guts. Here’s what it really is. It’s the expertise. And also it’s the ability to be paid because the challenges that would have to be asserted are going to be extremely complex as we talked about in previous episode about the challenges. One thing that’s always lacking for our cause is sufficient money for people who want to do challenges. And I suspect he doesn’t have a lot of it.

Andy 45:25
Probably not behind the walls. There’s not a lot of people making a whole lot of money back there. Alright, let’s move over to question number three. I can’t believe that we were going to do a short program tonight. We’re already like, almost up to the time where we got to cut and run. But:

Long-Time Listener Question
Mr. Larry, and Mr. Andy, it’s Sean from Wisconsin again. I have a few questions about sex offender treatment. I was rereading my transcript from Episode 161, where you had a guest, Teresa Robertson, licensed psychotherapist in the private practice area. My question is how do I go about finding a licensed therapist in southeast Wisconsin, Milwaukee area, that does individualized sex offender treatment. I’ve been in prison for about five years now on revocation for only rule violations. I had two romantic relations ships without an agent approval, and I get released in five months. I am nervous about being released as my support and closest family members, my grandma and grandpa, have both passed away since getting released with nothing to a city I have no one in. All my family is in England. Anyways, I don’t want to go back to the sex offender group I was in last time, all they did was shame and blame and collect your money. In my county, Washington County, the first 15 minutes of our hour-long weekly group is spent passing our $40 money orders down the table and the treatment provider enters in the payments received in his computer. Some days, the probation officer sits in on the group and one guy gets grilled and attacked by his PO and the other 10 to 15 guys about a rule violation or something. Then you never see the guy again, probably got revocated. Most of the time, you don’t progress in treatment, because you’re put with one of the two guys in a smaller group and told to help the other guys that just started. Week, after week, after week, $40, $40, $40. I was completely finished with all of my work and assignments and finished my relapse prevention plan. But I couldn’t ever present it because I had to help the other people. But of course, I get to still pay $160 a month. I was in the group for like two years before I was revoked for romantic relationships. Anyway, I feel like maybe I’d be more successful with a fresh start and with individualized treatment. And P.S. enclosed is my yearly letter. Just wanted to confirm Larry’s right about Wisconsin registry charging 100 bucks a year. You even pay it and get charged while serving prison time. As you can see, I’m not paying them.

You didn’t send me a copy of that part of it. Larry, I would like to see that letter.

Larry 48:06
I’ll send it to you. I didn’t want the whole world to see his letter from the DOC.

Andy 48:10
We could have redacted it. But it would have been fun to see them say, hey, owe us our 100 bucks or whatever it is, because that’s ridiculous. Even while you’re locked up?

Larry 48:18
Yes, they are assessing it. And I think he was like $600 now, if I remember right. But in terms of individual treatment, I’m only going to speak for my state because I don’t know about Wisconsin. But here, they would not let you pick your treatment provider. Will Wisconsin allow him to pick his treatment provider? I don’t know the answer to that. But here, they have to be cleared and approved by the corrections department, which means basically the provider has to be willing to jettison some of their ethics and engage in the game that they want to play like what he just described in his letter.

Andy 48:56
The same here, by the way. I’m pretty you have to go to an approved treatment provider in Georgia.

Larry 49:01
So I don’t think he’ll have that option. But if anybody out there knows differently, we’ll certainly bring it up again. But I suspect he’s going to be restricted to just who they offer. And the group therapy is the model they prefer. Because see what happens in the group, the dynamic of the group, you help each other out. And see he’s helping each other out in the group he’s sitting in. They’re proving exactly the point about the group dynamic but I’ll tell you, the fact that they’re spending a big part of the first part of the group collecting money. That’s a godsend. (Andy: I know right.) You want to burn up as much time as you can. So I would be delighted. So count that as a blessing.

Andy 49:47
I agree with this. Okay, so, Sean thinks that treatment is for the object of treatment to figure out how you can then not reoffend again. Which of course that’s what the public wants is for us to not reoffend again. I totally get that part of it. That doesn’t seem to be what the treatment part is about. The treatment part is about the sex offender industrial complex and just collecting a crap ton of money. He’s probably… he said 10 to 15 guys, so 10 to 15 guys times 40. That sounds like 6000 bucks a day, Larry.

Larry 50:17
It’s a nice business plan, business model. It really is.

Andy 50:21
From people that probably can’t afford it by far and large. A handful of people in there don’t have any worries about the 40 bucks a session. Most of them have issues with it.

Larry 50:31
But you actually are thinking kind of crazy. You think that treatment should be about making people better? Where did you get that notion?

Andy 50:38
Oh, sorry. Sorry. I thought it was called treatment. So when you break your leg, so you had your car accident six months ago, you have gone to some kind of treatment to heal your bruises, bumps, scrapes, and trauma? That’s treatment. Isn’t this the same thing, Larry?

Larry 50:53
Well, it should be.

Andy 50:56
Yeah, I know. It’s really, really, it really like gets my hackles up?

Larry 51:02
I don’t know about you people.

Andy 51:04
Anything else on Sean’s letter before we move on?

Larry 51:08
Thanks, Sean. He’s also one of our subscribers.

Andy 51:13
Sorry to hear about your grandparents as well. And that was your place to land when you get out. More people have problems with getting out Larry? It’s just ongoing. (Larry: Yes, it is.) Um, let’s see here. So dear Registry Matters. This is another letter. This one is from Scott. And we’re just going to cover the first part of it. Says:

Listener Question
I’m writing with more questions. Any insight you can provide would be greatly appreciated. Issue number one. I already asked about the situation before you indicated you’d come back to it in a future show. (Andy: But we dropped the ball Larry and we haven’t heard anything and he hasn’t heard anything yet.) Currently, I’m in prison serving six years’ incarceration. I’ll have six years’ probation afterwards. Four years ago, when this current charge was made by one county, additional charges could have been made by my home county. So far, my home county has not charged me with anything. After four years of waiting, I’m nervous. Why would a DA wait so long to bring charges? Is it possible they’re just letting this prison term end before pouncing? If that’s the case, don’t statute of limitations eventually kick in? And if I am not allowed to contact the DA, who can when I can afford an attorney? Or am I better off letting sleeping Das, I see what you did there, letting sleeping DAs lie. After four years, could it be their choosing not to act since the six years I got would be more or less what I get with the other charges.

Interesting, Larry. So where do we go with this?

Larry 52:42
Well, the reason why we haven’t done it yet is since Ashley was a former prosecutor, I was going to let her discuss this. But we haven’t been able to connect a time and a weekend for Ashley to be on with us. But I’ll tell you that there’s a lot of unknown – what did he say? Unknown unknowns. So we don’t know what the statute limitations would be in Wisconsin on that particular offense. That’s an unknown to me. It’s knowable, but I don’t know it. Because I’d have to know exactly what charging options they would have, you know what the allegations would be, and what they could bring and what the statute of limitations would be. So we don’t know that. We don’t know if his home county prosecutor has any particular anxiety with him. We don’t know that. If they do, then his first theory would be more likely. They would want him to ride out to his prison sentence. And then they would want to come back. Kind of like in civil commitment after you get to the end of your sentence. 90 days prior to the end of your expiration of your sentence, they file a petition for civil commitment. It could be if they have particular angst with him in his home county, they may be waiting. There’s no prohibition against him contacting the DA, The only problem is the DA is not going to talk to him. First of all, he’s in prison, he’s gonna have a really hard time getting through because of the phone restrictions. It’s probably going to be very difficult to get them on the phone list. So he’ll have to resort to a cell phone, you know, that the prisons are filled with and I’m not encouraging to do that. But I know, I know that they’re in there. I know. But he wouldn’t have an easy access by calling through the legitimate phone system. But his hunch is correct. The last thing you’d want to do, if they have decided that six years is enough, and they don’t wish to bring any charges. It could be that six years ago, a person decided that. But that person is no longer in office now. And the person, when you remind them that you’ve got this case that’s potentially sitting there, they might say, well, let’s take a look at that. And they may assign that file that’s in a dead file right now. So we don’t know that information if personnel have changed since this case. And we don’t know who the victim may have been connected with in terms of what kind of standing they may have in his home county, if they can apply any pressure. There are just too many things that are unknown. But with all those unknowns, I would not be inclined to contact the DA’s office. That cannot go well for you. Even if he can use his prison’s illegal cell phone to contact them. That’s not going to go well for him. If you call the DAs office when you’re in prison…

Andy 55:23
Hahaha. Yes, I can’t Imagine that that would go well. I’m calling you from prison on an illlegal cell phone. I think they may come find you right away.

Larry 55:30
How long do you think it would take the prison to get word of that?

Andy 55:34
I think they would get him before he got off the call, they might hold on to him and then the troops are gonna come in and snag him while he’s still on the on the phone sitting on somebody else’s bunk.

Larry 55:44
So don’t call the DA’s office.I can fairly with confidence, a significant amount of confidence, say that’s a bad move to contact the DA’s office. If you had an attorney, and you don’t, but if you did, and you had an attorney who had great relations with the actual DA or the deputy over that particular unit, because in large jurisdictions, they’ll be a prosecution unit that specializes in that type of crime. So if you’re at a place like Fulton County, you’ll have a unit that handles crimes against children, you’ll have units that do economic and white collar crimes, and on and on and on. So if you had a great relationship, you could ask them and that person, as a friendly gesture to you might check out and say no, we’re not gonna do anything with this case. Or you may still prompt him to do something on the case, it’s just not a wise move to ask what’s going to happen, I would be inclined to let it go. But I can’t guarantee they won’t hit you up with charges when you get within a reasonable period of being released. They can hit you with charges up to the day before and put a detainer on you.

Andy 56:49
Excellent. Let’s move over to the final question. We have some highlighted sections that I will read for you to ponder about or pontificate. The first question is:

Listener Question
which state and or county is the least restrictive is regards to the registry laws for PFRs. (Andy: Hey, this is a person that listens to the program. UCMJ, we obviously have somebody that is from the military.) UCMJ, Uniform Code of Military Justice, convicts in a federal court out of state level, and it is my understanding, we may choose whichever state we wish, as long as we have a residence, offer employment and are accepted by the parole officer. Military is in a unique position where we may choose which state we initially register with. Most states adopt the verbiage of the conviction that is substantially similar to their own elements. It is my understanding that this is done through a matrix or selection of criteria at the state’s discretion. My conviction is sexual assault and specifically penetration without consent. (Andy: Boy, do I not like reading these things.) We believe Washington and Oregon are the least restrictive.

Larry 57:53
Well, I would say this, that based on his disclosure about what his conviction is, it’s going to be, every state is going to have enough of breadth to the registry, that that’s going to be an offense that would trigger a duty. You see what I’m saying? I mean, that’s your basic universe of generation one registration. So if you do a sexual penetration without consent, that is in your basic universe of sex offenses. So I can’t think of a state you would go to to escape that unless the conviction was old that you might be able to have a state where it was so long ago that it wouldn’t be covered. But if you’re still in custody right now, that’s not likely because you’d have to go back a very long time. So I would say that the matrix won’t be important to him, because this won’t require a whole lot of analysis. He’s got a basic, serious conviction, even though it might have been unjustified. But he’s got that conviction. So he’s gonna have a duty register. So then the question becomes, which state is friendliest. There’s no state that’s particularly friendly. But there are states that are less harsh. And they tend to be outside the southern United States by and large. They tend to be in the Northeast Corridor. And they tend to be some states in the western United States like he mentioned. Washington state for example, you don’t find yourself on the internet. In Oregon, they’ve gone to a risk-based system and I think that they’re using the static-99. And how he would score on the static 99 would determine what level that they would deem him to be. But he’s got to have a registration obligation. I can’t think of any way around that. He’s gonna have a duty to register.

Andy 59:46
And just for a point that you made about maybe it’s an old one, if he’s in the military, he can’t be that old. If he was in the military, he could, you know, maybe he’s 30 years old. Like I mean, roughly around 40 is about the end of it, so you can’t be anything older than 20 years.

Larry 1:00:04
Yeah, he’s not likely going to have one of those convictions that so long ago. So he’s probably going to have to register. So he’s going to be looking at states that would that would be less harsh. Everybody that’s listening. Don’t go to the deep south. There’s no place you want to live in the south. I mean, I know they do it all the time. We hear case after case after case. We talked about one the other night that I’m moving to Georgia. Yep. Georgia, Georgia is not the worst. Georgia is not the worst southern state. Its way up the food chain from being the worst.

Andy 1:00:40
But even it depends on where you are in that regard too. You could be in a super duper, duper, duper southeast corner where the person’s having all kinds of problems. And then maybe you’re in my area where it doesn’t seem to be that bad Larry. Maybe?

Larry 1:00:54
So yep, that’s true. But the state statute of Georgia is not nearly as bad as the state statute in Louisiana. If you must be, if you’re obsessed about being in the south, Georgia is probably about as good as it can get in the South.

Andy 1:01:11
Because if depending on your conviction, I think there’s… we talked about this not too long ago about registry removal. And that is actually his next question. So we’ll go there, and then we’ll jump right back. What state is the friendliest for attempting to petition to be off of the registry? We are taking into account not only the least restrictive for quality of life, however, the most friendly in our continued to fight to be removed off of the registry. Is there a more friendly state than Washington or Oregon? Then they may be a smarter option. So Georgia, if I’m not mistaken, depending on how things go, it’s 10 years. Right?

Larry 1:01:43
It’s less than 10 years if you can get yourself leveled as a one.

Andy 1:01:47
Okay, very good.

Larry 1:01:48
Or if you have a disability. You know, if you’re, if you’re disabled, you don’t have to wait. But the disability requirements are not going to likely apply in this case, I don’t imagine that at his age that he that he’s disabled. He’s not going to be confined to a skilled nursing or a hospice or anything like that. So he’s not going to be physically incapacitated. So that’s off the table. But then if he can get himself leveled as a one, he can petition without waiting the 10 years. But I don’t like petitioning. I prefer petitioning versus no option at all, which in my state, there’s no option to get off. You have to you have to serve your life of registration. But I prefer to go to a state where you automatically term out. Your specific time is done. Because if you could go to Georgia, and you have to wait 10 years to file a petition. And Georgia has an advantage that’s similar for the states that actually have a removal petition process. You can as an out of stater with a non-Georgia conviction, you can pick your county where you live in. You can file it in the county you live in. So that gives you a leg up. You can figure out which county within Georgia would be more favorable disposed to releasing. You can look at statistics and talk to attorneys about statistics. But if I had to choose between that… if I had to do 10 years before I could petition, and I could go to Vermont and do 10 years and be done, which would you do? I would not want to have to wait for 10 years and then I might get off. Now, there’s a caveat to what I just said. People in Vermont do not want an influx of PFRs from all over the country. So the more we talk about this and the more people that show up in Vermont. I’ve moved here because your registry is not as bad as the rest of… those law enforcement people keep those documents. They document that. And all of a sudden, several legislators in Vermont are hearing that we’re getting an influx of people from around the country that are coming here because our registries are more laxed. And first thing you know, there’s proposal in the Vermont assembly to change that. So, if you’re going to go to another state, don’t go in and say, Oh, I came here because this is a better state. There are more lax on PFRs here. All you’re going to do is shoot the whole system and blow it up when you do that.

Andy 1:04:07
Yeah. Right. Okay. We are very close to running out of time. We got a few minutes left. We can close things out unless there’s other things you want to do before we close out. Anything else?

Larry 1:04:17
I think that’s everything I had on the list. Right?

Andy 1:04:20
It is. It is. It is. We had one article that we’re not going to have time to cover so we will close things out, get to Who’s that Speaker? I want to remind everybody that if you are interested in going to the conference, the NARSOL Conference is in Houston, and it is October. So it’s just a month away. And it’s the eighth, ninth and 10th if I’m not mistaken, and we had a very generous patron of ours and offered to pay someone’s way to go to the conference. That includes ticket and airfare and also hotel if I remember correctly, and so he stepped forward to offer. We haven’t had any takers yet. If you are interested in this, please please be someone that is in need and we can see if that works out beneficial to everybody. So shoot me an email message at to see if we can send some love your way. Anything to add to that, Larry?

Larry 1:05:13
I’ve already put that money into my personal account. So everything he just said, strike that.

Andy 1:05:21
Very good. Um, then. So last week, actually it was two weeks ago because we didn’t Who’s that Speaker? last week. But last time we played this clip, and it is this. Let’s see play with this.

CBS News Anchor Walter Cronkite (Audio Clip) 1:05:37
And that’s the way it is Monday, September 11, 1972.

Andy 1:05:41
Nobody wrote in Larry. How could nobody write in. Who was that. Larry?

Larry 1:05:44
That was the legendary CBS News Anchor Walter Cronkite. That was his tagline

Andy 1:05:50
How come nobody wrote in for this?

Larry 1:05:52
Well, it’s a long time ago. He left broadcasting in 1981. So you’d have to be kind of up there. But he signed off. The part that we didn’t play was of course, he would say this is Walter Cronkite, CBS News. Good night. If we put that in there, there’d be no point of having the clip. But yeah, that that was Walter Cronkite.

Andy 1:06:11
Okay. And then actually, so we have to do next week’s. We have sort of a twofold. I’m going to, so we’re gonna play this one. And but I want to ask you a question. We did sort of a special podcast last week where we went on to a program with a guy named TJump that does, like morality kind of debates. And we so I want to ask you a question is what do you think about how things went last week, Larry?

Who’s that Speaker? 1:06:37
Run but the strangest collection of misfits, Looney Tunes since the advent of a Third Reich.

Andy 1:06:46
All right now that is your Who’s that speaker? And Larry, do you have anything that you want to tag on the back of that?

Larry 1:06:53
Oh, I will be very surprised if we don’t have multiple people get that voice. So but that was a funny one. We had that doctored up just a tad bit. We took one word out that we didn’t want people to hear but that is the person speaking. What you’re hearing. that’s the real voice of the person.

Andy 1:07:14
That is the speaker that is speaking. Very good. All right. Well, then I guess we can close things out. We did get a new patron this week. Thank you so very much. We are getting so very close to reaching our goal where I will be like the saxophone player in charge. I guess we. I can change my tagline in discord too. And that was Al. That was just yesterday. Thank you so very much. I really, really appreciate it. Did we get any snail mail subscribers, Larry?

Larry 1:07:38
We did. But his name is escaping me at the moment. But we did welcome in a new subscriber. And we’ve got, I think I sent out like five sample in the last week. So we’re getting more and more requests for samples. I’m confident that those samples are going to translate into subscriptions, because people are like, wow, this is good stuff.

Andy 1:08:00
Excellent. I appreciate that, that you do all of that. Larry, with all of that, I think that’s everything that we can cover for the evening. And we’re right at the right time limit and all that stuff. Find all the show notes over at Leave voicemail, if you want to at (747)227-4477. You can also record a voice memo and email that in if you want to. That makes it sound much more gooder. I don’t really, I’m not a fan of how the telephone sounds, especially not for releasing it on the podcast. You can send email over at And the best way to support us. We’re trying to reach that 100 subscriber goal is That gets you early access to the podcast. When we release podcast extras, you can come join us in the discord server and hang out while we record it live if you want to go there. And I think that’s it, Larry. It’s Labor Day weekend. You got big plans?

Larry 1:08:49
I do. I’m gonna go out and do some sightseeing.

Andy 1:08:52
Outstanding. And I think everyone that decided to show up in chat. Labor Day weekend on a Saturday night that you decided to spend some time with us, really appreciate it. I hope you have a great weekend. Larry and I will talk to you very soon. Have a good night.

Larry 1:09:07
Good night.

You’ve been listening to FYP.

Transcript of RM191: Is The Sex Offender Registry Immoral with TJump

Listen to RM191: Is The Sex Offender Registry Immoral with TJump here

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 a problem with these thoughts, fyp.

Andy 00:18
Recording live from FYP Studios, east and west. Transmitting across the internet. This is episode ­191 of Registry Matters. Hey guys, different show format this week, we were on TJumps’s debate channel, TJump is a philosopher, where he hosts debates about morality and critical thinking. You can find him over at You will be able to find the whole raw video where we debated him. Not debate, we had a conversation with him. He wasn’t an opponent of ours. He just he provided us a platform. And we were discussing the morality of the registry. And so I’m releasing to you here, the first part of it with maybe one or two questions that went on. They kind of got a little crazy after that. But if you want to catch all of that, certainly go over to the YouTube channel there and give him a look up. And we’ll see you guys next week. Have a great night.

TJump 01:16
All right, it looks like we are live. So Larry and Andy, thanks for coming on. I appreciate you taking the time to have a conversation with me. Would you mind telling us a little bit about yourself and your program before we get started?

Andy 01:26
Sure. Let’s see. I guess the easy answer would be that I approached Larry. Larry is an expert about policy. And this isn’t just about the Sex Offender Registry. He’s an expert about policy, from all aspects. If you want a traffic light in your neighborhood, he’s the guy that will help you get it moved through the legislature so that you end up with a traffic light. Anyway, so I approached him about doing a podcast and he asked me, “What’s a podcast?” And we then built out a program so that on a weekly basis, we would cover issues revolving around the registry, either like as a first person or a second person or third person. I guess I should say degrees, first degree, second degree. Moving out, maybe there’s a criminal justice thing that if we would change that it would impact people that are affected by the registry. And so we’re almost 200 episodes now, which is 200 weeks or so given some breaks for vacation and whatnot. We have been releasing weekly episodes talking about court cases, people that have terrible, minor, minor infractions, and then they get locked up for an infinity number of years and just how really disgusting and overbearing it is that people end up on this, what’s called the sex offender registry.

TJump 02:39
Cool. So you guys started a podcast about the sex offender registry? And do you have a link or something people can find you? Do you have a website?

Andy 02:48
Of course. Registry Matters is the name of the program and it’s Same pretty much everywhere. YouTube channel is there. But you’ll find all the links at the website, which is Don’t ask how it ends in co and not com. It’s a long story.

TJump 03:03
So I had not researched anything about the sex offender registry until you contacted me, until we talked back in Georgia X number of months ago. (Andy: Yeah.) And you sent me a lot of really good information on our word doc with a bunch of question-answer thingies. Would you mind telling us about the information or the research you’ve done on the topic and why the sex offender registry is bad in your perspective?

Andy 03:25
Larry, why don’t you go over the history of where the AWA and the Jacob Wetterling Act come from?

Larry 03:31
Sure. The Sex Offender Registry, the modern Sex Offender Registry, was developed in the larger the 1990s. The state of California had enacted a registry in 1947. But in the larger scheme of things, the states came around to the sex offender registry in the 1990s at the at the behest of United States Congress when they passed the Jacob Wetterling Act in response to the disappearance and abduction of Jacob Wetterling who was missing for many, many years. They encouraged the states to develop means of registering and tracking those who had committed offenses against children. So that is the origin of the modern Sex Offender Registry. It’s been changed many, many times in h the intervening years since the 1994, when the Jacob Wetterling Act passed, and we now have something that resembles nothing like a registration scheme, but more like a punishment scheme. And that’s what our objection is if you want to sum it up, is that the registry is not just an accumulation of a database of names. It’s a way of restricting people in their behavior, what they’re allowed to do. And for the remainder of the their, most for the remainder of their life, even after they’ve paid their debt in full to society. They continue to be punished and restricted.

TJump 04:45
So my first question would be Larry is about after you serve a prison sentence, it isn’t always the case that you are essentially done, you’ve like paid your debt to society, you’re at zero again. Like there’s many cases where, like you have probation officers. You have a three-strike rule. You have like in many states, you lose the right to vote. So just serving a sentence, that doesn’t necessarily mean that you’ve served your debt to society, you’re back at zero like any other citizen. So, I don’t see that that argument against the sex offender registry is necessarily supported. Because in the criminal justice system, after serving your prison time, you aren’t completely free.

Larry 05:23
I need to clarify, I’m not talking about just serving your prison time, I’m talking about you’ve served your prison time, and your probation and parole and all your obligations related to your conviction. The registry is unrelated to your… I mean, it is directly related because you have to have a conviction to be required to register, but it lasts beyond your sentence, beyond your probation, beyond your parole, beyond all that stuff. After you’ve paid your fines, it is something that lingers, potentially for the rest of your life in many states.

TJump 05:48
Is that different from losing the right to vote after you’ve committed a felony?

Larry 05:53
Well, in our country, there are some states where you’re forever disenfranchised, but that’s a very small minority of states. Most states, your right to vote is restored upon the completion of your sentence. Some states, it’s restored upon the completion of your prison time, not just your sentence. But in more states, the more common thing is after you’ve served and paid your debt in full to society, meaning your probation/parole. But in a few states, particularly in New Hampshire, and I think it’s actually Vermont and Maine but a couple of New England states, you never actually forfeit your right to vote. You can vote immediately. You’re never disenfranchised. But the general rule is after you do your time and pay your debt in full, you’re restored to your normal pre conviction status.

Andy 06:35
In Vermont, you can still vote while you’re still locked up even, right?

Larry 06:38
That’s what I was saying. There’s a couple states where you never lose that that right to begin with. But that’s a sliver of the 50. There’s only I think two, maybe three?

TJump 06:45
That would be why I disagree with your initial argument that simply serving your prison sentence and getting your parole doesn’t necessarily mean that you’re off the hook at that point, because there are cases like voting registration, that losing your right to vote that do extend past your prison sentence and your parole in many other cases of many other crimes as well. But like, the best argument I could make for the sex offender registry is that if sex offenses were a type of crime, that prison is such a risk to society, that they were different from other types of crime, that would justify creating a registry so people can like look up and be aware of the danger around them. But when I did the research after talking to you guys, I couldn’t find any evidence of that being the case. I couldn’t find any evidence that sex offenses had a higher recidivism rate or higher rate of committing crimes again. It actually seems like they have a much lower rate of committing secondary crimes, repeat offenses, as other crimes. And I found no evidence that the sex offender registry prevents future sexual assaults or so little that this is not noticeable by any of the data I found. And so even though I disagree with your first argument, I don’t think that simply serving your time necessarily invalidates some kind of future punishment established by the state for losing voting rights or whatever. I think that the best argument against the sex offender registry is the fact that as far as I can tell, it doesn’t work. And it doesn’t accurately portray criminals. Like because there’s lots of different ridiculous crimes that you can get you on there, like peeing in public in certain states, right?

Larry 08:23
Sure. Well, the voting, not being able to vote is not a punishment, per se. It’s a collateral consequence, so to speak, but being restricted in terms of where you can live, where you can work, what you can do. Not being able to vote doesn’t restrict you in any way where you can live, where you can work, who you can have an affair with. I mean, it’s just, it’s one small thing, it’s an important thing. But I don’t see that I can agree with your analysis that you continue to be punished. I don’t think anybody ever would argue that, having to report to a police station, and being told you cannot live anywhere, you cannot work, you cannot hold this job. You cannot have a relationship with this person even after you’ve paid your debt to society. All those things can be imposed on you, while you’re paying your debt to society. They can control where you live, they can control where you work, they can control all of those things. But once you have paid your debt to society, you should be able to reintegrate and assume your normal status as you were previously.

TJump 09:18
My objection here is that the “paid your debt to society” isn’t established by your crime time. Like the debt to society could go far after your prison sentence, like it could be a law could say that your debt to society includes your permanent loss of this right, right X, Y, and Z. And that could be a part of your debt to society if you’ve committed a certain crime, and that is established in many other things like losing your voting rights. So the fact that you served your prison sentence doesn’t necessarily mean you are done with your debt to society in the case of certain crimes and so the fact that your argument that because you’ve done your prison time and you’ve done your parole time, and there’s this extenuating punishment is imposed on you. That extenuating punishment would necessarily be beyond the bounds of what you’re owed back to society isn’t actually a valid argument because there are many types of crimes that do have extenuating punishments. And so the “serve your debt to society” argument doesn’t seem to be a valid argument to me, because there are cases where that debt can go beyond just a prison sentence and parole.

Andy 10:26
we need to, to iron out what, like, when you get a sentence that you are obligated to serve X number of years, whether that’s in or out with extra supervision. But once that time is over, that’s the end of your sentence, certain people get sentenced to superduper, long times life 10 life sentences, etc. But you end up with someone that has a 20-year sentence at the end of those 20 years. That is, that is what Larry is referring to is paying your debt to society. Yet someone that serves those 20 years will then have all this extra obligation of punishment. As far as I know, Larry, and please correct me if I’m wrong, nobody else has crimes like that. Once you’re done, you’re just done. There’s no extra stuff that goes on after your sentence is finished.

Larry 11:13
Well, there are some there are some occupational debarments that take place as a result of your conviction. But as far as having your liberties restricted, your movement restricted, I can’t think of a crime that imposes all the disabilities and restraints of the sexual offender registry, I really can’t.

TJump 11:32
Well terrorism would be one, but that’s not the point. So the point here that like the way this is a bad argument is because your debt to society is determined by the judges, not by your prison sentence. So once you’ve served your prison sentence, they can say you have an extra debt to society, you have to pay to be able to do that.

Andy 11:49
Ex post facto. No, it’s not.

Larry 11:51
Well, I was gonna get to that, Andy.

TJump 11:54
You literally can do that. That’s why people can’t vote in certain states. You literally can have an extra debt beyond your prison sentence. And that’s totally legal. But there are definitely conditions, I don’t think it’s fair, I think it’s wrong to do this. That isn’t a good argument, because there are lots of different crimes where you can have extra rights taken away beyond your prison sentence all the time, like voting rights is an obvious example. Terrorism is an obvious example, losing your citizenship, deportation. There’s lots of examples. So just saying that you’ve necessarily served your debt to society, therefore your debt is paid, and that you’re completely void of any other payment is just, it’s not a good argument. There are far better arguments. I agree with you. I don’t think the sex offender registry is moral. I think it’s a bad thing. This is not one of the reasons, though.

Larry 12:39
Sure. Well, mean, that’s the great thing about the country, you could have your opinion, but I can’t think of an offense where I mean terrorism, once you pay your debt to society. Again, when you’ve paid your prison and your probation/parole, the judge doesn’t determine… the judge imposes it, but the laws of the land determine what the available sentence is, and if the available sentence is 30 years, and that’s all they can give you. And when you’re done, even if you commit an act of terrorism, you’re free to go. Now they may deport you if you’re not an American citizen. But you would be able… I mean, Arthur Bremer, we talked about this. He’s the one that shot Governor Wallace in ‘72. He served his time and he’s free to go about his life. But anyway, I’m gonna buy your argument for the sake of this discussion. I would agree with you for the sake of discussion, but what about people who had no… You know when you commit a felony, you’re gonna lose your right to vote. What about people who had no idea that they were going to have all these disabilities and restraints that were imposed on them after the fact. They had no prior notice, which is the very essence of the Ex Post Facto Clause. You’re supposed to be put on notice in advance of what your what disabilities will be imposed on you, and what your loss of liberties and what your punishment will be. What about people who committed their sexual offense 30 years ago, and the law was changed, and all of a sudden they find themselves with all these restrictions that was no part of the discussion, that was not an informed decision. Is that okay, as well?

TJump 13:57
No, that would be illegal. So retroactive laws that apply to people, like if you change the law in the future, and then apply the change to people in the past, that would definitely be illegal.

Larry 14:07
It’s not in the case of the sex offender registry. It’s done all the time.

TJump 14:11
It’s still technically unconstitutional. And the Supreme Court has actually ruled on this against a few states who have tried to impose this. And so it is getting better. It’s improving. I definitely agree with you that this is a very unfair thing that is taken advantage from in many states. But the Supreme Court does seem to be moving more towards rejecting those laws.

Larry 14:30
Which Supreme Court? Not the US Supreme Court. The US Supreme Court has consistently when they’ve dealt with this – I mean, some state Supreme Courts have – the US Supreme Court has consistently said it’s okay. They said that in Smith v. Doe, they said that in Connecticut Department of Public Safety v. Doe. And those are the two landmark cases, but the Supreme Court has largely said that the registry is okay. And it’s being imposed ex post facto, and they continued to constantly ramp up the disabilities snd restraints. And no matter how far they go, they seem to get away with it by and large, but with a few exceptions. There are some state Supreme Courts that have drawn the line. But that’s our whole point is that it’s never enough. The victims’ advocates and the law enforcement industrial complex, they never have enough disabilities, they never have enough of your flesh. They continue to change the rules. You’ve been on the registry for 10 years, you think you’re gonna get off, they change the law and say, “Well, now we require 20.” And they do that all the time.

TJump 15:26
Right. There’s lots of cases that go against it. But I have read many recent cases, like there is a unanimous ruling, the court said that the state’s requirement that sex offenders must register for life without any opportunity for judicial review violates due process. And so there’s lots of cases that I’ve read that actually have gone towards changing the sex offender registry, as well. Now, obviously, there’s lots that haven’t and have gone in the wrong direction. But there does seem to be progress made more recently going in the right direction.

Larry 15:51
Yes, yes. We’re making progress slowly through the courts, to challenge. But it’s taken a lot of a lot of years, and a lot of people being deprived of their constitutional rights, with very little recourse.

TJump 16:06
I totally understand that’s definitely super, super unfair, kind of like Jim Crow laws that was legal for many years in the United States. And it took many years to change that, and lots of activism. And so, I definitely appreciate what you guys are doing in the same vein as Martin Luther King and other activists fighting for the rights of people who do have their rights violated. And so I can definitely empathize with how hard your struggle is, and definitely how unfair the sex offender registry is, in many cases.

Andy 16:33
Certain states are significantly worse than other ones too that we already spoke about. (TJump: Is it the Republican ones?) I wasn’t gonna go there. Specifically, I was gonna say states in like the Northeast, are significantly easier than those that are in like the Bible Belt, which we talk about it pretty regularly, like the level of hypocrisy that that is of all about some forgiveness and whatnot, yet they have – and that’s just criminal justice in general – that they have the hardest prison sentences, that prisons are crappy, versus other places. Larry, you were gonna say something?

Larry 17:07
Now, you’re good, you’re doing fine, keep going.

Andy 17:09
Okay, that would pretty much end it. So is it blue versus red? I, you could probably make a very, very good Venn diagram of it working out that way. I don’t want it because California also has a very, very crappy registry. And that’s a blue, more blue state. So there are exceptions to the rule. But generally speaking, it works out that way.

TJump 17:28
What is your guy’s interpretation of the reason the registry was put into place when it was put into place? What was the goal of this as a legislation?

Andy 17:38
Larry will answer way better. But I think it comes down to the handful of super high-profile cases of the Jacob Wetterling and Megan Kanka, and I think that’s how it’s pronounced. I always screw that one up. But I think those are a couple of really high-profile cases, knee jerk reactions, and everyone says, we have to save every kid.

Larry 17:54
The Wetterling act in ‘94 was purportedly to have a readymade database of names because investigating a disappearance of a child, which was the driving thing behind the Wetterling act, because Jacob disappeared, those moments and hours can be very important. And the thought was that not having to go figure out who the people where that might be suspects – already having a list – would be helpful. So the first generation registries were not that intrusive. Basically, they were just a list where you had to keep your address current, kind of like young men that register for the draft. You have to keep your registration current till you’re 26 years old. But then they realized that they could inflict punishment without being challenged. So they ended up continuing to pile on more and more restrictions. It sounds really good. So the victims of crimes, and the advocates for victims and the law enforcement apparatus, they come forward and say, “Well if we didn’t allow the people on the registry to do X, Y, and Z…” and they just invent new requirements year after year after year. You know, you can’t do this, you can’t do that. And it never stops. And then Congress passed the Adam Walsh Act in 2006. Because of gaps in the Wetterling act. They figured out after nearly 12 years of having all the states with some form of registry, that some of the states really weren’t particularly interested in enforcing the registration requirements. Because if you stop and think about it, and I get hate mail for saying this, but when you stop and think about it, if people who commit sex crimes are as bad as you would like the public to believe they are and as dangerous as you’d like the public to believe they are, when they leave your state, you’d be happy. So what happened prior to the Adam Walsh Act was that states would be celebrating someone who was supposed to register when they concluded to the best of their investigative resources that they had left their state. So when you left Alabama and you went to Idaho, Alabama was happy because you were going to be committed whatever offense and misbehavior in Idaho. Idaho didn’t know you were there, so they couldn’t get your registered. Alabama was happy you were gone. But there was no incentive for them to… why would you want the person back so they could offend in Alabama? So you were celebrating their departure. Well, Congress said that no way to run a system. We’ve got states where they don’t care that the offenders have absconded. And there was purportedly 100,000 who had chosen to move and just quit registering. So therefore, they created a nuance in federal law in the Adam Walsh Act that allows the federal government to go apprehend people who don’t comply with the state registration requirements. So, if you leave Alabama, Alabama reports under the Adam Walsh Act that you’re no longer compliant, then the feds open up an investigating file and the marshals go out and track you down, and they will federally prosecute you. But what’s driving that is the belief that these people, despite the broad list of things that are registered, including consensual activity between folks that are of similar age, but not necessarily of legal age, there are so many people in the registry, but the average citizen doesn’t realize that. In preparation for this program, you probably had no idea that a 19 year old can be on the sex offender registry for life for having sex with a 17 year old consensually in some of our states, because that’s below the age of consent. And they may have a family together. And they may be prohibited from going on school property and interacting with that kid’s teachers and counselors because they’re on the sex offender registry. The average person doesn’t know that.

TJump 21:29
And there’s a number of things that I found very strange that you get on the sex offender act for. Like one was urinating in public, that just seems ridiculous. Why would you be put on the sex offender act for urinating in public? That doesn’t make any sense. Or taking pictures of yourself when you’re under age and having pictures of your own underage self on your phone can get you on the sex offender registry. That’s dumb.

Andy 21:45
Larry, remember the case we talked about on the podcast about probably 18 months ago? There was the kid that sent, I think he was 17, and he sent a picture of his junk to his girlfriend. So therefore, he possessed child porn, and was also distributing child porn of himself.

Larry 22:03
That was, I believe, that was out of the state of Maryland. And that’s a blue state. But the Maryland Supreme Court upheld the conviction because they said that they don’t make laws, they just simply interpret them. And that was the law that the people of Maryland chose to enact through their due process of electing their representative senators. And if the people don’t want that, they need to go about changing that law. It’s not for them to legislate from the bench. But that’s absolutely true. And possession and distribution of child porn is a very serious offense in most states, even though there’s no rape. See the average person thinks that this is a registry of rapists and child molesters. There are very few actually child molesters and rapists. There’s an awful lot of people for things like you just described. Urinating in public is kind of a bit overblown. It is a registerable offense. But that’s a very small number of people on the registry. It shouldn’t be there at all. And in fact, the Adam Walsh Act doesn’t even recommend, the feds do not recommend that that be on the list of registerable offenses. States choose to do it. But it’s not one that’s covered by the Adam Walsh Act, or even the predecessor of the Jacob Wetterling act. They never recommended that you register indecent exposure. But there’s so many things on there that you would never imagine that could get you in trouble. The consensual thing: when a parent calls me and they say, “My son, can you believe this? He’s 19 years old, and he was dating his girlfriend that he was seeing in high school, and he’s a little bit older than her. And now that he’s over 19, he’s charged with a sexual crime because her parents got mad.” I said, Yep, I can believe it. And, “well, that’s just not right.” I said, isn’t it the law of your state? “Well, I guess it is.” Well, you were for those who took advantage of children until it happened to your child, weren’t you? And it’s usually from lack of knowledge. Of course, that person would not have been for that had they known it, but the average person doesn’t know the breadth of what all is listed on the sexual offender registry. They have no idea that it’s not just rapists. Most of the rapists are actually in prison. They have no idea the kind of people that are on the registry,

TJump 24:09
Do you have like a percent of how many actually violent crimes are a part of the registry?

Larry 24:13
I wish I did. I struggle with that because of the way they define violent crimes. A lot of states will call something violent simply because the age of the victim, but yet there was no violence. But they list it as a violent crime. So it’s very difficult to really compose that data that you and I are looking for. Because they deem it violent simply because it’s the age. I mean, if you have sex with a 16-year-old, that’s a minor and you’re an adult, that’s a violent. No, it isn’t a violent crime.

TJump 24:46
Don asked, is it dangerous to be a part of the registry due to targeting?

Larry 24:49
Absolutely, there are people who are beat. There are people who are killed. There’s been a number of high-profile killings. And they do everything they can, they being the law enforcement, to disconnect from saying we don’t have any conclusive proof that it was because of the registry. But occasionally the person will announce that they’re doing the heinous act because the person is on the registry. I think the most recent thing we talked about was out in Nebraska, I think two or three episodes back where a person was sentenced to prison for targeting a person on the registry and killed the person. Wasn’t it just two or three episodes back Andy?

Andy 25:22
Yes, it was. The guy, well, it’s like six months ago that he killed him, but he just got sentenced to 40 to 70 years for killing. It was just a vigilante kill. A registrant moved into his neighborhood, and he didn’t like the way that he was looking around and went up to the door, had a confrontation with him, pulled out his gun and killed him.

Larry 25:41
So yes, it’s a dangerous thing to be on the registry, with the home addresses with such specificity. It’s essentially a target on your face and your forehead.

TJump 25:52
Is there anything that you think the registry could be used for? Like, if it was done well, what would it accomplish or could it be accomplished well? What, how would you change about it to make it better?

Andy 26:02
The reason why I’m laughing is because Larry and I talk about this pretty regularly of what a constitutional registry would look like. And that’s why I’m laughing.

Larry 26:09
I always worry about being constitutional. And therefore, you can do a limited registry, as long as you don’t impose punishment. So a constitutional registry would look like this: You would take their name, their biographical data, maybe their DNA, and you would tell them like you tell young men who have to register for Selective Service, that you have an obligation to report any change of your residence with us. Report that to us within X number of days after any changes. The people would be free to go and live their life, to be employed, to have relationships. And if they offend again, we would do what we do with any other crime, we would arrest them again and prosecute them again, and generally sentence them more harshly. The answer is, we would do what we do with other criminals. If you sell drugs to a kid, we lock you up. If you get out from prison, and you pay your debt to society, and you get off probation and parole, and you sell drugs to a child again, we lock you up again. That’s what we would do. So what I would do is make the registry a database of people. I don’t support it. But if I had to design a constitutional registry, I would have the database for law enforcement use only. We would not disclose addresses, and we would not impose any disability or restraints on people after they’ve done their time and after they’ve served out the duration of their sentence. While they’re paying their debt, if they’re on probation, you can have significant restrictions on your liberty, that’s a given. But a constitutional registry, you can’t do that. And you would not be changing the rules and enhancing the requirements after people have begun the registration period.

TJump 27:45
Don asks, what does it take to get off the registry? Do you know anyone that should be on the registry because they are so bad?

Larry 27:54
I’m sure there are people out there that are that are pretty bad. But again, if they paid their debt to society… I don’t use that as my standard. If they’ve paid their debt, they should be free to go about their life. So I don’t I don’t know what would justify who would deserve to be on the registry. The registry would end when your sentence ends in my world. And if you did any more than that, it would be merely an accumulation of names and biographical and maybe DNA and identification-type information. And best-case scenario, you would keep your address correct. But there would be no additional requirements on the person. That would be a constitutional registry. Did I get the question, right, because I think I might have missed a part of it.

TJump 28:36
Yeah, that was the second part. The first part was, what does it take to get off the registry?

Larry 28:40
What does it take to get off the registry? Well, it varies. Some states, there’s no way off. Like the case you referred to in South Carolina, that’s the state I think you’re talking about where the decision came down without due process. You can’t get off, it’s a lifetime obligation. But in states where you can get off, it’s a petition process where the person has to serve X number of years. And they have to file a petition and the standard is generally on the offender to show that they do not present a danger. That petition is served on the prosecutor of that jurisdiction where they were convicted. And the victim oftentimes has a say. If it’s not a victimless crime, the victim would have a say. If it’s a victimless crime, like for example, an internet sting where there was not an actual victim, then there would be no one to be notified. But if there was an actual victim, they would be notified. And they come in and tell their story. And a judge either grants the petition or denies it and then the person may be able to file again after a period of time, couple of years, up to five years before they can file again. So it usually involves hiring an attorney, expending money for a psychosexual eval, going to court and waiting for an answer. That’s what the process looks like if it exists at all.

TJump 29:53
So most sexual assaults usually happen between friends and family. Correct? And so simply knowing that there is some random person down the street who you don’t have any interaction with happens to be a sex offender wouldn’t likely prevent any sexual offenses anyway. So it doesn’t seem like in principle, the registry is going to be able to accomplish anything, except maybe in the cases of informing friends and family. But they would presumably know anyway, right?

Larry 30:18
Well, that’s a discussion I try to steer clear of to some degree because of that very reason. It’s hard to prove the absence of something of being a benefit. I don’t know how many people who have a neighbor on the registry who have taken extraordinary precautions and kept their kid away even if the person didn’t have a child victim. I don’t know that how many relatives have someone who might not have known but do know because they’re on the registry, and they’ve taken precautions. But statistically, it’s not measurable. We know that. Your research revealed that and we know that. We know that there’s not a way to verify that it does any significant deterrence. But it’s hard to say it doesn’t save one. But if that’s the argument, I mean, we could do a lot of things that would save one. I tell people over and over again, if it’s about saving one, I’ll tell you what I’ll do. I’ll give you some examples, that would save at least one if you want to trample the Constitution. If you’re okay with trampling the constitution to save one, we could start looking at gun restrictions. If you were to slow down the rapidity of firepower, these mass shootings, the number of victims would drop if you can’t shoot as fast. So that would save at least one. But people don’t want to do that. If you wanted to have routine random searches at night in people’s homes without any probable cause; just knocking at the door and saying we’re gonna come in, you don’t mind us looking around and bringing our dogs in to sniff for drugs. There’d be a massive amount of drugs flushed. And if you did that, for a period of time, you would have a significant diminishment of drugs. But that’s not a society I want to live in. And I don’t wanna live in a society where they impose punishment on people after they’ve served their sentence. But that’s what we do here.

TJump 31:57
Now, you said that a constitutional registry is one where they just record their names and data and say not to move or every time they have to move, they have to inform people that they’ve moved. But no form of this would be accessed by the public. No one else would have it other than the government. Correct?

Larry 32:17
I think that would clearly be a constitutional registry. How much beyond that we can go that’s for the courts to decide. But I think clearly, that would be a constitutional registry, if you went no further than that.

TJump 32:27
What do you think would be a good deterrent or something that would help deter sexual assaults that we could add to the registry?

Larry 32:33
Well, I’ve never really thought about that because I don’t want to use the registry as a deterrent. The registry to be constitutional, it can’t be punishment. That’s one of the tests of the US Supreme Court is it can only be used as a regulatory scheme to not impose any disabilities or restraint. So I don’t sit around trying to think of ways that we can deter people with the registry. That’s not what it’s for. It was designed to help law enforcement to investigate and eliminate the wasteful time trying to figure out who the possible suspects would be. So, I don’t I don’t think I’m really going to be a good one to answer that question. What could we do to deter people with a registry? Because I would never support anything in that direction.

TJump 33:16
You said that there’s different requirements and effects of the registry in different states. So if someone goes from a state where it’s very stringent to a state where it’s not as stringent, is that a way to evade some of the consequences of the unfair registry?

Larry 33:30
Yes, it is. And people do that, people do that very thing. They do state shopping, and they compare the terms of registration and the restrictions in the various states. And if they have that option, they move. The way to look at it is the state that you are registering in, since it’s a civil regulatory scheme, it would be like you taking your car from one state to the other. When you take your car from a state that is very lax on registration requirements, maybe they don’t inspect your car for emmissions, and they don’t worry about that type of thing, and you take it to a state that’s much stricter. The state where you go with stricter requirements would take over and they would be the controlling requirements. Well, the same thing happens in reverse. When you go from a state where the registry is lifetime with no way off, that no longer goes with you because that’s a regulatory scheme in Florida. If you go to another state that has a removal process, then they control that. So yes, people do that. It would be nutty if you didn’t do that if you had the option to get off of those restrictions and you had the option and the ability financially to move. I don’t know why you wouldn’t.

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 35:31
One of the reasons that I wanted to bring us together though was to discuss about that if it is in a moral place because TJump often has conversations with folks about the morality of it. And we often talk about on the podcast of the overarching impact that the whole structure of it has on how people live. And only recently in the last about 18 months or so with people being isolated, people not being able to go out and about and people start screaming about all of their rights, and they start screaming about how the mental health aspect of being isolated away from everybody is so horrifying. And everyone that I know that is on the registry, they’re like, man, this is just another day in my life. So imposing all of these social structure restrictions, work structure restrictions, where you can live, who you can associate with, there is a huge impact on your psyche. And it seems like it then moves into a moral discussion about how much this is damaging for people to live. We are social creatures, but you make them completely ostracized from even like walking outside the door.

TJump 36:39
Oh, yeah, absolutely. It’s definitely immoral. Most of the things the government does is immoral. I think the important question is like, is it pragmatic? Kind of like the TSA. The TSA is complete garbage, it does absolutely nothing, protects no one from anything ever. But it makes people feel safe. And that safety that they feel does have an economic benefit. The fact that people feel safer at the TSA makes them buy more tickets, which causes the economy to grow. And so even though the TSA is a gigantic waste of money for the government, and does absolutely nothing to protect anybody, it does benefit the economy which is why we waste so much money on it. And so there could be an argument that maybe the registry does the same kind of thing where it gives people comfort, and makes them feel good. Kind of like religion does, it’s just complete arse, but it makes people feel more comfortable, which then has some kind of an economic benefit. So religion, even though religion is complete nonsense, it does make people comfortable, which has lots of positive psychological influences. So do you think that would be a potential argument for the registry is the fact that it makes people in society feel safer, even though it doesn’t work at all?

Andy 37:41
Do you get to squash my constitutional rights to make you feel good? (TJump: That’s what the TSA does.) I think that ends up to be different though because you are not required to fly. And that is something of a privilege. You can get there other ways by taking a bus or drive. And I realized that going from New York to California would be very challenging if you want to hop in your car for the 3,500 miles or whatever that is. But outside of that, just a person that is on the registry that is then… I don’t want to use Facebook as the example. But you can’t be on Facebook. Facebook’s a cesspool, but that is where everybody is, and you can’t be there. So now that is one level of ostracization. And then you move into where you can and can’t work and where you can and can’t live.

TJump 38:23
You can’t be on Facebook if you’re on the registry?

Andy 38:26
Facebook has, and most social media sites have a clause written in there, however you want to word it, it says if you’ve ever been convicted of a sexual offense, you can’t be here. Something like (TJump: Oh, wow, did not know that. That is, that’s definitely ridiculous.) But that’s private company. And I did a video on our YouTube channel that talks about this because somebody called and asked me about it. They were like, they shut down my Facebook account. He was running a Facebook marketplace thing. So he’s buying and selling, swapping goods, whatever. And that was the only way that he could figure out how to make money. And they kicked him off of there. But from my point of view, Facebook is a private company. I think it’s an a**hole decision. But they can do that if they want to because they’re a private company. It’s not a government-controlled entity. But could the government say you can’t use a road because you’ve been on the registry? You would have lots of problems then. But Facebook, like, okay.

Larry 39:17
I want to get back to what he said if you don’t mind about the TSA, and I don’t really want to divert the conversation to TSA, but it’s a great comparison because I think there’s merit to what he says. The registry does make people feel good. The average person, they’re so misinformed or uninformed that they think that the registry is doing all these wonderful things. And the same thing with the TSA. The TSA, I will never say it hasn’t saved anything. But I can say this, that with no TSA, there will never be another 911 done the way 911 was done because the passengers will never tolerate that again. They will never allow themselves to be a missile and flown into a building if someone tries to take over an aircraft. With or without the TSA, that won’t be allowed to happen again. But it’s a lot of theater there in terms of I mean, I have been fondled and groped at the TSA, probably more than any middle-aged white guy that I can think of. I get this because I wear gloves at the airport because I have a skin condition that makes me very susceptible to bruising. So, grabbing luggage, and being in places where I’m likely to bump my hands, I’m going to be bruised, and they take weeks to heal. And so therefore, I wear gloves. And I get randomly selected every time I’m at the airport to be groped and fondled for extra security. And they always tell me it’s random and I know it’s not random. Somehow or another, at some point down the line, they’ve noticed I’ve got these gloves. And I try to ditch them by the time I get to the screening point, because I know that I’m going to get singled out. But I get that special treatment and it doesn’t do anything to make the traveling public safer. All that theater that they do of having people basically strip and they go up and down your pant leg and behind your back and on your stomach. And all this stuff is theater. But it makes the people that are in the rest of the line feel wonderful. They think you’re a villain. And they think that they have just saved the aircraft they’re about to get on from an inevitable catastrophe. So, I agree with you on that. And that’s what the registry is. There’s a lot of people who feel good that there’s all these things. When the cops go door to door checking to see if you live where you say and they make all this commotion banging at your door making sure every dog in the neighborhood is barking. And if no one answers, they leave these bright orange flyers saying the sex offender unit was here. And they talk to the neighbors and say, “Have you seen this offender? We haven’t been able to make contact with them for at least three weeks now. And we’re kind of a little bit worried.” That makes people feel good. But the person hasn’t committed a crime in 34 years. Their crime happened in 1990. And they’ve been living a law-abiding life. They never expected to be on the registry until the law was retroactively changed. They’ve got a family. And yet they’re going through all this theater and that is exactly what it is. It’s good for public consumption. Okay, that’s enough rant.

TJump 42:13
Is there any other interesting points or topics that we haven’t talked about yet that you guys wanted to bring up?

Larry 42:17
Well, we did have a lot of stuff that was on the list, but I think you’ve covered a fair amount of it. Andy, do you see anything that wasn’t on the suggested list?

Andy 42:26
I do not think so. Why don’t we beat around about what registration goes over as far as the information that you have to give to the man, the Popo, depending on where you are and what your level is that you might go in… So many people, they just go in annually. And it’s just like you’ve been booked for a crime. I’m pretty sure that your fingerprints don’t change. Maybe in your lifetime, maybe from the time that you’re a wee young kid to the time that you’re an adult, your fingerprint probably modifies, but otherwise it doesn’t change. But you have to get your fingerprints taken. And you have to have your photo taken. And you have to give your address updates. And you often give your vehicle and so forth. And you give relatives, like you give a whole bunch of information for, as Larry was just describing, a crime that may have been committed in 1990. Here it is 2021. And now you’re still giving this information up.

Larry 43:25
So well, it’s really a humiliating experience because unlike a true civil regulatory scheme, where you would go… Most people, the worst experience of their life is going to motor vehicles. The average person hates that. The average person on registry, they would be delighted if that’s all they had to go through in the registration process is what you got through at motor vehicles, which is a bureaucrat that tells you you don’t have the right paperwork in order. But it’s so designed to humiliate. And to remind you that you’re a creep, that you go through that. But the more important thing to me, I mean, that is gross enough. But the more important thing to me, is the ex post facto that you may have not had any idea of what’s coming. A lot of people are on the registry where their crimes predate the existence of the registry, or the registry has had the requirements enhanced multiple times during their registration period with a continuation of adding more and more restraints on their liberty. That’s the most egregious thing about it. They continue to pile on, and pile on, and pile on, which is what the courts were beginning to look at. They’re saying, hey, you can’t keep doing that. That’s what happened in Michigan, with the Does v. Snyder, Snyder I and Does vs. Snyder II. Those cases were saying, hey, you just can’t keep changing the rules and putting more and more disabilities and restraints on people in a supposed civil regulatory scheme. So that’s what bothers me. And then these risk levels, they don’t really do a risk assessment. Very few states actually look at your individualized risk, because the Adam Walsh Act, the federal legislation in 2006 no longer encouragas that. They used to encourage you to look at the individualized risk, but now they look at your crime. So it’s based on the crime. And most states don’t even tier them correctly. But your tier three level may be inappropriate because your crime actually was not recommended by the feds to be at a tier three. But at a tier three, the public thinks you’re the most heinous criminal, and you may have simply had sex with a minor by consent. And that makes you a tier three offender because the person was under a certain age. And most states, they use a higher age than what the actual tier three requirements are. There are so many things where the registry, even if they were following the strict requirements that the feds have in their system for you to be deemed eligible for your precious federal funding, the states go way beyond that. They put requirements in like, for example, we talked about the indecent exposure. That’s not even a sex offense that the feds care anything about the states’ registry, but yet they do.

TJump 46:02
Don asked, can you talk about the restrictions the registry has on living areas near schools, churches and Halloween restrictions?

Larry 46:11
Great question. Now there are some states, like my state, where there are no such requirements. You can live anywhere you want to here and you can work anywhere you want to if they’ll hire you. And you don’t have those disabilities. But in most of the states there is some level of prohibitions. Now, your offense may not have anything to do with children. And the overwhelming majority of offences don’t have anything to do with children. I mean, I can’t give the percentages. But I’m satisfied from the 20 years I’ve been in the legal business that there are a lot of people on the sex offender registry that never offended against a child. But anyway, those are the typical restrictions. It would be schools, anything that they can consider daycare, or a school or place where children might congregate. They would be prohibited against loitering, which they define loitering very broadly merely being present. So, you end up where you can’t go to McDonald’s because there’s a playground there. Most McDonalds have the play land for the children. So therefore, you’re technically, in some of the states you’re in violation if you go to McDonald’s and want to eat inside the restaurant. But I mean, have you ever heard of anyone being molested at a McDonalds? I haven’t. Some of the school prohibitions prevent people from voting, because their precinct is at a school. So they have to vote absentee, because they’re not allowed to vote. It goes on and on.

Andy 47:37
There was a conference several years ago, there was an attorney that brought up a map of North Carolina. And they had, I guess, there were probably 1000-foot restrictions. And these are presence restrictions. These are places that you are not allowed to be present. And so one of them, maybe like at the legislative office, there was like an in-house daycare place. You can’t be 1000 feet from a daycare. But that’s the legislative office. If you wanted to go to talk to your legislator, that’s where they would be, and you’re not allowed to be in that space. I’m pretty sure I characterized that right. Did I get the details right on that, Larry?

Larry 48:09
You did. There are people who… one of your fundamental rights is to petition government for redress of your grievances. But the capital is off limits in some instances, because the proximity of the Capitol to that list of exclusions that you’re not allowed to be present in. Now, I would totally do what Rosa Parks did. I would say the day is not going to come when you’re going to prohibit me from going to my Capitol, so you’ll just have to arrest me. But most people are not willing to face the significant criminal act, which is a felony in almost all of our states. And it’s subject to habitual enhancement in most of our states. So you end up with a with dozens of years, or maybe 20 years for violating the registry, because that’s one of the places you’re not allowed to be. But if you can’t go to your Capitol and petition for redress of your grievances, then we’re in a sad state of affairs.

Andy 49:00
Want to be clear about something over on the discord side that someone’s asking about. We’re not talking about whether how long the punishment is, we’re not trying to necessarily talk about reducing that side of it. We’re talking about the registration side, you could be sentenced to an infinity number of years. That is what your legislative body has ordered you to do for the crime that you’ve committed. The argument, the topic, and the idea that we’re trying to present is that after you’ve served your time, that all the extra garbage that you go through is where the line gets crossed.

Larry 49:34
The registry is not a part of your sentence. It’s a collateral consequence. You are told that you will have an obligation to register as a result of this offense. But when you stand before a judge, the judge does not say, I am sentencing you to 10 years or 20 years on the registry. That’s not the way it works. The registry is an afterthought, and it’s a civil requirement that has nothing to do with it being pronounced upon you by a judge. The judge merely apprises you at the time of your sentence, if it was in existence, that you must comply with registration. But so we’re not arguing about your punishment, although I think the sentences are too long in America. We are the incarceration capital of the world. We have 5% of the population, and we have 25 plus percent of all the incarcerated individuals. There’s something wrong with that picture. But that’s a discussion we’re not having.

TJump 50:27
Yes. I mean, overall, I think I would agree with your position that the registry itself is horribly immoral, definitely, for sure. Way overblown. It doesn’t work, doesn’t prevent future sexual assaults. Most of the sexual assaults aren’t by people on the list. So, it’s not a good way to try and find arbitrators when a crime has been committed. So as far as I know, it doesn’t have any positive benefits. There are definitely some people in the chat who disagree fervently, apparently. But I think they’re probably wrong. Was there anything else you guys wanted to talk about? Anything else we missed?

Andy 50:59
I think I’m clear. Larry, is there anything else that you wanted to touch on Before we move on?

Larry 51:04
I think we’ve done a stellar job. And I appreciate the opportunity to be here.

Andy 51:08
Absolutely. Appreciate you guys being here and chatting.

Andy 51:10
Are we going to do any Q&A, though?

TJump 51:12
Yes. So, people in the audience, raise your hand if you want to come in the thing and chat, ask questions and stuff.

Andy 51:19
I know that there’s two or three or four people that have pretty interesting positions.

TJump 51:23
Nova has been bugging me on the YouTube chat for like an hour. He’s like, I want to come chat.

Nova 51:30
What do you mean, I’ve been bugging me for an hour? I’ve only been here for like 10 minutes. (TJump: Same thing. It’s like biblical hours, it’s fine.) Good evening, guys. Sorry, joining quite late. I’ll introduce myself. I’m part of the, of an online group called the International Investigation Central, which stands for the IIC. Basically, what we do is we catch predators online, and try to actually sentence them, which has been quite a success. Now the sex offender registry, now on one hand, I do agree with it. But on the other, I do get that it’s kind of rough, and can actually quite affect your life. But do you think it’d be any different if it wasn’t there?

Larry 52:13
Will what be any different?

Nova 52:14
Like, if the registry didn’t exist, do you think it would just continue?

Larry 52:16

TJump 52:18
Like, what are you asking would continue and what are you asking would be different?

Nova 52:21
What would be different if it wasn’t there?

TJump 52:24
Well, it destroys their lives. It wouldn’t damage their lives, that would be one thing that would be different.

Larry 52:30
We would be following the United States Constitution would be the biggest difference. And, as I said earlier, in the podcast, perhaps before you joined, what would be different, if people offend again, after they’ve gotten in trouble, we have ways of dealing with them. But we don’t do predictive behavior and we don’t restrict people’s liberties because of what they might do. We punish them for what they have done for a period of time. When that punishment ends, they get to go about their life, and we have to take the chance that they may commit another infraction. Like the person I mentioned that sells drugs to get on the outside of school grounds. We don’t restrict that person after they’ve paid their debt to society. They can live where they want to, they can go where they want to. If they choose to sell drugs again, and we catch them, we will lock them up again. But in terms of the thing about the, I guess you’re talking about internet stings. I vehemently oppose those. I think it’s a solution looking for a problem in my opinion. I’m in the criminal defense business. So I probably have this view from my experience of what I’ve seen. There are so many of these that are entrapment where the person thought they were an adult room, the person posing as an adult magically transitions to become a child, and they tantalize the person and convince them by pretending that they’re a minor. There are very few minors that are trying to have sex with adults. When you look at where there are really adults soliciting minors, where they’re soliciting a real child. Doesn’t happen. Very rare. But what does happen day in day out is we spend gobs of taxpayer resources, setting up these elaborate stings so that these guys that’re mostly men, very few women, but mostly men who are carrying on conversation thinking they’re looking for an adult date. And then what was an adult magically transitions to become a child, and they don’t believe it, but they’re tantalized enough by the very skillful adult that is misleading them that they show up for a meeting, and then all of a sudden, they’re charged with this crime. But that’s a solution in search of a problem in my view.

Nova 54:40
I’m not entirely sure what you’re saying in this case. I don’t know if you’ve ever seen Chris Hanson. Do you agree with him?

Larry 54:48
I’ve seen many episodes of Chris Hanson. I’ve defended cases like what they do, what they did on that program. Absolutely. I’ve seen many cases,

Nova 54:56
So you would agree that that is a form of, you know, that that is a good thing by setting up these elaborate stings to try and actually get them off the internet and make it slightly safer?

Larry 55:07
No, I don’t agree with that. I just got through saying that. I said, I believe that it’s a solution in search of a problem. These are entrapment. But by and large, these are adults who are doing a bait and switch with guys who thought they were chatting… this is generalization. There are some creepers out there that’re looking to have sex with minors, and I don’t condone that. But I do not condone spending vast amounts of law enforcement resources and taxpayer resources to come in and convince a person that’s not looking for our child, that you really do want to have sex with me because I’m a child. But yet you were an adult when you started. I don’t agree with that. I mean, you have the right in this country to say that that’s a great thing. I disagree.

TJump 55:52
So would you be for legitimate online things that don’t pretend, like start as adults, and then entrap people by then transforming into children? If they are legitimately acting as children and don’t manipulate, would that be fine as an organization? If you could actually demonstrate that and had complete recordings of the entire conversation?

Larry 56:13
Absolutely. Absolutely.

Nova 56:15
What we do is, most of the time, we keep it as safe as possible. We keep it as platonic as possible. We never engage a person, they always engage us. And if it does happen, we keep the conversation as natural as possible, and do not try and trap them into a corner where they are forced to say sexual things. Now, in case there is any imminent danger, or him mentioning something that might involve a minor close by, that’s when we do take action. That’s when we do pass along their information towards the law enforcement wherever they are at. Now, if they ever do something with that, I’m not entirely aware, because we never get anything back. But yeah, to be fair, I get where you come from. But internet sucks. I’ll be quite honest, there’s a lot of creeps on here. And then again, I do understand that not everyone is going to have sex with a minor. But on the other hand, don’t you think that enticing that even over the computer is slightly like not very normal and shouldn’t actually happen?

Larry 57:24
Was that a question you were asking?

TJump 57:26
Hitting on a minor and trying to entice them is bad. Don’t do that.

Larry 57:31
Well, it would depend on the age of the minor. If the minor is of the age of consent in whatever the jurisdiction is, then you need to change your law. If you think that I mean, most of your parents or your grandparents would be sexual offenders under today’s rules, because the age of consent has increased in recent decades. But I don’t want to be the moral policeman that says to a 16-year-old if that is in fact, the age of consent, in a particular state, I’m not going to be the one that tells you that you cannot have sex with a 24 year old. That’s not for me to determine if it’s a lawful activity. That’s for you to determine if it’s a lawful activity. But it’s like, I’m not the moral police.

TJump 58:13
So, in general minor was referring to people who is below the age of consent. If it’s above the age of consent, then it’s legal, and so you couldn’t prosecute them or do anything on them anyway. So by minor, we’re just colloquially referring to below…

Nova 58:28
And by minor, we usually mean around the age of 13 to 14.

Andy 58:32
That’s young.

Nova 58:33
Yes, that is young and it’s mostly under any minor restrictions.

Larry 58:40
I would agree with you on this. If If a person magically transitions from being an adult to a 13 year old, every person that’s engaging in a conversation should disengage from that conversation immediately. Unfortunately, they don’t do that. (Nova: It doesn’t happen.) It doesn’t happen. A lot of times, they don’t believe that the person’s a 13-year-old because they’ve been too mature to be a 13 year old. They’ve talked at a level that the person… I mean, they put on their act to try to sound like their 13-year-old. They say my mom is not here right now and all that kind of stuff. But most of them can carry on a conversation because they’re adults pretending to be 13-year-olds, but you should disengage. I agree with you on that. You should say you’re 13 years old. Now you’ve magically transition from being 24 to 13. I can no longer have a conversation. Well, you should block the person. That’s what you should do

Nova 59:26
And sadly, it doesn’t happen. And most of the time, it actually… not most of the time, but sometimes it does involve into actually acting up on sexual conversations, which is awful to read. But I do want to point out, we are not, most of the time, the people that we do use are actually around those ages, maybe one or two years older. But it’s not like fully adults. The only thing we actually do is we do look onto those conversations. Like we have accounts that you know, are just there for that. But it’s not as if we’re like, suddenly, you know, from a 24-year-old man to a 13-year-old girl. From the start on, it is already you are 13. And the person knows that within the first like 10 messages.

TJump 1:00:21
I think that’s a legitimate point. Not everybody who does the online stings is going to start as an adult, and then lie about their age and transition. That’s, I think that would probably be a minority of the people who actually do that. But it would obviously be bad if they did do that. That’s clearly entrapment. But I don’t think that would be all or the majority of cases.

Nova 1:00:40
No, I have seen it where actually a 23-year-old acts as 14 year old boy, and as you get closer to a victim, or to a person… It’s like, if someone says they’re 13, even if you’re a 14-year-old boy, or if you’re a 23 year old guy, just disengage. But some people will actually fake their age as a 14-year-old guy, simply to get close to that girl for whatever reason.

TJump 1:01:11
I got a Super Chat from Ethan. “I agree. Immoral. Should be limited in time and commiserate with the penalty crime also contradicts our laws against discrimination in hiring.”

Nova 1:01:22
I mean, on one hand, I do agree with that. Like hiring shouldn’t be affected by that. But it should be known that the person that you are talking to does have a past with that. Because if you hide that, and you know, it happens again, you could have like, prevented that if you knew.

Andy 1:01:41
Just out of curiosity. You said it’s 2am. So you’re somewhere over here across the pond? (Nova: Yes, I’m in Europe. Yes, that’s correct.) So you’re doing this over on your side, not over on this side? (Nova: Could you explain what you mean by that?) You’re doing it over on the Europe side of the Atlantic and not the US side of the Atlantic.

Nova 1:01:58
We have people that are also US based. I, myself, have a house in the USA as well.

Andy 1:02:04
Larry, are they breaking laws by doing this?

Larry 1:02:07
I don’t think so. But and if they’re doing it the way he’s describing, I don’t have any problem with that. If they’re starting out as being minors and there’re people as adults that are hitting on minors. I’m just not experiencing that in the work that I do. But if that’s the case, that’s not a problem for me.

Nova 1:02:26
It happens a lot more than you think as well. And it’s, it’s very sad to see. I wouldn’t even let my sister on the internet at this moment in time. Not on social media. Because there are a lot of people just don’t have the right intentions. And you never know what’s going to happen. And I agree that not everything is sexually related. Especially not everyone’s an 18-year-old guy that wants to you know, get close to a girl that’s like 13.

TJump 1:03:02
Anybody else wanted to ask anything?

Larry 1:03:04
I commend you for doing it the right way. I don’t see that on this side of the pond being done the right way. Of course, I guess since I’m in defense business, I only see the bad cases. But I’m not aware of the operations in my state or in my region being done the way you’re describing. So I appreciate that.

TJump 1:03:20
I have to go actually. I have another debate to go on. You guys can continue to hang out for however long Frank stays and keeps the room open. Thanks again for Andy and Larry for coming on. Really appreciate you guys taking the time to have a conversation. I will see you guys later.

Larry 1:03:33
I really appreciate being here.

Andy 1:03:36
Check out our if you want to listen to our podcasts.

You’ve been listening to FYP.

Transcript of RM190: 7th Circuit Sitting En Banc Overturns Previous Win

Listen to RM190: 7th Circuit Sitting En Banc Overturns Previous Win

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 a problem with these thoughts, fyp.

Andy 00:18
Recording live from FYP Studios, east and west. Transmitting across the internet. This is episode 190 of Registry Matters. Good evening, Larry. How are you Saturday night? Back again I see.

Larry 00:30
Well, I’m here. Thanks for inviting me back.

Andy 00:34
You’ve lived yet another week.

Larry 00:38
I suppose you could look at it that way.

Andy 00:43
You know, what’s really important when you actually publish the podcast, Larry? (Larry: What’s that?) That you actually put the mp3 file and attach it to the episode. I didn’t notice that it wasn’t even in the episode until a few days later. Hey, it just went out. So, if you’re listening to this, then you probably just got the last one even anyway. Hey, I screwed up. And I’m just sharing with you that I screwed up. (Larry: Alrighty.) Um, I wanted to ask you a quick question. So, we are both familiar with a couple people in a particular state that have been taken into custody on, I guess we can say alleged probation violations. And really, what I want to ask you about is it seems that one of them is in a much more populated area. And he has violations that seem to be like directly targeted to specific special conditions due to his crime, I suppose, I think. And I’m kinda like piecing together things that I believe are real, or believe are factual. The other person is in a very, very unpopulated area. And he has violations that seemed to be against like the general just like, here’s the blanket rules that everyone has to follow. The differences in the sentences that they’re trying to – or the revocation, the amount of time that they’re trying to take – the one that’s in the very highly populated area, the one that has the very targeted violations is something of a couple or three years, which I’m not saying that’s not a lot of time, that’s certainly a lot of time. But the person in the other area that’s very sparsely populated, they’re asking for like, seven years. They’re like asking for every all of his time left that he would have on probation. And it seems like a huge disparity based on to me, it seems like the one with the less time got a much shorter sentence, but a higher magnitude offense versus the other one that seems to be getting a whole crap ton more time but just like generally violated. Did I did I characterize that? And can you talk about that for a minute.

Larry 02:44
You did characterize it correctly. There are some things we don’t know about these two, we don’t know, on the two offenders if one had criminal history, outside of the sex offense, which could cause a prosecutor to be more aggressive. But as a general rule, not always, but as a general rule, the urban areas tend to be a little more lenient. They have a higher flow of cases. They need to resolve them and put them through the system. And they tend to be much more willing to make a deal to resolve the violation. The county that the person is in is a very small county. I think the population is like 17,000 total. (Andy: Yep. Yep.) And, and they do not have a high volume of cases. And they need to make an example of a person who violates probation more so than an urban center does. And that can explain some of the difference. I would strongly suggest to people: when you’re thinking about moving, rural areas are generally not going to be your friend.

Andy 03:54
Alright, so note to self if, if you’re still dealing with like a switchboard operator, then that’s probably not where you would want to live.

Larry 04:04
If you’re still dealing with a switchboard operator?

Andy 04:06
Where you’d have to pick up the phone and ask the switchboard operator to connect you to 351 Main Street, and they’re gonna patch cables together. Sorry, it was an old person joke.

Larry 04:17
So, it’s not always the case, though. But as a general rule, urban areas have more program options for people. They invest in alternatives to incarceration more so than a rural area. I mean, simply just the funding isn’t there. So, you’re not going to have as many sentencing options on the table to begin with. So, prison is more prevalent in the rural settings. But in this case, I don’t know if there are other variables in play, but we’re generalizing without information, but you do have it correct. That is what’s going on here. One person violated, is alleged to have violated the condition of not looking at images that were all adults, as far as we can tell. The other person was accused of violating by accessing social media which was specifically prohibited based on the underlying offense, which was an internet offense. And those were much more appropriate conditions for that individual. Those blanket bans for internet access are problematic. But if they’re narrowly tailored and related to the underlying offense and that offender, they’re much more able to withstand a constitutional challenge.

Andy 05:33
Is there any way that we can discuss the other item of the person. The rural county without, like spilling all the beans?

Larry 05:42
I don’t know. It depends on what you want to discuss.

Andy 05:45
I want to talk about the extra piece of equipment that they found. Would you recommend that anybody have one of these?

Larry 05:56
Well, depends on what the equipment was.

Andy 05:59
You know what it is? Can we talk about it? (Larry: I think we can talk about it.) So is there any reason that a PFR should actually go online or in person if you could find one, and buy a polygraph machine?

Larry 06:15
I can’t think of a reason that the average person is going to need to acquire ownership of one of those devices. But as the attorney has eloquently pointed out, there’s no law against owning it nor is there a condition of supervision that prohibits possessing a polygraph machine. Now, there may be that condition added going forward, but it’s not a violation of supervision to have one.

Andy 06:45
What do you think probation’s response would be if they come in for their like random check? Forget that they’re doing a specific kind of like, they’re looking for a contraband kind of search, and they walk in and they see with the kabuki machine in your shack.

Larry 07:02
They would be very disturbed about it, because the first thing that would go through their mind would be, unless you had that in your background that you had been a polygraph examiner, they would assume that you were using it to try to practice and rehearse evasion. And they would not be amused by a person trying to evade detection of violations of supervision.

Andy 07:26
My issue, Larry, is that the polygraph is a kabuki machine. And all it is, is it’s almost like an old school Fitbit that’s tracking your heart rate and your breathing and stuff like that. And as far as the detecting whether you’re lying or not, it doesn’t detect whether you’re lying. It detects whether you have like a response to a thing, a question, and I don’t see that you could do this at home. I don’t think that you could figure this one out. So I think we discussed earlier this week that if you were to get one, like maybe you would ask your neighbor or your best friend or somebody that’s not on supervision to hold on to it for you.

Larry 08:01
I don’t know if I would want to recommend that. But I would say having anything of that nature around is going to be extremely problematic for a home visit from your supervising officer. Therefore, you might not want to have one in your possession.

Andy 08:17
I think I agree with you. Okay. I completely forgot to even ask you what are we doing tonight? So, can you go back through and tell us what we’re doing tonight?

Larry 08:28
We have some listener questions as typical from inside and outside. And we have a very complicated case. It’s been meandering around the courts for about five plus years now. And it has been a victory, followed by a victory, followed by defeat. And it’s going to take some time to unpack that case out of Indiana from the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.

Andy 08:53
All right, okay. Well, then let’s begin with a question that is to be read, or statement to be read. Hey, guys love the podcast. And I look forward to seeing your transcript every week. I want to comment about the iPhone NCMEC topic that was discussed on episode 188. That’s impressive, Larry, that you were able to get that thing in there. So this is only two episodes ago. And then concerning when the transcript takes time, and then mailing and all that stuff. So it’s only like 10 days ago, that the person is responding to us. The duty to report mandate Title 18, US Code 22589(a) allows Apple and other ISPs to report illegal content if they see it on their platform. I think there’s a difference between coming across something and searching, obtaining and providing that criminal evidence for criminal prosecution. At what point do these companies become quasi government agents? Do you want to stop there and talk about that? Where does the line get drawn? I guess like I mean, if you were in Walmart and you dropped your whole stash of underaged photos, is Walmart like duty-obligated to then notify authorities that they found this stuff attached to this person that walked through the store?

Larry 10:06
That was a question that was better suited for an attorney. And I asked Ashley if she was able to come today, but she was not. She just got back from a week-long trip to a CLE or something across the country. And she didn’t feel like being here. But we can double back on this. But there are some clear dividing lines on where an agent of the state, agent of the prosecution where that kicks in. And I don’t know if I’m really qualified enough to articulate where that dividing line is.

Andy 10:37
And I think I’ll jump in and listening to a whole bunch of tech podcasts that I did during the week. As far as I understand it, institutions like Facebook has reported hundreds and hundreds of 1000s of naughty images, whereas Apple has reported hundreds. Like a three-digit number versus a six or larger number, six-digit number or longer. So, they have obviously not done anything as far as searching your content up to this point, and that’s episode 188 where we were talking about where they are going to start looking at that stuff. Um, but then the writer continues, when they do find this illegal content. They don’t just report it, they report your name, IP address, MAC address, timestamps, port numbers, router, info and any other metadata they have. The Stored Communications Act, Title 18, US code 2701 etc., I guess, is confusing to me when dealing with content and records. But what I think they have in common is that ISPs can’t give the content records to a government agent/entity without a warrant, but they can give it to NCMEC, right? And I don’t know the answer that one. So NCMEC isn’t a government agency, but I believe it’s propped up by government? I think it’s a private institution. But maybe it’s a nonprofit, but it’s government propped up. Do you know about that side of it?

Larry 12:01
My understanding of it is that it was a nonprofit, but they approached the government for funding. You know, everybody hates the government, but they get their funding, a lion’s share of their funding from the government to do this work. But again, I’m not sure that I’ve got it right. But that’s what I understand it to be.

Andy 12:17
Yeah, I think you’re right on that one. Because I know that it’s not a government entity. It’s not one of the three letter agencies or anything like that. But it could be just a nonprofit, and then the government funds it for them to do this work. So but what if NCMEC was a government agent or entity? Those two statutes would be at odds, would they not? And I don’t quite follow the issue that he’s saying if they had the stored information of… I didn’t follow that. Anyway, And then there was NCMEC. The cyber tip line is run by NCMEC. And when it first came out, it uses a 501(c) nonprofit agency. But that has since changed. In 2013, US v. Keith 19, it was ruled to be a government agent. In US vs. Ackerman, the circuit judge who wrote this comprehensive decision said it wasn’t just a government agent, but a government entity. That circuit judge was Neil Gorsuch. Wow. The now Supreme Court justice. I didn’t mean to rant. Let me know what you guys think. And you guys are the best. Appreciate that very much. Oh, interesting. So, Neil Gorsuch, I guess if I’m reading this back, said that NCMEC is a government entity, not just an agent of the government?

Larry 13:41
Yes, we need to actually read that case, that citation, follow it and see if we can get Ashley on to do a better job of explaining this. But he raises some great questions. That’s why I put it in here.

Andy 13:51
Okay. That’s why it was also to be read and not like, we’re going to ask questions and answer them. Cool. Yeah. So we’ll circle back that would be interesting to talk about. Then you posted this question. Somebody wrote in, says:

Listener Question
Hello, someone mentioned that you guys might be able to answer some questions about the registry. So, I was hoping you could help me. I release in roughly two months. I have a lifelong GPS and registry to look forward to. (Andy: Excellent. That’s good for you. They’re very fun. It’s almost like a birthday party.) Is that normal for someone who has two counts of CP or just another broken Wisconsin thing? Don’t get me wrong, I know my offense is horrible, but I feel like I’m being treated exactly the same as someone with a much more serious offense would have. Are other states more lax when it comes to GPS and registry? I think it may make sense for GPS while on extended supervision. But on lifetime registry seems so overkill. Do I get to enjoy the rest of my life being seen as a monster? I’ve asked our social worker for a copy of the registry rules but still haven’t seen them. Any information would be greatly appreciated.

Oh boy, Larry. Go ahead and tell this person about how much fun the registry and GPS monitoring is.

Larry 15:05
Well, there’s some questions buried in here that he didn’t actually ask. But in terms of Wisconsin, it is somewhat of an overkill. Other states do that. But I guess he feels like his non-contact defense should not warrant that level of treatment. Unfortunately, non-contact offenders get treated much more harshly than what you would ever imagine. Because the theory goes, that they’re grooming and they’re escalating, and they’re moving up. And if we had not caught them, it’s no telling what would have happened next. But in terms of his GPS monitoring, when you leave Wisconsin, if that’s a registry requirement, it won’t go with you. The registry requirements are what the state requires where you’re registering. So if you leave Wisconsin, and it’s merely a requirement of registration, and again, I’ve done no research, I don’t know this, but I’m putting forth the best answer I can. The registry requirements won’t go with you. Having said that, Wisconsin is the one state that tries to continue to assert jurisdiction over people after they leave. They tell you that you need to continue to update your registration. And you need to pay the $100, I believe it is, annual fee. And failure to do so can result in a prosecution. We don’t know the answer to that, to my knowledge, I know that there’s been some case law. But I remember when I looked at the cases, there were some distinguishing factors about that case that the person cited to, the listener of the podcast. So, we don’t know, on full appellate review, if Wisconsin can assert a continued control over you and tell you to pay the $100 and send the form in. We don’t know the answer to that. But in terms of your extended supervision, if it’s a requirement of your supervision, that requirement will go with you to the next state. So, if you have a GPS requirement part of your supervision, it will go with you.

Andy 17:17
That’s lots of fun. All right. Yeah, yeah, I was gonna ask you that, to remind me is Wisconsin the one that does the continued registration fee, even after you’ve left the state.

Larry 17:29
And as for more reasonable states, are they lax? Yes. But if it’s a part of your supervision that laxity will not benefit you because those states are bound by the interstate compact for adult offender supervision to carry forward with the requirements that were imposed on you in the state that sentenced you. So therefore, if you have a GPS requirement in Wisconsin as a part of your supervision, and you go to a great state, like maybe Florida, or Alabama, or one of these delightful southern states, where the people are so much more brilliant and have more common sense than folks do in these wacky states, you will find that that condition will accompany you there. Now how aggressively they enforce it, that I can’t tell you. It could be that after some period of time on supervision, they might decide that you don’t need that level of scrutiny. And they may pay lip service to the GPS, and you may have to be fitted with it. And they may never call you when it shows you’re out of compliance. They may never admonish you. I mean, I can’t tell you that. But they’re they can’t just cut you loose from it. As I’ve said many times before, wouldn’t it be a great country, if you could get sentenced in one of our states, and you could jettison those conditions of a sentence you didn’t like by moving to another state? Wouldn’t that be fantastic?

Andy 19:03
That’d be great. And should circle back real quick. You talked about the southern states, the southern states are generally like really atrocious, generally speaking, versus the northeastern states.

Larry 19:13
That is correct generally. Wisconsin had you know, people forget that they were under a regime of Governor Walker. And Wisconsin is not like it once was. A lot of changes were made in how Wisconsin runs things. They went through the looney tune of the wrestler who became governor Jesse Ventura.

Andy 19:33
No, that’s Minnesota.

Larry 19:36
Oh, yep, yep, whoops. But they certainly went through Scott Walker. (Andy: Scott Walker was exceptional.) So they’ve taken a conservative direction in Wisconsin. So, things are not like they might have been in Wisconsin 30 years ago. It’s not the same state.

Andy 19:56
Okay, then. Let’s roll right along. I snagged this one off of Reddit. There’s a PFR support. It’s like SOS support, not quite like that. It’s sex offender support something or another. If you type in that, you’ll find it over on Reddit. But somebody posted a pretty good question. And I asked Larry, if I thought it was good question. And Larry said, yes. So this is questions about lifetime supervision from Nevada. I am the long-term girlfriend of a PFR that was sentenced in Nevada in the past two years. I’m making this post on his behalf. He was sentenced to five years’ probation eligible for release at the halfway mark once he completes his PFR treatment. He is a tier three, has never served any of that time in prison, nor does he have any prior offenses. There is an addendum in his core paperwork that says he is required to complete lifetime supervision – I have a question about that one, Larry – even after he is released from regular probation. We have questions about this. How does regular probation and lifetime supervision differ? Is it the same set of conditions he has now? He’s originally not from the state he was convicted in, but he is serving his sentence in Nevada currently. How does this affect his ability to move back to the state that he lived in prior to the conviction and sentencing? Will he have to go through the ISC? Which I’m assuming is the interstate compact thing. Is he eligible to go back after release of regular probation or do we have to wait 10 years post-conviction and petition for release of lifetime supervision? First of all, how do you complete lifetime supervision if not by dying?

Larry 21:30
Well, they’re early termination from lifetime supervision. Courts don’t keep people – unless the statute requires a lifetime, without the release – but frequently people petition off lifetime. We talked about that just in the last episode about the case where the state didn’t object of him getting off lifetime supervision, the New Jersey case. But they did object to him getting off the registry. This is a great question. I don’t know if anyone’s answered it on Reddit, but I can give the answers. Some of them will not be popular, but I can give the answers to all of these.

Andy 22:08
Okay, and yes someone did answer. Someone that is in our chat room actually answered the question, if I’m not mistaken.

Larry 22:15
So I don’t know how lifetime supervision differs in Nevada versus regular supervision. In theory, it should differ because once you’ve gotten off of your rigorous supervision, where they’re really monitoring you, the lifetime should be more of a check in type, more like supervision. My antidotal evidence suggests that that’s certainly not true. But that’s what it should be. So remember, should be versus is be. I haven’t said that for a long time.

Andy 22:48
Not for a long time.

Larry 22:50
But if it says it should be, it would be somewhat more relaxed, but there would still be a reporting duty to a supervising officer. So that gets to his last series of questions about can he go to another state? Yes, he can. He would have to go through the interstate compact. Remember the test for going through the interstate compact. If you have any reporting requirements whatsoever, the compact covers you. So in order to escape the compact, there has to be probation with no reporting requirements, or parole with no reporting requirements. You can’t be cute and say well, check in by phone. That’s a reporting requirement. You can’t be cute and say mail a form to us. That’s a reporting obligation. You have to tell the person go away, sin no more. So without that, he will have to go through the interstate compact to go to another state, even under lifetime supervision. Those cases are transferable under the compact. Lifetime supervision is transferable. If it were come to our state, they would treat it with absolutely no difference. He would get treated exactly like a beginning person on supervision here. And their goal would be to make him want to leave this state. That would be their intent. And they would treat him no differently. What other states will do, I don’t know. Some states might do it right. They might look at Nevada’s records of supervision and the fact that he was totally compliant with no issues, and they might not put him through that. But I can speak for our state, it would make no difference here. So, he does not have to wait 10 years to move to another state. But if Nevada law requires you to wait 10 years to petition off lifetime supervision, then that’s a Nevada thing. Regardless of what state he’s in, remember another state can’t remove you from supervision that’s imposed, so therefore, if he were to go to the most lenient state in the country, whatever, wherever that might be, they cannot release him from that supervision because they didn’t impose it.

Andy 25:10
All they would then do is just follow however long it is, whether it’s 10 years, 100 years or whatever, they’re going to then follow those rules. But the supervision, part of it might be where, whatever, we don’t care about what you did. So, we’re not really gonna monitor you that hard, but we can’t release you early.

Larry 25:28
And that is correct. And they could recommend termination. They seldom do that. But I have seen it in a limited number of cases. So, it would be possible. Now you remember, you’ve always pontificated about nobody gets probation. Here we have another example of a person who got probation. I know it’s a foreign concept of people. But a lot of folks never go to jail for committing sexual offenses.

Andy 25:53
And also there in the beginning of the story piece of it, it says he is a tier three. Generally, tier three is bad. Does Nevada have it worded backwards that level ones are the bad people and tier three are the easy people?

Larry 26:07
No. Nevada has a categorical approach. They went with the AWA recommendations, so it’s based on your offense. And in some cases, many states put people in tier three that don’t need to be. But that’s merely a categorical approach. It has nothing to do with him being risk assessed, they use it merely: this is an offense, they look at the list, you’re a tier three, but it has nothing to do with any personalization.

Andy 26:34
And then it says, is he eligible to go back after release? So, he is from another state besides Nevada. As far as him doing the ICAOS transfer, the interstate compact, isn’t he more favored to transfer there assuming that that’s where family is? Whether that’s mom and dad, or whether that’s siblings or children or something like that? Doesn’t that give him a higher eligibility or like, looked upon to transfer?

Larry 27:02
Well, assuming that Nevada has not taken the New Mexico approach. New Mexico would say, No, you’re stuck with us. But logically, you’d want to get rid of all you can. I don’t understand that. Of course, funding goes with it here because they have very low caseloads for people that are under this type of supervision. So, the more they can have, the more that translates to budget line item for POs. But you would want to get rid of all you can, because I don’t care what the level of recidivism is. If you can offload 100 PFRs to another state, and that magic 1%, 2%, 3%, whatever it is, wouldn’t you rather than be doing their reoffences in those states versus yours?

Andy 27:45
Yeah, your recidivism rate would be zero if they’re not here.

Larry 27:49
So, I mean, ultimately, you would have to deal with them again, because if they reoffended and committed a new sexual offense, that state’s gonna prosecute them, they have first rights to them. So, they may be tied up in that state for a long time. But eventually, if they live long enough, you’re going to have to deal with them again. But by then, they may be so old, they’re not a threat anymore. But you would want to offload all you can. Folks, I don’t understand why this is complicated. You want to get rid of all the offenders of all types you can. You much prefer them to be offending someplace else.

Andy 28:23
One other piece of that is, it seems Larry that probation is supposed to be about rehabilitation and family, blah, blah, blah. I’m gonna do all the lip service stuff. It’s supposed to help you rehabilitate. So, if you were closer to family, wouldn’t that help you? Shouldn’t that be what they’re interested in?

Larry 28:39
Well, should be and is be. Yes. They should be interested in that. They’re not interested in that, they have other agendas. But like I say, by, if I’m ever administering probation or parole, our policy will be to get rid of as many as we can.

Andy 28:57
Just rubber stamp, say approved, approved, approved. You get your transfer, you get your transfer, you get your transfer.

Larry 29:08
Why would you want to hold a person back?

Andy 29:11
I don’t know. Other than to be just a jerk. Like, I don’t know why you would want to hold somebody back. Okay. Anything else on this one before you would want to move on?

Larry 29:21
Well, it was a great series of questions. And I love trying to help people like this because not only does it help this person, it helps remind folks about transferring interstate compact. We’ve had a mini conversation about interstate compact today bringing up some of the key points again, and that’s a very popular item that we talk about. We get positive feedback every time we talk about interstate compact.

Andy 29:46
It’s really complicated Larry. It seems. To me it is. But that’s why we have you. You’re the Master Blaster of ICOTS. I think then Larry, unless you have something else you want to go over, we can go over this Indiana case.

Larry 30:02
I think we’re ready to move to it. Let’s do it.

Andy 30:06
All right.

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 30:58
Well, you people wrote an article back in July describing a fantastic victory in Indiana, when a US District Judge Richard young ruled in favor of PFRs. The case is Brian Hoff vs. Commissioner of Indiana Department of Correction. I think, Larry, that we talked about the judge’s decision on the podcast. I checked into archives and we did talk about it on episode 160. So that’s, what, 30 episodes ago. That’s a little bit like right around six months ago when the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the trial court. Now we are back on this case again, because the Seventh Circuit granted Indiana’s request for en banc review. So we get to talk about that here first. It appears that the victory you gloated about back in January has been snatched away. I want to briefly touch on what en banc review is before we dig into the case. What does that term mean?

Larry 31:44
Sure. Appellate courts typically in order to function, they sit in panels of three. And I think you can figure out why three because you wouldn’t have a tie vote. So they sit in panels. And if the losing party disagrees with the three judge panel, they can request a review by the entire Court, which means all the judges would hear the case. And they could affirm or reverse the panel. In this instance, they did reverse. And requests for en banc review are routinely denied. Unfortunately, this one was granted. And here we are.

Andy 32:21
Alright, um, when the trial judge issued the decision back in 2019, you wrote the United States District Court of the Southern District of Indiana recently handed down a fantastic decision that has the potential to help many similarly situated offenders who were convicted in other states and moved to Indiana or were convicted in Indiana, moved away, and returned again. It is not known whether the state plans to appeal the Seventh Circuit, but the likelihood is that they will because they can’t stand losing. Your prophetic because the state did appeal. In fact, they appealed twice. They appealed the district judge, and they appealed the three-judge panel. Let’s go back and refresh the listeners on what this case was about.

Larry 33:06
Sure. This case was brought on behalf of six named plaintiffs who asserted that the imposition of Indiana’s SORA is unconstitutional as applied to them. Plaintiffs Hope and Snider filed their joint complaint in October of 2016 – so, we’re talking about five years now – alleging that SORA violated their right to travel, equal protection and violated the federal Ex Post Facto Clause. Plaintiffs Standish join the case later and 2016. Plaintiffs Rice, Bash, and Rush filed their complaint in December of 2017. The court ultimately consolidated the cases. Plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction which was granted. All but one of the six committed their offenses prior to the enactment of Indiana’s registration law, and five of the six committee their offences in other states and subsequently moved to Indiana.

Andy 33:59
The plaintiffs argued that Indiana’s SORA violates their fundamental right to travel, their right to equal protection of the laws and the right to be free from retroactive punishment. The court examined two important cases. First, the court looked at Smith v. Doe, 538 U.S. 84 (2003), which is the landmark case from the US Supreme Court. What did judge Young decide back in 2019 in response to the state’s assertion that this was already settled case law based on Smith v. Doe?

Larry 34:29
Well, Judge Young found that the case was distinguishable because none of the disabilities imposed by Indiana scheme were required by Alaska. Second, and even more relevant was the case of Wallace v. State, which those legal beagles, that’s 905 N.E.2d at 371. And it was decided in 2009. In Wallace, the offense was committed in 1988. He pled guilty in 1989 and completed probation in 1992. After he failed to register in 2003, a jury found him guilty. He appealed and prevailed. Judge Young rejected all of Indiana’s arguments. And they did put forth some very interesting theories. I said at the time that Judge Young’s legal analysis is one of the best I’ve ever seen, which will make it extremely difficult for the Seventh Circuit to reverse. It’s now clear that I was wrong.

Andy 35:20
Well, you said it was difficult, you didn’t say it was impossible. We’re planning to spend some time today explaining the procedural nuances of the case, since it was somewhat unique in that en banc review was even granted. This full court review resulted in a reversal of the previous favorable opinion of the three-judge panel, which is terrible for the PFRs. I know it drives you over the edge when I ask you about the political leanings of judges, so I decided to do my own analysis this case, Larry. The panel is composed Judges Rovner, Wood, and St. Eve. Judge St. Eve dissented in that decision. And now she wrote the opinion for the full court here. Isn’t that ironic? She was on the losing end of the first decision, and she ultimately wrote the opinion for the full court. How did that happen Larry?

Larry 36:09
Well, I guess it happened because the Chief Judge assigned her, designated her to write for the court, but I mean, it is ironic. So, you’re actually admitting that something’s funny finally?

Andy 36:22
Finally, yes. It’s hard for me to admit anything as funny, but this one that’s actually kind of funny. I’m going to take a path you people may not like here. I counted 11 judges of the Seventh Circuit Court. Of that number, only three were appointed by democratic presidents. Of those three, one did not participate in the decision. The two that did participate in the decision both voted to affirm the three-judge panel, which would have been magnificent for our side. Of the eight appointed by Republican Presidents, only Judge Rovner voted to affirm the three-judge panel. Can you not admit finally that which President making these Judicial Appointments is a reasonable predictor of how they will vote? I’ve heard of being in denial, but this is pretty obvious. Don’t you think Larry?

Larry 37:07
No, I don’t. But I mean, I commend your analysis. It’s spot on. But as we learned with appointments from Eisenhower with the supreme court with his chief justice, and we learned with H. W. Bush with the justice he appointed from New Hampshire, we can’t necessarily see what they’re going to do. Now, I admit those were appointments made a long time ago before the internet made everything about a person readily available at the click of the mouse. But judges are not necessarily going to do what the person who appointed them would like them to do. Would you not agree that we saw President Trump handed a defeat by the Supreme Court that he thought that he owned in terms of the election? I mean, didn’t that happen?

Andy 38:00
Yeah, but I don’t think it’s fair to say that just because a judge comes from a red or blue president that you could always predict, but I bet ya’ you could lean in that direction and have a fairly good gauge of them going in that direction.

Larry 38:16
Well, I mean, I’ve actually made similar comments to what you’re talking about over the year years, in terms of the judges. I’ve just cautioned that it’s not always a predictor you might think. Conservative judges do tend to be extremely deferential to laws that have that have been made in the criminal justice arena. In fact, the conservative majority had to really comtort themselves in this case to reverse the three judge panel. Having said that, we’re only able to impact the federal courts through our voting at the presidential level and at the United States Senate level. Our people tend to vote consistently for conservative candidates for those offices. They believe that the quote small government rhetoric, which they hear, and they have enormous faith in conservative judges, that they will find such laws repugnant and unconstitutional. Unfortunately, they’re generally wrong, which means we have to do a better job of enlightening our folks in terms of how important their votes are for US Senate and for President. So that’s why I really appreciate the analysis you did because it’s quite thorough.

Andy 39:16
Alright, well, let’s get back to the case, though. According to Judge St. Eve, by the virtue of the state Supreme Court’s construction of the Indiana constitution, Indiana’s Ex Post Facto Clause prohibits retroactive application of SORA to offenders convicted before its enactment unless the marginal effects of doing so would not be punitive. She cited Wallace v. State, 905 N.E.2d 371 (Ind. 2009) and Jensen v. State, 905 N.E.2d 384 (Ind. 2009). She went on to say if an offender was under no registration requirements prior to SORA’s passage, imposing a registration requirement in the first instance is impermissibly punitive. And again, she relied on Wallace at 371. Then comes the nuance. She went on to say the Indiana Supreme Court has held, however, that if another state previously subjected a pre SORA offender to registration requirements, requiring him to register in Indiana is not punitive, relying on Tyson v. State, 51 N.E.3d 88 (Ind. 2016). I’m confused here.

Larry 40:30
While you’re not the only one. So am I. It appears that Indiana case law permits a state to treat similarly situated offenders differently based on solely whether the offender had an out of state registration obligation. And I was not aware of the Tyson decision from 2016 when I pontificated that the Seventh Circuit would be hard pressed to overturn judge Young. So I did not know that that decision existed that sets up that different situation.

Andy 40:58
You are admitting that you missed it?

Larry 41:02
Yep, I’m afraid so.

Andy 41:04
All right. Well, Indiana, like most states has amended its registration requirements, as all of them have. According to the document on pages four and five, following its enactment, SORA underwent several expansions. Indiana broadened the list of crimes that trigger registration requirements, and it amended SORA to require registration for individuals convicted of substantially similar offenses in another state. The key here is that on July 1, 2006, the General Assembly extended SORA’s requirements to any person who is required to register as a sex offender in any jurisdiction. See Indiana Statute § 11- 8-8-5(b)(1). In its current form, SORA requires offenders to register if they were: (1) convicted of an enumerated Indiana criminal offence, (2) convicted of a substantially similar offense in another jurisdiction, or (3) required to register by another state. It would seem to me Larry, that SORA covers any offender who fits within these categories, regardless of his date of conviction. So why are we here? A purely textual interpretation means it’s black letter law.

Larry 42:12
Are you a textualist now all of a sudden?

Andy 42:14
I am when it’s convenient. Well, not necessarily but many people claim to be so I thought I’d throw that out there. So how did they overturn judge Young inthe three-judge panel?

Larry 42:25
Well, apparently Wallace did not foreclose all retroactive application of SORA. On the same day that the state Supreme Court decided Wallace, they issued an opinion in Jensen v. State, and unlike Wallace, Jensen had pleaded guilty in 2000, which was after SORA’s enactment. And by the way, those that want to look at that case, that’s 905 N.E.2d at page 388. At the time of Jensen’s conviction, SORA required he register as a PFR for only 10 years. Before the expiration of his 10 year registration requirement, the assembly amended SORA to mandate that offenders like him register for life. He argued that the extension, as applied to him violated Indiana’s Ex Post Facto Clause. Unfortunately, Indiana Supreme Court disagreed. This is in contrast to Wallace who had no obligations before the legislature amended SORA to make it cover him.

Andy 43:21
I noticed that the court stated the broad and sweeping disclosure requirements were in place and applied to Jensen at the time of his guilty plea in January of 2000. Nothing in that regard was changed by the 2006 amendments. They found that merely increasing the length of an existing registration obligation did not rise to the level of punishment such that it violated the Indiana constitution. It appears to me that this case was decided in favor of Indiana based on the fact that these challengers were either required to register by another state or that the person was already required to register due to an already existing registration requirement. They found that any increase of an existing registration requirement is not unconstitutional. Did I get that right?

Larry 44:04
You do indeed. And that’s why I’m wondering, why do you even need me here? You’ve got it.

Andy 44:08
I’ve been thinking about firing you to begin with, but we’re not quite there yet. But we need to, we need to get out of here and on page 32 the court stated: at best, the plaintiffs have shown that SORA partially resembles one historical punishment and may play some affirmative restraints or disabilities on them. The remaining factors including the laws’ rational relation to a non-punitive purpose all support Indiana. The plaintiffs have not carried their heavy burden of proving that SORA is so punitive in effect as to override the Indiana legislature’s intent to enact a civil law. To me it appears that they disregarded judge Young’s analysis and simply deferred to the legislature stated intent, which they say is not punitive.

Larry 44:51
That’s exactly what they did. And it’s sad but they did concede that while SORA goes farther than Alaska law in some respects, it is not so far afield as to warrant a different outcome than Smith v. Doe. And that’s in the opinion on page 32. So we have lost a spectacular victory. And I’m very saddened by this.

Andy 45:24
I don’t see how you have the registry that we have… Like, I mean, I don’t know how to even make an average of the 50 states and to see what goes what, where. But if they have, I don’t know, Indiana I would assume they have some sort of living and work restriction. Maybe these people didn’t have that applied to them. But like that is a massive disability. Having to go, maybe go into the Popo office annually isn’t really that much of an inconvenience. But generally, the registry is kind of a pain in the ass. How did they see it as not being punitive?

Larry 45:56
Well, they saw it not being punitive if you already had these requirements. As they said, merely increasing the length of a registration… if you already had a registration, it seems like to me, like I say they contorted themselves to try to get to the outcome they wanted, which was to overturn the three-judge panel. And they did that with a lot of effort. But they concluded. I don’t know that the proof was lacking. I generally am very critical of summary judgment. This case was decided with pretty decent evidentiary record and judge Young wrote a very well – I mean, he wrote a spectacular analysis. So this was just an outcome that they wanted. So folks, I don’t mean to sound a little bit rude here, but this is what you’re likely to get with registration out of a conservative court, more than likely. And there’s one more stop that this case can go to Andy. You know where that is, right?

Andy 46:55
I think that would be the Supreme Court.

Larry 46:58
That is correct.

Andy 46:59
This is the Seventh Circuit, right?

Larry 47:02
Yes, there’s nowhere else to go with the the Seventh Circuit. You could ask them to reconsider. When you lose this badly, that would not go very well. And then you would file a cert petition within five months, it used to be three, but I don’t think they’ve changed it back to the three that it normally is. So, there’s either three or five months to file a cert petition with the Supreme Court. But now let’s make sure we understand what we’re dealing with here at the Supreme Court because people are so giddy looking for a Supreme Court case. If this case were to be granted cert at the Supreme Court, Judge St. Eve sits in the circuit where Judge Coney Barrett came from. So, we’ve got judge Amy Coney Barrett, who is not likely to want to overturn her former colleagues. We’ve got Chief Justice Roberts, who was the solicitor for the state of Alaska, that argued on behalf of the State of Alaska. Or he was a solicitor for the US government. He was he was arguing against the PFRs. So he would have had to have an epiphany. So, we’ve got two judges off the bat that’re likely not going to be in our favor. Then you’ve got the usual ones that are not likely. Clarence Thomas is never on the side of the criminal. Samuel Alito is seldom ever on the side of the criminal. So, the numbers are not working in our favor if we get to the US Supreme Court on this.

Andy 48:40
I was going to make that comparison that it’s a six-three majority of right leaning judges at the supreme court level. That doesn’t sound like it would go in our favor very well.

Larry 48:52
It’s a very risky proposition. Because if cert is requested, now, there’s no reason for the state AGs to come in and request cert. They’re winning, they’ve won. But the PFRs would want to restore their victory. So that’s where the cert petition would come from. But the AGs would respond, saying that this is such an important case, if you grant cert that you need to affirm, there would be dozens and dozens of amicus briefs that would come in because the states want the status quo where they can have that catch all provision. If you have to registry anywhere you have to register here. This would be so damaging, if the US Supreme Court were to affirm, if they were to grant cert and affirm. So folks, this is bad. It’s really bad.

Andy 49:42
And I’m asking you to tell me what you think. Not your professional opinion, but just what do you think. You think that they went into this trying to overturn it? Like they went in with I think you already said that they went into this decision wanting to overturn it before they voted for it.

Larry 50:05
well, when you say that you’re talking about the full court?

Andy 50:07

Larry 50:09
I would hate to say that they prejudged it before they saw the case. But it would appear as though when the three-judge panel came out with their decision where you had St. Eve on the losing end of that. And you had a democratic appointed judge, and then one republican. Bush had appointed Rovner. H. W. Bush had appointed Rovner I believe it was, but you did the research, tell me if I’m right on that. But they were predisposed once the case got before them to overturn and to overturn what was wrong in their view. They think they’ve gotten it right. And this was very complicated. I did not read it thoroughly enough. I mean, we could come back in another episode and talk about this more. This is a very nuanced case. Bottom line is folks, we lost.

Andy 51:02
Yeah. So two things that have struck me in this is that they can treat people from different states differently than their own, which seems kind of weird to me that we are the United States. And that wouldn’t be like, hey, you’re from outside of here. It’s not an us versus them thing. That’s the first thing that kind of strikes me. And the other one is that by saying that we’re going to extend supervision, like that’s not… I realize it’s a civil regulatory scheme, which is like the problem of it, but it imposes disabilities and restraints by doing that. But I guess it’s a civil regulatory scheme. I understand the argument that you’re gonna make.

Larry 51:42
It’s not my argument, it’s the argument the state makes and wins that it’s a civil regulatory scheme, and that there was not sufficient proof of those Kennedy Mendoza Martinez factors. They only found a sliver of a disability. I mean, we read, quoting from the court, they only found that there was a minor restraint on liberty and disabilities. They went through the through the factors and found that everything weighed in favor of the state of Indiana.

Andy 52:07
And do you think that that’s analyzed correctly? Was the case well brought up? I mean, I think you said they brought up a whole bunch of facts when they presented the case, not summary judgment stuff.

Larry 52:17
I think the case, I mean, they did the best they could. This is all about the type of judges we have. The courts have been hijacked. And I hate to say that, but the courts, they have taken a radical turn. And, you know, the breakneck pace of the last four years of conservative confirmations. If you look on your own analysis, I don’t know if you caught that, but one of them got confirmed in like 30 days.

Andy 52:44
I saw a three-month one. I see Rovner, George Bush, well, let’s see…

Larry 52:48
There’s a Trump appointed one after he lost the election. After he lost the election. That would be Kirsch. Nominated on November 16, 2020, confirmed by the Senate on December 15th. So less than 30 days and was sworn in and received his commission on December 17. Now under the McConnell, Mitch McConnell doctrine, they stopped confirming judges for Obama for almost two years. They didn’t confirm any circuit judges. But then they put on the accelerator, and they confirmed Kirsch with virtually very little scrutiny. There’s not much you can in that period of the holidays from mid-November to mid-December. But they put the afterburners on. Because remember, they weren’t going to be able to confirm judges after the new Congress was sworn in in January. So they wanted to make sure that they got as many confirmed as they could. And that’s what they did. But folks…

Andy 53:43
It was like four hundred judges in the four years, right?

Larry 53:45
Yeah, a lot of you voted for this. So don’t look at me. I mean, this will be a thing for you to do some deep soul searching. Are you going to consider Judicial appointments when you make your choice for senate and President going forward?

Andy 53:57
You know that shit doesn’t matter, right?

Larry 54:00
Well, apparently it doesn’t.

Andy 54:03
Tongue in cheek, Larry. Um, okay. Wow. All right. So we have a sad defeat there. That’s not cool. And we had a victory. So we had defeat snatched from the jaws of victory, I think is how that expression should go.

Larry 54:17
That is correct. And I don’t know that it can be turned around at this point, because I’m dubious of filing a cert petition. I really am.

Andy 54:26
Yeah, it doesn’t sound like that would be the right move. We got to pick a different case that we would want to file something to get up there. Do we then like offer our advice saying go for it and don’t go for it?

Larry 54:39
Well, we haven’t been solicited, but my advice would be that this is a risky move to file a cert petition. But it’s not so much the case, it’s the court. It’s waiting till we have a different court. And that may take some time because if we have a Supreme Court justice, a vacancy during this term, magically there’s gonna be a lot of controversy. I mean, they won’t be able to confirm them in 20 days like they did for Coney Barrett.

Andy 55:05
Yes. I understand. Anything else before we pretty much close everything down? Because that’s pretty much the rest of all we got.

Larry 55:13
Well, we’ve got contestants, and speakers and new patrons and all sorts of stuff to do, yes.

Andy 55:22
Yes. Okay. Well, I do want to tell everyone, so listen carefully to the next, I don’t know, 60 or 90 seconds. We have a very longtime patron, who has been overly generous, and is willing to send someone to the NARSOL conference that comes up in October, if I’m not mistaken, and is willing to cover their airfare, the ticket to the conference, and also the room. And what I would like to ask for is, if you are, obviously, interested in going to the conference, if you have a limited means, reach out to us at, put your hat into it, and depending on how many we get, we’ll randomly select from those people. And do you agree to those terms, Larry? Did I miss anything?

Larry 56:11
Well, I don’t understand how we would determine if you’re of limited means. But yes, I think that’s a great idea. And I’m really grateful that someone would make that offer. That’s very generous,

Andy 56:19
We’re going to determine it by telling them to be honest.

Larry 56:23
Well now that would certainly work. I can’t imagine anybody would shade the truth.

Andy 56:29
If you’re Jeff Bezos, you do not qualify for this because you have enough money. So just be honest, if you have the means to get to the conference, if you’re interested in going and have the means to go, don’t snatch this away from somebody that may not have those kinds of means. And like I said, so this would be your airfare. This would be your hotel room, and this would be your ticket to the conference. And I can’t thank this individual enough. He wants to remain anonymous, and I will absolutely respect that. And the money will come through us and then we will dispatch it to you. That’s how to keep him anonymous, out of the whole thing. There you go. Any comments there?

Larry 57:04
I’m looking forward to it. I bet we’re gonna have hundreds and hundreds of people sign up to be in the contest.

Andy 57:12
I’m sure that they will. Okay. Well, then we will move over to Who is that Speaker? Last week, I played this one.

Franklin D. Roosevelt 57:21
Well, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself.

Andy 57:33
And the hilarious thing is like before we even shut everything down and turned off the recorders, I had an email message from someone that was listening in to chat and listening to us record this live. And they sent me the answer. And that was Richard. And Richard was listening to us live. And he guessed that it was FDR, which was kind of neat. So hey, if you want to get a jumpstart on this if you’re a patron, you can listen to the show get recorded live, and you can listen to us push this out there all at once. Or you will also have the benefit of listening to it when I do the postproduction stuff on Sunday morning, normally, and you get a head start before the general schleps have the chance to listen to the show. You catch that? Schleps Larry.

Larry 58:11
I don’t know what that word means.

Andy 58:15
All right, well, then for this week then, this is super quick. So listen carefully.

Who’s that Speaker? 58:21
And that’s the way it is. Monday, September 11, 1972.

Andy 58:23
All right, so you have a little bit of a date cue there and feel free if you want to throw a guess out there and send it to First one that gets it right, then you will be, you’ll get your 15 seconds of fame by me saying your name on the show.

Larry 58:41
Now that voice sounds very familiar to me. I’ve heard it before somewhere.

Andy 58:46
I think I may have heard it before. Maybe? I’m pretty sure I have. And then, Larry, we have a new patron that came in Saturday night as we were recording last night. We have a David K. And that gets us one closer to the 100-person goal that we want to have for having patrons. And where I will play a saxophone solo for people on the live stream. We are at four away. So thank you very much, David K. for signing up. We also then had a snail mail subscriber and this is Timothy from Ohio. That’s awesome. Do you want to reveal how many transcription people we have?

Larry 59:30
It’s hovering around 30 right now. People drop and people add and then people are writing us suggestions about getting ourselves on the tablet, whatever that means, so that they can listen rather than having to read the transcript. So, I want us to continue to try to look at if we can do that. It’s all above my paygrade, so.

Andy 59:53
I can’t imagine that we could email these in. Plus it would be like one person clicking, email this person, email this person, you would have to do it inwhatever interface each prison system has to communicate inside the walls. I mean, if they’re on JPay, then it’s similar, but it would still be a pain to create a new message, copy and paste, it would be a pain. But I guess it’s something we could look into. And then as far as getting the podcast in there, I looked, I didn’t, I couldn’t figure out how to get the podcast to be available inside the walls. But there are some podcasts that are available. But otherwise, Larry, is there anything else that you want to ramble about before we close the whole thing down?

Larry 1:00:34
I think we just need to promote this podcast. Remember to hit that like button. I want to see more likes on YouTube.

Andy 1:00:42
There it is. Like and Subscribe and click the Bell. I forgot to do that at the beginning. But yeah, so you can Like it and give a five-star rating on Apple podcasts. And Google has one and I guess Stitcher is the other one. I think that’s the only ones that you can rate and review and all that stuff. I think that’s it, Larry. So, head over to that’s where the show notes are. Leave a voicemail message at 747-227-4477. Email and support us over at Larry, I hope you have a wonderful night and a great evening, oh and great weekend. I forgot to add that extra in there. And we’ll talk to you soon. Have a great night Larry.

Larry 1:01:25
Thanks and good night. I appreciate being here with you.

Andy 1:01:27
We’ll do it again. Bye.

You’ve been listening to FYP.

Transcript of RM189: Registration Obligations Cannot Be Increased After The Fact Says NJ High Court

Listen to RM189: Registration Obligations Cannot Be Increased After The Fact Says NJ High Court

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 a problem with these thoughts, fyp.

Andy 00:17
Recording live from FYP Studios, east and west. Transmitting across the internet. This is episode ­­189 of Registry Matters. Good evening, Larry, fine sir. How are you tonight?

Larry 00:28
Doing fantastic.

Andy 00:30
I’m glad to hear that. Uh, should we banter? Do we have anything to banter about or do you want to talk about the seven point whatever earthquake in Haiti that happened a couple hours ago?

Larry 00:39
I’m not even aware of that.

Andy 00:42
Oh well, I just it. There was a seven-point something earthquake in Haiti, which they always seem to get hit with all the garbage. And they have a pretty corrupt government from what I understand. And they just like, right on the other side of the island is the Dominican Republic, and they are a prosperous nation. So it’s not like it’s a resource thing. But anywho, that’s a different podcast that we’ll start producing called, like, the Registry Matters World podcast or something like that.

Larry 01:07
I’m thinking that last large earthquake was in 2010. (Andy: Could be.) The US was significant in aid including I think we took over their airport for a while, so we could bring in relief. And they signed a temporary document allowing the United States to operate the airport.

Andy 01:28
And I’m pretty sure we sent the hospital ships like the Comfort and I can’t think of the other ones name. I’m pretty sure I heard that those went down there, too.

Larry 01:38
Yeah, I don’t remember that.

Andy 01:40
But they got creamed. And then there was like, they set up all kinds of refugee camps for people that had become homeless. And there was a lot of problems with water, dysentery and things. Like, it’s just a mess. It’s just terrible. And they’re just down south of us, not terribly far. But anywho, I always forget to do this Larry. But I’m going to remind myself, here it is, like to make sure that while you’re watching on YouTube, that you click the LIKE and Subscribe and hit the Bell notification and all that stuff. But also make sure that you go do it on all the other podcast apps that you might find. I think Spotify and the Apple Podcasts are the other places. Just help spread the word, it helps people that may have similar interests to find us to get the word out and become aware of our program. Without further ado, though, Larry, please share with me what we are going to be covering this evening.

Larry 02:29
We have a boatload of articles. (Andy: Is that a technical term?) Well, there’s another word that starts with S, but I wasn’t gonna say that on a family program

Andy 02:42

Larry 02:45
So, we have some questions and some emails that were submitted that we weren’t aware of. And we have a case from the Supreme Court of New Jersey.

Andy 03:00
Awesome, fantastic. I guess then with that, so we will dive right into these things. So first off, we have this one is titled by you to be read. It says:

Listener Comment
Larry and Andy, my cellmate and I have learned about y’alls podcast through another inmate here in Kansas. I love reading the transcript he’s been able to provide us. Quite a useful base of knowledge that this rehabilitative system they’ve got here won’t provide at all. Looking forward to reading your work and happy y’all are doing such a great service to us behind the bars still. Respectfully…

Thank you very much. Yep, we are trying to do that and get the transcripts going in. That is a program that you are heading up for sure. You want to talk about that for just a minute?

Larry 03:44
Yes, we are growing slowly with the transcripts. We got a new one this week from Hayden. Actually, Hayden is also the person who wrote this comment. But we’re looking forward to, we really need to grow the transcript service significantly. Because as we were talking about in pre-show the number of recipients as we spread the cost out, the paper, the ink and the postage doesn’t change. So, each time we add a subscriber, there’s an incremental increase for those items. But the cost of actually the transcriptionist if you’re dividing that labor, over many more subscribers, that makes that less significant. So, we’re hoping that people will keep spreading the word so we can drive up that subscription level to make it much more economical for us.

Andy 04:38
And then this will end up becoming like contraband on the yard as people are passing this instead of passing cigarettes. People provide the transcript to people with trading out bananas and, I don’t know, other fruits and stuff from the chow hall.

Larry 04:52
I have heard that happens that people will allow folks to read it for a store item or whatever they call…

Andy 05:00
But for real though Larry, one of the last places that I was at, it was cheaper to get a cigarette than a banana, which I still to this day, something that is like in the system as being the banana versus something that’s actually contraband. It was cheaper to get a cigarette than to get a banana as some extra food or nutrition, so to speak. Bizarre. Very bizarre.

Larry 05:23
That really is.

Andy 05:26
And then moving on to another letter that came in it says:

Listener Question
Registry Matters podcast, I have been incarcerated now going on 20 years in this messed up state for a crime I did not do. I’m getting out soon and, with any luck, I’m leaving this state. Does Texas have as screwed-up a registration law as New Mexico’s. And how long it is for? I’m waiting for my habeas to see if I get out without parole or not. Could you tell me how the registration law changes from New Mexico to Texas? I would appreciate it.

Boy, that’s a lot of loaded stuff right there.

Larry 06:07
That comes from a person in prison in New Mexico. I hate to tell you; you’re going from bad to worse. (Andy: No kidding. Worser.) Texas, everything about Texas is worse than New Mexico when it comes to how they treat PFRs. Now I’m not trying to minimize how they treat people in this state, which the supervising authorities are very harsh. And some of the county sheriffs are very harsh. They invent things that are not in the state statute. In fact, our state statute says they can’t do that. But they do it anyway. They invent requirements that are not in the law. But New Mexico has absolutely no restrictions. You can live anywhere in the state. In Texas, no such luck. Texas has a checkerboard of restrictions that are locally imposed. Our law says you can’t have any locally imposed restrictions. But Texas has them everywhere. And if it were me, I would consider Texas as a less than desirable place. Having said that, if that’s where your family support is, that’s where your job is. Sometimes you may have to go. But I would not want to go live there as a PFR.

Andy 07:27
Yeah, it sounds like… I think maybe – certainly correct me – if he makes it through supervision, then New Mexico would not be bad. But I think Texas is bad always.

Larry 07:42
That is true. If he makes it through supervision here, and I got to break bad news for him, they’re not likely to let you transfer. So, if you have any supervision, you’re going to be stuck in New Mexico until you finish that. But if he makes it through supervision, and gets over to Texas, their registration laws and their restrictions are far crappier than ours. We don’t have any occupational debarments. Now, when people hear me say this, they say, well, I can’t get a job. That’s different than it being prohibited by statute. The fact that a company chooses not to hire you is a whole different scenario than having a preclusion and a prohibition from holding certain jobs. All over the country, they have occupational restrictions, saying a PFR can’t do this from simple things like driving an ice cream truck to working in an amusement park. Somehow or another, in amusement parks in case you haven’t noticed it, people are snatched all the time. It’s like the proverbial… it’s like the hovercraft. If you go to an amusement park, I guarantee you every day that an amusement park is open, there’s a minor abducted in plain sight of all the security, and they’re snatched up and they’re taken out. But anyway, back to the point. There are no restrictions here. The landlord may not rent to you, but you’re not forbidden from living there. That’s between you and the landlord if he or she wants to rent to you. You’re not forbidden from holding jobs in New Mexico as you would be in Texas. So, if it were me, I certainly would not be headed to Texas.

Andy 09:30
Yeah, that was another one of my first exposures to when I started following NARSOL was a case there talking about Home Rule. Do you want to describe that just really quick about that case? That was where the local people wanted to add restrictions that weren’t existing. Is that semi-right in the characterization of it? (Larry: Yes. Are you talking about the Texas case?) Yeah, yeah. Back like six-ish years ago.

Larry 09:58
Yes, there were small cities of less than 5000 in Texas that are referred to as general law cities. And the general law cities were not permitted to have any restrictions. But the home ruled cities, the larger cities, were allowed to have restrictions. And there was a challenge, because of a general law city, forget which one it was, had had imposed restrictions. And since it was not permissible of course, I shouldn’t say of course, but they did win the challenge. What was of course gonna happen was they were going to change the law to permit general law cities to have the same power that home ruled cities have. And the people in Texas looked at me like I had been smoking some kind of wacky weed when I told them, this is what they’re going to do. And they said, Larry, there you go again, you’re always so negative. And I said, well, that’s what they will likely do because it’s not easy to look at the constituents in the smaller towns and say, now, this is a good thing. We’ve got cities all over our state, they’re allowed to protect their community, but we’re not going to allow you to protect your community. That’s a tough political position. And that’s why it was unsustainable.

Andy 11:27
I gotcha. Okay, well, then. So that’s the end of that. And we’ll move on to this next one says, Dear NARSOL. And let me make another point very clear. We are not NARSOL. We are not. We both have relationships with NARSOL, but we are not NARSOL. This is an independent production. We share some information, we share contacts and stuff like that, but otherwise, we are not NARSOL. Anywho, so it says:

Listener Question
Dear NARSOL, a couple of questions, do you have a book of cases pertaining to PFRs that may help us better like a Georgetown Law Journal? Have you thought of fighting the registries and SOs as a class, or a type of race, since we have been singled out like those who suffered racist discrimination back in the 1960s. A class action lawsuit may be able to be filed using these type of principles with the goal to eliminate the registries, singling out SOs from others convicted and reducing sentences. If you have any comments, questions or suggestions, please let me know.

Interesting. So Larry, can we file? Do you think that we could get the PFRs in on a class action suit of something related to discrimination of something like race?

Larry 12:53
Well, unfortunately, that’s not a protected class.

Andy 12:58
Oh. What’s a protected class? Let’s talk about that just briefly.

Larry 13:01
Well, it would be by statute, there would be some civil rights protection. And you look at the law, like for housing discrimination, you can’t discriminate on age, race, familial status, national origin, I forget all of them. I used to be in that business. But there’s these things you cannot discriminate, but you can discriminate for other reasons. And that’s what people don’t understand. There’s no statute that says you cannot discriminate in any conceivable situation. There are specific protections saying you can’t do these things. And generally, that’s built around things that you cannot help. We have acknowledged that you cannot help where you were born. So, if you’re from Ethiopia, that wasn’t a choice you made. Your skin color, it’s not a choice that you made. Being a PFR is a choice that you made. Right?

Andy 13:55
Okay, yeah. Oh, yeah, totally. Except for that other guy, he got convicted for a crime he did not do blah, blah, blah.

Larry 14:02
Well, assuming that your conviction has merit to support it. Whether or not what you got convicted of should be against the law or if the penalty should be as severe as they are, that’s a separate discussion from whether or not you chose it. But if you’re convicted, legitimately, by your admission, or by a finding of fact by a judge or jury, you did choose to be in this position. So therefore, it’s much more difficult to convince lawmakers to give you protection for something that you could have helped. And particular the way the average citizen would look at that would be that you would be doing that to the detriment to the rest of society if you protect the PFRs. That’s what the average citizen would say. But have we thought about filing a class action lawsuit? Of course, we’ve thought about it. That phrase and that term has been around for a very, very long time. The problem is that class actions are very difficult to manage and to get certified. We’ve had guests… I don’t know if we’ve had one on this podcast or not, but we’ve had guests I know on the conference calls I used to host where we’ve hammered on what it takes to certify a class and the criteria for certifying class action. If it were just as easy as going down to your local stamp-making store and get something that says class action and stamping across the top pages of the complaint, if that made something a class action, that would be fine, except it doesn’t. Stamping it with big red letter saying class action doesn’t make it a class action. What makes it a class action is a number of tests: there being a commonality of the claims, judicial economy, the law firm is able to manage and have communication with the class members in some fashion. And there are hurdles to jump through. And guess what? The states do not want these cases certified. So, they oppose all efforts to certify class action. The analogy would be when you’re fighting a company for discrimination, the companies do not like you to be able to band together in an alleged pattern and practice. They want you to have to prove out your individual allegations of discrimination. You see what I’m saying? (Andy: I do. Yeah.) And the courts have been very hostile to those who try to piggyback on pattern and practice of the employer and the admissibility of evidence of those claims. And the conservative Supreme Court that we’ve been under for some time now, they have been very hostile towards employees that want to say that this is a pattern and practice of this company. So, it sounds like this particular letter writer would be for a class action on this type of thing. But I would be curious to ask him, and we’ll send him the transcripts so he can respond if he chooses, would you be just as sympathetic to those who are bringing a cause of action against a giant corporation? Would you want them to be able to do a class action? Or would you want them to have to prove out their obligations individually?

Andy 17:33
I see. I remember, the biggest example I can remember, this is probably 30 years ago, where Firestone had made some defective tires. And I’m pretty sure they were like on light trucks, maybe, I think they were SUVs from Ford. And they would like blow out and then going down the interstate at 70 miles an hour. And then everything starts flipping. That was a class action, if I’m not mistaken, because you said a word in there that reminded me of it. Was the similarity of it, I think, the way you worded it was different, but something of the… oh, it was the commonality of the claim, like these people are all saying the same thing that the tire just kind of blows up while they’re driving down the road. And they need to do something. And then you said judicial economy. Like every one of the PFRs, we probably all have very unique cases. So, there wouldn’t be any commonality between us.

Larry 18:22
There would be some commonality between us depending on what the challenge is based upon and predicated upon. But each individual may have completely different facts that would render… just because you don’t like the registry doesn’t mean that you all have the same complaints. It may not affect some people in their employment. It may affect others dramatically. Right?

Andy 18:48
Yeah, totally. And I would be willing to bet that the majority of what people are going to bitch about is access to jobs, access to housing. If we could achieve those two hurdles, then we would have a very radically different landscape that we’re trying to fight through. But we have people living under bridges and whatnot. And travel, someone’s saying in chat. Sure. Interstate travel is something that all of us are worried about. And I’m poking fun at the person in chat because someone that’s living under a bridge in a cardboard box, they want to travel someplace where they can get a house.

Larry 19:24
Yeah, they want to travel to, like, maybe to a home.

Andy 19:28
Yeah, exactly. Alright, well then, I guess that we can park that one there. I don’t think there’s anything else there. So it has been thought about but there’s not much more to go on from that because I can’t see that it really applies to us from the individuality of it. And like you said the states, they would not be in favor of doing this.

Larry 19:50
Absolutely not. They will fight a class certification tooth and nail and they usually win. But we do have maybe from a podcast subscriber or transcript subscriber named Sean, we received a postal letter. And did you want to read any of this on the air?

Andy 20:14
I don’t think I want to read any of it on the air, but definitely wanted to acknowledge it. And I don’t know that there was anything in there in the information provided that we weren’t aware of, but I will bring up the CorrLinks thing. We’ve received… these all have come to me that I didn’t really know what was going on, I get some message that says John Doe is trying to message you over CorrLinks. And I think I asked you some time about it. And you’re like, yeah, that’s just the email system that the federal prison system uses. And I think that I’ve made an account, but I don’t know. But I have not, I looked through my history, I haven’t received any messages from this individual requesting that we receive email from them. So, I really don’t know. But otherwise, that was the only novel piece of that letter to go over, I think we’ve heard of the individual being messaged, I think there was a case listed. I think that everything in there was pretty much known to us already.

Larry 21:08
I remember I created a CorrLinks account many years ago for legal. And the volume was so horrendous. And the way I remember it working, and I could be wrong because it’s been a number of years ago, but each person would send an email after the account was created, and they would request that they be added as a contact. And you would accept that person and then they could send you messages. And I accepted all the requests of people. And first thing you know, I just had a volume of emails I could not possibly respond to. I don’t have a CorrLinks account, and I apologize. I’m not going to be able to have a CorrLinks account. I cannot possibly even if I work 24 hours a day, respond to the volume of emails that people ask legal questions and whatnot. So, if we can’t take your question on the podcast, if it doesn’t help others, I’m not going to be able to respond to you individually via CorrLinks.

Andy 22:08
Yep, I hear you.

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 23:00
And then moving on from there. We are at the point with this case from New Jersey. Anything before we want to dive into this?

Larry 23:09
No, we can do the case. Tell me about what we’re doing.

Andy 23:14
All right. Well, you people put this case in here named In the Matter of Registrant J.D-F, which I don’t know what that means. But decided by the New Jersey Supreme Court a few days ago. Larry, I’ve read it, and I don’t see the reason why you’re so giddy. What is this case about? Didn’t we talk about this? I seem to remember we talked about this on a previous episode.

Larry 23:35
I vaguely recall that we did talk about it. But I don’t know which episode it was. But we talked about this issue. It’s an appeal. The court was asked to decide whether New Jersey Statutes Annotated 2C:7-2(g) (subsection (g)), which is a Megan’s Law provision, that bars certain PFRs from applying to terminate their registration as PFRs applies to a registrant who committed Megan’s Law offenses before the date on which subsection (g) became effective, but was convicted and sentenced after the effective date. That’s what this case is about.

Andy 24:17
Alright, well, I did go look it up. We covered this way back in June of 2019. It was Episode 84. And I see that in the subsection (f) permits registrants except as provided in subsection (g) to make an application to terminate the registration upon proof that they have remained offense free for at least 15 years and no longer pose a threat to the safety of others. N.J.S.A. 2C:7-2(f). As you’ve stated many times, the legislatures just cannot help themselves when it comes to amending registration laws. They added subsection (g) which became effective January 8 of 2002. Subsection (g) prohibits offenders from applying to terminate their registration if they have been convicted of certain enumerated sexual offenses or have more than one sexual offense. What was the actual issue before the court in this appeal?

Larry 25:20
Well, that’s a good question. The issue was determining whether subsection (g) was impermissibly applied to the registrant in this case, who committed a series of sexual offences between May and August of 2001. Remember that magic date of 2002? (Andy: I see it, yes.) But was not convicted for those offenses until December of 2002. The Trial Court and the Appellate Division, which is the mid-level court, held that subsection (g) applied to the registrant, to the challenging party, because he was convicted after the subsections effective date. That’s what happened here.

Andy 26:08
So, before we get too deep into the legal arguments, what did this person do that placed him on the registry to begin with?

Larry 26:15
Well, he was 20 years old when he was working as a manager of the McDonald’s in Hillsborough, New Jersey. He participated in interviewing and hiring two teenage boys, A.S. aged 15, and M.V.S, aged 16. They use initials when they’re minors. At some point between May 1 and August 1, 2001. Registrant approached A.S. in the men’s bathroom and told A.S. he would help him fix his disheveled clothing. Registrant then touched the boy between his legs, placing his hand on A.S.’s genitals over his clothing. And during the same period, registrant on four or five occasions kissed M.V.S. or otherwise touched him inappropriately in a sexual matter. That’s what the underlying conduct was.

Andy 27:09
But he was 20 at the time. Okay, so I’m guessing that there was criminal charges based on the boys allegations?

Larry 27:16
There were indeed. I don’t know if the boys compared notes, but that type of thing tends to circulate in a situation when that’s happening. I suspect they probably did, but it was not in this case. On February 11, 2002, registrant was indicted and charged with Third Degree aggravated criminal sexual contact and third degree endangering the welfare of a child for his conduct towards A.S. For the acts against M.V.S., he was charged with two counts of fourth degree criminal sexual contact.

Andy 27:53
Wouldn’t that apply to the Romeo and Juliet, kind of like the four-year age difference piece?

Larry 28:02
Well, it would have had it been consensual.

Andy 28:05
Okay. Oh, okay. All right. I gotcha. So what I found really interesting is that registrant was tried by a jury and convicted of all but one charge. The jury found registrant not guilty on count three. He was sentenced on May 21, 2003, to concurrent three-year terms of probation on counts one and four. He was required to serve 60 days in county jail as a special condition of probation. The final component of the sentence, he was ordered to adhere to Megan’s Law registration requirements and community supervision for life, or CSL. This sounds like a pretty lenient sentence for having been convicted by a jury. And I guess it illustrates your point that you’ve made that not everyone goes to prison, particularly in regions outside of the Southern United States. I have known people to receive much harsher penalties for doing far less. This is not fair, Larry.

Larry 28:58
Well, if you say so, but it’s fair because the people in New Jersey chose to impose less harsh sentencing schemes that what are typically decided by the people in the south. I mean, what do you want to do? Do you want to have the states abolished where that they can’t have their own sentencing schemes? It’s fair to the extent that’s what the people in New Jersey decided versus what the people in Alabama decided completely different.

Andy 29:23
Hmm, all right, well, then on February 4 of 2019, registrant filed a motion to terminate his Megan law registration and his CSL requirements. He submitted an affidavit alongside his motion certifying that he had not been convicted of any offence since the events of 2001, which the state later confirmed. Registrant also certified he had maintained gainful employment throughout his CSL community supervision for life, and that he had never failed a random drug or alcohol test. Additionally, he submitted a psychosexual and actuarial assessment completed by Dr. James Reynold Ph.D., stating that, with a reasonable degree of psychological certainty, that registrant is not likely to commit another sexual offense. He does not present a risk of harm to others in the community, and his risk of harm will not increase if the court determines that it is appropriate to relieve him of his registration obligation and remove him from CSL. Well, Larry, it sounds like he did everything you recommend. Why did he not get off?

Larry 30:27
Well, that’s a good question, because the state accepted Dr. Reynold’s conclusion that he no longer presented a risk of harm to others in his community, and therefore, they did not oppose him being released from the CSL requirement. However, the state objected to releasing him from Megan’s Law registration. In the state’s view, subsection (g) made him ineligible for release, because he was convicted of more than one enumerated sexual offense.

Andy 30:59
Um, I thought that that provision making him eligible for removal was not enacted until after the commission of his offenses.

Larry 31:09
That provision that made him ineligible was not… that is correct. It was not, you’re absolutely correct. And that was the relevant point for the court. The registrant contended that both at the trial court and the appellate court erred in their retroactivity analysis by using the dates of his conviction and sentencing rather than the date of the actual conduct. According to registrant, without an expression of contrary legislative intent, new civil laws – and my screen just went blank – may be given only the prospective effect as the date of triggering conduct. In registrant’s view, his date of conviction does not create the legal consequences under Megan’s Law. Rather, imposition of subsection (g) is a legal consequence of the condition of a specific offense that merely memorialized in a conviction. He further argued that procedural due process and fundamental fairness prohibit applying subsection (g) to registrants’ whose offense conduct predates the effective date of that law. And he said that registrants lacked “‘prior notice’ and ‘fair warning’ of the consequences of their conduct.”. That was his argument.

Andy 32:34
Let me see if I can make some sense out of this and make it a little less convoluted. Until January eighth of 2002, subsection (f) read as follows: A person required to register under this act may make application to the Superior Court of this State to terminate the obligation upon proof that the person has not committed an offense within 15 years following conviction or release from a correctional facility for any term of imprisonment imposed, whichever is later, and is not likely to pose a threat to the safety of others.” But Effective January 8, 2002, the Legislature added subsection (g) and amended subsection (f) to begin with the phrase, “Except as provided in subsection (g) of this section a person required to register under this section who has been convicted of, adjudicated delinquent, or acquitted by reason of insanity for more than one sex offense as defined in subsection (b) of this section or who has been convicted of, adjudicated delinquent, or acquitted by reason of insanity for aggravated sexual assault or sexual assault is not eligible under subsection (f) of this section to make application to the Superior Court of this State to terminate the registration obligation. This person believed that since his offenses were committed before the law was changed, that it was unconstitutional to apply subsection (f) to him. I don’t even think that’s the simplified version. But is that the simplified version?

Larry 34:03
That is the simplified version. (Andy: That’s ridiculous.) At the time he committed those offenses multiple times, he would have been eligible to be removed had 15 years past. But in 2002, they changed the law. And since he wasn’t sentenced until after the law changed, they said, well, this applies to you. You’re being sentenced after this date. And a true ex post facto analysis is based on when the conduct occurred. And the court actually agreed they stated, quote, the fact that the plain text of subsection (g) bars persons convicted of more than one sex offense from terminating their registration obligation does not in our view, mean that the pertinent date for determining whether subsection (g) would apply to a particular registrant is the date of conviction. The statutes’ reference to those convicted persons merely serves to define the class of people who may be subject to subsection (g)’s provisions. Again, quoting, we hold that the relevant date for purposes of determining whether subsection (g) is effective to a particular registrant is the date on which the registrant committed the sex offense that would otherwise bar termination of registration. That’s what the court decided.

Andy 35:31
Now, I think I see why you are so happy about this, this could be the beginning of a trend in courts going forward. The New Jersey Supreme Court has essentially held that registration obligations cannot be increased after the person committed the act, because to do so would deprive the person of fair notice of the consequences of their action. That almost sounds like ex post facto.

Larry 35:53
Yes. And this was a unanimous decision. They get it. They got it. Maybe the day is ending when you can change a regulatory scheme. We’re seeing decision after decision. Remember, that’s what happened at Michigan, they just couldn’t stop themselves, heaping on more and more requirements. Law enforcement, we know you listen to us. Lawmakers, we know you listen to us. Stop while you’re ahead. You’ve got all these decisions saying that the registry is civil and regulatory. If you would just stop, but you can’t do it.

Andy 36:34
I mean, that’s where I was going to ask you about if this is quote unquote, a civil regulatory scheme, then they can pile on restrictions afterwards, which I’m going to answer my own question, which probably isn’t appropriate. But that’s where Martina Mendoza, whatever that whole thing is, that’s where we would kick in, and we would find things that are disabilities and restraints, and the registry applies disabilities and restraints to people. Therefore, it’s punishment. Right?

Larry 36:58
I would take a slight issue with you saying they can pile on restrictions, that is the whole problem. With a regulatory scheme, you can alter a regulatory scheme. But you can’t do it in a way to inflict more punishment. I think I’ve used the restaurant example before. If we learn through the advances in science that we were wrong about holding temperatures, and that they need to be warmer, and your old steam table won’t maintain that holding temperature, we’re not trying to punish you by telling you, you can’t use that steam table anymore because it doesn’t achieve the desired temperature. We’re telling you, you have to replace that steam table, because people might get sick, and they might die if you don’t. So therefore, we could change that regulation. And we could apply it retroactively. You have to retrofit your kitchen.

Andy 37:45
You’d have to retrofit. That’s what I was gonna say and then if you don’t, you can be held to some level of punishment. I guess at some point in time, the health inspector would shut down your restaurant because you’re not serving safe food.

Larry 37:56
And conceivably, if you continue to defy the health authorities, they would lock you up.

Andy 38:04
But the registry, I’m trying to make, like the real-world comparison, that all we have done with registry laws is made existing very challenging. It’s not that they have changed the laws making it where your food is unsafe, so to speak. But that now you can’t live here. And we don’t really care where you live, but you can’t live in this neighborhood because it’s within 1000 feet of a school and pile on more things. And I know I use the term piling on punishment, which but that’s what they have done, which they have been allowed to do until things have gotten so shitty that we are where we are.

Larry 38:41
Well, that’s my whole point. You can’t continue down this path. If you want your precious regulatory scheme to stay in place, you’ve got to stop punishing people with registration. The mere act of registering someone is not unconstitutional. Let me repeat that. So, you can send an email to me. I’m saying this, the mere act of registering someone is not unconstitutional. We register young men for the draft. We register schoolchildren. We register drivers, we register voters. I mean, we can go on and on. Merely being registered does not punish you. But they won’t stop at that. They can’t stop. Merely collecting information on the day of your conviction and saying congratulations, you’re now on the registry. We’ve taken your mug shot today. We’ve listed this offense, this conviction date, and it will live in perpetuity. That’s not unconstitutional. If you were to be allowed to go live where you want to, work where you want to, carry on your life as a normal person. The fact of the matter is it’s a historical marker in your life that happened. The problem is they continue to want to punish people and you can’t do that with a civil regulatory scheme.

Andy 40:02
Otherwise, it is punishment, and that would be ex post facto.

Larry 40:07
That is correct, unless that punishment was available at the time you committed the act. The New Jersey Supreme Court said that this removal process at the time he committed his offenses would have been available to him had he gone 15 years offense free, which he did. They said, therefore, the notice that you received at the time you were convicted was that 15 years from now, you’ll be eligible to be removed. It’s not a guarantee, but you would be eligible. For the state to change that rule after your conviction and say, gee, we were just kidding. You’re not going to be able to get off after 15 years. That’s wrong. And they were stopped.

Andy 40:52
Chuck in chat says so how can this decision in New Jersey help all of us? And let’s say in a particular state? I won’t say it. But so in any state, how can we use this to help us in whatever the other 73 states that we have? How can we help there?

Larry 41:07
Well, we would cite this as a compelling, it’s not binding, but we would cite this as well reasoned, compelling case out of the jurisdiction. And we would add it, if I were writing the brief, I would add all the decisions that I could come up with that have talked about how you can’t change the rules in a way that impairs what the person’s expectations were at the time they committed a crime. That’s what fair notice is all about. So, what you would do is you would file a challenge in whatever state he’s in, you would add this to the precedential cases that are not binding, but you would say this is persuasive authority. Here’s what the New Jersey Supreme Court said.

Andy 41:52
And for clarity: so this is the highest court that exists in that state. And I know I joke about the number of states, in these 50 states and the handful of territories. But that is the highest court for New Jersey. So, it has no bearing directly on any of the other 49 states. So how does this then… you use it as persuasive authority, I think you said, and then you file some sort of similar case where they have enhanced the restrictions, the registration on you, after the fact. And you say, hey, these people in New Jersey, they found that this is problematic, then you also should find it problematic? And then you end up with controversy. This is where I really want to go is you end up with a state going, nah, we don’t care. That’s how it ends up in the Supreme Court.

Larry 42:44
Possibly, but not necessarily. But yes, possibly, you’re more likely to get something with the Supreme Court when you have splits among the circuits. But you can have things go to the Supreme Court if state Supreme Courts are coming up with a fundamentally different decision on key US constitutional questions. So, you could get there that way. The highest court in the state, you can file a cert petition with your Supreme Court asking for review. I don’t see that happening in this case. If there’s a constitutional claim federally, and you’ve exhausted the state Supreme Court, the highest tribunal, whatever they may call it in a particular state, you can file a cert petition. This guy has no need to. He won. The state’s not likely to because it’s a unanimous decision. And I just don’t see that. This is a blatantly obviously thing. You can’t do this. You know, the guy had expectations that 15 years of good behavior, he’d be eligible to petition and then they change the rules. Can’t do that, folks.

Andy 43:47
Okay, I gotcha. Um, do you think that they will appeal?

Larry 43:51
I don’t think so.

Andy 43:53
And why? Wouldn’t they? Like you always say, Yes, they’re going to. It’s like always a default answer.

Larry 44:00
Well, in this particular case, it’s unanimous. That’s one reason. And I don’t see that there’s… the way they got there in their decision making, it really wasn’t dictated by the US Constitution, per se. I mean, they tapped and danced around it, but the way they got there, I don’t think there’s gonna be a cert petition. But I mean, that’s how they’re wired. They could do it.

Andy 44:27
Okay. Well, there we go with that. So that’s from New Jersey. Very good. And Alright, we have some articles to cover. Some people very much like articles, and we’re going to fill up the time. We got about 10-ish or 15 minutes to cover these articles. So, you have about 90 seconds to tell me what you think about each one of these. How about that? (Larry: 90 seconds?) Yep. All right. So first one comes from NBC News. One state is trying to make pregnancy in prison slightly more bearable. The Healthy Start Act allows pregnant mothers to serve their sentences in Community alternatives such as halfway houses, or addiction rehabilitation centers. No! we can’t have this, Larry. We need to shackle them to the beds while they’re giving birth. I think that sounds like a better plan

Larry 45:12
That’s out of Minnesota. And I didn’t really have a lot to say about it other than I’m pleased… mean, I don’t understand being a parent, because I’m not one. Trying to imagine what it would be like if you gave birth, and 30 seconds later, they ripped the child from you. And you never saw it again. That would have to be devastating.

Andy 45:41
Can you describe to me, I mean, I guess if you have already, like post-parented your kid, like they have already been out of the womb for some period of time, and you get hauled off prison, you are effectively removing the person from being a parent at that point. Why would this be different?

Larry 46:00
Well, again, I’m not an expert on any of stuff, since I’m not a parent, but I have been told that that period of time after birth, the bonding that takes place, there are people who do breastfeeding because of health reasons, rather than feeding them that contaminated formula that that we produce.

Andy 46:24
Hahaha. Okay, alright, we’re gonna get hate mail for that one.

Larry 46:29
Well, it is contaminated formula.

Andy 46:32
I remember that happening a decade ago. It’s probably more than that; 15 years ago.

Larry 46:38
But I think that this was a significant part of the birth process and the bonding process, and they pretty much take the child away almost immediately. And you are correct. When people go to prison, if you have a seven-year-old, you’re separated from the seven year old, but you’ve bonded and you’ve had some time with the seven year old. And you have some rudimentary visitations. Be it by video or by telephone or by sitting behind the plexiglass or by going in on visitation day and actually have contact visits. I think there are prisons who still allow contact visits, believe it or not. But for the newborn, I think it’s critical that there be some connection with the mothers. It’s kind of like if a giraffe is born, they have to imprint on their mother. If you take the giraffe away, they imprint on the wrong thing. I mean, I’m not comparing humans to giraffe, but I think it’s important that we allow some time with the children. And I don’t understand why prisons can’t be just a tad bit more accommodating. I know they’re running a prison. Not a daycare center. I get that. But…

Andy 47:49
Okay. No, I agree. I was just kind of being snarky and a jerk on that one. But yeah, and that was from Minnesota. So hey, go Minnesota for being like accommodating and kind to people giving birth. But now you know, Larry, they’re going to get themselves pregnant, knowing that they’re going to go to prison. So, they’ll get some kind of compassionate treatment. That’s what’s going to happen.

Larry 48:07
Of course it will.

Andy 48:11
The next one comes from the crime report. “Why blanket registration of youths as sex offenders is bad public policy.” Oh, boy, tell me what you want to go over with this one.

Larry 48:24
Just so outraged that any state does this. I can’t be more blunt. Our good friends in Texas are one of a few states which continue to register youths publicly on registration websites, even if you’re determined to be AWA, Adam Walsh Act compliant, you do not have to put these minors on the websites. It’s not required. Why are you doing it? I don’t understand it.

Andy 49:09
Alright. I need to back up one. thought I had this one already slated to go. But the next one comes from courthouse news. And the title of it is “Lawsuit over fatal police shootings of mentally ill man in Bay Area suburb headed for trial.” And tell me what you think about this one?

Larry 49:32
Well, I’m always glad when cases are not dismissed on procedural grounds. And the reason why I put this in here is the federal judge denied the sheriff’s department’s motion to drop the case. And I’m just excited that anytime a person gets their day in court, it’s a great day. And this judge decided that there’s going to be a trial.

Andy 50:02
And we wanted to cover possibly something here about summary judgment.

Larry 50:07
Just vaguely. Summary judgment gets under my skin because it does so much harm. Lawyers use it inappropriately, and it’s a valuable tool. But summary judgment is not appropriate in a lot of cases where it’s requested. So therefore, I had highlighted some sections in the decision, which I can’t find at the moment. So I’m stumbling around trying to find it. (Andy: I got it.) Did you want to read it, read any of that?

Andy 50:38
Yeah. Yeah, I’ll read the whole yellow thing. It says summary judgment is proper if the movent shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material facts, and the movent is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The purpose of summary judgment is to isolate and dispose of factually unsupported claims or defenses. The moving party always bears initial responsibility of informing the district court of the basis for its motion, and identifying those portions of the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. If it meets this burden, the moving party is then entitled to judgment as a matter of law when the nonmoving party fails to make a sufficient showing on an essential element of the case with respect to which it bears the burden of proof at trial. To preclude the entry of summary judgment, the nonmoving party must bring forth material facts, i.e. facts that might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law. Could you give me an example of this in something of like normal English of what this means?

Larry 51:53
Well, it means when your posturing your case, when you do your preliminary stuff, at some point, the judge is gonna want to know, is it going to trial? Or is it going to be resolved by settlement? Or is a trial necessary? Well, lawyers are humans, amazingly, they don’t want to do any more work than necessary. And a summary judgment means that there’s not a trial, it means there’s a request for a decision on the pleadings, as a matter of law that I’m entitled to this. The infamous Smith versus Doe case from the United States Supreme Court in 2003, was decided on summary judgment. But on summary judgment, folks, the party moving for summary judgment, which was the PFR, in that case, when you make that motion, every defense that would have been asserted, had the case gone to trial is presumed true. All inferences, everything is resolved in favor of the nonmoving party, because the nonmoving party did not get to have their day in court to show if their defenses were solid or not. So therefore, you’re handing the defenses to the court as facts. And people are all over the Supreme Court 20 years after the fact. I still hear this: well, they found that recidivism was high. No, they didn’t. That was a fact that was handed to them from the litigants. The litigant said, Judge, there’s no reason for a trial here. And therefore, the fact was recidivism was high. That’s one of the things Alaska would have argued. Well, when you do summary judgment, you don’t have a factual record.

Andy 53:47
And that thing of the frightening and high recidivism rate came from that magazine article, blah, blah, blah, that everyone has heard about, I assume, from the Psychology Today, I believe. And that said that the recidivism rate… but that was under superduper, isolated conditions of like, my understanding was those were like damaged human beings, where you would psychologically determine them to be the most horrible people on the planet. And I’m getting corrected in chat. I can see it coming. But not just all these average runs of the mill kind of people that make a really crappy decision. But that was not a thing that could then be brought in court later, because we just said, Oh, yeah, we’re just going to carry this through. It just got passed through. So, then the Supreme Court goes, well, yeah, of course the recidivism rate is frightening and high, and it gets cited 1000 times.

Larry 54:36
That is correct. Now, when I say there’s no evidentiary record, there’s a limited evidentiary record when there’s summary judgment. Summary judgment is a valuable tool to use in the right circumstances. But despite what the Supreme Court said about summary judgment, that was not what decided the case. What decided the case was there were no disabilities or restraints. If you’ll read the decision, and read it carefully, that’s when they did the Kennedy Mendoza Martinez seven factors of the factors they consider relevant. I don’t think they considered all seven of them. But they did not find any disabilities or restraints. You can live where you wanted to, you could work where you wanted to, all this kind of thing. Everything has changed since then. But they could not say, gee, we have a feeling that someday there might be a constitutional problem with registration. They have no way of knowing that. They were tasked with determining if the registry as it existed at the time they were reviewing it was unconstitutional. And I know I’m really going to get hate mail on this, but it wasn’t at that time.

Andy 55:42
I understand completely. Let’s move over to the next article that says “Wisconsin judge to plead guilty on federal child porn charges.” Pending court approval, the judge’s plea agreement would resolve cases in state and federal court accusing him of uploading CP more than two dozen times using an online messaging app. Why?

Larry 56:01
I feel bad. The only thing I put this in here for was we were going to get into a deeper dive on the plea agreement. We don’t have time for it. But this is an example of when you do a plea agreement, you can globally resolve the cases. The feds are resolving this case, the state is bowing out, there won’t be any state charges. And I guarantee you, I don’t guarantee it, but I suspect that at some point down the road, there’ll be “Well he got away with the other stuff that he should have been…” No, this was to settle everything. So there’s a global plea agreement that’s going to take care of anything that he would have been charged with in the state as well as the feds, but there’s not enough time. Maybe we’ll come back to it. But por judge, he’s gonna find… I’m sure he had a lot of ambivalence about PFRs. When he finds himself behind the federal prison walls, and we’ll make sure he gets on our podcast and on our newsletter list, he’s gonna find that it’s not quite what he thought.

Andy 57:08
We should make a note to find him so we can send him transcripts when he gets to where he’s gonna be. (Larry: I plan to do that.) That’s funny. That’s genius. Um, let me circle back really quick. I have been corrected in chat that says, nope, the authors of Psychology Today article made it up, the recidivism rate. I thought that they had evidence to support it, but I’m being told that they completely made that whole thing up. Which further like to circle back to this summary judgment thing, if that was totally made up, then that has stood the test of time for 20 something years as being the recidivism rate is frightening and high over something completely bogus and made-up Larry.

Larry 57:48
Yeah, well, but see, that’s, I don’t even think about recidivism because that’s not what decided the case. I’m in denial as far as the listeners are concerned. You know, Larry doesn’t think much about recidivism. Because you don’t win cases on recidivism. You win cases on showing disabilities and restraints.

Andy 58:05
Yes, I know. I totally got you on that one, but that one always get cited. Well, the Supreme Court said, but that said because it was completely poppycock at the time. That’s the only reason I’m bringing that up. Okay, then “Federal judge restricts Sheriff’s Office attempts to dismiss lawsuit challenging predictive policing program.” That is a lot of P’s to say that. That is a very hard sentence to say Larry.

Larry 58:31
It is, indeed.

Andy 58:35
It says families who filed the lawsuit will have their day in court. So, what is this all about?

Larry 58:40
Which article? I’ve had a senior moment here.

Andy 58:43
This is the “Federal judge restricts Sheriff’s Office attempts to dismiss lawsuit challenging predictive policing program.”

Larry 58:51
That was Tampa area, the Pasco County Sheriff motion to dismiss the lawsuit. And the quote I put there, “Today’s decision is an important step toward the ultimate dismantling of the program of predictive policing. Ari Bargil, an attorney for the Institute of Justice which represents the families. Again, you’re going to get your day in court. Fantastic thing.

Andy 59:21
Okay. Then from the Associated Press, “Arkansas Sheriff convicted of oppressing two jail inmates.” Come on Larry, we know that the people that go into the jails are perfectly honorable and good people and they just want to see the inmates there rehabilitated. They’re not going to go in there and mess with them.

Larry 59:38
So well. The verdict came after trial evidence show of Franklin County Sheriff Anthony Boen used unreasonable force to punish pretrial detainees on two separate occasions. Trial showed that on November 21, 2018, Boen pushed the inmate into the floor and grabbed his hair. What does that say hair?

Andy 1:00:04
It says hair beard. But it sounds like it would have been hair and beard during an interrogation.

Larry 1:00:09
So it also showed him on December 3rd, he punched a detainee multiple times while he was shackled to a bench inside the Franklin County Jail not resisting.

Andy 1:00:18
I know why you put this in here is because pretrial he is assumed to be innocent and should be afforded some kind of treatment, I guess you could say.

Larry 1:00:27
Well, that wasn’t so much thinking along those lines, I’m thinking about accountability. We’re finally seeing accountability. Folks, that’s all we want. We want police, we know 99.8725 percent are wonderful and as pure as the wind-driven snow, we get that. But there’s that small fraction that are not pure as the wind-driven snow and we want you to stop covering up for them. We want you to quit justifying and claiming their behavior is normal when it isn’t. And we want them held accountable just like every other person who breaks the law. That’s what we’re wanting. And we’re getting more and more of that. That’s why I put it in here.

Andy 1:01:06
Okay, moving over to Business Insider, “Watch American Airlines staff use duct tape to restrain a 13 year old boy accused of trying to kick out a window.” Now that we’ve moved over to the Registry Matters travel program. Why in the world did you put this in here?

Larry 1:01:21
I put it in here because you’ve heard me gripe about using hard restraint on young people. So, this is an example, I know police officers, you have a hard time learning new things. But here’s an example of a 13-year-old who was potentially jeopardizing an aircraft. If one of those windows were to let go, and I doubt a 13-year-old is gonna kick it out. But if it did puncture, and break the seal, you would have a very bad situation. And, and they did what was very reasonable and prudent, they grabbed some duct tape, and they restrain the boy until the plane could make it safely to a destination so the boy could be handed off to authorities. You don’t need to put leg shackles and handcuffs on 10, 12, 13-year-old children. Just watch this American Airlines thing. And you can use soft restraints. You can use sheets, you can use all sorts of scarfs. Anything to tie a young person’s hand so that they can’t be violent. You don’t have to do the handcuff thing. Try it. You’ll find it works.

Andy 1:02:33
I gotcha. Over at Reason Magazine, “A federal cop devised a bogus sex trafficking ring and jailed this teen for two years. The cop can’t be sued.” I love Reason Magazine, I should read it more regularly. The most powerful officers are held to the lowest standard of accountability. This seems horrid.

Larry 1:02:52
Well, it ‘s that immunity stuff that we talk about. You know, those liberal pointy-heads are trying to do something about immunity, but they’re getting a lot of pushback.

Andy 1:03:03
Anything else on this one besides that? I mean, I’m bothered by it was a bogus sex trafficking ring and jailed somebody for two years over something that didn’t exist.

Larry 1:03:12
Well, two years is not really that long.

Andy 1:03:17
And he’s a teen. He’s got the whole rest of his life. Right?

Larry 1:03:19
That’s right. I mean, just take it like a good sport and move on and put it behind you and don’t even complain about it. I mean, no.

Andy 1:03:29
Don’t hold a grudge.

Larry 1:03:31
Yeah. Move forward from here.

Andy 1:03:34
if you say so. All right. Well, then Texas, this is NBC news again, “Texas is the first state to make buying sex a felony.” Will, this helps stop trafficking victims? Maybe. That would be my guess. What do you want to do with this one?

Larry 1:03:51
Well, just wanted to make point of I know you just get yourself in a palpitating condition about bipartisanship. This passed unanimously. So that was good it was bipartisan, but is this good public policy to make a felony out of buying sex?

Andy 1:04:10
Yeah, I don’t think so. And the Patriot Act was pretty much unanimously signed. So that would be about as bipartisan as I can ever think of anything being and I don’t think that’s a very good bill.

Larry 1:04:19
Actually, there was some pushback on those type of things, but they were they were vilified and they were accused of being not patriotic and finally they were able to pass it. You can’t filibuster indefinitely when there’s a lot of public pressure and that’s what happened with a lot of those 911 era reforms. A lot of them we regret now. We regret a lot of that stuff that we did. We found out that maybe we jumped the gun, but that’s another program.

Andy 1:04:46
Three more and do these quick. So then from the Washington Post, “An Arizona State Senator has resigned days after police say he apologized for molesting a teen boy.” Lovely

Larry 1:04:59
We don’t condone what the allegations were here. But as a general rule, you don’t want to make a telephone call and admit to having…

Andy 1:05:10
Whoops. Yeah, that sounds bad.

Larry 1:05:13
When a person calls you and says, why did you do this to me? You should have a tad bit of suspicion that there might be something underlying that phone call.

Andy 1:05:23
I see. So don’t admit to anything and prison phone calls are generally monitored.

Larry 1:05:29
So well he wasn’t in prison, but he got arrested shortly after that phone call from one of the victims asking him why did you victimize me? And, you know, he admitted enough that they had grounds to arrest him, and they did.

Andy 1:05:43
Oh, I see. I see. I gotcha. Then over at Reason again, “Former staffers condemned cruel treatment of inmates at Texan prison for sex offenders.”

Larry 1:05:54
Well, this I think if I understood the article, this was about their civil commitment. So this is when they’re the therapeutic environment after having done their time and then they put them in civil commitment where they can get help. And it says the therapeutic techniques are hodgepodge. The inmates have to admit – this is just heinous – the inmates have to admit all of their offenses and share it with the group. And one of the founders of Texans against civil commitment, a former Louisville therapist, who writes under the name of Murphy, and claims to have been fired for not seeing eye to eye with management. And they have to keep a masturbation log so the therapist knows how often they’ve masturbated. And what they’re masturbating about. And she also knows whether it’s healthy, or whether it’s deviant. The men must also record whether or not they climaxed. And these logs are read in group therapy.

Andy 1:07:06
Oh my god. That’s kind of disgusting. Please, Teresa, tell me something useful in chat while you’re hearing us talk about this one for just another minute. They also use plethysma graphs, which I think are terrible devices. So they like measuring changes in the circumference and volume of men’s junk, Larry, men’s junk as the men watch and listen to different stimuli. I wonder a lot of times when we hear stories like this Larry how much the treatment providers are actually getting aroused out of what the treatment is. I find this to be really abhorrent to be honest with you.

Larry 1:07:44
I do as well. So, great state of Texas, if I were you, I would stay away from that place. But anyway, that’s gonna get more hate mail.

Andy 1:07:52
Yeah, with that listener that wants to move there from New Mexico. Yeah, it’s gonna be much better. Sounds like it’d be a great place to go Larry. And then finally, “Minnesota Supreme Court to hear case on restoring voting rights for convicted felons after incarceration.” Why did you put this here?

Larry 1:08:09
I want to do this next week. It requires more time.

Andy 1:08:13
My bad, my bad, my bad. I didn’t mean to even bring that one up. Alright. Well, then. So we I was doing the Who’s that Speaker? and I think I will play who this one was last weekend and I will read the winner. So here’s what we did last week.

US Army General Norman Schwarzkopf (Audio Clip) 1:08:28
As far as Saddam Hussein being a great military strategist. He is neither a strategist, nor is he schooled in the operational art, nor is he a tactician, nor is he a general, nor is he, is a soldier. Other than that, he’s a great military man, I want you to know that.

Andy 1:08:49
We’ve received several answers. And the first one that came in was from the winner. Nobody guessed wrong, I’m looking for people to send me some silly answers along the way says, but says hello, Andy and Larry, and a good Monday evening to you both. Ron here, once again, one of your patrons. Thank you so very much for your support. I am the guy who was able to successfully identify Donald Rumsfeld a few weeks ago on your Who’s that Speaker? segment? Well, once again, I unfortunately was not able to listen to this week’s show on the live stream this past Saturday night. However, because it was fortunate to have received the patron only link to the shows on Sunday morning, I was able to listen to it while doing my daily power walk Sunday afternoon. Yes, you heard that right. I often listen to your show while out doing my exercise. Don’t you just love modern technology that allows us to be able to do just that? You should also know I found this week’s show to be particularly helpful with a ton of useful information provided by the both of you. Thank you for that and keep up the fantastic work. It’s quite apparent that the two of you are very dedicated to the podcast and the audience that listens to and benefits from it. Once again, thank you. Okay, on to this week’s Who’s that speaker? – I didn’t want to go into that part – So okay, so having said all of that – he was telling me about his time that he served in the military – So having said all that, I may just have a slight advantage with my response and advantage that other listeners may not have had. To this day I pride myself with my effort to stay informed of world events, geopolitics, etc. Essentially, I became a bit of a news junkie, you may say, while actively participating in these military campaigns. I had CNN on the TV almost every waking minute of the day, perhaps not so much today, but definitely during the time that I served when I had real skin in the game. Okay, so this week’s speaker was US Army General Norman Schwarzkopf, aka Stormin Norman, and the audio clip where you hear him speaking is from his famed news conference, a.k.a the mother of all news conferences. On 28 February 1991, I clearly remember listening to that news conference while preparing for yet another mission that we were scheduled to fly to the Middle East, Saudi Arabia. I was stationed at Charles blah, blah, blah. And thanks for allowing me this opportunity to reminisce and share some. All the best. Awesome, so yeah, thank you that for that. I wanted to share because he provided all that extra stuff in there and the accolades of the podcast, which I can’t thank Larry enough for putting all that together. Anything before I play this week’s? You want to set this one up there?

Larry 1:11:14
Yes, we’re going back a long time. (Andy: To your youth.) We’re not going back that far. But we are going back about *beep* years.

Andy 1:11:25
Oh, man. I’ll clip that out. You can’t say that. That’ll give it away. All right. So this is this week’s Who’s that Speaker? Send your messages to if you think you know who this is?

Who’s that Speaker? 1:11:41
Well, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself.

Andy 1:11:54
I didn’t want to give any clues like that, because I think this one will be fairly easy for people.

Larry 1:11:59
Well, it’s crappy audio. But that’s the way the technology was back in those days.

Andy 1:12:05
Back in your youthful times. But alright, so like I said, if you know who this may be, please send me a message at And the first one that makes it in, which means that patrons have a little bit of an advantage about a 36 or so hour advantage of getting the message in. We are super running short of time, Larry, so we don’t have any new patrons. But I do want to point out that we are only five people away from reaching our goal where I will play a saxophone piece for Larry. Larry has picked one and then I’m going to let the patrons also pick one. So, get in there, there’s a survey out there, I will probably like bump that so people can vote again. And like I said, we’re getting super close to reaching our goal of 100 and it’s to the moon after that Larry. But we did get a new snail mail subscriber, Hayden. What were you gonna say, Larry?

Larry 1:12:52
That’s exactly right. We are going to once we reach 100 it’s going to be 200 within weeks.

Andy 1:12:59
Yeah, that could be true. Totally could be true. So then find all the show notes and all that stuff over at Leave voicemail at 747-227-4477. if you feel like you want to send me an email message. And of course, to get us to the 100 where I will play some sort of saxophone solo for you people is Larry as always I can’t thank you enough. I think you are the Master Blaster. You are Stormin’ Larry, but that doesn’t really work that well. And I can’t thank you enough and I hope you have a great weekend.

Larry 1:13:34
Thank you for having me.

Andy 1:13:35
Always my friend. Take care. Goodnight.

You’ve been listening to FYP.

Transcript of RM188: Don’t Attempt A Release Petition Without Representation

Andy 00:00
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 a problem with these thoughts, fyp. Recording live from FYP Studios, east and west. Transmitting across the internet. This is Episode 188 of Registry Matters. Here we are at 188. Larry, Happy Saturday evening to you. Saturday evening, right?

Larry 00:27
Well, not quite yet.

Andy 00:29
Not quite yet. Wait, do I have… wait, what’s wrong? What time is it?

Larry 00:34
It is 1:01 eastern time.

Andy 00:38
Wow. Uh, why are we so early? We’re so early because I have plans tonight. And you were very gracious in letting us record early. Do you want to dive right in? Or do you have anything that you want to banter about first?

Larry 00:53
Well, we have a good program lined up tonight. We’re going to talk about removal from registration in Georgia, some of the do’s and don’ts. And we have some listener submissions, and a few articles we’re going to cover and of course, name that voice.

Andy 01:11
Ah, Who’s that Speaker? Gotcha. That’s this, uh, this week, everyone decided to send me answers this week. And we will get to that later. I guess, though, we can just dive right into a question that someone wrote in that you provided us this week. Let’s do this question first from Roderick.

Listener Question
I’m contacting you today because I saw your ad in the July 21st issue of Prison Legal News. I am a PFR. I was convicted of two counts of taking indecent liberties with a minor in ’95. Class F felonies in North Carolina. I am considered a general offender, which means that I’m able to come off the registry after 10 years. Problems are that I have not stayed out of prison long enough to come off. And I’ve always believed that the 10 years restart after each time I am released from prison. I’ve just found out that that’s not true. I can petition a court at any time after my 10th year on the registry. I’m currently doing a 144 – 181 months sentence for being a habitual felon, my second habitual felon conviction, and failure to notify a sheriff of a change of address. I pleaded not guilty, but a jury convicted me in March of 2019. I immediately notified the court with an oral appeal. My appellate attorney argued, written arguments, three issues: the testimony of my parole officer, the closing argument of the state and vagueness of a statute about what constitutes a change of address. Although I admitted to some wrong, it was because I was under pressure by my parole officer and the sheriff deputy in my PO’s office. I told my trial attorney and my appellate attorney that I, at no time, was any Miranda warning given to me. Not before being questioned during or after, nor before I was arrested, or even after, at no time. I have other issues about evidence and witnesses for my defense. Is there anyone who may be able to answer some legal questions that I have? I don’t have much money, but I’ll spend whatever for realistic opportunity to give the court and North Carolina their time back. I am including a self-addressed… blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Interesting. So is that 144 months? Is that like just the violation? Or is that a new charge?

Larry 03:37
I’m guessing from reading the letter that his habitual, being habitual offender and I find this so distasteful that a regulatory scheme is allowed to be used in habitual criminals sentencing. In our state, we don’t do that. It’s very much excluded by statute that conviction of violating the sex offender registration Act is not something that can be used for habitual enhancement. But in most states, that’s not the case.

Andy 04:13
Can you do me a favor and expand on that particular statement? You’re saying a regulatory scheme, which we know the PFR regulatory scheme of what it is that creates this whole framework for us to do the registration stuff, but that does not create punishment. But here, this dude is behind bars, for 144 months, that sounds kind of like punishment?

Larry 04:32
Well, we’re talking about apples and oranges. You can be punished for violating a regulatory scheme. But what I’m talking about is that most states have habitual sentencing programs. And if you have a second or third felony, you’re subject to having a bunch of time tacked on for being a habitual offender. We do not allow any additional time to be tacked on in New Mexico. If you violate the registry, it doesn’t matter how many times you violate it because it’s a civil regulatory scheme. You’re only allowed to receive the penalty for the crime itself, no habitual enhancement. So, in this state, violating the registry is a fourth-degree felony. It carries up to 18 months in prison for the first offense, and then it has an internal enhancement. It elevates to a third-degree felony, if you have a previous offense, then you can get up to a whopping three years. But you cannot get any habitual enhancement. In most states, that’s not the case. So they can give you a big additional enhancement for your previous felony convictions because you apparently are not learning to abide by the law. So, he’s got that enhancement, which is not available. I find that distasteful that so many states do that. But I can’t change the reality of North Carolina law. So, he’s got this time to do. But back to his original question. Wherever you heard that the 10 years needed to be consistent, although that’s not written in the statute in all likelihood, that’s the reality of life, that you’re going to have to be up against. If you’re petitioning to come off of a registry requirement, and all you can show the judges is that you’ve had continuous problems complying with the requirement, it seems like an extreme long shot that a judge would release you from an obligation that you’ve had difficulty complying with. Therefore, although it’s not in the statute, to my recollection, that it has to be 10 years without a violation of registration, it’s kind of one of those that goes without saying. If you’re filing at a time when you’ve got two previous convictions for failure to comply with some aspect of registration, it would be a longshot and a rarity that they would remove you. I mean, just think about that. Mr. Jones, you’ve violated registration twice in the last 10 years, you’ve served a good amount of time over the last 10 years for those violations. And you’re asking this court to release you, I can’t see a problem with that. Of course, we’ll release you. Can you see that?

Andy 07:14
I’m wondering…I don’t want to call the person out by name, but we’re dealing with someone that had a probation violation. And in talking to him, this is related to this, so bear with me a second. In talking to him, he has some sort of Pollyanna, like a beyond an unrealistic optimistic attitude about, well, maybe they’ll just let me go with time served. Do you think that that’s something indicative of people in prison of severely diminishing what the reality is? And certainly like, in just in certain circumstances, but seems like this is consistent with my friend that is in jail at the moment.

Larry 07:53
Wait, are we talking about South Georgia or North Georgia?

Andy 07:56
Yes. South, south, south.

Larry 07:59
Okay. Well, in his particular instance, being that the violations appear to be relatively benign, again, we haven’t seen the evidence that they’re going to bring to bear, but we have read the complaint. It could be that if he has enough time served, by the time it resolves the probation violation, that could be a reasonable outcome. But in this particular situation, if he’s violated the registry, at least twice and been convicted, at least twice, I would think it would be a long shot, that he would get off, but he can file his petition. Just remember, when you file those petitions, oftentimes, there’s a wait before you can file another one. It could be years before you’re allowed to file another one. So when you file the petition, keep in mind, you may be barring yourself for a substantial period of time from filing another petition.

Andy 08:56
I know that we’ll cover that more directly in the next segment. Um, tell me, so in this particular person’s situation, the way that I’m hearing it, I hear of people that are convicted multiple times of drug offenses, and they keep tacking on more time because it’s a repeat offender, repeat offender, repeat offender. This sounds at least similar in that regard. Like this is not just a probation violation, he didn’t just miss curfew, he didn’t miss registering his address, which I know that that one’s covered there. But this is somebody that has two separate convictions? Id that how I’m reading this also?

Larry 09:30
Well, I’m reading that to be registry convictions. He doesn’t appear to have two separate sexual convictions, but (Andy: Okay, okay. Okay.) Here again, in New Mexico, there would not be a habitual enhancement for him, but in North Carolina in most states, there is because he has multiple felonies. You are a person, right? Yes. (Andy: Yes.) You do have previous felonies right? Yes. There is no exemption for registration. It’s not carved out as being something that can’t be enhanced. Therefore, if a prosecutor has that tool, they’re going to use it.

Andy 10:07
So he doesn’t have an additional crime, but because of his registration issues, his civil regulatory schemes, he has now been… These aren’t revocations.

Larry 10:16
No. These are new sentences for felony convictions for violating registration.

Andy 10:23
Which to make a comparison, I guess in Georgia, if I miss my registration date, that is a felony. (Larry: Yes.) Is that the comparison?

Larry 10:32
That is the comparison. You can receive habitual enhancement in Georgia because they don’t have a carve out for registry violations. So you could get the time for the felony plus habitual time.

Andy 10:46
That’s evil, even though you didn’t reoffend being habitual of anything, you effed up the rules that said, you have to be there within x time of window and your car broke down, and you couldn’t get there. And now you’re a habitual offender, because you didn’t make it to the registration office to register your address.

Larry 11:00
Well, that would be the case of any habitual offender. You don’t have to commit the same crime habitually, you just have to continue to commit crimes for it to be a habitual offender. So you could be committing a completely different crime for your second felon and your third and fourth felony. But as long as they’re felonies, you’re a habitual offender.

Andy 11:19
Gotcha. But because you’re under this scheme, then these things make you a different class citizen. And these things are crimes. These are felonies under this scheme.

Larry 11:27
These are felonies. One thing you could do in your state would be to move to exempt this from habitual enhancement. It is a civil regulatory scheme. It should not be treated as if it’s a new felony. But until someone successfully argues that and gets the carve out in the statute, if the prosecutor can say you did commit another a felony, didn’t you? You are the person who has the previous two felonies, are you not?

Andy 11:54
Right. Can you do me a favor? Can you translate this into like the car civil regulatory scheme? Can you create some sort of scenario that would be not equivalent, but if they did this, it would be? So now you have your driver’s license. And I guess if you let your car insurance, I think that actually, I don’t know if that’s a felony, if you don’t have insurance. (Larry: It’s not.) So, it wouldn’t be. So that would be an example that a person that doesn’t have a license doesn’t have a car. This doesn’t apply to them. But now that you have a car that now you go spend 10 years in prison because your insurance lapsed.

Larry 12:29
But you could very well spend time in prison for driving without insurance, but it’s generally not the same severity. Driving without insurance is most often going to be a misdemeanor. But you could do jail time for that. People have that so confused about a regulatory scheme cannot be. How would you enforce a regulatory scheme, if there were no punishment associated with it? Would it be an honor system where you voluntarily complied? If you didn’t comply with that, we say we gave it our best shot? Of course, there are penalties.

Andy 12:58
No, I get you, but he’s doing 144 months. He’s doing what is that? 10? That’s 12 years, to whatever 181 is. So, but you’re talking misdemeanor, so you’re gonna spend some month, two months or something in jail?

Larry 13:11
Up to 12 months, usually. Yeah.

Andy 13:13
Okay. So, which I don’t want to say that’s like, that’s no time, a lot of crap, bad crap can happen to you in 12 months, but he’s doing 12 years and longer for the equivalent scenario, I guess, if you’ll agree that that’s a roughly equivalent scenario.

Larry 13:28
Well, it’s not equivalent in that he has habitual enhancement tacked on to him for being a habitual offender, they don’t have… I’m not aware of a state that does habitual enhancements for misdemeanors. You generally just get the 12 months that the misdemeanor carries, and they just keep stacking them. But unless the misdemeanor becomes a felony, you don’t get any additional enhancement. But he’s getting enhancement for being a career criminal.

Andy 13:55
That’s pretty diabolical. Oh, my God. Okay. I guess I think I follow. I think I do. Is there anything else before we head over to the email from Justin?

Larry 14:03
I really can’t address his issues about the confessions or statements he made being mirandized. They’re supposed to read you your Miranda rights when you’re in a custodial interrogation. If they didn’t, that was something he should have moved for pretrial would be suppression of any statement he made. If he didn’t do that, then he’s gonna run into issues of preservation. He is gonna have a hard time overcoming that because you got to preserve issues for appellate review. If you don’t preserve them, then he’s not going to have that issue in all likelihood.

Andy 14:40
Okay. And then this one comes in and says this is from Justin. I’m reading as Justin: I got this email this morning and was curious if there is more information available so that I could send it to him and learn some myself. Also, maybe there are some thoughts on this or is this new? Please let me know or if you could send info that would also be great. email is in quotation marks. Why is nobody at NARSOL talking about the SORNA language and the US AG directive where after 15 years for a tier one and 25 years for tier two have expired, that person comes off of the SORNA federal registry. There’s no mechanism to be removed other than the AG simply directs that those folks come off the registry, provided they did not commit any other crimes.

Before I ask you these questions, I want to make it very clear, because people still get this very confused. I know that this thing talks about NARSOL, we are not a part of NARSOL. We have a whole lot of shared interests and content that kind of goes back and forth. We’re like very good friends of but we are not part of NARSOL. I just wanted to make that clear upfront. Tell us about the federal registry.

Larry 15:50
Yeah, I, if I hear this one more time, I think I’m gonna vomit. Folks, there is no federal registry. Please direct me to the addresses of the offices that are federal registrars, so that I can personally visit them and confirm their existence. But there isn’t a federal registry. But now he does make a valid point in terms of the I don’t know what he means about US AG directives, because there’s no directive that I’m aware of that people be removed after 15 and after 25 years. What he may be referring to that’s sort of convoluted is that in the Adam Walsh Act, the AWA itself, a person who has been classified as a tier one or tier two, they can have their registration obligations ended by those jurisdictions, after 15 or 25 years, without any petitions, without any money being expended, without a bunch of hoopla, they just simply are allowed to vanish. But that’s a choice that the states are allowed to make if they want to grant people. Actually on those tier ones, the 15 years can be further reduced by five years, if the person has picked up no felony conviction of any type during the 10 years, or no sexual conviction, even if it’s not a felony, and if they’ve completed their treatment successfully, = they can be just automatically removed. We don’t really need a petition to see if you’ve completed treatment, because you either have a certificate of discharge or you don’t. And you don’t need a petition to figure out if you’ve got a criminal history in the preceding 10 years. They can run that and you either do or you don’t. So therefore, the process to give people that five years would be very benign. All you would need to do would have law enforcement do a basic NCIC check on the person to see if they’ve had any legal encounters. And you would ask the person for proof that they’ve done their treatment, that they’ve completed treatment. Worst case scenario, you can’t provide proof of treatment, and you have to stay on five more years. But still, you wouldn’t have to file a petition at that point. You would just fade away. The tier twos after 25 years would just fade away.

Andy 18:17
We need to create almost like some sort of challenge and post it everywhere that show us the statute, show us the law, all that stuff, where it says there is this particular office, the Federal registry that everyone keeps referencing. I don’t know, I don’t know what the number would be whether it’s 100 bucks, 1000 bucks. I don’t care, because it wouldn’t matter how much it is, because at least I’m trusting that you’re right, Larry. There’s no federal registry. So, send us the statute where it says that there is.

Larry 18:45
so well, now there is the Adam Walsh Act. There are requirements related that the federal government has urged upon the states, and there are some jurisdictional hooks on the offenders themselves, particularly if they engaged in or plan to engage in interjurisdictional travel. Because then it becomes a federal issue if you move from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and you do not comply with the registration requirements in your jurisdiction. The feds will hunt you down just as they would hunt you down if you’re wanted in a state for violating a state law, and you flee that state. They call that interstate flight to avoid prosecution. And the feds will very gladly obligingly track you down and bring you back to that state and they will prosecute you if you travel from one jurisdiction to the other and you don’t comply with whatever that state requires. Now, here’s where there’s a slight difference between me and others. If the state you go to does not wish you to comply, as long as you’ve attempted to comply, and they say we don’t register that offense here, or your conviction is too old, you’re done. The feds can no longer prosecute you. They can prosecute you for failing to report in, but they can’t force that state to register you. They can certainly go after you if you don’t report in and check in and see if they’ll register you. But it’s their choice if they register you.

Andy 20:16
I gotcha. But I still, there’s, I understand, when you do move from state to state, and they’re telling the state that you need to comply. It’s not like in between the two states you went and visited the federal registry office, and you didn’t go visit it at the destination state or the source state prior to and leaving. But everyone talks about, like this person said, that person comes off the SORNA Federal Registry.

Larry 20:42
So well, the only thing that resembles a federal registry is there’s a website that looks in to all the state registries. right. If you’re not listed on a state registry, it will not find you because it cannot see you because there is no federal registry. It will find you on one of the state’s registries, or sometimes more than one state’s registry, you might be on multiple. But that’s where it finds you. But that is not a registry, that is a website. There is a difference. Maybe you being a tech guru, you can explain people the difference between a website and a registry.

Andy 21:25
That doesn’t even like, what’s the difference between an apple and an elephant? Like there’s nothing, like all the differences are there. But they’re both alive, they were created by some living entity. Let me ask you this question. You knowing this, we still need to do a deep dive on AWA at some point. The people that would qualify for that tier one from the AWA, where people then talk about being leveled in their various states, where if your state does have a leveling scheme. That Tier One is, isn’t that pretty narrow?

Larry 21:59
Not as narrow, it is narrow, but not as narrow as you think. But, again, we’re talking about two different things. A state leveling you in a risk-based system is not the same as a tier designation.

Andy 22:15
That was the first point that I wanted to make was that they are not the same, but even so under AWA, they are guiding the states on how they would possibly create their – I think this may be the intent – that this is how they would design their leveling scheme. But it doesn’t seem that anybody… like different crimes are at different levels and whatnot, because I think I think anybody with a contact crime from the AWA ends at tier three?

Larry 22:40
There’s a tier three but I think you’re falling into the same trap that others fall into. (Andy: Could be. That’s why you’re here.) The federal guidelines, they are not encouraging states to level people by risk, they’re encouraging them to assign them a tier designation that’s purely a categorical designation based on their offense. And it takes no consideration, is made for your risk of repetition. The leveling you’re talking about that they do in Georgia, is looking at your propensity to commit a new offense. The AWA has no interest in that. (Andy: I gotcha.) These tiers are merely based on the offense. Tier one, crimes that carry less than a year of incarceration as a maximum penalty. So basically, that’s your misdemeanor family of crimes. Tier two, every felony level offense that is not of a victim under 13 years of age or violent. And violent is defined. Violence is not imaginary. You have to actually use violence. Tier three is the remaining universe of offenses or if a person has previously, if they’ve committed a tier two offense and they committed another tier two offense after being a tier two offender, they would roll into tier three. You could have no risk whatsoever and remain a tier three for all of your life because you fit the criteria of the categorical approach. You can never work your way off of that under the AWA. If you’re a tier three, you’re always a tier three, you’re laid up on hospice bed, you have every tube that they can insert in you, and every machine that they can – you’re still a tier three until you die. The states that have leveling systems on the other hand, they take a look at Arkansas, Georgia, Minnesota, these states that have leveling systems, they are looking at your propensity to engage in future sexual offending and what danger that would pose to the community. So, they’re not the same thing. The Adam Walsh Act is categorical on your crime.

Andy 25:05
I understand, follow and follow you. Alright. I think that’s everything…

Larry 25:14
Well, there’s one problem with the Adam Walsh Act is that too many states put the offenses in tiers higher than what they belong. And that’s okay. If you put everything as a tier three, you’ve met the minimum thresholds, which is what the Adam Walsh Act was intended to do is to get the states to be at minimum thresholds. If you put people at tier three, that really were tier three, that’s all right with the feds, because it leaves you met the minimum, right? (Andy: Yes, sure.) So therein lies the problem. When these states debated becoming AWA compliant, the PFRs were nowhere at the table and they weren’t showing them that they had offenses in the wrong tiers that didn’t need to be in those tiers. For example, possession of child porn, it is generally a tier one, at least at the federal level. If you look at the list of what they recommend, they recommend that that just simple possession be a tier one. Most states, I know mine, for sure, possession is a lifetime offense here, every 90 days. And I tell people this is an example where if we would just go no higher than the Adam Walsh Act, if we just did no more than those grueling federal standards, we would make your life better. Because Adam Walsh would be preferable to what we have today, if we did nothing more than what the AWA required. For some offenders, that is, not for everybody. But for some it would be better.

Andy 26:43
Because there I’m sure there are some places where the Adam Walsh Act would make things worse for them.

Larry 26:49
Absolutely. If you did the AWA in Vermont, people would not like it very much.

Andy 26:53
Funny that we never have articles about how bad things are from Vermont, from pretty much the Northeast in general.

Larry 27:00
Too many liberals up there.

Andy 27:03
Assholes. Can’t believe them.

Larry 27:05
You can’t say that on a family program.

Andy 27:08
Yeah, well, I don’t really think that this is much of a family program. Do not think. Larry did you see this article come out the other day that kind of blew up the universe about Apple and monitoring the photos that you have on your phone?

Larry 27:22
I did, I didn’t understand it. And that’s why I’m glad you’re here.

Andy 27:27
That is why I’m here. I will not steal your clip. But I will try to remember to play it this afternoon. But what has happened is… so I have a couple articles linked in the show notes. One is from the New York Times, and the other one is from the EFF. And I think we should probably go more by what the EFF has to say, which is the Electronic Frontier Foundation. But iPhone operating system will soon store a database of hashes of known child sex abuse material provided by organizations like the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. That’s NCMEC. And it will run those hashes against numbers of each photo in a user’s iCloud account to see if there’s a match. So that probably explained everything and there’s nothing further us to talk about, right?

Larry 28:09
I don’t know. How will Apple know if the users are uploading illegal images to iCloud?

Andy 28:15
So let’s first talk about what a hash is. And a hash is just like, if you take something and you use some sort of computer, blah, blah, blah, computer algorithm, almost like let’s make a court case number out of it. And then we could always use that court case number to bring us back to the court case. If we’re talking about hashes, it’s not an illegal drug. It’s computer information that would look like random numbers or letters, and you have a database of stored hashes. So these are just stored bits that you could then go look things up. And these are things of known naughty images. But when you’re in possession of the image, and you hash it, if you use the same computer algorithm, a computer process to hash it, you’ll end up with that same information, and then you could search for that. And once you make the comparison, you don’t have to necessarily see the image. You just have to compare the hash to get the same result. So if you take the court case number, you don’t know what the court case is about, Larry, but you know that if you search for a court case, 12345, then you’re going to get the results of 12345. And you could say, Oh, yeah, I have that court case information. I’m sure that was clear as mud.

Larry 29:25
Absolutely. I don’t know. That’s why you’re here. But what responsibility do big tech companies have to police their platforms? What is the time between them being a policing agency versus your right to privacy? This is all confusing to me.

Andy 29:42
Yeah. So this almost is a question that I would toss back at you, but isn’t that the question of where is the line drawn between what the big tech agencies are able to do as far as what policing would be versus them just letting you do your own thing. So you don’t technically own your own device. I learned this years and years and years ago is with an with an Xbox. The licensing agreement, it usually said that you have the right to use it. But I don’t know if you ever follow the information about right to repair, you own the Apple phone. And I say that in quotes but go break the screen. And when you try to repair it, you have to go visit an apple store to go get it fixed. Your local IT shop may have a really hard time getting the part and even after it’s installed, all the stuff that has to get registered inside the phone, it has to be registered properly. And a lot of people when they do this, they don’t end up with a working phone. But ultimately, these big tech companies, big tech, also known as GAFAM, I mean. apple, Facebook, Google, Amazon, and Microsoft. And each one has a market cap of a trillion bucks, Larry, they can kind of do what they want. They kind of own us, Larry, that they’re that big.

Larry 30:54
I’m confused, like, so I’ve got iCloud I think. I’ve got photos. I think they’re all on the cloud. If I’m putting something… clearly I don’t own the cloud. That I have enough sense to figure out. If I have those in a file drawer in my office, I own the file cabinet and I own the contents. But if I’m going to put that in someone else’s care, do I have the same expectation of privacy that I can put contraband? I guess it would be synonymous to taking contraband and putting it in your safe deposit box. If the dogs come through there and they sniff and they find contraband, which I don’t know, banks do this or not. But if they did, would the bank not have some basis for wanting to know what was in the box that the dog was alerting on?

Andy 31:50
I think that is the one of the best questions ever. What Apple says and other places sometimes say, depending on the platform is whether the information that you’ve put up there is encrypted before it goes up there. If you encrypt it on your phone and then store it up there, they should just have the random ones and zeros that encryption provided. If it gets encrypted after it gets there, then they hold the keys and they can get into it. But if it does it on your phone first, then they wouldn’t have access to it. But that’s one of the cruxes of this whole thing is that this kind of tells you that they have access to see what’s on your phone before. You’ve lost the ability to have your information be private on your phone.

Larry 32:31
While I’m not surprised about that. So what else does Apple doing that’s troubling you people?

Andy 32:36
Alright, the other Apple feature which scans photos and text messages will be available only to families with a joint Apple account. If parents turn it on, their child’s iPhone will analyze every photo received or sent in a text message to determine if it includes nudity. I have a lot of problems with that term nudity, also. Nude photos that child will be blurred and they get to choose whether they get to view it. And if a child under 13 chooses to view the nude photo, the parents get notified and they get to approve it. Apple has previously told authority that encryption prevents it from retrieving certain data. See how they kind of spun that differently Larry? They say like you can do this, but you couldn’t do this before. But now you can do it.

Larry 33:20
Yeah, I’m not sure I understand the point.

Andy 33:24
Well, if your data is encrypted, then it’s that no one can read it. But that’s the point. So, I believe you when you use an encrypted messaging app with your boss, and there’s some level of expectation that you believe that that information cannot be viewed by anyone else. So for instance, if you and I, Larry, if you and I use an encrypted messaging app, which we do not do currently, then we would have the expectation that no one else can read it. So we have the competing Registry Matters podcast out there. And we don’t want our corporate secrets to get shared over there. So this is all based on the success of our podcast. At what point do we lose the Fourth Amendment protections? This situation from Apple is circumventing this and this is an example of Big Brother at its finest.

Larry 34:10
But if we’re saving children, why is this such a big deal? I mean, this is all about the children, right?

Andy 34:16
It’s always about the children. That seems to be the excuse that all these big tech companies use, “if it saves one child.” And I think we hear that from the victims’ advocates a lot too. A computer doesn’t know what it’s looking at. A computer doesn’t know whether it’s an image, if it’s a text message, if it’s whatever. So they’re just really good at crunching data and processing it. But the humans are making rules about what is and what isn’t allowed. What Apple has exposed in setting up the system is that they can read all of your data. They build themselves as being the secure platform, that they care about safety and security. But instead, what they’ve said is that they can read your data, they can read all of your data. In the future, maybe they extend this feature into other areas and not just CP-type images. It’s not just a slippery slope, it’s that they designed a system to succumb to the pressure of outside entities, government agencies that would be. And that can be trained to search for any type of content. And once the doors open Larry, it’s really hard to de-open the door. This is a freedom of speech challenge as well as a privacy challenge.

Larry 35:22
I’m looking forward to see what the EFF, the Electronic Frontier Foundation does, because they would be the logical, I think, the entity that would go after Apple.

Andy 35:34
Yeah. Or we vote with our dollars, I think that’s another place that this goes is you try to figure out how to disassociate yourself with an Apple product. And Google is I think that they are similar. Microsoft does stuff similar to this, just in wherever their own purview is, wherever they have their tentacles into it. This really bothered me because a computer doesn’t know whether it’s looking at a nude image, or if it’s just looking at bank transactions, and then they could start searching banks transactions, perhaps?

Larry 36:03
I don’t see the consumer being… I think, we’ve proven that we will buy any product whether it’s slave labor produced. We don’t have the I mean, morality to… I don’t see the consumer pushing back sufficiently. These devices are part of our lives, they are integral to our daily modern life. I don’t see anybody saying, well, I won’t have my phone anymore, if that’s the way they’re gonna play the game. I don’t see that.

Andy 36:34
I got a funny story that’s related to that. I was talking to someone about car insurance stuff. And I don’t know, have you seen the little dongles that you attach underneath your dashboard that would give you reduced insurance rates? Because they can track your mileage and your speed and all that stuff? Have you seen this? (Larry: Yes.) Okay. I think they’ve removed them. And then you put an app on your phone, and whenever you’re driving the things tracking how fast you’re going, and the person was like, wow, that’s creepy. I’m like, how’s it any different than the little dongle that was in the car. You most likely are already using Google Maps. And they know every place you’ve ever gone, and they know how fast you’re going. And they know every search you’ve ever done, and you’re worried just about your insurance company, having the data as to how fast you’re driving so that you can get 10% off your insurance. Like that’s not consistent. We don’t care anymore. Our data, our privacy is gone.

Larry 37:21
Yep. So I’ve been offered that device myself. I haven’t downloaded it. But DriveWise I think it’s what it is. My insurance company said if you do this, we’re going to give you a discount.

Andy 37:31
Absolutely. All right, well, then let’s move over. If you have no other questions about this Apple thing.

Larry 37:37
Nope, let’s go to this main event.

Andy 37:40
Ready to be a part of Registry Matters? Get links at If you need to be all discreet about it, contact them by email at You can call or text a ransom message to (747)227-4477. Want to support Registry Matters on a monthly basis? Head to Not ready to become a patron? Give a five-star review at Apple podcasts for stitcher or tell your buddies that your treatment class about the podcast. We want to send out a big heartfelt support for those on the registry. Keep fighting. Without you, we can’t succeed. You make it possible.

Let’s do the main event. And this comes from a person that reached out to like the entire universe asking a question and I guess I will be reading the question here. Says this is from the listener.

Listener Question
I have been listening to your podcast for about six months, and I find the information extremely helpful. (Andy: Thank you very much for that.) I have been a PFR for 22 years, I have unsuccessfully attempted a petition for a release. My lawyer at the time and I were ill equipped for the task as we know nothing about what was required. I am preparing for a second attempt. And I would love to be directed to any and all information that can help me prepare. I would like to do any upfront work where I can do any due diligence work before I get a lawyer. In your non legal opinion, Larry, please give me a list of things or to do or any ideas to add to the case that I’m building to present to a judge. Yes, Larry, I can hear your voice now saying that you don’t have enough information about my case. I have a ‘97 conviction for statutory rape. I served two years in prison and I’ve been a PFR since then. I blindly attempted a release petition in 2010. I was at the time leveled as a level two PFR. I am in the state of Georgia, and I’m sure you’re familiar with our process for removal. I’m really stressed and embarrassed and ashamed. Plus, I live in fear of a rule change that will make my life even harder. I’ve spoken to several lawyers in the Atlanta area and they are all priced similarly. However, I’m looking to be more educated and prepared with anything I can do to help my case. The last time I attempted a removal, we essentially just walked into a courtroom unprepared with anything other than an unsupported petition. Please keep up the great work that you guys are doing. And your work is definitely making a difference in our many lives.

That’s some nice little attributes and accolades there. So let me, let me ask you a couple questions Larry. We’ve discussed removal from the registration on previous episodes of Registry Matters. Georgia does have a removal process which I’m somewhat familiar with. And I know you’re obsessed with those seeking removal would be well advised to take some initial steps before they file. And I know you always encourage them to have an attorney. Let’s go into an attorney selection process and what you advise the PFR to do. Larry go, Ding ding, ding.

Larry 40:38
Great question, because attorney selection is a daunting process even for those who have extensive knowledge of the legal system. First, you will want to know if that attorney has done removal petitions. Second, you want to know what their success rate has been on those petitions. And third, you want to know if they have done a petition in the county that you will be filing in.

Andy 41:03
And Larry, as a little bit of a side story on this subject, you encountered having some less than stellar results when you phones some attorneys recently? (Larry: I did indeed.) You even ask me the questions like, Is this what you people go there? I was like, Larry, you have no idea because we don’t know what we’re asking. And those people are the experts. So we just have to take whatever they say as being the gospel. And you’re an educated MF. So you had a challenge of trying to find a qualified attorney.

Larry 41:31
I did.

Andy 41:33
So what if the attorney says, I’m good at this, and you just pay me 7500 bucks up front, and I will take care of everything. Is that all that needs to be discussed?

Larry 41:43
Not in my humble opinion. What would you do if you were planning to make a substantial investment in your house? Would you be okay with a contractor cutting you out of the process and refusing to discuss the renovation plans with you?

Andy 41:55
Larry I think that would be great. Just tell me that in six months, I’ll have a house and everything will be perfect. So no, not really. What does the person need to do to not… like I am kind of a person like this, I don’t really want to Badger you and bug you about all the things. So how do I not irritate the attorney?

Larry 42:12
I’m not sure I can answer that because I really don’t mind irritating the attorney. He or she is asking for a large chunk of money to undertake a significant legal action, which has the potential to dramatically improve your quality of life. And since the relationship is a partnership. In my opinion, if the attorneys annoyed by your questions, you should keep right ahead shopping.

Andy 42:35
Because I did that when I was selecting the termination of my probation attorney. Like I’m not the average bear. I used to do the podcast at the time, I guess we’ve done 150-ish episodes. I’m certainly not skilled at it. But I know a little bit more than the average bear. And he was like, you don’t like attorneys, do you? And I was like, I don’t like it’s just, I don’t know. Anyway, we had some conflicts. But so Larry, I’ve read the statute on removal. And it’s clear that a person can proceed pro se. So why the hell are you so bent on having an attorney? It has something to do with conversations with the District Attorney’s Office, doesn’t it?

Larry 43:15
Yes, you’re correct. Keep in mind that we’re talking about Georgia right now. But in many instances, the district attorney is the responding party who must be served the removal petition. The first thing a good attorney would want to do is to have a conversation with a district attorney’s office to determine the office policy on such petitions and if they have been anxiety about you being released from the registry. It’s your petition, so this is about you. If the DA’s office has angst with you, and they vehemently, or they vehemently oppose all removal petitions, you will have a much more difficult time having the request granted. Beyond that the stakes are extremely high. And a skilled practitioner is far better suited to navigate the legal system that you are as a lay person.

Andy 44:10
You know, when I did pick that attorney that I did pick, before I even gave him a penny he called over to the DA to see what their stance was, which I thought was… I mean, that was one of the reasons why I picked him is that he just picked the phone and call it and had a relationship like hey, Bob, Joe, whatever the guy’s name was, and just started rattling stuff off and was asking him questions right out of the gate, which was pretty awesome, I thought. (Larry: Absolutely.) Let’s move on to the process, which is from the code OCGA 42-1-19, provides the removal from registration. Let me begin by asking if there are any certain offenses that are not eligible for the petition process? We will go into the nuances of the requirements later after we establish if there are automatic exclusions.

Larry 44:54
I’m not aware of any automatic exclusions in Georgia. But having said that, keep in mind that I’m not licensed to practice law in Georgia. So please contact and consult a legal professional but I cannot discern any automatic exclusion as there would be in other states. For example, Colorado, if you have more than one conviction, you’re not eligible. And there are some other exclusions in Colorado. But Georgia, I’m not aware of any.

Andy 45:17
Okay, well, then. So in fact, in OCGA 42-1-19(a) provides some of the opportunity to file a petition even before the passage of 10 years. Can you tell us a little bit more about what that is with the people before the 10 years are up?

Larry 45:31
Sure, a person in Georgia can file immediately, if they meet the criteria: they’re physically incapacitated or confined to hospice, are totally or otherwise permanently disabled, as defined by Georgia law. And therefore, you don’t have to wait the 10 years. And again, that’s a nuance that both states that have a removal process don’t have. But in Georgia, you don’t have to wait to 10 years if you fit into that criteria.

Andy 45:58
okay, and what county do you have to file in?

Larry 46:01
Well, they file generally in the county they have the conviction, except when they have a non-Georgia conviction.

Andy 46:08
Meaning someone that’s from another state,

Larry 46:11
yes, or has a federal conviction or non-US conviction, but any non-Georgia conviction. If you were convicted in Georgia, you’re going to file it in the county you were convicted in, regardless of where you live.

Andy 46:25
Okay, so if you’re from a different state, you are now not eligible to get removed?

Larry 46:31
Oh, no, not at all, you can still file a petition. But in the case of the person with a non-Georgia conviction, they file in their county that they are residing in.

Andy 46:41
So if you are from non-Georgia, that leaves us with the other 73 states, I think, then you could pick the county you want to live in to then try to get removed at that point. So you do form shopping.

Larry 46:57
That is correct. The person with a non-Georgia conviction has some additional options that a person with a Georgia conviction does not have. The state of Georgia is going to send you back to the superior court where your conviction was had. That judge, he or she may not be sitting in that in that office anymore. But there will be a judge sitting in that office and you will go back before that court. If you have a non-Georgia conviction, and I’m not saying that anyone would actually do this, but you could theoretically decide to reside in the counties where the removal success rate is much higher. And you could reside there and file your removal petition there.

Andy 47:39
Well, geez, Larry, let’s explore that for just a minute. Would you suggest that you live out in the middle of nowhere or would you suggest that somebody lives kind of in a population center?

Larry 47:49
Well, that’s a loaded question. I know that all of our people tend to gravitate towards these non-populated areas, because they perceive that they’re safer, and they have less government interference and observation. But as a general rule, with exceptions, those places also tend to be much more difficult to get off the registry. But not always, as we’ve had attorney guests before, it really depends on nuances of the particular judge and the jurisdiction. But more often than not, as you experienced with a guy that wanted to move to Georgia from New York, and how he had his heart dead set on moving into a particular county. You know who I’m talking about right?

Andy 48:35
I do. I do. I do.

Larry 48:37
Well, despite them making it clear that they would not treat him nicely. He insisted on moving to that county, and he’s not been treated nicely, I don’t think. But as a general rule, you’re going to be better in an urban setting. But there again, that’s something you would research with your attorney, if you have a non-Georgia conviction, because the attorney might could tell you “well, you’re in Walker County. And as far as I can see, no one’s ever been released in Walker County. If hypothetically, if you were to be in DeKalb County, about 70% of the people that petition in DeKalb County get off, so I’m not advising you to move to DeKalb County, I’m just telling you, statistics don’t lie. No one’s ever gotten off in Walker County.” And I don’t know that to be the case. I just pulled that out of my hat.

Andy 49:18
Sure, sure, sure. Um, and this is always… I always get tripped up on the different standards of evidence. But so which party bears the burden of proof? So I guess that’s the question of do I tell the judge that I’m an A plus citizen, or is it I guess the DA? I can’t imagine the DA would do that. So who has the burden of proof? And what is the standard of proof? What must that be?

Larry 49:41
Well, I’m not completely clear on reading the statute. It says the court may issue an order releasing the individual from registration requirements or residency, or employment restrictions in whole or in part if the court finds by preponderance of the evidence that the individual does not pose a substantial risk of perpetrating any future dangerous sexual offense. Now that seems to be very open ended because what is a dangerous sexual offense? Would streaking across a ball field on Friday night be a dangerous sex offense? If someone was a compulsive indecent exposure? Would that be a dangerous sexual offense? Or would grabbing a child out of the proverbial park? Would that be a dangerous? Of course, that would be. But what is a dangerous substantial risk? How much would you deem substantial? And what is the danger of sexual offense? But the preponderance, I can tell you, that means the preponderance means if you have a scale and you tip it slightly, whichever way it tips that’s the preponderance. That’s more likely than not is all that standard is.

Andy 50:46
So to make an analogy of where the senate sits right now, that would be a preponderance where it’s 50-50 plus one.

Larry 50:53
That is correct. It’s slightly tipped in the democrat party’s favor by virtue of the vice presidency.

Andy 51:00
But digging back into where we were just talking about where so from my perspective, we’ve argued about this before of proving a negative, how do you prove that you’re not something?

Larry 51:11
Therein lies the problem. This is not as artfully drafted as I would like. But it does work. A lot of folks get terminated from registration in Georgia. So, I’m not clear who has to prove the not. I would always like it to be the state has to prove that the person is at an elevated risk to commit something of a dangerous sexual offense that we would define what was dangerous. I don’t care about someone streaking. I really don’t. I mean, they did that back in the 70s all the time and nobody died. You know, it’s overblown. But some of these some of these offenses that are on the list are just really not that significant. If they happen, they happen, but it doesn’t alter one’s life. If someone pulls out their peepee and pees and a 11-year-old sees them peepeeing, I don’t think that 11 year old’s gonna be scarred for life. I really don’t.

Andy 52:04
Because the 11 year old’s doing the same thing. Not necessarily out in public necessarily, but um, I’m thinking of a movie. I think the movie is Porky’s, Larry, and this came out in the 70s. And I think that like a bus, a school bus drives by a car with a bunch of girls, it’s like the football team go into a game. And like four or five of the football players, like stick their behinds out of the window of the bus. They were mooning. You’ve probably heard the term mooning before. (Larry: Yes.) Like that would probably be considered like something of a sexual offense at this point in the world.

Larry 52:34
Absolutely, it would be.

Andy 52:37
The statute also says in considering a petition pursuant to this code section, the court may consider any evidence introduced by the petitioner, any evidence introduced by the DA or Sheriff and any other relevant evidence. I bet you that one, that’s a can of worms there, the any other evidence. Then it says the court shall hold a hearing on the petition if the request, Oh my god, if requested by the petitioner. This suggests that the person needs to note to request a hearing or run the risk of the petition being summarily denied. Is that correct?

Larry 53:12
Absolutely. That is correct. The petition that does not contain a request for a hearing could be denied simply by the court stamping it denied in big regular red letters. And that’s the reason why you need to know the process and you’re better advised to have an attorney because the attorney knows when they file a petition to accompany the petition with a request for a hearing a notice of hearing… We don’t know the date that the courts going to grant the hearing. So what we do is we prepare a notice of the hearing. And we identify on the notice where the hearing would be held and then we leave blanks for the court to insert when it has decided it’s going to grant the hearing. So the court, the court staff fills in the notice once the court grants the hearing. So, we’ve prepared the request for the hearing and the notice of the hearing. And then the court sends out the notice to the parties who are entitled to it, which in this case would be the petitioner and the respondent. In Georgia, the respondent is the county sheriff where the person is living, the county sheriff. where the person files the petitions, they may not be the same because they may be living in DeKalb. They may have gotten convicted in Walker County, so they have to notify they have to serve it on both sheriffs. And they have to serve it on the district attorney in Walker county. Each one of those parties would get a notice of the hearing. And if you don’t know that, you may have your petition denied without a hearing because you didn’t request one.

Andy 54:39
Backup a couple blocks where you said any other relevant evidence. Like who’s the one that would introduce any other relevant evidence if it’s not the DA or the petitioner?

Larry 54:49
Well, I suppose that would be… that’s kind of open ended. The DA and the sheriff would offer their evidence. If the sheriff has been keeping tabs on you and they think there’s some elevated risk, they would be entitled under the Georgia law to present that evidence. But I guess the court would be able to look at anything it deemed relevant that would be outside of those parties. And I don’t know what that would include. But perhaps maybe the court knows you’re in a small county, the court knows your circumstances. I mean, that’s all I could gather from that.

Andy 55:24
I’m scared to say that somebody announces to a potential victim and then the victim comes in and testifies.

Larry 55:31
That is the fear that I always have is the victims going to sink your ship. And we’ll get to that a little bit later.

Andy 55:37
Okay. Yeah, a friend of mine had that happened to him. I think I may have shared that with you, a couple months ago, a guy in northeast Georgia. But let’s go on. So if the petition is denied, how long does a person have to wait to file again, isn’t that a significant risk? Like you’ve then dropped five grand, some number on an attorney to help you get off and then something goes tits up. And it gets denied. How long you have to wait before you can go back?

Larry 56:04
in Georgia, the person is precluded for at least two years before he or she can file again. However, that is not the only concern I have. What happens if there is a hearing, and a non-lawyer proceeding pro se fails to object to testimony that is inadmissible? This could make it virtually impossible for the person to overcome when they do file two years later, because assume the judge is still sitting and assume there was no properly laid objection to that evidence. And the judge would rule I mean, the judge is gonna consider whatever the judge wants to consider. But the judge, if you object to the evidence, and say that’s not admissible, the judge will make a ruling and say that is correct. I will disregard that. Well, if that foundation, if that objection was not raised, there would be nothing to preclude the judge from considering that two years later, because that evidence is a part of the previous record.

Andy 57:00
Oh, my God, this sounds like summary judgment, Larry.

Larry 57:03
So that’s the risk. When you go into an arena that you don’t understand the rules, and you don’t understand what is admissible and what is not admissible, and you can’t raise a good objection, you run the risk of getting evidence in that’s not really admissible, which can do you a great amount of harm later.

Andy 57:21
You know, I’m glad you asked me to put together this whole outline, because I am the expert on figuring out how to do these petitions. No. Larry, I think people should reach out to you and ask you for like, do you have this written down as like a Q&A, a framework for people to start filing their petitions? Because I bet you there, at least, I don’t know, they’re probably 75% the same across the states with some minor nuances between other ones, it’s probably even more than that similar of what kind of evidence to bring to bear to do these petitions?

Larry 57:53
Absolutely. I’ve thought about doing that. For a standard fee, I will provide you with the guidance of what you ought to be doing.

Andy 58:03
I think that sounds like a phenomenal idea. Um, but you people have talked about victimless crimes, and how those might have a slightly better chance. Can you expand on what that means by victimless crime, and why that person would have better odds?

Larry 58:19
Sure, a victimless crime would be something like a sting operation. In those cases, you will not have a victim that’s going to be showing up at your removal hearing telling the court that they’re still traumatized about what happened to them dozens or 20, or 30 years ago. And since most of these types of sting operations have only law enforcement witnesses, those witnesses are unlikely to be present to hearing. So you’re going to take a lot of pressure off the court when you don’t have a victim there. And that’s the downside. See the out of state person, if you were convicted in Oregon, and you’re filing a petition in Georgia, Georgia is going to have to really hate you to want to bring a witness down on their dime. And the witness is going to have to really hate you to want to come down on their dime. But same thing with these victimless crimes, these people are not going to be present. But when you have to go back to your home county, where you have the victim there, they’re alive and well. And they’re going to come to this hearing. You have big problems already. With these victimless crimes, they don’t have that. They’re going to have the petition just only with the DA pontificating about what they don’t like about this person, but there’s not going to be a witness that needs to be made whole. That person who lives in the community that pays taxes in that community, that votes for that judge that runs into that judge at the diner, that judge has to deal with that, and they won’t have that with a victimless crime.

Andy 59:48
Should the person expend the funds for a psychosexual evaluation? Those can cost like, that’s a lot of dough that’s hundreds, many, many hundreds, if not 1000s of dollars to get a psychosexual.

Larry 1:00:00
They should, in some circumstances. If they’ve not been leveled, for example, in Georgia, if you’re if you’re leveled in Georgia as a one, I would probably be less hesitant. I’d be more hesitant to recommend that expenditure. But if you haven’t been leveled in Georgia, you don’t know how they’re going to level you, do you?

Andy 1:00:27
No, you don’t know, when you’re not leveled. There are a lot of people in Georgia that are not leveled Larry.

Larry 1:00:32
That’s about 75% of the people have not been leveled because they don’t budget the resources to do that. So, since you do not know how they’re going to level you, wouldn’t you like to level yourself first? (Andy: *unintelligible question*) Well, you level yourself by getting a psychosexual evaluation. And if your evaluator that you’re paying, comes up with a high level, it would be extremely optimistic on your part to think that the state’s going to come up with a level one.

Andy 1:01:01
Well, that’s true. Okay, I gotcha. I gotcha.

Larry 1:01:03
So you’re getting a head start on what they may level you at by having your own. And even if your guy comes in, if your evaluator comes in as a low risk, and the state comes in at a moderate risk, then you have something for the judge to hang their hat on because you can get into a dueling expert battle.

Andy 1:01:31
I guess also if you get leveled high by the psychosexual person, you can be like, well, we’ll just throw that in the trash and maybe not try to do this petition process.

Larry 1:01:38
Well, you could throw it in the trash, or you could go through the state and see what the state comes up with. If the state comes up with a lower level, then of course, you would be foolish to say, well, Your Honor, I’ve got one that says I’m a level three.

Andy 1:01:49
Correct. Correct.

Larry 1:01:51
So, but if you have been leveled and you’re not a level one, then I would definitely advise you to get some competing evidence for the judge. But if you have not been leveled, that would be the reason why I would advise you to get a psychosexual evaluation. We want to know what they’re likely to come up with. It would be rare, your paid evaluator is going to be predisposed to do the best they can to come up with something decent for you. I mean, that’s just kind of the way the system works. They’re not going to lie for you. But they’re going to be more sensitive to your cause. And if they can’t rescue you in their evaluation, the state of Georgia is not gonna rescue you with theirs in all likelihood.

Andy 1:02:34
So tell me, this is definitely your arena, what are the political considerations in terms of filing the petitions? And can you share some of them Larry?

Larry 1:02:43
Well, the biggest political consideration I have is district attorneys are elected. That’s an office that has to appeal to the voters. This process of filing a petition for removal, sets that office up for criticism. And folks, I don’t make the rules for life, I’m just simply articulating to you what they are. And people get so mad at me when they say you make the rules. No, I’m telling you what they are. That person that holds that top job, he or she is at enormous risk all the time for backlash for decisions that their office makes and policies of their office. So therefore, since the favorable rating for people required to register in the community is generally not very good, the DAs office, let’s go to reflect that unfavorable rating when they deal with PFRs. Therefore, you do not want to have a petition pending when there’s an election for the district attorney of your county going on. If that if that person who’s in the office is within months of having an election, their flexibility goes down dramatically, because they’re afraid that their opponents gonna say, not only should I be elected DA because I’m tougher on crime, but this person doesn’t even oppose PFRs getting off the registry. So therefore, they have to oppose you. So you try to take the politics out of it. If the DA is in a reelection campaign, you may want to forego that filing until the election. The same thing could go for a judge. The Superior Court judges in Georgia are also elected. You may have a two

Andy 1:04:29
Is it two four-year? I’m thinking they’re four-ish.

Larry 1:04:32
I’m not even sure. The term may be even longer, but they are elected. And you do not want to be a judge who is in a heated reelection campaign. You do not want to have this petition before a judge whose hearing a petition in September 23 and they’ve got election on November 3. You just don’t want to do that. You would want to ask for a continuance. Your witness is not available. There’s some reason why you need to continuance because you want to remove that from the judge. The judge can help you out by simply, if it’s that close, they could just withhold their decision till after the election. But you always want to have in the back of your mind the political ramifications. And folks, we live in a political system, we elect people to represent us and do jobs. That is our system. So it has its pluses, it has its downsides. One of the downsides would be a situation like this. This could be a very bad political situation for you to be filing a petition in the middle of an election.

Andy 1:05:28
Well, Larry, I have to tip my hat to all the conspiracy theorists that think that the government is just like a, it’s just a foe that we elect our people. So you know that that’s not true. We don’t elect our people.

Larry 1:05:39
So yep.

Andy 1:05:42
All right. Well, then back on 154 , Registry Matters 154, in November, you said that the following I would like to question that. Because if the lawyer did everything that I say, you would have known that they were going to say these things, because your lawyer would have had the conversation, the lawyer would come back to you and say, they would have said, Look, this is what they’re going to say. This is going to be their position. And I can go forward with your petition. But I’m telling you, if they say these things, the judge is not likely going to grant your petition. If the lawyer has the conversation with the DA and finds out the stuff in advance, would they not make less money? Who would want to go forward? Why would your attorney in calling the DA and finding out that they’re just going to push back, they just want their paws out. They want to get paid. So they’re not going to want to make that conversation. They want to go to when their guns blazing to get paid all the money.

Larry 1:06:34
Well, I cannot say who would want to go forward and who wouldn’t? I can only say that I encourage this conversation. You’re right. Most lawyers do have their paw out. They’re wanting w money, and they want the full fee, and whatever. And what I would like a lawyer to do is when they want to do these removal petitions, or these early termination petitions, would be to give the person an option to pay them a reasonable fee to do some preliminary groundwork to find out if there are reasonable prospects for success. It’s against the rules of professional conduct, you cannot guarantee a person a particular outcome. So, if a lawyer guarantees you an outcome, you need to run as fast as you can. Because that lawyer has told you a big lie, and they’ve done something that’s totally unethical. But a lawyer can give you his or her professional opinion about the odds of success. So, tell the person that things that are particularly to be a detriment. And be honest with them, say I can do this petition, and I love doing these petitions. But in your situation, I really don’t see your odds being very good. We might could improve our odds if we do the following and give some people some things that they might do to improve their odds. Some of those odds might be to wait until we have a different district attorney. That may be something a good lawyer would tell you. That this office here right now there’s just no way, they come up with all guns blazing on everybody. And the judges never grant these petitions over their objection. So I could take your money, but I’m not gonna be able to get you what you’re looking for.

Andy 1:08:18
And then in most instances, you probably can’t go into the DAs office to begin with. And even if you did, they’re not going to let you in. And second of all, they’re not going to tell you you’re the biggest creep that ever lived. Larry, you are the biggest… no, just kidding. You need to do your homework and get as many barriers out of the way as possible and as quickly as you can.

Larry 1:08:40
Absolutely. And we can talk about this removal process, as a regular part of the program, because it is of great interest to folks. You’d be crazy not to one off of the registry if there’s a process off. But don’t waste your money. Don’t try to do it pro se. Select very carefully who your attorney is. And if your attorney doesn’t want to talk about strategy, you’ve probably got the wrong attorney. You have to be upfront with the attorney. This is a partnership, we’re working together to achieve my goal. And if you’re uncomfortable with that, then perhaps I need to keep shopping around but I want a partner that’s going to explain things to me, to answer my questions, and allow me to be a participant in this. I can’t see why you’d want it any other way. I can’t think of a major investment where I just take people’s word and do what they want.

Andy 1:09:29
Like, I mean, it seems reasonable to go into an attorney and ask for some kind of like, at least like dual pricing. Hey, can you do this research for me? What would your fee be to go talk to the DA for me on my behalf? And if we then decided to go forward, X amount of dollars in addition to.

Larry 1:09:44
Absolutely? And it may be that they already know. I mean, if they filed enough of these in the county that you’re going to be filing in. They may already know all the answers to these questions so they may be able to spew them off right now. The only thing they wouldn’t know is if the DA has any angst against you. But in terms of if they vigorously oppose all petitions, if they filed petitions in that jurisdiction, they might already know that. So they don’t have to call them. They could say look, they oppose every one of them.

Andy 1:10:10
This seems like a thing where you would want something more of a local attorney that knows those ins and outs versus one that’s across the state.

Larry 1:10:18
Generally speaking for this, if you’re forced to file in the county of your conviction, an insider is going to probably do you better than an outsider that doesn’t know the lay of the land. So, if you’re lucky enough to be able to file where you live, you’ve got a little bit more, more flexibility. But if you have to go back to where you’re convicted, you probably need an insider.

Andy 1:10:39
All right. Anything else before we get really close to shutting things down? We have a couple things else before we close this all out.

Larry 1:10:48
Think we’ve pretty well reached our limit, haven’t we?

Andy 1:10:50
Very close. We let’s cover this article super-duper quick, and then we’ll do Who’s that speaker and then we’ll get out of here. This article from the Omaha world Herald. Hero or devil. Omaha man sentenced to 40 to 70 years for killing a PFR This is something that we covered just about a year ago on RM 132. Which was July 15. This man killed a dude who was on the registry. Matteo I’m sorry, Fairbanks decided that Matteo Condoluci didn’t deserve to live because Condoluci had been convicted twice of child molestation. So he, Matteo is the deceased and Fairbanks had spotted Condoluci leering at Children. So he decided to kill him, which is holy crap, terrible. James Fairbanks found out Wednesday what vigilantism cost him. That’s a lot of time Larry.

Larry 1:11:41
He did indeed. And I think it’s a just sentence. I’m quite confident that the judge considered his crime-free past. And his lack of… he didn’t seem to have a lot of remorse in what I read, but he did say that he wouldn’t do it over again. He’s going to be away from his family. He has children, he’s going to find out what it’s like being separated from his family. But he made a bad decision. And he’s got a lot of time to pay.

Andy 1:12:13
I suspect that he’s going to have a lot of fans while he’s in prison. Wasn’t this the cat that also had like a petition, and people like signing up to send money for his legal defense? Because they were like, yeah, we need to get… I think that’s the man.

Larry 1:12:24
I do believe it is the case where he had a defense fund.

Andy 1:12:31
All right, well, there’s that. So don’t go around killing PFRs because you don’t like them, you’ll end up spending a lot of time in prison.

Larry 1:12:40
He’s gonna have to serve at least 20 years, they said, at least 20.

Andy 1:12:45
And he doesn’t look like a young man either. I mean, he’s probably at least in his 30s, if not 40. So he’s going to be he’s going to be like close to your age when he gets out.

Larry 1:12:54
He won’t be 177.

Andy 1:12:57
All right, Who’s that Speaker? Last week, we played hopefully, this all works. I set this up to do something different. Hopefully, this works.

RM 187 Who’s that Speaker? 1:13:06
In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem. Government is the problem.

Andy 1:13:15
Alright, so that was who Larry?

Larry 1:13:18
That was Ronald Wilson Reagan in his inaugural speech in 1981.

Andy 1:13:23
Like everybody wrote in, like, I think I got, I got a lot of submissions. Here’s a little tip. Don’t send me it inside of another big, long email message. Someone sent that in. Don is the winner he sent it in at like, 12 o’clock midnight. So he listened to the Patreon version that came out superduper early downwinds, but then someone else sent in shortly thereafter, but don’t send it inside of another email message because that’s a chance I’ll miss it. Um, so there we go. So that was that. Don, thank you so much for sending that in. And then this is this week’s submission. So again, you’re going to send an email to registrymatters And tell me who you think this is. I think this one’s pretty hard.

Who’s that Speaker? 1:14:05
As far as Saddam Hussein being a great military strategist, he is neither a strategist, nor is he schooled in the operational art, nor is he a tactician, nor is he a general, nor is he is a soldier. Other than that, he’s a great military man, I want you to know.

Andy 1:14:28
All right. If you have a guess on who that is, then please feel free to send in a message to and tell me who you think that is. any hints Larry, you want to give?

Larry 1:14:39
I think they can conclude that that is a military person speaking that was very prominent. That’s that should be enough clues. We should have dozens of right answers on that one.

Andy 1:14:50
I don’t know that I would guess that one if I heard that without knowing who it is. All right. And then to close everything out. We had a bunch of articles, we did get a new Patreon person. Where did that message go? Where did I put that? That’s not who that was. Uh oh, good grief, good grief, where to go? Shoot Larry.

Larry 1:15:06

Andy 1:15:07
No, that’s not who it was. It was somebody else that’s leftover. Chris B. Thank you so very much for becoming a patron. We really, really appreciate it. You can find all the show notes and everything over at Registry Matters cast. Sorry, not that. is where the podcast is. That’s the website. Voicemail: 747-227-4477. We’re running really short on time. That’s why I’m rushing through this. Email and of course, support us on Patreon at Larry, I hope that you have a wonderful weekend. We’ve recorded early so I can go out and have fun tonight. And as always, hang on here it is.

MacAuthur Movie Clip 1:15:47
This is why am here.

Andy 1:15:49
We have you here every week because you are the man, the myth the legend. Larry, appreciate it. Have a great weekend.

Larry 1:15:57
Thanks. Good night.

You’ve been listening to FYP.

Transcript of RM187: 2011 Michigan SORA: Retroactive Application Deemed Unconstitutional

Listen to RM187: 2011 Michigan SORA: Retroactive Application Deemed Unconstitutional

RM187: 2011 Michigan SORA: Retroactive Application Deemed Unconstitutional

Andy 00:00
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 a problem with these thoughts, fyp. Recording live from FYP Studios, east and west. Transmitting across the internet. This is Episode 187 of Registry Matters. Larry this is a Saturday night, July 31st. How are you, sir?

Larry 00:27
Fantastic. I’m glad to be with you on the final day of the month of July.

Andy 00:33
This is incredible. I can’t like, do you ever notice the time just sort of like it’s only February and then you’re like, crap, what happened in July? Now? It’s August. We’re on the final like we’re on the back half of the year.

Larry 00:44
Absolutely. And we’re going to be in Christmas holidays. Excuse me. We don’t say Christmas anymore. We’re going to be in the holiday season before you know it.

Andy 00:52
That’s because the people like the Jews would also like to be included in this so you can’t just say Christmas, dammit.

Larry 01:02
That’s why I’ve corrected myself.

Andy 01:04
Well, very good. Ah, should we dive right in? Or do you have anything you want to banter about? Do you have any pet peeves? Any podiums? What do they call them? Oh, god. What do you want to stand on? Soap boxes. Do you have any soap boxes to stand on before we get going?

Larry 01:19
No, we’ve got an action-packed program tonight. We’ve got a voicemail. We’ve got a submission from prison. We’ve got a big case out of Michigan. We’ve got all sorts of things. We’ve got some articles that are going to be fun. We’ve got a competition to see if anybody can win this week.

Andy 01:40
Outstanding. I like it, man. So, we should… we’ll dive right in, won’t we? I guess first up we will cover this little voicemail, won’t we? Let’s go into this voicemail that just came in yesterday.

Shane (Voicemail) 01:52
My name is Shane. I’m in Virginia. There’s a new law called H2038. Which limits probation for a felony to five years, effective July 1st. I signed a plea deal for 20 years not knowing that probation included restrictions and have served six years without an infraction. Three years ago and attorney and I went to court to remove the probation which was denied. Four months ago, my PO wrote a letter to the court to remove me from probation. And I was denied again. I’ve been trying to find the found a lawyer familiar with this new law without success. One lawyer read it while he spoke on the phone and said that it is a procedural matter. It makes a difference, which I don’t understand whatever that is. I’m waiting for another lawyer to get time to help me. Will I definitely be released from probation? If the way I interpret the law it sounds like a will be but I don’t know. Please help me. End. FYP.

Andy 03:04
Okay, first, let me just point this out Larry: this is someone that actually like composed a letter to like, read out for the question and didn’t do a whole bunch of ums and ramble, ramble ramble? Like, thank you very much for putting together a decent question.

Larry 03:18
And it’s a very good question. And I probably don’t have all the information, we may come back to it next week. But there’s a lot buried in there. And I can read between the lines. He was denied twice on his 20 years for early termination. Now you know, the old adage, serve half of it. So clearly, he hadn’t served half of the 20. Right? (Andy: Yeah, yeah.) So he didn’t get released. But what we don’t know, there may be something lurking in there where that judge and that prosecution team have some anxiety with him being our supervision, and they could have very aggressively opposed that removal. And I’m inclined to believe that when you have the recommendation from your supervising officer, we’re taking all this at face value, because probation officials don’t typically go out on a limb and recommend termination. But with all that being said, if the judge still denies it, I would say that they have some anxiety with him being off supervision, and they probably were very assertive that they did not want him off when he made the request. That particular piece of legislation… Go ahead.

Andy 04:35
I wanted to ask a question for clarification real quick. It says he wants to remove probation. Like I did? He terminated the remainder of a sentence. Is that what he’s trying to do?

Larry 04:44
That’s what he was denied twice on. He served six of the 20 which is not half of 20, which is generally what most attorneys recommend you do. But in addition to… that’s why you hire an attorney that knows what they’re doing in this. You find out what the customs are in that jurisdiction if that attorney that you hired doesn’t practice there. And that means doing some dialoguing with others who practice in that jurisdiction to find out how they’re going to treat such a request. And then you find out if the prosecution has any anxiety with that person. How are they gonna respond to the petition? If you find out that jurisdiction doesn’t let people off PFR supervision. And if you find out that the DA is office is going to be all up in arms, and adamant they’re gonna bring the victim in, you’re not likely to get off which would suggest maybe you shouldn’t spend the money. But his question is, beyond that, there’s a law which I have not researched. I just heard this for the first, first time right before we started recording. So I haven’t done any research. But as a general rule, laws are prospective in their application. Particularly criminal laws. I mean, that’s kind of what we’ve been fighting in this whole battle for quite some number of years. So for him to make the assumption that they’re going to by legislative action, change the duration of sentences that have already been imposed, that are already in execution status, would be quite a stretch. And that would only happen if the legislation itself declared that it was going to be applied retroactively. And you would only be able to apply it retrospectively if it reduced the time. Remember, we cannot increase people’s punishment.

Andy 06:36
Okay, so prospective means that from this day going forward?

Larry 06:41
Correct. (Andy: Okay. Gotcha.) So without a proclamation within the legislation itself that this is to be applied to existing sentences, then it is only going to be prospective in its application. And generally, they don’t apply these things retroactively, because it applies… Now this is just in 10 minutes of preparation as I heard this, but here’s all the things that would go wrong. If you say that this is to be applied retroactively, we’ve got all sorts of problems. First of all, we got to figure out who the class of people are that are still serving the sentences. That would be somewhat of a task. Then we’ve got to figure out if they can’t serve more than five years of supervision, we would have to figure out if anybody had been violated in year six and year seven, does that mean that that their sentence… if say they got sentenced to the remainder of their exposure, because they violated their supervision and they violated after the five years. Does that mean that that would nullify that sentence of incarceration that was imposed because they had already served more than five years? That would be another problem that we would have created from that. The likelihood without me even looking at the legislation is there was no specificity that be applied retroactively. So in my humble opinion, this is not going to do the job that he’s looking for. But we can double back on it next week. And perhaps I can look at the bill and look at the applicability, but I don’t see it being likely that this is going to do anything for him.

Andy 08:18
And when you say do not do anything, like it doesn’t even apply. It’s like I would like to play football and you’re over in the baseball stadium. Like they’re not related to each other at all.

Larry 08:27
Well, it would be similar, but you can’t have it both ways. Do you want to apply laws retroactively? Yes or no?

Andy 08:37
I got you. I mean, we do sometimes and we don’t sometimes. I would certainly like for everyone to have fewer shorter sentences. But if I want them to be shorter than doesn’t it then also have to apply for future stuff, too?

Larry 08:49
That is the point making.

Andy 08:50
Yeah, towards make longer ones, not just future, but just to make sentences longer. So, if I want it that way, I have to also want it that the other way too.

Larry 08:57
Well, that since clearly probation is a part of a punishment scheme, you could not lengthen probation by legislative action. But by the same token, the state of Virginia has the same rights that you do. The sentence that they sought and plea bargained for and is already in execution status, the legislature can’t come back and just arbitrarily change those sentences, because of all the problems that would ensue if they did that. The likelihood is that this is not retroactive.

Andy 09:28
Okay. So maybe this will be something that we build up some new content for to cover in a future episode.

Larry 09:36
I think I’d love to look up the legislation and see what it actually says. But I’m very dubious that this is retroactive.

Andy 09:42
And just to circle back just real quick on the idea of going before court to have your sentence terminated, something that I did very recently, and I was just shy of that 50% mark and I was kind of going under that idea that I would have to wait roughly until somewhere around 50%. I was just a handful of months shy of it. Well, this person is almost at like 25% of their sentence if they’re at six of 20. So that’s just past a quarter of the sentence. You could pay an attorney, hundreds of dollars perhaps to have them make some phone calls to the DA to see how things would go before you hire them on to go full guns blazing, and find out if they’re going to oppose or not, what are your chances before you go in? Is that Is that a fair strategy?

Larry 10:23
It is a fair strategy. You have difficulty finding attorneys who want to do that. They perceive you to be too sophisticated. And I think you experienced that with your attorney. (Andy: Yes he pushed back on me.) They don’t like you inquiring about a strategy because they think that they are the only person who can strategize. And you should lay your brick or whatever you do for a living, and not get into their wheelhouse. But I continue to suggest that as a strategy. And if you’ve got 1000s of dollars to burn, don’t worry about it, just go ahead and give the attorney all your money. But if you don’t have 1000s of dollars to burn, then you would like to know if this is an exercise in futility. Before you go down the path, I would assume. I know that I don’t like to spend 10s of 1000s of dollars if I have virtually no chance.

Andy 11:15
I do understand. I gotcha. All right, well, then let’s move over to this, To be read. And this comes from I assume from someone inside the walls, Larry? (Larry: It does.) Alright says: To whom of this may concern, I’m writing you in regards of a sample transcript of your Registry Matters podcast, I’ve just started receiving my first issue of the NARSOL digest volume, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, from June – July 2021. And what I’ve read so far is very interesting. I have a little over eight years until my 12-12 date, because I wasn’t able to complete the MOSOP program. Thank you. I’m hoping to hear from you. Larry, I have two questions for you. What is 12-12? And what is MOSOP

Larry 12:01
That’s precisely the reason why I put this in here. I really appreciate the questions from prisoners, from the incarcerated or whatever the politically correct term is, I really do. But it would help us a lot if you don’t use prison jargon. Remember, we’re on the outside. And we don’t even… if we were good, we wouldn’t be good enough to understand the jargon in all states. So, this is specific to Missouri. And the way I understand it from a little bit of Google search I did, this is the day that he actually totally terms out of his obligation to the state, when they have no more control over him. But we wouldn’t know that without doing research. So rather than saying my 12-12 date, try to specifically explain it in in terms that we’ll understand. And the same with MOSOP. We assume that that’s a sex offender program of some type. But we don’t know what MOSOP is. We don’t know who gets in it.

Andy 12:55
It’s gotta be a Missouri sex offender program. That’s got to be it.

Larry 12:57
We don’t know how long the program is. We don’t know if it’s in prison. We don’t know if it’s available in the street. There’s a whole lot we don’t know. So, now be careful, because I’m not asking for 20 page letters either. But if you have something, if it’s prison jargon, convert it to something that we’ll understand. That would be very helpful.

Andy 13:19
Yeah. And then what is he asking for? I mean, there’s nothing even there for you to like dig into. He’s like he’s received a sample. Thank you. And I’m looking to hear from you for what?

Larry 13:30
Well, I think he wants us to tell him about the MOSOP program. Had wasn’t able to complete it. I’m guessing that’s the question. But I’m not certain.

Andy 13:44
I gotcha. Larry, with those two things done, you have provided us a monster amount of content for this thing that has everyone all over Twitter and Reddit all up in arms about this thing out of Michigan. Are we ready to go there?

Larry 13:59
I hope so. It is a very complicated case. And I don’t even know that we’ll do it justice. We’re going to try to answer questions for people that we think that they will have. But I don’t know that once we finish this up, people will still probably have questions.

Andy 14:14
It could be a record as far as how early we’ve gotten into this because we’re only 15 minutes in. But so we have the case of the State of Michigan v. Paul Betts. It’s awesome win for our case for our cause. Michigan Supreme Court was asked to decide whether the retroactive application of Michigan’s sex offender registration act, or SORA, as amended by 2011 PA 17 and 18, the 2011 SORA, violate state and federal constitutional prohibitions on ex post facto laws. Tell us, Larry, what is this case about? We’ve talked about Michigan, is this even related to that other Michigan case?

Larry 14:53
It is and the PA I think means public acts 17 and 18.

Andy 14:57
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Larry 15:00
The issue in this case is whether the retroactive application of the 2011 SORA unconstitutionally increased punishment for defendant Betts’ CSC-II conviction. The court held that 2011 SORA does impose punishment which makes retroactive application unconstitutional.

Andy 15:24
Can we dig into some background about the case. This Mr. Betts, in December ‘93, pled guilty to second degree criminal sexual conduct (CSC-II), MCL 750.520c. The trial court sentenced him to five to 15 years imprisonment. Two years later, SORA took effect. After Betts successfully completed parole he failed to comply with SORA requirements. Specifically in 2012, he failed to report his change of residence, his email address, and his purchase of a vehicle within three days. Bett’s was charged with violating SORA’s registration requirements. He moved to dismiss the charge, arguing that the retroactive application of 2011 SORA requirements violated the constitutional prohibitions on ex post facto laws. The trial court denied this motion. Betts ultimately entered a no contest plea, conditional on his ability to challenge on appeal the constitutionality of the retroactive application of the 2011 SORA. The trial court sentenced Betts to 36 months’ probation, with 12 months jail time, but suspended imposition of that sentence during the pendency of the appeal contesting the constitutionality of retroactive application to Betts. I think this is what is referred to as conditional plea. Do I have that right, Larry?

Larry 16:39
You do. I’m very proud that you remember some of the legal jargon that we talk about here.

Andy 16:44
I have, what is the word? Eidetic memory, where I remember everything that is said to me. I thought that the matter had been resolved in Does versus Snyder. Didn’t the Sixth Circuit find that 2006 and 11 amendments made Michigan’s registry unconstitutional?

Larry 16:58
Yes, they did. But the decision in that particular case was only for the plaintiffs in that case.

Andy 17:05
I thought that the Michigan Supreme Court had upheld the constitutionality of registration in the past. What changed since their last decision?

Larry 17:12
Well, they had and most Supreme Courts around the country have said that registration is constitutional. Generally, they’ve made those decisions a long time ago. But it is a great question, because Michigan SORA, as initially enacted, was similar to the Alaska sex offender registration registry, which was the issue in the Smith versus Doe case that the US Supreme Court decided. Subsequent amendments have imposed additional requirements and prohibitions on registrants warranting a fresh look, according to the Supreme Court of Michigan. And the Michigan Supreme Court cited Alaska case, Doe versus the State where the Alaska Supreme Court decided that that you could not apply retroactively because of the enhancements because of the intervening amendments so they say cited, Doe versus State. For the legal beagles out there. That’s Doe v State, 189 P3d 999, 1017 in 2008. The Alaska Supreme Court came back and said, despite what the US Supreme Court said, there has been enough evolution and change to the registry, that we now hold it in violation of the Constitution. So that’s what changed in Michigan, the registry changed.

Andy 18:27
And riddle me this: I was having a conversation earlier talking about this. This is where the Kennedy Mendoza Martinez the different tests against the civil regulatory scheme kick in to find if something is punishment? (Larry: Yes, we’re going to talk about that later. Absolutely.) Cool. Okay, well, very good. So the Michigan legislature enacted SORA in 1994 in response to the Jacob Wetterling crimes against children and sexually violent offender registration program. The purpose was to better assist law enforcement officers and the people of the state in preventing and protecting against the commission of future criminal sexual acts by convicted PFRs. This version of the Michigan SORA created a confidential database accessible only to law enforcement. It required persons convicted of certain sex offenses to register and notify law enforcement of address changes. Since then, the legislature has amended the act several times, altering both the nature of the registry and the requirements imposed by it. Betts alleged that these changes transformed SORA from a regulatory scheme as it existed in ‘96, into a punishment scheme by the time his failure to register conviction in 2012 such that the retroactive application of those provisions to him violated the Ex Post Facto Clause of the Michigan and United States Supreme Court constitutions. Can you walk us through some of those changes Larry?

Larry 19:49
Sure. It’ll take a few moments, but this is something I have debated profusely over the years when people say: well, the Supreme Court of the United States said the registry was constitutional. They did. They said, and they will continue to say that registries are constitutional. As we register young men for the draft, as we register, on and on and on. But there’s a limit to what you can do with a regulatory scheme. And Michigan’s registry was initially for law enforcement only, as you mentioned there, but they changed in ‘97. And it became accessible to the public when the legislature required law enforcement to make the registry available for in person inspection during business hours. But then, just two years later, in 1999, the legislature required computerization of the registry and granted law enforcement the authority to make the computerized database available to the public online. But that didn’t stop, they kept going. In 2006, the legislature allowed for the registry to send email alerts to a subscribing member of the public when an offender registers within or when they move to specific zip code. And the registry became more and more accessible to the public. The information registrants were required to provide to law enforcement also expanded as well. In 2002, the legislature required registrants to report whenever they enrolled or disenrolled or worked or volunteered in institution of higher education. Two years later in 2004, the legislature directed registrants to provide an updated photograph for addition to the online database. Nope, didn’t stop there. In 2011, the legislature required registrants to report more personal information including employment status, electronic mail addresses, and instant message addresses, vehicle information and travel schedules. Registrants were required to update law enforcement of these changes within three business days, which was a substantial reduction from the 10-day reporting window that had previously existed. And the updates were required to be in person where they had been allowed to be by mail or telephone or email. And the 2011 amendments have further added periodic reporting requirements that instructed registrants to present themselves to law enforcement in person, one or up to four times a year, even if they had nothing to report.

Andy 22:10
If nothing is changed, can’t you just fill out a box and go, nothing changes? Everybody’s lives would be easier if you could just click the box no change.

Larry 22:20
So when I tell people that the registry has evolved, I’ve had people say, Well, no, you don’t understand. The registry is exactly like it was 20 years ago. You’d be in a very different situation if the registry was exactly the way it was 20 years ago, because very few states have held the line for 20 years. But anyway.

Andy 22:37
No doubt. All right, well, you’ve said that in the past, the legislature just can’t help themselves. It seems like that’s in this case. It appears that Michigan was no exception, and they kept piling on more and more requirements and prohibitions. Specifically, amendments, effective in 2006, creating Exclusion Zones that prohibited most registrants from living, working or loitering within 1000 feet of school. The legislature also added an annual registration fee of 50 bucks. Couldn’t that be just challenged? Because if you’re a very indigent person, 50 bucks could be a big deal to you. (Larry: It could be.) In 2011, the legislature also enacted significant structural Amendments of SORA. These amendments designed to achieve AWA compliance categorized registrants into three tiers on the basis of their offence and based the length of registration on that tier designation. With this reclassification came lengthened registration periods, including a lifetime registration requirement for tier three offenders. Registrants’ tier classifications were also made available to the public database. Did they ever do anything that made life better for PFRs? Larry, come on, I can’t imagine that they did this.

Larry 23:43
Well, they actually did. Not all the amendments burden the registrants. Some were actually positive, but very few. Registration requirements were removed for individuals who were under 14 at the time of their offense, because that’s all the feds require that aggravated offences be registered for juveniles that are over the age 14. So they remove that. And for an individual who engaged in consensual but unlawful sexual conduct with a minor in close proximity of age. They removed those. They removed the requirement that students in remote learning programs for higher education were relieved to reporting their educational status. And something that was really bizarre that they did. They took advantage of the opportunity in Michigan not to put the tier ones on the website. You’re not required to display the tier ones in Michigan, where previously all of the registrants had been available to the public. They took the tier ones offline. So if you managed to be in Tier One, your life actually improved as a result of the 2011 amendments. So I doubt most of those people are going to want to go back to the way it was previously. I’m guessing they would like to stay private.

Andy 24:57
And then, this may already come up, but is this just where you talk about where certain clauses are separable. Is that the word, where you can remove certain pieces?

Larry 25:08
Yes, that is a factor in this decision. They talk about severability. That’s what you’re talking about.

Andy 25:12
Severability. That’s the word. Um, well, let’s begin by briefly covering who has the burden of proof when a statute is challenged on constitutional grounds. I note that the court stated on pages 16 and 17, Because we conclude that the legislature likely intended SORA as a civil regulation, we must now determine whether the statutory scheme is so punitive either in purpose or effect as to negate the state’s intention to deem it civil. They went on to say, again, a challenging party must provide the clearest proof of the statutory schemes punitive character in order to successfully negate the state’s intention to deem it civil. How do they make that determination Larry?

Larry 25:51
Well, I’m glad you brought that point up, because every chance we get to talk about burden of proof, constitutional challenges, the burden is on us. The state gets to have the presumption that it’s constitutional. But the court said on page 17 I believe it is, in determining whether a defendant has satisfied this burden, meaning the clearest of proof, we do not examine individual provisions of SORA in isolation, but instead, assess SORA’s punitive effect in light of all the provisions when viewed as a whole. End of quote. We assessed in turn each of the Mendoza Martinez factors that the United States Supreme Court identified as relevant in the Smith versus Doe case.

Andy 26:38
It would seem that the 2006 and ‘11 amendments went too far. Can you explain that? I’ve heard you refer to the Kennedy Mendoza Martinez factors in the past and you just did that again. What are they again?

Larry 26:49
Absolutely, we will go through those. So for evaluation, the Supreme Court provided this guidance if you’re going to look at whether this can be done, constitutionally. The Supreme Court has provided a non-exhaustive list like non exhaustive list of factors that are relevant to the inquiry. And the case was Kennedy v Mendoza-Martinez, 372 US 144, 168-169; 83 S Ct 554; 9 L Ed 2d 644 (1963). But the factors are, whether the sanction involves and affirmative disability or restraint. Meaning that you can’t have a regulatory scheme and call it regulatory if it imposes a disability or restraint on liberty. Back in 2003, there was no restraint on the person’s liberty. So that decision by the US Supreme Court was correct on that factor. Number two, whether it has historically been regarded as punishment. Number three, whether it comes in play on a finding of scienter. No one, including the legal professionals can explain what that means. Since most courts don’t consider that to be a relevant factor, there’s no need to spend a lot of our precious airtime on it. If the person would make, if the attorneys would make the right argument, it would be one more of the seven, that you could use that would weigh in our favor. Because actually interpreted correctly, it would benefit us. Number four, whether its operation will promote the traditional aims of punishment, retribution and deterrence. So in other words, if you create a regulatory scheme, and you’re actually imposing punishment, retribution and trying to use it for deterrence, you can’t do that. We don’t register young men for the draft to do anything other than have the list available. It’s not to punish them, it’s not to do any retribution, it’s not to deter them from anything.

Andy 28:49
You can’t deter them from turning 18 either.

Larry 28:52
if you don’t comply, you face five years in prison, you face a loss of student financial aid, and you face a lot of problems if you don’t comply. But that’s not the design of that. But the registry unfortunately, that number four factor, that that is significant. Number five, whether the behavior of which it applies is already a crime. Number six, whether an alternative purpose to which it may be rationally connected, is assignable for it, and number seven, whether it appears excessive in relation to the alternative purpose assigned. Those are the seven factors that US Supreme Court recommends for evaluating these challenges. The Michigan Supreme Court looked at five of those seven.

Andy 29:36
Alright, well, then reading the opinion, I noted that the court found that five of the those factors, the Kennedy Mendoza Martinez factors, were relevant to its decision. And how many of the five did they find weighed in Betts’ favor?

Larry 29:49
They found that four of the five factors weighed in his favor.

Andy 29:53
Interesting, which of the five was most significant in your opinion? I found it significant on page 28 where the court said Given the uncertainty of the 2000 SORA efficacy, the restraints imposed were excessive. Over 40,000 registrants were subject to the 2011 SORA’s requirement without any individualized assessment of the risk of recidivism. The duration of an offender’s reporting requirement was based solely on the offender’s conviction and not the danger he individually posed to the community, should say he or she even. Registrants remains subject to SORA, including the stigma of having been branded potentially violent menace to the state, long after they had completed their sentence, probation and any required treatment. All registrants were excluded from residing, working or loitering within 1000 feet of a school, even those whose offenses did not involve children. And even though most sex offenses involving children are perpetrated by a person already known to the child. As described, this restriction placed a significant burden on registrants ability to find affordable housing. And it sounds like they clearly got the part you have said repeatedly about registration imposing disabilities and restraints. I really, really absolutely love that term, Larry. I know that you’re not the creator of it. But I just think that that concisely describes exactly what we’re talking about with the different kinds of restrictions, like the living restrictions.

Larry 31:12
So yes, I continue to have minimal faith in recidivism, although it was mentioned in this decision. But I continue to harp as I’m doing again today, that they certainly did get it in regard to banishment because people say it is banishment. They said the 2011 SORA’s student safety zones excluded registrants from working, living or loitering within 1000 feet of a school property. But they go on to sound like traditional banishment. These exclusions do not explicitly exile a registrant from the community, but they might have effectively banished a registrant from living within the community. For example, in urban areas that hosts several schools within their geographic borders, the 1000 foot restriction emanating from each school might have a limited access to all affordable housing, or in rural areas with fewer schools but concentrated community areas, the 1000 foot restriction might have eliminated a registrants’ access to employment and resources within the town or city center. And available homeless shelters have also been encompassed by the 1000-foot residence restriction. When you compare that with the Smith versus Doe case, from 2003, which the United States Supreme Court held did not violate the ex post facto, it left registrants – I’m reading from I think page 101 – It left registrants free to move where they wished and to live and work as other citizens. Folks, we have to keep building on the disabilities and restraints. You can wish recidivism would win your case. It won’t in most instances, but disabilities and restraints will.

Andy 32:52
I think there’s certain like right in that section there was about homeless shelters and be generally people want to live that have close access to schools. And a 1000-foot diameter circle is pretty freakin far away in like, I mean that’s a that’s a big footprint for a house to be away from an area that… so now it’s 1001 feet and it’s okay to live there like you’re not going to take, that’s just too far that whole extra foot is going to keep me from going doing something bad. It’s just ridiculous. Schools generally now are encompassed almost into like fortresses with moats and alligators in the moat, practically they’re fenced in. You’re not just going to pop up on the school randomly. You’re going to go through some ingress point to get in that could be semi patrolled, like flagged with cameras of some sort. If you need to keep the bad people out. They’re not gonna hop fences most likely. I think the whole 1000-foot thing is just garbage, garbage.

Larry 33:47
Absolutely. Ron Book is one of the advocates in Florida, not for our side, but for the other side. And he says these types of restrictions are a no brainer. But I think he’s actually the no brainer, but go ahead with your next question.

Andy 34:04
All right, another one of your points made its way into the court’s opinion. You’ve said in the past that the so called right to know, oh, that’s what FYP is about, the so called right to know, is that such a right would only extend to information that was part of the original conviction, not all the stuff that’s made publicly available that had nothing to do with the conviction. I’m quoting now, the 2011 SORA resembles the punishment of shaming, the breadth of information available to the public far beyond a registrants’ criminal history, as well as the option for restrict subscription-based notification of the movement of registrants into a particular zip code, increase the likelihood of social ostracism based on registration. While the initial version of SORA might have been more analogous to a visit to an official archive of criminal records than it is to a scheme forcing an offender to appear in public with some visible badge of past criminality. It’s a total scarlet letter, Larry. That’s totally what we got to wear. The little A on our shirts.

Larry 34:57
Absolutely. And that’s why I say what I say about when people say, Do I have a right to know? Absolutely, you do have a right to know about the conviction. That is a public record. Arguably, you have a right to have a mugshot of the person on their conviction date. On the date that they are pronounced guilty, either by plea or by verdict, you have the right to that. But you don’t have a right to any of this other stuff. And the court noted on page 18 and 19 that quote, The 2011 iteration of SORA contained more personal information, and required less effort to access that information. The public-facing registry contained not only information regarding the alleged criminal conviction, but also the registrants’ home address, place of employment, sex, race, age, height, weight, hair and eye color, and discernible features and tier classifications. When SORA’s notification provision was used, members of the public were alerted to this information without any active effort on their behalf, in sharp contrast with the endeavor of visiting an archive for the information. Further, a registrant’s information could precede his entrance into a community increasing the likelihood of ostracism. There is no right to know. The conviction is all they have a right to know. Please, when someone says don’t I have a right to know, say, No, ma’am. No, sir. You do not have a right to know. But everybody always… if you watch an offender being interviewed, they always say yes, they are advocates always say yes, where does that right come from?

Andy 36:41
And that’s a right to know that I live at XYZ Main Street at this current stage, maybe I lived at ABC Main Street, then maybe I was six foot tall and weighed 130 pounds. Now I’m 6’ 12’’ and weigh 300 pounds, you have the right to know then because that’s what the criminal record would say. But you don’t have a right to know what kind of car I drive or anything like that now.

Larry 37:03
Absolutely. Or who you’re living with. Which all the stuff that I mean, if you look at the list of what some states make available to the public, it’s just mind boggling. That’s not a part of the conviction. I don’t know why it took all these years to get the attorneys to finally make these arguments. But they have finally started making them. And they’re finally winning cases.

Andy 37:24
The state argued several theories which were rejected. They argued that the unconstitutional aspects could be severed as one option. And they argued that the court should revive the previous constitutional version of the law. Did either of those arguments work?

Larry 37:39
Fortunately, they did not. And we have an example in Ohio, where they did that revival of the previous version, which I think is inherently unconstitutional, but that’s what they did. They revived the previous version. But having determined the Supreme Court of Michigan… remember, the federal judge, I had trepidation about the federal judge not certifying this question of severability to the Michigan supreme court because it’s ultimately their call about whether that legislation can be severed on a constitutional point. That is not something for a federal court to determine. But they have come lockstep behind the federal judge and said, you’re correct. This law is not severable. And they also poopood the idea of reviving the last valid constitutional version. They say that severability and revival are inappropriate tools to remedy the constitutional violation in this case. We are constrained to hold that the 2011 SORA may not be retroactively applied to registrants whose criminal acts subjecting them to registration occurred before the enactment of the 2011 SORA amendments. Folks, please listen carefully. They didn’t say you can’t make someone register. They said that 2011 SORA cannot be applied. You could create a 2021 one, a 2022 one. It’s just that this one can’t. This one went too far.

Andy 39:09
Larry, can we noodle around for a minute? A person in chat asked the question, if someone says that they have the right to know about who lives next door, don’t you have a reasonable expectation of privacy? And I don’t know if that is goes beyond the Fourth Amendment. But just in general, you’re kind of an anonymous entity running around the United States. And that’s just part of our design. So can’t you just counter by saying don’t I have a reasonable expectation of privacy too?

Larry 39:35
Absolutely, and that’s where my consternation comes. But we inevitably say yes, you have the right. No, you don’t. I want to hear no, every time someone asked that question. No, you don’t.

Andy 39:48
Can we go into what FYP goes for or did we sort of decide to not discuss that anymore?

Larry 39:56
We decided not to discuss that anymore, but I think people can guess now that we’ve gone there.

Andy 40:01
Okay, well, no, I can guarantee you they don’t because I’ve said, hey, think about this, and they still don’t get it. Um, but so is there anything else? Let’s see. It sounds like this is awesome, Larry, that they’re going to like the judges making them go rewrite the law that they can’t roll back to a previous iteration that they have to… I mean, do they have to start from scratch?

Larry 40:23
Well, they don’t have to do anything. They could just let all these people disappear. They’re not likely to want to do that. But in conclusion, the court said we hold that the 2011 SORA as applied to registrants whose criminal acts predated the enactment of the 2011 SORA amendments violates the constitutional prohibition on ex post facto laws. As applied to defendant Betts, because the crime subjecting him to registration occurred in 1993. We order that his instant conviction for failure to register as a PFR be vacated. This is awesome. This is awesome.

Andy 40:59
So how many failure to register convictions will be vacated as a result of this ruling?

Larry 41:04
We don’t know that. We don’t know how many will be vacated. But I can assure you that in the pendency of this nearly decade of legislative litigation after the Michigan legislature did what they did in 2011, many people have been convicted. A lot of them are probably still serving sentences related to 2011 violations. You remember, all the souped-up enhancements that we talked about? (Andy: Okay. Okay.) All those things that they did that were unconstitutional, there’s a really significant task at hand now to figure out whose convictions are vacated, who’s released from prison, who’s released from supervision, this is a real challenge.

Andy 41:46
Can someone, remember we was talking about the Uhaul situation? Could people convicted prior to ‘11 just pony up and migrate over that way and then not be on the registry?

Larry 41:59
Well, they could but I think the Michigan legislature passed a new version, which would apply, potentially, to these people. It’d be helpful if we had some Michigan folks to come in, because I didn’t have enough time to go into all that. But I think they passed legislation that restored a registry. So, I think that that this is kind of somewhat been mitigated by legislative action. And you’ll have to prove, and remember the burden to start all over again, with a new enactments presumed constitutional, so they’ll have to start this all over again.

Andy 42:33
And can you describe in more detail, from what we described here, I don’t see a whole lot of tie between the two. Is that Judge Matsch, is that right? Is that the right name of the judge that ruled on the Michigan case three years ago?

Larry 42:46
No, that was from Colorado.

Andy 42:49
Okay, that’s Colorado. Okay. My bad. So how is this related and not related to that scenario?

Larry 42:56
There was a lot of references in the 60 pages about that decision. I didn’t think it was all that relevant for what we were trying to cover. But there is a lot of nuance about the federal parallel litigation and what was going on in federal court.

Andy 43:13
So much in there, um, and this is the supreme court. So, this applies to all of the peoples of Michigan, but it does not apply to their district, which includes like Kentucky and another state up that way, but does not apply to the United States and, and so forth. But it’s citeable. It’s something of like, hey, this happened here. And you guys might want to put it on your radar?

Larry 43:39
It’s very persuasive authority. Yes. So this is this is another one of the building body of case law. Now, I mean, that body of case law is becoming significant. Legislators, I know you’re listening to us all across the country, I know that you are. If you want to have a registry, stop doing these add ons, you can’t impose all the things that victims’ advocates would like to have you do within a civil regulatory scheme. If you’re gonna do that, we’re going to keep coming after you and we’re going to keep winning, because you just can’t do it. You can’t use a disguised regulatory scheme to inflict punishment. You can only do it to regulate.

Andy 44:27
One-ish, maybe final question that I have in regards to this, and hopefully I can remember. It is… nope it left. I just I’m just really hung up on the 1000 foot any sort of presence, distance kind of restriction and what that does. If we had like horses and buggies later, like from the days when you were growing up 1000 feet might be something halfway significant to traverse. But it doesn’t matter if it’s 5000 feet, it’s not hard to traverse 10 miles to get to a location, by that same token. Like it just doesn’t make any sense to me whatsoever that there’s some arbitrary number that says 1000 feet, puts people too far or too close to the entity in question. And I just can’t rationally like work my way through logically why that makes any sense.

Larry 45:13
Well the theory is, and I’m not supporting the theory, but the theory is that people recognize folks who don’t belong in a certain location. So if you have a person quote loitering that doesn’t have any quote business there, they’re more spottable. So absolutely 1000 feet or 2500 feet, it wouldn’t make any difference if you’re going to do something. But the theory is that the person would be noticed, because they don’t fit in here. When you when you go to pick up your kids at the school, there’s all these cars parked out there, but you see the same cars every single day. And when there’s a different car, someone notices. who is that? You know, it draws attention.

Andy 46:03
Okay, I mean, then it would encourage them to make it where you can’t go places outside of that 1000-foot range of where you are, because people would recognize you within that zone, they wouldn’t recognize you out of that. So that’s where you should be able to go.

Larry 46:19
Absolutely. The whole thing’s ridiculous. (Andy: I know it is.) But unfortunately, when they were debating these things, we weren’t there.

Andy 46:29
Okay, that’s another one of these things where we were talking about the South Carolina Supreme Court decision, where the, I can’t imagine not looking for advocates in this general space and not coming up with one of our people to, whether you find the South Carolina affiliate, or you find NARSOL or whomever, to try and reach out to try and get some people to pile on with you. But these people keep filing challenges that we don’t find out about until the very end of it, and we never had a chance to try and assist and strategize and whatnot. I’m baffled by that too.

Larry 46:59
Well, sometimes they don’t know about us, either.

Andy 47:03
Right? Um, is there any sort of monetary challenge or problem from the state in this? Because if it were a constitutional challenge, isn’t there something that gets piled on that they have to pay attorneys fees or whatever?

Larry 47:13
Well, I don’t know what the rules are in the state proceedings, but in the federal case, the attorneys got gobs of money from the state. That’s not gonna deter them. I mean, it’s not very much in the overall scheme of a state budget.

Andy 47:28
Okay. All right. Well, I certainly am happy to hit them in their pocketbooks. If that’s that is a thing. And Paul made a statement in chat. He says they don’t care if we go after them, they get elected for creating these unconstitutional regulatory schemes. If we go after them after the fact they just don’t care because they still got their votes.

Larry 47:47
Well, that’s a reflection on the on the people though. He keeps blaming the lawmakers, we need to start blaming the people.

Andy 47:53
Yeah, ‘cuz we voted for the lawmaker, and they did the things that we wanted, so we should be mad at us for electing them.

Larry 48:02
Right. Their reactions are generated by phone calls and emails they get from constituents. I worked in a senator’s office. I know what we hear. And the public supports registration, and they support it big time.

Andy 48:20
Sure. Let me, someone in chat just posted this question. Says residency restrictions have been struck down in PA, New Jersey, etc? Why can’t we get them removed everywhere? Why do they still have them in Georgia, Larry and many other states, if we’ve won in other places?

Larry 48:35
Because these decisions are not binding in Georgia. That’s the simple answer.

Andy 48:40
So we would have to possibly use that as a cookie cutter and model a new challenge. And but you’d have to have some sort of what’s the word if you get denied housing, because of the residency restriction. You have to have skin in the game? What’s the word there?

Larry 48:53
You have to have legal standing.

Andy 48:55
Standing, that’s the word. So somebody would have to say, I would like to live here and you get denied, then you have to go File a challenge. And I assume that requires money.

Larry 49:03
Well, I don’t know if you would, if you’d have to be denied there, but you would certainly have to be a PFR. You’d have to have possibility of it being applied to you, the exclusion zones. But just because Michigan Supreme Court said something, that’s not binding in Georgia. Tell me what Georgians would say if a Michigan supreme court, if you started going around saying well, We gonna have to change our laws down here in Georgia. That Michigan Supreme Court has decided that you can’t do this. What would an average Georgian say? (Andy: FYP.) That’s exactly what they would say.

Andy 49:36
I was trying to figure out if I could wing it into the program so that people could get context. Alright, I violated our terms Larry. And I am sorry. Anything else? And we’ve covered this for a super long time. I am sorry, if anyone’s eyes have rolled in the back of their heads. I am super happy about any sort of victory that we can get even if it’s little but this one seems pretty significant. This could have impact over possibly 10s of 1000s of people that are in prison now for some bs like a procedural violation, a technical violation of not registering their car within 72 hours and all that garbage, this could help out a lot of people.

Larry 50:08
It absolutely could. A lot of people could be cut loose.

Andy 50:12
That’s awesome. Well, very good. Pick one or two of these articles that we have, because we don’t have a lot of time before we have to close out the show and do the winner and not winner of the contest last week.

Larry 50:25
Let’s do the Angola and the restoration of voting rights. That would be good.

Andy 50:32
Cool. Gotcha. I will move that there. Okay. So this article comes from the Marshall project and the title is: A filthy New Orleans jail made my son sick, the cruel and unusual medical treatment. An Angola prison killed him. Holy crap, tell me what you found in here some of the gory details about how someone wasn’t having a very nice time in prison.

Larry 50:53
This is one if you read it, and you have any, any emotional capability, you’re going to find it very sad that this 45 year old, ended up dying from what should have been able to be addressed with proper medical care. And this prison system in Louisiana has been notoriously inadequate in providing medical care. Prisons across the country don’t provide the greatest of medical care. But Louisiana has been particularly horrible. And this is just a tragic thing. And hopefully, something good will come out of this. Hopefully that this, this will, it says in March toward the end, a federal judge ruled that inadequate health care at Angola amounted to a violation of the Eighth Amendment, which bars infliction of cruel and unusual punishment. And this guy did testify in that particular proceeding, but this is just awful, folks. This is what we think about when we put someone in prison, we’re taking away their ability to care for themselves. I know this sounds like a liberal philosophy. But I believe we have an obligation to keep these people safe and healthy. And if it costs money, it costs money. But when you take away their ability to provide for themselves, you have to step in and provide for them. If you don’t like that, don’t incarcerate so many people.

Andy 52:25
Did you hear, to take a little bit of a detour, have you heard a lot of fire coming back at Larry Krasner, the DA in Philly for the rising crime rate in that city?

Larry 52:36
I’ve heard it. It’s across the country. These liberal do gooders are being criticized for the increase in criminality.

Andy 52:45
And the way that it was presented is that you might be able to blame him for at least some of it. But you can find rising crime rates in places where there aren’t these progressive DAs. So, it almost then would negate saying that it’s directly his fault for giving people lighter sentences. And I don’t want to call it kid gloves, but just reducing the prison population and the jail population in general. I was just wondering if you had been following any of that. Did you have any quick comments that you’d like to make on it? I’d be interested in your opinion.

Larry 53:13
Well, it’s going to be spun that they’re directly related. I mean, the conservatives are going to say that this is an example of what you get when you put these kinds of people in charge. They do not have a clue what they’re doing. They’ve turned loose a tidal wave of crime on you. And that’s what happens. That’s what they’re going to say. If you choose to buy into that, then it’s on you. But that’s what they’re gonna say.

Andy 53:39
Sure. All right. And then we can move over to an article from NatLaw Review, which I’m going to go with is National Law Review. Restoring voting rights for individuals with criminal records and the need to inform them of their rights. Where do you want to go with on this one?

Larry 53:54
Well, I’d like to go with people who don’t vote, yet they have the right to. In this article, second paragraph between 2016 and 2020, 13 states expanded voting rights for individuals with felony convictions. The Marshall project examined voting rolls in four states that recently reformed their voting laws. Those were Nevada, Kentucky, Iowa, and New Jersey and found that quote, only a fraction of the 1000s of formerly incarcerated people whose voting rights were restored in time for the 2020 election made it back to the voter rolls. How is it that we work to try to get the right to vote and people are not doing it? It says indeed, less than one in four eligible voters who had been formerly incarcerated were registered to vote out of the study group. It’s pretty pathetic.

Andy 54:50
So, then you had people like Rush, losing their mind and pulling out all their hair for the, if I’m not mistaken is who it was (Larry: Yep.), was pulling his hair out when they rolled back the voting right restriction for felons in Florida. It was amendment number four, saying that this was going to flip the whole thing over, you’re going to have a million or whatever, Democrats voting and now this, like only one in four have gone out to vote.

Larry 55:14
Well, not only that, but we did an episode where we showed that by objective evidence, more of the people that have been incarcerated are going to vote conservative and not vote liberal. They don’t vote for the Democrat Party anyway. But there’s that paranoia that because they’re going to vote democratic, that we can’t restore their rights to vote. But I think you’d actually find a whole lot of Republican votes would come your way.

Andy 55:41
I understand. Larry, last week, we played a clip that didn’t really do so well, I guess you could say that. Nobody wrote in and guessed it. And so I’m going to hopefully, I’m gonna try and play for you now. What? Oh, shoot, you know, of course, I start pressing buttons and my technology blows up on me Larry. You know how that happens?

Larry 56:03
I don’t know how that happens. But I’ll take your word for it.

Pres. Gerald Ford (Audio Recording) 56:07
And I must say to you, that the State of the Union is not good.

Andy 56:15
It was that Larry.

Larry 56:17
That was Gerald Rudolph Ford in the 1975 State of the Union address. He, to my recollection, and I’ve been around through well over 100 of those, State of the Union Addresses. That is the only time a president has reported to the nation that the State of the Union isn’t good. They always use language like it’s strong. But in 1975, he said the state of the union is not good. That was who that speaker was.

Andy 56:45
Was that like during the gas crisis? What timeframe was this? What was going on for him to say that?

Larry 56:51
Well, he had just assumed the presidency in October, excuse me, August of ‘74, after the resignation, and he had issued the pardon in September of ‘74. And then we were in the middle of we were still in the oil embargo. So, we had energy lines. We had inflation, stagflation, as they called it. And there were a lot of people who were losing faith in the government’s ability to react. We had the swine flu in ‘75. It wasn’t till later, but I think swine flu came along in ’75. There was an attempt to vaccinate Americans against the swine flu. But there was just so much going on, that the government seemed paralyzed, inflation was high and so the president, honestly reported that the State of the Union wasn’t good.

Andy 57:43
Alright. Well, then, now I’ve got to find… we’re gonna play that other clip. I got to put the thing out there with the with the new one. I’ve got to play the new sound.

Larry 57:52
Now we know that there will be dozens and dozens of people who will get this one.

Andy 58:01
I am inclined to agree with you Larry. I swear I put it on one of these buttons. But I’m going to make it happen just because that’s what I’m going to do. Because I don’t know where I put it. So here is your question or the voice for this week. So what you’re going to do is when you know this person… gosh if you don’t know who this person is, I got nothing for you. Send me an email message over at and tell me who this person is.

Who’s that Speaker? 58:33
In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem. Government is the problem.

Andy 58:44
And there you go. So like I said, Send me an email at message at and tell me who… Did you not hear it Larry?

Larry 58:53
It was a little on the low side.

Andy 58:55
Okay, well, I’ll fix it for the podcast then. I will boost it. Someone said they couldn’t hear it in chat. So it will be mo louder when it does play. So there you go. There’s Who’s that speaker that’s our new segment where you can win fabulous prizes and come on the air and run around and be all special. And I’m just kidding on all that, there’s no prizes, but you get to have your name announced or something like that. Get your 10 seconds of fame. Larry, did we get any new patrons this week?

Larry 59:20
I think we got a couple.

Andy 59:22
We did. We got one. Daniel, thank you so much, Daniel. You are at the level that you get to have a transcript sent into someone behind the bars if you want to. So let us know that address of a person. If that’s how you wish it. We are getting super close Larry to the 100-patron mark. We are like single digits away. And I’m gonna have to like really actually start practicing. So you might see some extra videos of me practicing in your Patreon feed and to try and get people pumped up for it. And is there anything else before we scoot out Larry?

Larry 59:53
So was Alex a new one this week or was that last week?

Andy 59:57
That was last week. Daniel was the only one that I saw within the date range, but if you give me one second, I’ll check and double check real quick, because I don’t think there was anybody else this week. That was on the 23rd was Alex. All right, that was prior to last week. So, we announced him last week. I’m pretty sure. If not Alex, thank you very much for coming on board. And that was super generous.

Larry 1:00:22
Yes, he’s at 1000 a month, I think.

Andy 1:00:25
I think so. Did we get any non-Patreon people but behind the walls, people?

Larry 1:00:30
We did not. We’re getting more and more requests for samples, but we haven’t gotten any new ones to announce that I can think of.

Andy 1:00:38
Okay, sounds good man. You can find the show notes over at Of course, that’s where you would go to get the transcript or find out any sort of links to go anywhere else. As I said, already, you can email us over at and then also voicemail at 747-227-4477. The best way on our favorite way to support the podcast is to go over to Larry, you’re the best, best, best. And I appreciate all the information and you bring up these cases and do expert analysis. Let me let me cover one thing before we actually like jump out of here. How much do you interpret of these things or how much do you read directly from it to make up your analysis?

Larry 1:01:24
I’ve been interpreting less recently. And the reason for that is we had a snippy response out of Wisconsin saying that the case that involved homosexual sex, according to the court didn’t have anything to do with homosexual sex. So, I’m striving to put in more direct quotes from the court with less of my spin. Because I want you to know, this is what they’re saying. This is not us saying this. We’re just reporting what they’re telling you. But a lot of what’s happening here is what I’ve advocated for for several years now. And we’re finally getting there.

Andy 1:02:03
Fantastic. All right, Larry. Well, that’s all I’ve got. I appreciate it very much. And I hope you have a splendid rest of your weekend. And that’s all I got. Have a great night.

Larry 1:02:13
Thank you for having me here.

You’ve been listening to FYP.

Transcript of RM186: Permanent Injunction For PFR Against Popup Day Care

Listen to RM186: Permanent Injunction For PFR Against Popup Day Care

RM186: Permanent Injunction For PFR Against Popup Day Care

Andy 00:00
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 a problem with these thoughts, fyp. Recording live from FYP Studios, east and west. Transmitting across the internet. This is Episode 186 of Registry Matters. Happy Saturday night again, Larry, how are you?

Larry 00:24
Doing fantastic. Thanks for having me in again.

Andy 00:28
I tried, I tried to find someone else that I could book I was like calling down to Florida. I was calling to Illinois. It’s called wash. Nobody could step up and fill your big, big big shoes. Do you have big shoes?

Larry 00:41
Oh, that’s really tragic if there’s no one can do this.

Andy 00:46
No one else could do this. Not at all. You know, I would say that we were gonna like, bs around for a few minutes. But I think we have a little too much to cover tonight. So we’re just gonna dive right in. So, tell us what we have going on tonight.

Larry 01:01
We have a litany of questions from inside and from outside. And we have a case from a trial court in Illinois that is hopeful for our cause. And we have a contest: Named that Speaker. Think we have a winner from last week. But anyway, we have a lot of stuff to cover tonight. So, let’s dig in.

Andy 01:31
And then we will dig right in. And let’s see, hopefully I can get my technology to work here. So let’s start with clip number one.

NBC News Reporter 01:40
With stressed medical centers facing another influx of hospitalizations and deaths, preventable infections are climbing in every state. The CDC director calls this a pivotal moment as more Republicans, including the governor of Alabama say it’s the high number of unvaccinated pushing the nation towards crisis.

Reporter 02:01
What is it going to take to get people to get shots?

Alabama Governor K. Ivey 2:03
I don’t know. Yo’ tell me. I’ve done all I know how to do. I can encourage you to do something, but I can’t make you take care of yo’ self.

Andy 02:12
Larry, can yo’ tell me what is going on with this clip here? Please?

Larry 02:17
I couldn’t help myself. I put that in there mainly because of the dialect. Being a southerner, it was even a little bit strong for me. But the only thing I would add without politicizing this is that this is the inevitable outcome of when people make all the outlandish things about the vaccines are going to make you sterile and all the stuff, the misinformation that are out there. If we had had a unified consistent message from all elected officials, from the get-go, like we did with polio or diphtheria or whooping cough for all the measles or the different vaccines that encourage people to take the vaccines without all the conspiratorial theories that are out there. Probably we wouldn’t have Alabama and so many of the states, particularly in the south having such a low vaccination rates right now.

Andy 03:14
It’s I think I heard just the other day, it’s in the mid ish 50s for at least one shot of adults. That’s nationwide, and certain states have much lower rates and certain states have much higher rates.

Larry 03:27
That’s true. And but in the States, you have huge variations like in our state, the Rio Grande corridor, that’s called the central part of the state has very high vaccination rate. And then you go to what are more conservative parts of the state. In the southeast corner where the oil is produced, they have much lower vaccination rates. And that’s the way it is I’m sure in other states. Alabama the state has a very low rate to start with. But I would imagine depending on if you were in Montgomery or Birmingham in the urban areas or maybe Mobile, you’d probably have higher vaccination rates, but the state as a whole has not done very well at getting its citizens vaccinated and now the governor is saying I’m on board. It’s too bad that she didn’t make these comments earlier but I’m glad she finally did.

Andy 04:17
We weren’t gonna stick around that for very long but it just kind of ironic because now like Hannity and a whole bunch of other very very, very conservative, completely bashing the whole process, they’ve come out and said that maybe maybe it’s time to get elected. Sorry, vaccinated. Let’s move over, I had seen this from somebody before, but then it showed up on my radar again. So there’s a there’s a screenshot here there was a picture that someone sent, says: save a deer, hunt a pedophile. Um, and while I’m not easily offended, Larry, this one seems like exactly saying something about inciting violence, killing people. Where does the government then come in and step in and say something to the effect of like, this is not something that we can have in the public?

Larry 05:03
Therein lies the problem, Andy. We don’t really have a government watchdog that monitors free speech. And that I don’t know who you would call if you find that objectionable. Because most people find it very appalling that there would be someone in government who would make a decision that that would be unacceptable speech. So, who would you call?

Andy 05:27
I’m assuming that, so here’s what I would imagine happening. Certainly, correct me if I’m wrong. So there’s not the government watchdog that runs around and checks for people having offensive messages. I guess somebody may call the police or the police themselves would be like, that crosses a line saying hunt a such and such. So then they pull you over and give you some sort of citation. And then you start running things up the flagpole going that way.

Larry 05:53
I don’t know what you would cite the person for. I can’t think of a statute in this state that you would cite the person for. This is one of those things where the violence has to happen first, and then we deal with it afterwards. But in terms of who you would call for this, I find it deplorable. And it’s very distasteful. That someone I mean, I’m assuming that when they’re say, hunt a pedophile, they’re talking about a person who has a sexual offense, charge or conviction. And when they say hunt a pedophile, they’re wishing bad things would be done to the person that’s hunted. All that, but that’s subjective. What if the person says hunt them and say hi to them, hunt them and be supportive of them? I mean, somebody in the in the big old bad government, which most of us resent, particularly the more conservatives resent. Wouldn’t we find that appalling that that you could call government watchdog and say do something about this bumper sticker?

Andy 06:53
Ah, come on, it says save a deer. What? Like, we don’t have any use of deer that at least that I’m aware of other than they are used for hunting. So then if that’s like, to me, that would be the assumed part of that, and then you’re then changing that out for them, hunt a pedophile? I mean, it says that right there. I’m not even, we don’t even have to stretch. We are saying hunt a deer. No, no, no, not hunt a deer. Don’t do that one, do the other one. There’s no ambiguity here. This is telling you to go out and kill people with sexual offenses. (Larry: Except it doesn’t say that.) It’s I don’t know, I’m gonna agree to disagree with you on this. Well, we can do a Patreon extra about how my interpretation is wrong. Brenda agrees. So there. I win.

Larry 07:40
Oh, I’m not saying that I like the message. But I’m saying that it is subjective. Someone has to decide and decree that that’s what that meant. And are you ready to empower the big old bad government to decide what a message means?

Andy 07:59
But we do that all the time. That’s what the whole Live Free or Die thing was about. Paul, a very staunch conservative says it’s inferred.

Larry 08:11
So, he’s okay with empowering a government official to decide that that message… okay, let’s, let’s advocate that. And let’s see if we can get some conservative support in Congress for that, to make a law to empower some government agency, I guess it’d be similar to the Federal Communications Commission that used to monitor content that went over our airwaves. Let’s see if we can find somebody who monitors bumper stickers and tells people that they’ve got compliance period to remove those from their cars or else and see how well we do with that.

Andy 08:44
We need like a First Amendment lawyer on here I guess. This actually could develop into like a whole segment. Really, I think. (Larry: Let’s do it.) Yeah, Paul, says, I don’t want to dig into this any longer. But Paul says, if you replace pedophile with black person, what happens then? I guess that’s a protected class, that makes it all the difference. PFRs are not a protected class.

Larry 09:08
Well, they would probably use the N word and that would be very offensive, but I’m not sure it’d be prohibited.

Andy 09:15
Okay, we got to catch it. We got a ton more content. That’s super interesting. I find that to be like a really, really fascinating thing. Um, Larry, I want to circle back to probably three, four episodes ago, I we did a segment at the end of the show where we talked about a friend of mine that had got arrested for something of a probation violation where we didn’t really know all the details of it. A week or so ago, he reached out to me and told me that he spoke to the probation officer. And what turned out what started out as like some kind of image, like an image on his phone from years ago. Turns out to be, they said it was 55 images, but 52 of them all but three of them were naughty in nature. Now I don’t know any of the details. So I’m having conversations with him back and forth about does he want me to find him a lawyer or not. And he was like, no. And the reason why he didn’t want to at the time was because he had spent a whole bunch of money on a violation from several years ago, he spent like 20 grand on a lawyer. And that went south, because he ended up going back to prison for a couple of years. And so here we are, again. And so, I’m giving you that background information to color it to he’s very gun shy about spending any money on a lawyer, where I don’t think that this would be that expensive. And you can clarify there, I think this would be in the $2500 range. And I’m not trying to really like tie numbers to this. But that’s just in my brain. So, he has a hearing in about two weeks. And he wrote me. And so, I’m going to read what he said here. He said: it may be too late to get a lawyer. Anyway, that’s point one that we want to cover, I’ll have to sell some stock and then wait three days to move the money around from his eTrade account to my account. And then I guess it won’t be enough time. I just thought at first, I wanted to know what charges there were before I could get a lawyer. Don’t worry about it, I’ll just take my chances with the public pretender. Thanks, anyway. So I think there’s three or four points in there. First one is, it may be too late to get a lawyer. And you have advice on that part of it to begin with.

Larry 11:15
It’s not too late to get a lawyer and he should definitely get a lawyer. The lawyer, the judge is not going to force in most instances, a revocation hearing to proceed with a person who desires to have representation. In fact, they prefer that you have representation because the representative is skilled and understands the process. And it makes it run a lot smoother if you actually understand the rules of decorum of the court, the rules of evidence, cross examination, what’s admissible, and it’s just not going to be fun for the judge if he’s not represented. So, it’s not too late to get a lawyer. He has to sell the stock. I mean, that would be a tragedy. But that would be, if there’s no cash available, that would be one way of raising cash. Be glad that you have some assets that you can sell. And what he’s talking about is there’s a three-day settlement period after the consummation of the transaction where the funds actually materialize in your brokerage account. They’re available to you. So that’s what he’s talking about, the three-day settlement period. In terms of taking his chance with the public defender. In most states, those resources are so limited, you have to be eligible. So you have to apply. If he’s got an E trade account, and he’s got financial resources, I’m not sure he would qualify. Maybe that state, even though it’s in a conservative south, maybe they’re very liberal in terms of allowing public defenders to represent unqualified people, but they don’t do that here.

Andy 12:48
How about the part… so let me ask you this question just from my own gor my own advice to him. The lawyer that I would recommend is the one that helped me with my termination of probation, which is an hour and a half away. Do you think that this matters? Like should, could, should my attorney be the one that reaches out to him to be retained to help him in this or do I need to reach out to somebody locally down there in that county to represent him there?

Larry 13:15
It’s hard to say without knowing more specifics, which, again, we eventually get into knowing an awful lot about the case. Sometimes an outsider is good, and sometimes an insider, a local person is good. In this particular case, you’ve told me he doesn’t have any connections to the community, he doesn’t have any power, he doesn’t have any favors to call in. So therefore, I’m not sure that an insider is going to help him very much. So therefore, the lawyer that you mentioned, would probably be just fine. But what you have to understand is when they put you in custody on a probation violation, that gives them plenty of time to develop that violation. You’re sitting in jail, they’re going home at night. They have time to do forensics, they have time to look for evidence to support their violation. And if they don’t like you, they want you in jail, that’s exactly what they’re gonna do. And he runs a terrible risk on this in terms of potential new charges, depending on if those images are borderline if they’re underage. If they’re adults, and they’re all clearly adults, he’s just looking at provocative photos, which is contrary to his rehabilitation and treatment. But if he’s been looking at photos of minors, that could result depending on what they’re displaying. If they’re showing any of their private parts or being provocative, he could end up with brand new charges. This is too risky to not want a lawyer. Having said that, you want to get a lawyer that’s not going to charge you a fortune, and therefore the fee is important. 2$500 may be a bit low for a probation violation that can put you in prison for a significant amount of time. So we would need to know how much time he’s, got left that they could impose, assuming there’s no new criminal conduct. And I would think that he might be looking closer to $3,000 to $5,000 for a probation violation.

Andy 15:21
But not 20.

Larry 15:24
I don’t think I could in good conscience, quote that, but a violation of probation involves a plethora of witnesses. And it has complexity to it, and particularly the interstate compact like he had when he was in Texas. Too bad, the person didn’t understand the interstate compact, apparently. And they didn’t provide any valuable service. But you could have complexities that would justify a fee like that. In particular if you have to associate with someone else, if you’re running two states, if you’ve got two states involved. You need to have a Georgia lawyer protecting you there, you need to have a Texas lawyer protecting you there in case you get shipped to Georgia to try to prevent that from happening, but to protect your interest in Texas. So he very well could have spent justifiably $20,000.

Andy 16:12
One last thing that I have to ask about. The distance is approximately an hour and a half away, I realize so many things can be done over the phone, but at some point in time, the attorney is most likely going to have to go down there. And that would factor into fees and all that stuff of him taking an hour and a half of his time to sit in the car for an hour and a half. I don’t guess attorneys bill at their normal rate while they’re driving somewhere, but I’m sure it’s not $10 an hour, either.

Larry 16:38
They’re gonna bill that into a fee structure. If he’s a sole practitioner, he’s gonna try to do a flat fee rather than hourly billing. If he’s looking at two hour drive, he’s gonna bill that into it. He’s gonna say, Well, if I did this about home turf, it’d be $2,500. If I’m having to travel, it’s going to be $3,500 wherever he puts on the direction, but it’s going to be built into his fee. He’s going to have to do at least one hearing in person, possibly two. Because normally probation is a two-step process, you have the preliminary hearing to see if there’s anything that merits the continuation of the revocation action. And oftentimes, people admit, because the evidence is very compelling, at the preliminary adjudication hearing, and they come to an agreement of what the sanction will be, and they resolve it. But if the person has no mindset to want to admit to anything, then they set it up for a full blown revocation hearing, so he could end up having to make two appearances.

Andy 17:35
Right, I gotcha. I gotcha. Oh, man. Okay. And one last thing is I was talking to you about providing advice to him. And just describe real quick about him be where you’re not an attorney. So you don’t have the privilege of private phones. Can you describe that real quick?

Larry 17:55
Well, even those who are attorneys have trouble communicating through correctional systems, phones in a confidential fashion, because they tend to not respect that anymore. You have to actually go to a counselor’s office or do something where they’re not recorded. But if you’re making it from the standard jail system, even though you’re calling your attorney, often, that’s still recorded. But I don’t have any way of protecting him from anything he might in admission he might make on this recorded phone line. Nor do I have any way of protecting him from being subpoenaed. Now they’re not going to subpoena me, as many states away as I am. But any admission he would make to me if I’m not, under the supervision of an attorney, the attorney client privilege is no longer there. It’s never there, it wouldn’t be there. So therefore, I become a witness, potentially, against him. You do not want to make any admissions to anyone where you don’t have the attorney client privilege, because if I’m part of a legal team, you can’t compel me to repeat anything that’s been said, in the process of your representation.

Andy 18:59
I gotcha, man. Okay. So I have some information that I can at least pass to him. See where we go next. All right. And actually, the person that provided this, she’s in chat, so this is cool that you can speak to this. So V wrote us that says, I have another question. I’m sure. I’ve heard Larry say that at least once that that the victim impact or victims rights advocates have a large presence/influence in the legislature. I have been looking for information that supports that statement. Where can I find stats or anything that shows the influence of victims in the legislature? Is there anything that shows how well they are funded? Thank you very much. That’s an interesting question. Is there any way to measure this?

Larry 19:44
I have never had that question posed before. And when I first saw it, I tended to want to be flippant, and then I thought about it and I realized that a person who doesn’t work in the legislature would have any way of knowing what I know. So therefore, I won’t be flippant, like I thought about being. But these organizations, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, I don’t think anybody would question they have an enormous amount of influence in the lawmaking process. Maryland, since we have Maryland listening, the Maryland citizens against sexual assault, I believe this MCASA, they have a full time attorney, that’s their lobbyist when legislature is in session, and I’ve had a lawmaker tell me, and aid to lawmaker, wasn’t a lawmaker himself, that we don’t consider anything that we haven’t ran past MCASA in terms of reform of issues related to PFRs. So, it’s one of those things that we know intuitively by knowing it, because we’re there, we’re watching them testify, we’re watching the tears flow when they testify, we’re watching the reaction of the lawmakers of when they testify, and they turn off their timers and they let them go as long as they want. We watch the law enforcement complex, meaning the District Attorneys Association, the Chiefs of Police Association, the Sheriffs Association, we watch all these people who advocate on behalf of victims, they use the terminology like I stand for the victim, and they tend to get their way. So we know it intuitively, in terms of actually trying to find the data, you’d probably have to look up an organization’s name. And you’d have to check their lobbying report to see what money they spend if that is information that’s in the public domain. But it’s one of those things that you just know, it’s like when the earth is pointed away from the sun, all of us agree that it’s cooler on that side that’s facing away. We don’t really need any, any scientific data to know that as a general rule, it gets cooler when the earth is not facing the sun. If you have victims, in the legislature in any way, shape, or form, they carry far more influence than the people who’ve committed the crimes. That’s just a given.

Andy 21:58
It’s completely off topic, Larry. But do you think the flat earthers think that when the earth is away from the sun that it’s colder?

Larry 22:05
I’m not sure the flat earthers think that but tell me, tell me, tell me they’re really not flat earthers out there.

Andy 22:13
Oh my god, they have a huge movement. I guarantee you, I guarantee you that there’s somebody that listens to the show more than a few people that listen to the show that are flat earthers, feel free, write into me and we can have a debate, I would love to talk to you if you are actually genuinely a flat earther. They’re out there Larry.

Larry 22:30
so well, it’s hard for me to with all the evidence we have. When you see those ships sail on the horizon and they get smaller and smaller. (Andy: I know. I know.) But anyway, if you say so.

Andy 22:42
It’s unbelievable to me. There’s a documentary on Netflix, you don’t even have the internet home. So how would you ever watch Netflix? But there’s one called I think it’s called Beyond the curve. And it’s this 90-minute-long documentary about flat earthers. Unbelievable. Alright, we are going to move on. So we have a letter that you said to be read. And it says:

Listener Question
Dear Larry, and Andy, thank you for answering my question on your podcast and clearing up the confusion I had on Packingham. I found it very informative. A bit of full disclosure. on my end, I do not have a Facebook account, never got one before I became a PFR. I just believe in the principle of people having access to social media regardless of an individual’s past crime. A person should not still be considered guilty after they’ve paid their debt to society. Although your point about Facebook doing what it wants, can only go so far. Yes, it’s a private company. But therein lies the rub. Facebook and other platforms like it have gotten so big, it’s practically a public utility. So, Facebook needs to be broken up. It’s bigger than Standard Oil during its heyday, just because they can disallow PFRs, or anyone else for that matter, doesn’t mean they should. Finally, I wanted to thank you. For your well wishes, I have nine years left to go on my sentence, I’ve dealt with a lot and have a great deal of challenges ahead being a second time offender, and I refuse to allow my problems to drag me and my loved ones down again.

Andy 24:10
Thank you again, that’s nine years left and a second time that’s gonna make life very challenging. But I like the points that he’s made. I just don’t know where you go with this Larry, how to break them up. I just don’t know.

Larry 24:16
The reason why I put it in is because I wanted to talk a little bit about a public utility. Facebook is by no means a public utility in the sense of what we think about public utilities. So let’s clarify. A public utility is a private company, when you say public utility, it’s generally a private company that has a geographic service territory, that they’re obligated to serve everyone within that territory. In exchange for that territory, for that protection against competition, they were allowed to have a rate of return that was set by regulators. So for example, Georgia Power Company, that’s a company that you’re familiar with. It’s not really practical to have all the infrastructure to have competing power companies. So since Georgia Power owns the bulk of the infrastructure, it lends itself to having only one company that provides electricity. So that public utility is obligated to serve everyone within that service area of Georgia Power Company. And they are guaranteed a rate of return that’s set by regulation. You know, when you hear that they filed for a rate increase with the state regulators. So a public utilities goes with an obligation to serve and to provide access to people. Georgia Power will not deny you electric service based on any factor other than you have not paid your account. Or you have been a power thief or something like that. But other than that, if you’re in their service area, even if you’re too far from the line, they will offer you an opportunity to pay for a line extension, and they will serve you. Well, we don’t have the same thing with Facebook. We have something more similar, not an exact comparison, we have something more similar to what we would have with broadcasting. The broadcasters were privately owned companies that had an obligation in exchange for their broadcast license to provide some level of community service. Now those doctrines have largely fallen by the wayside. In the 80s, primarily, in terms of the Fairness Doctrine, equal time, and duties they had, they still have to be licensed. But in terms of their requirements, to offer competing, and alternate viewpoints, all that stuff has gone by the wayside, because the conservatives told us that if we just allow the market to take care of this, it will decide, and it will do what is right for people. Well, we have the situation with social media. The barriers to entry are less than there are in broadcasting because there’s a finite amount of spectrum. Nothing stops another Facebook from coming along, that I’m aware of. You’re far more sophisticated on this that I am. But what would preclude another Facebook from launching?

Andy 27:17
The example would be that TikTok has come up and been wildly popular and is stealing viewers from Facebook to go on to TikTok, so nothing precludes it at all.

Larry 27:26
It’s not like the spectrum when you had so much bandwidth. If you were on WSB in Atlanta, 750 kilo cycles, I think they call that. You have a limitation of what can be on that 750 band because it would be interfering. Therefore, WSB had an obligation to provide programming that served its zone of however long, whatever the regions of that station. But with Facebook, they have no such obligation to serve anybody, they are not being guaranteed a profit. There’s no barrier that I’m aware of that precludes anybody else. In fact, the youth have largely abandoned Facebook, it’s usually if you look at Facebook accounts these days, I’m told it’s more people that are older, but the young have swarmed in other directions.

Andy 28:17
They’re using Snapchat and TikTok and other platforms, correct.

Larry 28:21
So therefore, I don’t see that he makes the point that he’s trying to make very well here. Facebook was pressured along with other social media to keep PFRs off because of community sensitivity. Parents said I’ve got a child and my child is only 14 years old. And there’s all these predators lurking, you’ve got to do something.

Andy 28:51
I was gonna make the comparison that using your WSB or any radio station that has some block of time to this radio show host. Like they’re dedicated to that. And but if somebody wants to start another podcast, doing what we’re doing here, like, run your podcasts, there’s no shortage. Just your listeners time if you’re going to be supported, and have people listen to you. There’s no resource constraint to from the internet side of things. There’s almost a zero cost of delivery. We release the podcast out and whether one person downloads it or a million downloads it, like it’s very little difference on our end.

Larry 29:27
So, I think this is the basis of this letter is the Trump lawsuit, people want to know, and I’m having great trepidation believing that that lawsuit is going to get any traction. But that’s what people are hoping for is that somehow or another that there will be a declaration that Facebook will have to welcome all on its platform. And I’m dubious that we’re ever going to have that as a ruling from any court.

Andy 29:54
I understand. Let’s move over to question number. Oh, I got to play a clip for you. That’s where we got to go.

Larry 30:00
Let me set this up. The second question was about enhancing sentences. And the reason why sentences are enhanced for the use of a computer. And I thought this old clip from 1974 would help set the explanation I’m going to give later. So, this is a State of the Union speech, a segment from 1974. So I think we agree what is that? 46 or 47 years ago?

Andy 30:35
Yeah, depending on the timeframe. Yep. State of the Union would have been in January. Is that right? (Larry: Yep.) That’s definitely 47. All right, here we go.

Richard Nixon’s 1974 state of the Union Address (Audio Clip) 30:43
One measure of a truly free society is the bigger with which protects the liberties of its individual citizens. As technology has advanced in America, it is increasingly encroached on one of those liberties, what I term the right of personal privacy, modern Information Systems, data banks, credit records, mailing list abuses, electronic snooping, the collection of personal data for one purpose that may be used for another. All these have left millions of Americans deeply concern by the privacy they cherish. And the time has come, therefore, for a major initiative, to define the nature and extent of the basic rights of privacy, and to erect new safeguards to ensure that those rights are respected. I shall launch such an effort this year at the highest levels of the administration. And I look forward again to working with this congress and establishing a new set of standards that respect the legitimate needs of society, but that also recognize personal privacy as a cardinal principle of American liberty.

Listener Question 31:56
I’m a registered PFR in the federal system out of Texas. I receive your newsletter, and I am happy to hear of your efforts at legislation, litigation, and so on for families and society. I’m writing this letter to because I have a question in regards to a subject I rarely hear addressed. Though I feel it is one of the most unfair penalties added to PFR inmates in the federal system. Within the federal guidelines, there is an enhancement that adds two points to the base of each PFR charge in the federal system for the use of a computer in the commission of a crime. However, nearly every federal sex offender charge is used off of a computer. It is generally what makes the charge federal jurisdiction. I do not see how this dewpoint enhancement, which often results in up to 24 months added to a sentence is allowed to be applied. It makes no logical sense aside from further punishment of an already high starting point mandatory minimum of federal Sos. I’ve spoken to LISA Legal, a federal legislation newsletter, which reports that several district judges have addressed the unfairness of the application, but no one seems to have put in any effort to change this. With the recent two-point enhancement of crack laws being applied retroactively, enhancement that was no more nonsensical than this one, I’m curious if anything can be done to lobby against this. It would be a small step, but an essential one for the many, many low security but highly penalized PFRs within the federal system. Any information on the subject you may give or any address in your net newsletter to it would be greatly appreciated. Thank you for your time. (Andy: Interesting question.)

Larry 33:35
Well, that’s the reason on the clip that we just heard, President Nixon was talking about privacy. Remember in 1974, when he gave this speech, we were at the very beginning of the computer age. Prior to that, when you when you talked about computers, the Social Security Administration, the IRS, they had these huge computers, and maybe airline reservation systems may have them. But the computer was just making its entry into the American society. As far as the home life, I don’t know specifically what year the PC came out. But it was in that era in the 70s, I think. But what causes these enhancements is that early as computers were being integrated, people realized that they could commit and affect crimes through the use of computers. And society found that revolting that someone could use a computer, this wonderful device, to engage in criminality. So therefore, as laws were built in the decades that passed, they decided that we needed to treat it very harshly. If you go in the bank with a mask, and you take $3,000 from the teller cage, that’s one type of crime. If you use a weapon, you get enhancement for that. But if you go into that same bank using a computer, and you divert funds, that’s a different type of crime, you wouldn’t get the weapon enhancement, but you get the computer enhancement, so you get my drift. These are not unique to sexual offenses. The only thing is that the people that are convicted of sexual offences have never thought about all the other things that computers are used for and in the course of criminal conduct and how those penalties are enhanced for the use of computers. But it does still make for a legitimate question. The penalties for the type of crimes that he’s talking about are already very high. And so, what I would recommend, and I’m going to be a bit facetious here, but we should reach out to Senator Tom Cotton at Arkansas, who led the effort to diminish the First Step Act. And being I know he’s a compassionate conservative, he would probably be very receptive to leading the charge to take this enhancement off for the use of computer for those who commit sexual offenses. What do you think, Andy? Do you think he would lead the charge on that?

Andy 36:09
Oh, without a doubt. That guy? Definitely, definitely, definitely. We should also go for that New Jersey senator, the one that did IML? I’m sure he would be very much on board with this as well.

Larry 36:17
Well, that would be representative Smith. Yeah, that is the team, we have hit it. Let’s reach out to representative Smith in New Jersey, and Senator Cotton in Arkansas. And on a serious note, this is going to be a hard one, a very hard one politically. Because the penalties are enhanced to this very day, for uses of computers to commit crimes. There’s something sacred about the computer. You have no business going into someone’s computer and doing these things. The government is spending lots of resources tracking down people who are using computers in a way to do things like turning off… there was an internet, there was a collapse of Delta because of some internet problem this week. Was that related to hacking?

Andy 37:06
Yeah. Well, certainly it was. I didn’t follow the news. I know it was something related to DNS. And we could go into that on another show if you want to. Basically, it’s the 411 of internet that shut things down.

Larry 37:17
Well, when you’re using a computer to engage in criminality, society finds that very objectionable. Therefore, politically, to try to remove the enhancement for our type offences, it’s gonna be a tough sell. You would have to get the conservatives on board with that, to have a prayer of a chance to get it done.

Andy 37:44
Definitely. We should move on. We are going to run long tonight I can almost guarantee if we don’t keep rolling. Shall we go? (Larry: Let’s go.) Alright, here’s a question about international travel, says:

Listener Question
My name is Adriano, and I am an inmate at the Jacksonville Corrections Center completing my parole time. My outdate is March 8 of… (Andy: something that got cut off) Once released, I am required to register as PFR. I understand that NARSOL stands for the National Association for rational sexual offense laws, and would be very grateful if you can send me any and all information that might benefit me. I am a US citizen living in the US since 1989. I would like to know if I’m able to travel back to the country of my birth as a registered PFR. Thank you and sincerely. So, I’m pretty sure that there’s not gonna be a lot of positive advice for this guy here.

Larry 38:32
Well, actually, there is. He’s free to travel anywhere he wants to. And the way I read the letter, and I didn’t realize that it got cut off, but the way I read the letter is that he will complete his parole before he leaves. Now, I note that this came from Illinois, which has a period of mandatory supervised release. So I don’t know if he’s using that terminology interchangeably. But when he leaves, if he has no reporting obligations to anyone, if he’s not under any correctional control, he can travel anywhere he wants to. Now whether that country lets him in or not, that’s a decision they will make. But there’s no American prohibition against traveling. Depending on the type of crime he has, he may be required to notify. And in fact, regardless of the crime in some states, you have to notify of international travel. So if he is in a state that requires that notice to be filed of international travel, they’ve adopted that provision into their law, and he wants to travel, he will be obligated to file the report. His country may not let him in. I can’t speak for that country. It seems like you were born there, you are a dual citizen, it seems like they will let you in but I’ve heard of people who have dual citizenship being denied entry, so I can’t tell him. But I can tell you this. The United States will not prevent you from traveling. You can travel anywhere you want.

Andy 40:02
Do you get the impression that this particular individual is dual citizenship, or from another country to begin with and has citizenship here?

Larry 40:11
That’s the way I’ve read it, yes.

Andy 40:12
Yes. Okay. So if you had dual citizenship, I’m pretty sure if you were coming in this direction, that you’re a citizen, they’re gonna let you in. You might not like the conditions when you get here, but I don’t think they’re going to refuse you at the border, if you’re a citizen.

Larry 40:27
The US is gonna let you in if you’re a dual citizen, but can we be certain that what whichever country this is that they’re gonna let him in?

Andy 40:35
I’m just going to then assume that that’s correct. I realize that we don’t know the answer, because he could be from anywhere with the name Adriano. He’s, I don’t know, he could be from Spain. He could be from Brazil. I don’t know. But I’m going to, that’s my assumption is that by being a citizen of that place that they would let him in. But no, we certainly don’t know. But that was my thought was that he’s dual citizen.

Larry 40:56
I would not make that assumption. I’ve heard of countries denying entry of their citizens because of stuff that they’ve done while they’re outside the country. So I would not make that assumption, but he was asking about the US. The US doesn’t prohibit you from traveling, you can travel all you want. You just might not get in, but you could travel.

Andy 41:15
Yeah. And they’re gonna tell them that you’re coming

Larry 41:19
They very well may do that.

Andy 41:24

Ready to be a part of Registry Matters? Get links at If you need to be all discreet about it, contact them by email at You can call or text a ransom message to (747)227-4477. Want to support Registry Matters on a monthly basis? Head to Not ready to become a patron? Give a five-star review at Apple podcasts for stitcher or tell your buddies that your treatment class about the podcast. We want to send out a big heartfelt support for those on the registry. Keep fighting. Without you, we can’t succeed. You make it possible.

And then question three. Hopefully I won’t screw this one up. This one has a whole bunch of parts to it. But I’m just going to skip to the:

Listener Question
Dear Larry and Andy, one thing to note is that I’ve always been puzzled over what software used to create the podcast transcripts. It makes some unusual errors. For example, I referred to men in prison trading for meat logs and cookies. But the transcript says men trade for meat legs and cookies. I have not had anyone trade for my legs recently, but maybe I haven’t been offered the right trade.

Andy 42:50
So I learned kind of accidentally about a transcript, an automated one called Otter. And that’s what makes the initial cut, instead of having someone listen to the hour-long podcast and sit there and bang away at the keys. This one does the bulk, probably 85% of it. And then like this, if we mush mouth something or if we start talking over each other, it can’t figure out what it is. So we do have a person that goes behind it and cleans things up. This one was just missed for whatever reason. It is not intended to be, I don’t know like it’s not going to be a book copy that we’re going to put together that would get passed to an editor and all that stuff. It’s just to get you super close.

Larry 43:26
All right, and then I’m going to follow up. This is a four-page letter, and we’re going to take parts of it on this podcast and more of it on the next podcast and future podcasts. He says:

Listener Question
I made no admission to the police when they interrogated me. Granted, I probably wasn’t as eloquent with them as I’d have liked. After all, I’ve never been in trouble with the law before. But I did not admit to planning to have sex with a minor. In fact, I think I was quite clear with them that I doubted the person I chatted with was a teenager. (Larry: Well, that cuts both ways. We read the statutes, I won’t go back and read it again. We read the statute as it existed, when I did the research, the state would have to have been able to prove that he at least believed he was talking to a teenager. That saying I doubt you’re a teenager, that may not be the totality of the chat where he might have been more receptive to the fact he was talking to a teenager. So we don’t know the answer to that. But saying that, that you told the person I don’t think you’re a teenager, that statement standing alone would not be enough if you have other statements that you made that contradict that. So that’s what I’d like to say about that one.)

And then he says: that speaks to another point you mentioned, I did not have condoms (Larry: Because I said most of the time they show up with evidence that they’re going to have sex.) He says I did not have condoms, sex toys or anything on me or in my car that would have been indicative of someone planning to have sex. In the end, the DA had copies of the emails between the undercover policeman and myself. Yes, I spoke of things I would have enjoyed doing sexually, but also say unequivocally that in our meeting, that I would not have sex with her. (Larry: Well, now, this is a pet peeve of mine, because you do have the right in this country to fantasize. So having a fantasy is not prohibited. Where your argument begins to break down is you had the fantasy, so you’re having a digital or a verbal fantasy, saying, I would like to do things that I’m not going to say on this family program. I would like to do those things. That’s the fantasy. But when you say I would like to do these things, and then you traveled, you’ve taken a substantial step in further and furtherance of the consummation of the act. And that may be the reason why the attorney advised you to plead guilty. But I don’t know all that.)

But he says: If I had gone to trial, I know that juries tend to be narrow minded on these matters. So I could be better off not trying to raise an appeal. Given additional information I pointed out, what do you think? (Larry: Well, I don’t still have nearly enough information. But I can tell you this, if you did a plea, you’re pretty much dead in the water, because you waived everything, almost everything when you did the plea. When the judge asked you, do you understand that in the whole litany of questions that they asked you, do you understand this and are you knowingly waiving these rights? When you said yes, and you answered those correctly, are you under the influence of any intoxicants, and they go on and on before they take a plea with asking these questions. You waived any of the ill-gotten evidence. Any defense you could have raised. The only thing you really didn’t waive was the constitutionality of the statute itself. And I can assure you that statute, in my opinion, is very constitutional, the way it existed at the time. I read it. Remember we read it? It has all the requisite elements in terms of protection. So that is a constitutional statute as existed at that time.)

Andy 47:29
Without a doubt, definitely, definitely. All right. Okay. And then there’s some additional stuff that we’ll cover later as well?

Larry 47:37
Yes, this was such a long letter that we’re going to come back, we’re still gonna have Ashley and she had a flood so she couldn’t come today. We’re gonna have Ashley in to talk about exceptions to hearsay. And then we’re going to talk about more of the points in page three and page four of his letter.

Andy 47:53
Now, we haven’t had Ashley on in like, I don’t know, two years. She hasn’t been on since COVID. I don’t think. (Larry: It’s been a while.) Yep. Okay, I guess we roll over here to the main event. Is that right?

Larry 48:06
What’s the main event? Tell us a little bit about the main event. Tell us how we found this case.

Andy 48:11
Oh, shit. I don’t know. I guess we got a letter from the director of legal affairs from Illinois Voices. And that is from Scott. And we will read the following email from Scott. Shall we begin?

Larry 48:24
Let’s do it.

Andy 48:25
A man by the name of Martin Kopf recently won a district court ruling here in Illinois, challenging the residence restriction laws. The Attorney General is appealing this ruling directly to the Illinois Supreme Court. I guess we can start there. This guy took the case pro se and is looking for additional assistance as this matter moves forward. Adel Nicholas has offered to review whatever he plans to file, but I was wondering if NARSOL / Vivante would be able to provide him with any further assistance. I note that there’s a permanent injunction was entered in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants enjoining defendants from the following conduct and that was declining or refusing to register plaintiffs at his address based solely on his proximity to a daycare home, as it presently defined in the childcare act. Also then taking any action to force plaintiff to move or vacate the property based solely on its proximity to a daycare home, as it is presently defined in the Child Care Act. And finally prosecuting plaintiffs for any criminal offense based solely on its proximity to a daycare home as a president defined in the childcare. Is this case something NARSOL will want to get involved in and tell us more about it?

Larry 49:41
Yes, it is. It’s a case we’re interested in and I just learned about it a couple days ago when I got this email. The decision has been out there for a month but I guess they didn’t intend to tell anyone in case there was no appeal. But the case involves Kopf’s challenge to The Illinois sex offender registration Act, or SORA. And in 2003, Kopf was convicted of an offense of aggravated criminal sexual abuse. The offense involved a 15-year-old minor. He was sentenced to three years’ probation. Can you imagine that? Which he successfully completed. I keep telling you folks, when you say probation never, I say, I hate to tell you, a lot of people get probation. Although Kopf was told he would only have to register as a PFR for 10 years, the law changed. He’s now classified as a child PFR and sexual predator. And as such, he must register for life. Now remember, in 2003, that’s when he did the plea. So you couldn’t have advised him of all that stuff. But now he has to register for life.

Andy 50:46
And I’m just going to jump in there because it’s a civil regulatory scheme. They can change everything they want, at any point.(Larry: Correct.) Okay. All right. And I’m going to read excerpts from the order. According to the district judge, Kopf has diligently registered without incident since his conviction. He has also led a law-abiding life and now lives with his wife and two minor children. In 2017, Kopf sought to purchase and build a home designed to accommodate his disabilities. He consulted the Illinois State police’s sex offender response team, ISORT, mapping system to locate suitable sites that would comply with his SORA obligations. See, that sounds like he at least did his due diligence. I mean I realize it’s what he said, but like, that’s what you would go do. Based on a search, he determined that the address was compliant. ISORT initially confirmed that the site was suitable but advised the plaintiff that he needed to check with the local law enforcement. In November of 2017, Kopf contacted the Hampshire police department, and was told that the address was compliant. Based on this information, Kopf constructed his home and moved into the home in August of 2018. In November of that year, the Hampshire police advised Kopf that the existence of a daycare home on his block that was within 500 feet of his address, and that as a result, he would have to move. It seems like Kopf did all the right things. Yes, it sounds like it. How can they order him to vacate after they approved his address? Were they not negligent when they approved his address? Hasn’t Kopf been damaged?

Larry 52:10
My goodness, where did you come up with all those questions? So, yes, they may have been negligent. Unfortunately, there was no recovery for him on that negligence. The court stated as follows. Plaintiff alleges that both the Illinois State Police and Hampshire Police Department owed a duty to plaintiff to accurately inform him of SORA compliant homesites. He asserts that by not doing so they were negligent, thereby causing him to suffer damages. The court stated quote regardless of these claims, the state enjoys statutory sovereign immunity that defeat plaintiffs claim. Plaintiffs attempt to plead the special duty doctrine is of no consequence as the Illinois Supreme Court abolished it in 2016. And then they cite Coleman v. East Joliet Fire Department, a case from 2016. Therefore, the claim must fail, according to the court.

Andy 53:05
But the Hampshire Police Department also approved the address. Were they not negligent? So we got two agencies to approve the address.

Larry 53:13
I would say that they were, but ultimately, as the court held, the negligence claim against the Hampshire police department must also fail because the police department is not an entity subject to suit for damages. The police are employed by the domestic municipality, and any suit for damages would have to be brought against it. Even then, the municipality enjoys statutory immunity from suits that do not involve willful or wanton conduct.

Andy 53:42
So is abolishing sovereign immunity one of those situations where the liberals have it right? I know that the liberals are for it, and the conservatives are against it.

Larry 53:53
That is correct. I agree that sovereign immunity is an issue that needs to be examined carefully with the intent of making it possible to hold bad actors accountable. But in this instance, I’m not sure that we can conclude that anyone acted in bad faith. I just don’t see it. I mean, maybe the evidence was there, but I just don’t see it. When you’re trying to determine if someone can live somewhere, there’s so many variables and so many things. The the larger the exclusion list is, the more likely it is you could overlook something. But in terms of sovereign immunity? That’s exactly correct. This is an invented doctrine that the courts invented, and it is time to revisit it because a lot of bad actors are not held accountable. In this case, I’m not sure we have bad actors here.

Andy 54:36
Can you do me a favor and explain what sovereign immunity is?

Larry 54:40
It says that, that they are not able to be sued as a sovereign because of their actions, and there are very rare exceptions to where a lawsuit can go forward. So they are immune. It has to be a deliberate and wanton disregard. And even you see cops beat people, and they dismiss the case because of immunity. And that’s what the liberals are trying to change. They’re trying to say, Hey, wait a minute, this has gone too far. But in this case, I’m not sure we have all that bad faith. I think it might be a miscalculation, but I’m not sure it’s bad faith.

Andy 55:16
It’s just, it bothers me that so he did his due diligence and talked to the people that would have approved him. I suppose he could have gone the extra step and like practically knocked on doors, or sat in the neighborhood looking for cars to come and go to see if there was a daycare in the neighborhood. But then he goes out and spends all the money. It’s not cheap, generally, to build a house, you don’t build one for 20 grand. So he’s gone forth and spent all the money to build a house. And then they’re gonna tell him sorry, you can’t live here. And we don’t know what disabilities he has necessarily that he’s built one that specifically accommodates his needs. We’re talking about potentially, like wheelchair access and wider hallways and bars and stuff like that in the showers. That’s where I’m going with the disabilities.

Larry 55:54
It’s a tragedy that happened. It certainly is.

Andy 55:59
Paul says, in chat says every PFR should become a sovereign citizen. I don’t think that exists, actually. Alright, well, then let’s move on. Says the court stated most of plaintiffs constitutional claims must also fail, as they have been rejected by prior courts in favor of the legislative schemes and issues. Furthermore, all statutes carry a strong presumption of constitutionality. To overcome this presumption, the party challenging the statute bears a heavy burden of clearly establishing its constitutional infirmities. Any reasonable construction, which affirms statutes constitutionality must be adopted. And any doubt regarding a statute’s construction must be resolved in favor of the state statute’s validity. I think this means that the court begins by presuming that the statute is constitutional. Do I have that right Larry?

Larry 56:47
You do. And that’s what I emphasize on every one of these decisions. I always like to remind people that upon enactment, it’s presumed constitutional and guess who gets to carry the burden of proof? You do. The state doesn’t.

Andy 57:03
And which claims to the court then deny?

Larry 57:07
Oh, they denied count one, which raised the challenge based on ex post facto. They said that that has been resolved numerous times. Count 2 asserted a procedural due process violation., which I’m not sophisticated enough to explain the difference between procedural and substantive due process. And counts 4 and 5 raised challenges based on the alleged disproportion of penalties and cruel and unusual punishment. Also, he alleged that the statute was void for vagueness, all of those claims have been dismissed. So he didn’t get very far. People say if you just throw everything but the kitchen sink and hope something sticks, Well, he thew everything but the kitchen sink and only one thing stuck.

Andy 57:47
We actually talked about that probably a year ago where somebody had like 174 claims against the registry.

Larry 57:53
I remember that case. Yep.

Andy 57:56
All right. The court initially granted injunctive relief based on a finding that the plaintiff’s equal protection argument had merit. The court has now found that the SORA provisions at issue specifically the definition of daycare home and its impact violate both the Equal Protection Clause as well as substantive due process. How did the judge get to that outcome?

Larry 58:17
Well, in terms of the injunction, the preliminary injunction, it means that Mr. Kopf showed at the onset of litigation that he was likely to prevail on the merits when the case finally did go to trial. And that he would suffer irreparable harm without the injunction. Those are the basic standards for obtaining injunctive relief and those have not changed. Anytime you want to enjoin an action, you have to show the court at the very beginning, when you’re playing your cards, that you have such a compelling case that you’re likely to win when it goes to trial. And you have to show even though you’re going to win, that without the injunction, you’re going to suffer irreparable harm. And let me add one more thing. It can’t be speculative. It has to be a given irreparable harm. Him being thrown out of his home that he built to accommodate his disabilities would clearly be irreparable harm.

Andy 59:12
Yeah, that’s not speculative at all. He’s totally like, Hey, I’m going to go move in. Sorry, you can’t live here. Like, Oh, shit. Now we don’t have a home. That’s not speculative at all. (Larry: Not at all.) Um, it seems to me that the trial judge is calling bs on them. I’m reading from the opinion here. A daycare home is a private home that is licensed to care for three to 12 children under the age of 12 for less than 24 hours a day. The number of children includes the children living in the home under age 12 as well. This definitely leads to some absurd results. Take an imagined neighbor who cares for one unrelated child and has one child of their own under the age of 12 at home. With only two children in that daycare setting, plaintiff can still live next door to that person and still comply with SORA. Likewise, he can legally live next door to his neighbor with 5, 10 or a dozen children without consequence. Further, it is reasonable to assume that there could be dozens of children under age 12 within 500 feet of the plaintiff’s house. And that would be permissible. It is only when that first neighbor invites a third child in the home, be it through birth, adoption or daycare, that plaintiffs’ ability to reside at that neighborhood is terminated. This example becomes even more absurd when the next-door neighbor has two to 11 of their own children at home and brings in one unrelated child for daycare. Plaintiffs could have become a model neighbor to that family, yet that one additional child suddenly disqualifies him. Moreover, a home with 13 children is outside the possible definition of daycare home.

Larry 1:00:46
Yes, he is actually calling them out on their BS. But I haven’t had enough time to figure out what the state could do in response to that legislatively to clean up what this trial judge was concerned about. But he is clearly calling them out on the absurdity. You would have ample opportunity for that person to live there. Except for when you take in one child for daycare that’s between three and 12. But you can have however many unlimited amount of children and it’s not a threat. But magically, if you’re caring for one as a daycare sitter, it changes everything. Well, the judge is calling that, that is total BS.

Andy 1:01:26
Yeah, like somebody could just be on their way to work and some event happens. Like, hey, my neighbor, can you please watch my kid for the day, and now you’re disqualified from living next door to that because someone needs you to watch their kid which now turns you into a daycare home?

Larry 1:01:40
Yep. So I’m going to actually read what the judge said. The judge said such a scheme is not rationally related to the legitimate state interest or protecting children and does nothing to promote it. It is unreasonable for statutory scheme to turn a blind eye to the many children potentially living next door and within close proximity to plaintiffs only to attempt to afford protection to a limited few. The constitutional right to equal protection of the law guarantees that the state must treat similarly situated persons in a similar manner. When it comes to daycare homes, SORA violates these principles. Plaintiff living down the block from a private home with three children under the age of 12 is treated differently from a PFR living next door to a comparable family if the former has at least one child has been provided daycare. Such a bizarre result cannot survive scrutiny. When viewed in that light prohibiting the plaintiff from living within 500 feet of such a home is irrational and it does not protect children. End of quote.

Andy 1:02:46
Do you think there’s any chance they’ll abandon their appeal?

*Laugh track*

Larry 1:03:00
Actually, in this instance, I think they should. Do I think they will? I don’t think that they can bring themselves because that’s their wiring. But in this particular case, they should. Because this is only a trial judge opinion, it has no precedential value. This is from Kane County, Illinois, which is a suburb of Chicago. So, you have a trial judge who has no power outside this case. You have the risk by doing this appeal, that the Illinois Supreme Court, which is a direct appeal to the Supreme Court, they may agree with this trial judge that this statute as it’s constructed for daycare homes is not rationally related, and it does violate the equal protection clause. And if they do that, then you have a real problem. Your whole Ponzi scheme comes crumbling and crashing down. You can minimize that risk by letting this guy go. He has an injunction. He has some form of disability. We don’t know to what extent. He apparently is going to be a minimal threat, if any threat. He may be zero threat, depending on his physical condition. Let it go. Let him go. But I think the risk is too great to go forward with the appeal. That’s why we had the laughter in there. But they should let this one go.

Andy 1:04:38
And we’re talking, I think it said his crime was in ‘03. So, it’s 18 years removed. But I want to say from where we started the whole program was about they can’t help themselves. I think this applies again; they can’t help themselves.

Larry 1:04:54
They really can’t. They don’t like losing, and the way the AG’s office is going to look at it is he put his hand on the Bible, he has to enforce the laws of the state. And it may be even a she, but he or she is going to look at it that way. And they’re going to say, I’m doing my duty, and they’re going to go forward with this appeal. But if I had my way, I would say, we’re gonna let this one evaporate and go away.

Andy 1:05:22
I see. And if that were the case, then how does that then transfer? How do you feel that this applies to all of our people? And the proximity to things like daycares and churches and schools and whatnot. How does this transfer over to still in Illinois but then out to other states?

Larry 1:05:42
As a trial court, it doesn’t do anything. This is the law of this case. And so therefore, if you wanted to bring a similar case, in Kane County, since the county has well over 500,000 people, they’ve got multiple judges, you may not get the same judge. And this is not in any way bearing on any other district judge in that court. It’s not bearing any on any… it has no control on any judge anywhere in Illinois. Now, what you would do if you brought a complaint, you would say this well thought out, Oh, beautifully written, organized opinion is so spot on, that they should adopt it, but they’re not obligated to. They’re only obligated to if an appellate court says that the trial judge got it right. And that’s the risk Illinois’ taking by asking the Supreme Court to look at this. What are you going to do if they say the trial judge got it right?

Andy 1:06:40
Yeah, sure. But does it become persuasive at least to file a challenge in another state?

Larry 1:06:47
At this level, it’s not even persuasive. This is a trial judge. It’d be very persuasive if you got the same trial judge, if you were in that county, it would be a little more persuasive of people who, judges who sit in that same courthouse because they probably like their colleague, and they’d take a look at it say, well, that’s pretty compelling. Sounds pretty good to me. But you could even have a judge that sits in that same courthouse say I disagree with this judge. So it’s not binding on anyone.

Andy 1:07:18
Okay, anything else? We’re running short on time. Anything else before we scoot out of here? Well, scoot as in this particular case.

Larry 1:07:26
yeah, I think I’ve covered this as best as I can.

Andy 1:07:30
Interesting, super neat, though, I like it. I like the concept of challenging them on their definitions of what of how you come to the term of the daycare home and all that.

Larry 1:07:39
It’s awesome. And we need to give a shout out to the judge so that people know. This is judge Kevin Busch. And the case, since it’s not precedential, it’s not really important that people know the name of it, you really can’t cite to it. So therefore, don’t start scribbling down notes saying I’m gonna file something on this case, because you can’t. It’s not any way precedential.

Andy 1:08:04
I guess this should be almost like the name of the of the episode would be something about what determines a home daycare or something like that?

Larry 1:08:11

Andy 1:08:13
Let’s move over to our new segment it’s called who is that speaker? And last week, we had a bunch of submissions, but ultimately, the winner was Ron from Lorton, Virginia, and he has the right answer. He wrote also, I will mention that he is a Patron. But although I wasn’t able to watch the live stream this week, I did get the early release, because he’s a patron, link to it in the email. And now I’m listening to this as I type, and the speaker was Donald Henry Rumsfeld. He was the US Secretary of Defense within both the Ford and the Bush administrations, which is pretty awesome. And he died last month at the age of 88. Congratulations, Ron, we don’t have any prizes for you, but certainly a pat on your back. We should then move over to this week’s version. And so if you want to us shoot me an email message at if you can guess who this one is. Last week was a something of a softball, Larry. This week, I don’t think… I bet you nobody gets this one Larry. Of course it’s not gonna play for me.

Who is that Speaker? 1:09:23
And I must say to you, that the State of the Union is not good.

Larry 1:09:30
Well, since it’s such a hard one I’m going to give people, the clue that they’ve probably already picked up on, it’s a presidential address. And it’s from a long time ago. And the State of the Union is not good. So, you figure out what president said that.

Andy 1:09:48
Okay, so send your messages to and we will see if you can win. Larry, did you know we got a new patron last week?

Larry 1:09:59
I did. That’s awesome. He came in at an at an awesome level.

Andy 1:10:03
Just shy of the stimulus money level. And I thank you so very much, Alex, that was super generous. We were having a talk about web developers. He is a part of a group I didn’t know existed. He is out there in the Washington State area. And I very, very much appreciate you coming on board there, Alex. And honestly, Larry, I think that that closes out the show. Is there anything else that you wanted to go over before we shut this whole thing down?

Larry 1:10:29
I think we’ve covered it. I did not have any new subscribers that I recall this past week. But if we missed you, we’ll get you on next week. We’ll give you your shout out.

Andy 1:10:40
Perfect. You can find all the show notes over at Leave voicemail at 747-227-4477. Email at And, of course, support us over on Patreon, same as Alex did. And that’s Larry, as always, I appreciate you so very much. You are full of wonderful, valuable information. We had a great time in chat. The way that you get into chat is to become a patron, and you can hang out and catch all the zany-ness and silliness that goes on in there. And without anything else. Larry, I wish you a great weekend and I’ll talk to you soon. Have a great night.

Larry 1:11:17
Thanks for having me.

Andy 1:11:21
Bye, buddy. Bye.

You’ve been listening to FYP.

Transcript of RM184: Colorado Affirms Internet Ban

Andy 00:00
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 a problem with these thoughts, fyp. Recording live from FYP Studios, east and west. Transmitting across the internet. Well, I guess Northeast and West transmitted across the internet. This is Episode 184 of Registry Matters. The humidity here, Larry is just so very different than it is in Georgia. It is so different. They might think that it’s humid up here. But boy, do they have another thing coming. It’s kind of funny.

Larry 00:32
What’s the humidity there as we speak?

Andy 00:35
I bet it’s 40%. But 40% even still, it it’s not the same because it’s quote unquote, relative humidity, like 100%, 90% in New Orleans is not 90% in Georgia, and is not 90% in Pittsburgh, not even close to the same.

Larry 00:52
So well. I sent you a screenshot of ours yesterday. It was like 14% or something?

Andy 00:57
Probably. I didn’t look at that. I thought you said it was like 104 or something like that. It’s crazy. That’s like, I don’t know if that’s hot. Alright, now that we’re done with the FYP weather forecast podcast, let us begin the show. Tell us, Larry, what do we have this evening?

Larry 01:13
A fantastic program lined up. We have a comment from a listener. We have at least three or maybe four questions. We have West Virginia Supreme Court ruling analyzed by a West Virginian. And we have a Colorado Court of Appeals decision related to PFRs and prohibition and limitations on internet access. It should be exciting.

Andy 01:42
Wow, man, are we going to be able to fit all this in an hour?

Larry 01:45
If you talk fast.

Andy 01:48
Okay, I will talk very fast. Let’s start from a very longtime patron and pretty regular contributor. Will from Tennessee. I haven’t talked to Will in a long time, I almost forget where he is from. This is from what we talked about a week or two ago, if this decision that lifetime registration stands, wouldn’t the state be able to cherrypick an expert on the stand who would come in on the stand to swear up and down every applicant for deregistration would be too dangerous to let go? Can’t the State simply getpaid hack to say anything they want? Sounds conspiratorial Larry.

Larry 02:24
Yeah, the funny thing is, it’s not so ridiculous, it very well could happen. What he’s talking about is the South Carolina Supreme Court saying that you cannot be required to register for life without some due process to evaluate your continued need to register. And therefore South Carolina is gonna have to create a process to remove folks from the registry. And that would be one thing that would very likely happen would be that there would be… remember when you file these deregistration petitions, you serve them on a party, which is usually the prosecuting attorney, the jurisdiction of conviction. But that is a part of the prosecution apparatus. And when you’re talking about the state, that’s who you’d be referring to. It would be very likely that the more affluent counties, particularly that have lots of PFRs, they would be able to easily bring someone in that would say that. That’s all the more reason why, if I were advising South Carolina, which they haven’t asked me for any advice, I would try to rewrite the statutory scheme, where that the tier ones and the tier twos do not even need to file a petition because they’re not required to by federal law. That was just South Carolina overreach putting everyone at lifetime when they didn’t even have to do that to have their precious AWA compliance. I would rewrite the law and make sure those people just termed out automatically without having to file anything. Then you’ve gotten rid of two thirds of the people in the registry, that they would theoretically no longer be entitled to have a removal process because they remove themselves. Then you would be down to the 1/3. And then I would look at that 1/3, the tier threes and make sure that we didn’t have anybody in that category that didn’t need to be by the federal standards, and then I’d create a process for those people if it were me and I were creating this, but I don’t expect them to do that. I expect them to require everybody to file a petition. And that’s more of the reasons why they’re not gonna want to do it, because it’s going to be far more expensive when you have to give everyone a petition process.

Andy 04:33
As opposed to something that we’ve talked about, I think is why not just make it automatic after X number of years, whether that be 10 years that you just fall off automatically?

Larry 04:45
That’s what the federal law permits.

Andy 04:49
That’s permitted in the AWA guidelines? (Larry: Absolutely.) But I don’t think there’s a state that does it.

Larry 04:56
I think there are a few. We don’t have a petition process but most people here are stuck life but the ones who are less than life, they just fall off, they don’t need to file anything. But under the under the AWA, these very rigid federal regulations to achieve your precious substantial compliance designation petitions are not needed. And I’ve said that over and over again, you can just let them turn out. And that’s what I would do if I were fixing South Carolina’s problem. I would say, Look, I’m pretending I’m Attorney General, and I’m a policymaker there, we can’t afford to be having all these hearings for 14,000 people. So what we’re gonna do is we’re going to skirt not having to have a hearing, because we’re gonna let these people just time out, they won’t need to file a petition. Then that just took care of a big part of the Supreme Court’s concern, because their concern was that no one gets off. That everyone is on for life. So therefore, I just took care of two thirds of the registry, they’re no longer on for life, they just simply timeout. And then we would deal with that remaining third, look at that list critically and make sure that they really do have to be tier three, because a lot of states are fond of putting people in tier three of offenses that don’t have to be, and I would move those out of tier three down to tier two, and maybe tier one. But I would certainly drop them down to tier two. And then I would figure out how to develop a less costly process for the remaining people because then you’ve reduced the number of people, you’ve cut the expense by two thirds.

Andy 06:32
Right. Larry, you and your rational reasoning and making sense of things? I don’t like it.

Larry 06:40
Well, that’s the way that you can sell this because they’ll less likely that they would fight it. I continue to believe that they will file a cert petition with US Supreme Court, because they are faced with creating a process for 14,000. I think, Don said, the South Carolina advocate. 14,000 people, they’re not gonna want to do that. That’s going to be very expensive, and they’re not going to want to do that.

Andy 07:03
Right, except for but if they just had a fall-off process, it wouldn’t be expensive.

Larry 07:09
That’s what I just said. That’s why I would recommend letting the people term off the registry. And you’ve reduced that cost dramatically.

Andy 07:19
Sure. Okay. Well, let’s move on. We have yet like another email message or voicemail message from Brent. This is like the third in a series, I think, do we need to set this up or just let it play?

Larry 07:30
Well, it’s the arrest of a relative. And they’re both college students and I don’t know the extent of the of how close they are but a family member. And he’s been reaching out to me directly for feedback, because we have come to know each other through the podcast.

Andy 07:50
Okay. Well, here we go with Brent’s voicemail.

Brent (Voicemail) 07:54
Hey, Andy and Larry. Hello, again. I just wanted to give kudos to FYP for all the help that you’ve provided my family and I since my relative was arrested by the FBI. So far, the entire process has gone down exactly, literally exactly the way that Larry said it would. But unfortunately, the detention hearing did not go well, and they the judge ordered him detained pending trial. So this is, you know, hit our family pretty hard, because they literally had no idea how the system worked. I had, you know, some idea by listening to you guys, but they were completely blindsided. They’re also pretty shocked that the Federal sentencing guidelines are so strict and that his offense that he’s charged with has a mandatory sentence that can’t be suspended. So which pretty much means automatic jail time. Anyway, I’ll keep fyp informed as it unfolds. But also on a side note, that was a sick laugh track. Do you know who that is laughing? ‘Cause I’ve never heard that one before.

Andy 09:07
Let’s do you want to cover the laugh track part first?

Larry 09:10
Let’s play the laughter. I want to make sure we’re talking about the same thing.

Andy 09:13
No, I can’t. I can’t do it. I don’t have my gear with me. I’m traveling.

Larry 09:18
All right. Well, that is… I think he means sick is good. Right? Sick laugh track. That would mean good, right?

Andy 09:25
That would be the modern-day term. I think the easiest way to explain it would be what like in the 80s and 90s what the term bad was. So you’d say man, that was bad. But that meant good. So sick is like awesome, good, killer, off the charts.

Larry 09:37
So all right. Well, what am I supposed to be explaining now?

Andy 09:42
Uh, I guess that was that. We were explaining that part. But it was there anything to follow up with the whole process that they’re going through with the federal sentencing guidelines?

Larry 09:52
Well, on a side communication, he asked me what would be the chances of this case being dismissed? And I told him very, very low. I mean, exceedingly low. If it were in the state system, there’d be a higher chance. But even in the state system, the chances would be low. What makes a case like this, and this is possession, and distribution of CP. What makes the case like this so different is you have multiple witnesses. A case with an individual victim can completely fall apart without the victim. It can completely fall apart without a key detective. Somebody gets transferred to Iraq or somewhere. And they’re crucial to the case, the case falls apart. This case isn’t likely to fall apart because too many agencies are involved in it. The National Center for Missing & Exploited Children who provided the initial tip, then there’s the FBI, then there’s the Department of Homeland Security. There’s the Bernalillo County Sheriff’s Department. There’s on and on with agencies involved. And there’s not a key witness that would make this case go away that’s so critical and plus there’s a confession. I’ve seen the evidence in the case, in terms of affidavit for the rest of the confession. So you would have to be successful on a suppression motion. And there’s just too much thatt’ll make this case impossible for it to go away. I mean, could there be a presidential pardon? I mean, we’ve heard of people being pardoned before they’re convicted. I mean, we heard of that in the Trump administration. We’ve heard about that in the Nixon administration, actually, after the Nixon administration. But yeah, that is possible. But it’s a very long shot that any of that would happen. I don’t see President Biden issuing a pardon preemptively on this case. So therefore, it’s not likely to go away. So it’s going to be plead out. If it’s not plead out, if he were to go to trial, he would get a horrendous sentence. So it’s going to be plead out. That’s the way this case will go.

Andy 11:57
That’s just terrible. Okay, I think enough of that, and we can move on to a follow up message. This is the follow up show. A follow up message from Jeff.

Jeff (Voicemail) 12:07
Happy Saturday Registry Matters. This is Jeff from Kentucky again. Last week, Larry said about my other question about the South Carolina thing and lifetime registration without due process. He didn’t know how long I had been on the registry. I’ve been on for five years. And I had two counts possession, one count distribution. And distribution sounds really bad. But it was simply that a cop was able to download it from me so therefore I got distribution, but they all three stemmed from one incident. I have not been adjudicated three separate times. It was in one incident. So if you would explain to me what due process is. And pretend I’m really dumb. If you would, explain to me how I did or did not receive due process by being put on the registry for life with no chance of getting off. And as always, fyp. And thank you for what you guys do. Take care. Bye.

Andy 13:05
Interesting Jeff’s a longtime listener since forever, pretty much like since episode one practically. And a longtime Patreon supporter as well.

Larry 13:13
Fantastic. Well, due process, there’s procedural and there substantive due process, and he’s talking about procedural due process here. When there’s Liberty interests going to be diminished, there has to be a process as prescribed and followed by law. The problem that he’s talking about is we do not know what due process is for this issue. And what suffices. What we’re learning from these court decisions is that the lack of any process is problematic. But we won’t know what due process. When South Carolina creates its process, we won’t know until it’s tested in court, if that is sufficient due process. The states up until recently when they started losing these cases, they simply argued that when you were adjudicated through the criminal system that resulted in your conviction, that that in and of itself was due process. But where that started breaking down, was that at the time many people were adjudicated that either there was no registry, or it was far less onerous. Far more benign and then as time has passed, like the registration periods. Point two and point three versions of the registry as they continue to toughen it. They include so many more disabilities or restraints. So the courts have started to recognize that perhaps maybe you did receive due process if the registry existed in some form or fashion at the time of your original conviction. But what you signed up for in your original plea negations as the registry, that was the point one version. We’re now on point four and you could not have reasonably anticipated all these disabilities and restraints. So therefore to continue to extract more and more of your freedom, and impose more and more restraints on your liberty, that you’re going to have to have some form of due process that justifies that. We don’t know what it’ll look like, we truly don’t know. We’ve had decisions out of other courts, I remember in New Hampshire, I think was the first Supreme Court that came out with such a decision five, six years ago. They said that the person had to have due process, they didn’t know what it looked like, because they’re the court. They’re not the ones who make the law and create the process, they just said that you need to create a process. Well, when South Carolina creates it, if they decide not to file a cert petition, we will look at that. And some of us will say, gee, that’s not sufficient. Or we’ll say that’s pretty good due process. And if it’s challenged, we’ll have to take that up on appeal and find out if it satisfies the opportunity to be heard, to confront the evidences against you, to put it evidence on your behalf, and so forth and so on. All things that are part of due process, but right now, we don’t know.

Andy 16:07
Okay, interesting. All right. I guess we can go over to the thing we have titled of to be read. And I’m gonna read the whole thing, Larry?

Larry 16:16
You can. I don’t think it’ll take too long if you don’t mind.

Andy 16:20
No, no, I don’t mind. I was just making sure cuz I mean it is semi long. Alright.

Listener Question
My friend Sean is a subscriber to the Registry Matters transcripts. He is the young man who has dual citizenship with the UK and wants to leave the US when his sentence is over. He’s written two or three times I believe. Actually, you might call me his Silent Partner, but with respect to being two subscribers. When he was on the fence about paying so much for a subscription, and let’s face it, on a prison salary, it is a bit hefty, though I completely understand the need to cover costs on your end. I said I’d buy his coffee bags for a few months. This way, effectively, we both paid for half a year subscription and share the full year’s informative podcast. it’s a scheme that works well for us. And I think more folks in prisons should strike similar deals. (Andy: Totally Larry. People could like, 5, 10, 20 people could all chip in and buy you know, a couple of soups or something for one person to pay for it.) People trade coffee, noodle stamps and other items all the time for useless garbage like meat, legs and cookies. Why not pitch in with each other to share a podcast transcripts subscription and learn some valuable information? Oh, well, if everyone took time to think about how we’d all be better off working together, maybe we’d actually be living in a utopian society without prisons in the first place. So consider the context of where we are. I encourage others to try sharing subscriptions, and maybe a few genuinely will. Regardless, this is not the reason I’m writing. I’m interested in a topic you addressed in the 12 June podcast, Dennis J. Powell Jr. versus Mark Keel, Chief State Law Enforcement Division at the second state of South Carolina. Without going into too much detail, I was sentenced for similar crime. And although I ultimately took a plea deal, I have always wondered how the state could feel so confident in pressing charges when, in my text with the undercover officer, I repeatedly indicated either we would engage in nothing sexual when we met, or I expressed ambivalence about my intentions. Ultimately, the police arrested me several blocks away, when I chose not to park my car and go to the building we agreed to meet at. You indicate you’ve done a lot of work on this subject for all 50 states. I’d be interested in reading the material you mentioned, especially for the state of Wisconsin. I’d ask you to fight back for my own benefit. Yet, I want to stand up for others, too. When I’m released in two years, I will advocate and fight for better laws until meaningful change is solidly established. Thank you, both Larry and Andy, for all you do. Enclosed are some envelopes to help your work. I wish it could be more.

Thank you so much. Wow, that’s a lot going on there. What do you think about the work being done in all 50 states? Where do you want to go with that one?

Larry 19:10
Well, I was actually thinking I had divided that up. I thought I had the one to be read. And then we’re going to do the question later. But they’re combined. That’s why you thought it was longer than I thought it was because I was thinking it as a one pager. But and Wisconsin law. Now I have not updated this for nearly a decade and I’ll be happy to provide it to him without any cost. I’ll send him the compilation. But what they had at the time I did this Wisconsin had two statutes. One was 948.07 was child enticement. And the other statute I think’s more relevant, not 948.075, use of a computer to facilitate a child sex crime. And that one, as it read at the time I did this. Whoever uses the computerized communication system to communicate with an individual who the actor believes or has reason to believe has not attained the age of 16, with intent to have sexual contact or sexual intercourse with the individual, in violation of Section 948.021.02 is guilty of a class C felony. Now, that’s a pretty well constructed statute. It’s not the best, but it’s a pretty well-constructed statute. Because the actor has to believe that the person has not attained 16 years of age and there has to be intent to have sexual contact or sexual intercourse as that statute stood when I did this research. And therefore, I would say that not knowing the facts of that particular case, that even though he didn’t park, and maybe he got cold feet, that they probably had some evidence of intent to have sex. And they had evidence that he knew or believed that the actor was under the age of 16. So it was a cop posing, not a real person. It never is a real person, but I have a feeling that the evidence was there, that he had intent. They always come with… this is a family program, but they always come with condoms, they always come prepared for sexual intercourse. And then what would have happened when they arrested him, they would have asked him after reading him his rights, because they would have arrested him told him he was in custody, they would ask him, Do you wish to talk and discuss that? And they would have asked him, what would he have done had they not arrested him? Would he have had sex? And during that interview if anytime he said, I might would have. They would have embellished that in their report. And they would have said that he agreed that he would have sexual intercourse with that person posing as a minor. So therefore, I feel his pain. But Wisconsin statute wasn’t that bad at the time in terms of I wished all the state statutes were as clear and as clean as this one was written at that time. I’ll look up a current version of it. We’ll talk about in a future episode, but I doubt it has changed significantly.

Andy 22:26
Do you think, I mean, like the act of I don’t know if you could even extend it back. But as soon as you got in the car and started driving towards, wouldn’t it almost be and I’m pushing it all the way to the extreme, he parked a block away, how far away would you be before you have not done the intent part? If you got in the car and started heading in that direction? You’ve got the intent if you want to push it all the way?

Larry 22:49
Well, not necessarily, if you had not discussed previously, you have the right to meet someone without having sex if that hasn’t been discussed in advance of the proposed meeting. But I suspect that there was a discussion about sex might occur. The person posing as a minor said, well, you know, anything could happen. Yeah, I think I think older guys are cute, or whatever they say. And, but the actual, what, what you usually would have in what scenario you’re describing is an attempt. When you when you take, like, say, for example, he agreed, or the conversation, the text or the whatever way they were conversing, suggested that sex might happen. And then he took the step of driving and moving towards that individual’s location, then you’ve got a substantial step and furtherance and completion of the Act. And that is generally considered an attempt, because the police don’t have to let the person fall in… If there really had been a minor, they don’t have to let the minor fall into the hands of the perp and see if they would actually have sex. That first step towards meeting if there had been discussion of sex would be sufficient, in most instances to complete what would be an attempt which normally drops the offense by one level of severity. But still, I feel your pain, but I don’t think you have anything. Now there went the rest of our subscription, they’re going to cancel everything.

Andy 24:24
No more bags of coffee going to the person that’s actually paying for it to defray the costs. So maybe you should give them positive news Larry instead of all the negative Nancy stuff.

Larry 24:33
Well, I’m gonna send up this compilation.

Andy 24:37
Oh, okay. Well, good reaching out there, Larry. Okay. Then let’s move over to question number two, and this says,

Listener Question
To whom this may concern, I’m writing in regards to some questions concerning the PFR registry and federal supervised release etc., and I hope you’re able to help. I’ve been hearing that there are people advocates fighting to get rid of the registry or reform it. Is there any truth to this? It’s a very vicious thing. Also, regarding polygraphs, I’ve heard the same thing that advocates are fighting to get rid of using them on supervised release. Is this true? There are people that have been violated and sent back to federal prison for failed polygraphs for technical stuff. And to be honest, that concerns me. My last question is, I’m from New York, but would like to move to Vermont upon release. Will I be able to move to Vermont when I get released from the feds? How is it living there as PFR in regards to the laws, etc. I’ve heard it’s one of the better states to live in as a PFR. Any and all info you’re able to send me will be appreciated so very much. Thank you for all your time and help in this matter. And look forward to hearing back from you best regards.

Larry 25:48
Okay, this comes from a prison where we have a lot of support for both the newsletter and the podcast, I’m always going to go out of my way to be helpful, because we have such loyal followers at this particular prison. So there are a lot of questions here. Is it true that people are working, advocates are working on both of those things to do with polygraph? Yes. Are they going to succeed? Well, that’s another question.

Andy 26:20

Larry 26:22
Getting rid of polygraphs as they pertain to treatment? Probably not likely. I just don’t see that happening. So there went bad news number one. There was like a second question at the beginning there wasn’t there?

Andy 26:40
I hear that there are people advocates fighting to get rid of the registry or reform it. So that one is true, that, then regarding the polygraphs, then, also go ahead…

Larry 26:50
Yeah, getting rid of the registry. There are people advocating for that or making it nonpublic. That’s going to be a really, really long shot. Because it’s ingrained in American society now. It’s been around some variation, since the mid 1990s. So we’re talking about 25 years, Americans will tell you that now they have a right to know. Because if you have something for that long, it becomes ingrained. They have the right to know this information. So taking away something that they see as a right, it’s going to be difficult through a political process. Could it be done through a court process? Maybe if we can prove how punitive being on a website is and all the things that relate to the registry. But merely collecting a name of people and putting them on a list, there’s nothing wrong about that. We do that for voters, we do that for young men who register for the draft, we do that for the children of Flint that were exposed to contaminated water. I mean, we register, register, register, register, that doesn’t have to punish you. So you could have a sexual offender registry that would not inflicted the punishment. That would be conceivable to concoct such a mechanism. But as far as rolling these things back, it’s a tough sell politically, it’s really tough.

Andy 28:11
Which kind of means why we have to take it to court, though, to get the judges to push back to say that, No, you can’t. But they’re not going to say what they can do. So then they can just step up to that line again and do everything. But not that one little thing or two little things.

Larry 28:25
And we have to quit expecting the judges to know by divine intervention, that the registry is punitive. We have to be prepared with a big bucks to come up with witnesses, with experts, with testimony. And we need to stop doing summary judgment. We need to put these cases on trial with a strong evidentiary record below so that the judges can make those decisions. That’s what we need to do. And that means that we’re going to have to as a population, we’re going to have to stop waiting for someone else. And we’re going to have to dig into our pockets and we’re going to have to contribute and we’re gonna have to be supportive of those who are fighting these battles, because they are very expensive. Now there went the rest of our listeners.

Andy 29:04
So now people that have been violated and setback to federal prison for failed polygraphs. But see, cover that for a second people don’t fail quote unquote, they don’t fail the polygraph. They just have some level of that didn’t quite look right. So then let’s go scrutinize you further.

Larry 29:20
Yeah, I continue to take issue with that because the failing the polygraph, showing deception doesn’t send you back to prison. In most instances, it’s your admission after the polygraph conclusion in the post polygraph interview where disclosures are made, those send you back to prison. But just simply showing deception if you continue to say I’ve told the truth. I have not seen a revocation petition yet. I’m gonna have to up the ante, please send me a petition that says only that that’s all they did: show deception on a polygraph. Send me that I’m anxious to see it.

Andy 29:54
So just to take a quick little detour. Remember we talked about my buddy at the end of the podcast three years or so? I’m pretty confident that he had some sort of problem with his Polly and not that he lied. He just was nervous. Whatever showed up that caused them to come visit scrutinize them where they did find something that was completely unrelated. And that’s why he got jammed up. I’m pretty sure that’s how it went down. And I’m just saying that to confirm the story that you’ve just already described, and to push back against him saying that failed polygraphs. He didn’t fail a polygraph, he showed he had some sort of meters registering that he was whatever, not lying, just nervous, whatever it showed, but that’s why they came in and tossed the house.

Larry 30:35
In terms of the question about Vermont, they do have one of the less obnoxious registries in the country. Whether the feds will let you go there, I can’t answer that. It’s going to depend on the judicial district, the Federal Judicial District where you were convicted, and what their policy is letting people move to other states. It would be an OK state to live in. If they would let you move, they’re going to require you have connections to that state, that you’d be able to support yourself. You just don’t get to state shop and say, gee, I’d like to go to a better state. But yes, they very well could let you go there. But I don’t know the answer to that.

Andy 31:12
Okay, I think that’s everything from this letter. All right, then let us move on to I think this is question number free. Do I say that right? Yes. Question free. It says:

Listener Question
to Whom it may concern, same as the last one. I’m writing you to request information and assistance from you in the following. I am sentenced to two lifetime probation terms. And the Arizona Probation Department won’t help me succeed. Could you please provide me with a listing of states that are lenient and will work with me to get off probation in a reasonable time. I get out of prison July 9th, 2021, so can you please send it to the following address blah, blah, blah.

That’s kind of a demanding letter, Larry, but what is two lifetime probation terms? Like he has two lifetime sentences of probation?

Larry 32:01
Yes. And I put in here for one particular reason. I’ll be able to emphasize that you cannot state shop to reduce your sentence. Arizona imposed that sentence. And only Arizona can modify that sentence. Wouldn’t it be a great country if you could be sentenced to lifetime in one state, and you could go to another state, and they could say hmm, we really don’t care for this sentence. We’re gonna reduce it. Wouldn’t it be a fantastic setup? What would the moving business be like? Whatever state that you would be allowed to transfer to assuming that they would take you, and I don’t have a list of the leniant states. But you’re going to need connections, as I said on the previous segment, you’re going to need connections to those states that you’re interested in moving to. They have to decide that they will accept you. And you will go to those states with lifetime probation. There’s nothing that state can do about it. The only thing they can do is after a period of time of successful supervision, if they were so inclined, they could recommend to Arizona that it be reduced, or that you be discharged. Very few supervising authorities will make that recommendation. And I think Andy, you could explain to us why they wouldn’t make that recommendation. It has happened, I think once since I’ve been in this business. We know who had happened to from North Carolina that had a sentence for 50 years from Virginia. And the North Carolina people recommended that he be released, but it seldom happens. But it could happen. That’s would get your Arizona probation term reduced. But otherwise, you can’t go to the other state and they reduce your probation. Wouldn’t that be great?

Andy 33:42
That would be. The only equivalent that I can think of is that people go visit other countries and they tell what the situation is here. And then they like, don’t worry about that here. And I know that that’s after sentence and all that stuff. So it’s not quite the same thing. You’re not getting your sentence reduced. But other countries look at what we’re doing here. And they’re like, not appalled. They’re completely disagreeable to what we’re doing and their situation is different there. But not within the states. I don’t imagine because then everybody would just move around and you don’t have this packing of PFRs in those states. (Larry: Absolutely.) Okay, question number four, it says:

Listener Question
Hello, Andy and Larry, as always, I can’t thank you guys enough for what you do every week. I’ve asked questions before regarding issues with PFRs. My question this evening is when it comes to the First Amendment and registration requirements. Recently, I went to go to do the dreaded Annual Registration. I noticed they seem aggressive about the internet and social media identity issue. As here in this state, one of the requirements is giving your Internet Information social media to the government. I’m not an expert at this but isn’t as a clear violation of the First Amendment? The very idea of having to reveal your internet identity to the government would chill free speech, as have been quoted. On top of his probation is the state has a blanket ban on social media. Why aren’t there more challenges on this issue when it appears to be a very clear win? It seems that something gets ruled unconstitutional in one circuit, but another ignores it? I’m in the fourth by the way, and even within this circuit, I believe this has been ruled unconstitutional. It’s frustrating because the law enforcement seems to show blatant disregard. Is there anything NARSOL or affiliates are looking into on this issue? I hope that this makes it into the show this evening. Thanks.

Larry 35:38
So well, the problem is, is that the courts are not, there’s no Supreme Court United States decision on this. And the statutes support what they’re doing. The Congress passed the Keep the Internet Devoid of Sexual Predators act back in 2008. So we’re talking about 13 years ago. And that was intended to make it easier to identify and remove registrants from social networking websites. And therefore, as a part of the dreaded AWA compliance, one of the things that states are supposed to be doing is asking for that information. And then there’s a databank that social media can access to see if your identifiers are in their databank. And then they use that to eject you from their platforms. We don’t know yet whether it’s unconstitutional because the Supreme Court hasn’t weighed in. Within a circuit, we still don’t know. If a circuit decision comes out and say, for example, the 10th circuit, if my circuit were to say that you couldn’t collect the identifiers, all the states in this vast circuit may have laws that say that to collect it. They’re not going to magically stop doing that until someone in that particular state litigates it and they cite to that binding decision from the 10th circuit. So if the decision of the 10th circuit says, as related to an Oklahoma challenge, that you can’t collect, Oklahoma’s law is unconstitutional. That doesn’t mean New Mexico’s is or Utah’s is, or Colorado’s law is. But you would argue that that is binding they’re requiring the same thing, and you would probably get the same outcome, but you’re going to have to file the case in the district court at the trial court level. And you’re going to have to cite to that decision. Law enforcement doesn’t just magically turn things off. Oftentimes, they don’t even know about the decisions, but they don’t care if they do know about it. They’re not going to stop doing this because the law tells them to do it.

Andy 37:37
Well, okay, um, but the First Amendment has something in there of if it would chill you from having the freedom to go do it, even if like a little, little voice in the back of your head tells you that the government’s watching you do it, then that could have a chilling impact on you having your freedom of speech. So but does this only is this question only applies to people that are on supervision? Or does this apply to the PFR population as a whole?

Larry 38:09
This this requirement of collecting this information applies to the population. The keep the internet devoid of sexual predators act was to apply to all people the registry. So people regardless whether they’re supervised, they’re being they’re being required to provide this information? And yes, it very well could chill speech, but we got to prove that.

Andy 38:32
Yeah. I mean, obviously, if you’re not on the platform, if you’re giving up your internet identifier, then you’re likely not going to be on it. Like that is totally your speech being chilled. It’s not like you’re hesitant. You’re totally having it shut down.

Larry 38:46
Well, I mean, they identify you, with all the cameras and the facial recognition when you walk in a public protest, but arguably, are we were going to require them to take down their cameras that are out in public, because they could run you through facial recognition. And then they could come back and visit you and say that you’re not allowed to protest. We don’t like… I mean, where does this end?

Andy 39:06
I don’t know. But that that sounds exactly like 1984. That book was written roughly around the time that you were a kid. (Larry Really?) Yes, it’s a pretty old book, I think in the 50s or 60s or s. In 1984 it came out. Man, okay. But this goes to that the social media platforms, they can do what they want, though. If they want to not have PFRs there, then they can not have PFRs. There’s currently a particular former president that is not allowed on there. And certainly he’s trying to fight it, which could be something in our favor, but they have kicked him off. Like what kind of standing do we have to get ourselves put back on if a former president can’t be on?

Larry 39:45
Well, again, a collection of this is what’s the problem, the platform wouldn’t kick you off except for the fact that they are able to use what the government collected and run it through a database and see that you are a PFR. They might not otherwise have known because sometimes I have heard that people, they check on the terms of service that they agree to them, and that these things don’t apply to them that exclude them from their terms of service, and they go ahead and get on and get on the site. I’ve heard that.

Andy 40:18
Yeah, yeah, totally. Okay.

Ready to be a part of Registry Matters? Get links at If you need to be all discreet about it, contact them by email at You can call or text a ransom message to (747)227-4477. Want to support Registry Matters on a monthly basis? Head to Not ready to become a patron? Give a five-star review at Apple podcasts for stitcher or tell your buddies that your treatment class about the podcast. We want to send out a big heartfelt support for those on the registry. Keep fighting. Without you, we can’t succeed. You make it possible.

Andy 41:12
Joining us now is Steven from West Virginia. The NARSOL contact for NARSOL for three years. He is the newsletter for the state called the Crumbling Times and is also a PFR. The website for West Virginia is Thank you for joining us, Steven. Appreciate your coming on pretty short notice, I think.

Steven 41:33
It’s great to be with you guys. I’ve listened to you many times over the years. (Andy: Oh, yeah?) It’s great to be with you. Yeah. (Andy: Longtime listener first time caller as they say?) Yes.

Andy 41:44
All right. Well, let’s set this up so we can drill into it a bit. STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA EX REL. SCOTT PHALEN, Petitioner v. CRAIG ROBERTS, Superintendent, South Central Regional Jail, Respondent. As I understand it, West Virginia law provides that any inmate may be paroled after serving a quarter of a definite term sentence. In this instance, after serving 1/4 of his 10-year definite term sentence for violating his conditions of supervised release. The petitioner Scott Phalen was released on parole. However, he was arrested and re incarcerated six months later because the division of Corrections and Rehabilitation determined he had been released in error based upon an internal policy that inmates who are incarcerated for violating the conditions of their supervised release are neither eligible for parole nor entitled to receive commutation from their sentences for good conduct. I’m confused right from the get-go. It says Phalen was released on parole after serving 1/4 of a 10-year definite term for violating a supervised release. Can you explain what occurred here? Was he on parole or supervised release and explain the difference please?

Steven 42:42
Well Phalen was on parole. He was incarcerated for a violation of supervised release, also known as extended supervision. And he violated parole. And just briefly parole in West Virginia, I think a lot of other states is simply the release of one incarcerated but you remain under the sentencing control of the DOCR. Extended supervision is not under the control of the DOCR but instead, under the provisions of a county probation officer, the conditions are very similar to being on probation. They restrict your residency in our state to within 1000 feet of schools, victims, childcare facilities, and a host of other restrictions. Phalen was on extended supervision. He violated that extended supervision. Then he was granted parole. And then the DOCR created this new policy that he wasn’t eligible for parole or good time. And they went out and re incarcerated them. This not only happened to Phalen. This happened to dozens of ‘rolees in the state. So that’s basically what happened in his case. They decided internally in the DOCR in October of 2020 that when you violate extended supervision or supervised release, you are not under a sentence, you are under a sanction. And if you’re not under a sentence, you can’t get good time, or you cannot be paroled. And that’s why they decided to go out and pick up all these people after they let them go. Some people were out for over nine months and reincarcerated. Some people were out for only a few days. And everyone in the state of West Virginia who was in for a violation of extended supervision lost all their goodtime credit from that day forward. So, it was pretty intense.

Andy 44:44
Tell me some about the specifics of the case with Phalen. Tell me about him, specifically.

Steven 44:50
Well, he pled guilty to one count of first-degree sexual abuse and on February 14th, 2012, he was sentenced to one to five years in prison, followed by 15 years of extended supervised release. He discharged his prison sentence on December 2nd, 2013. And then he began his period of supervised release. According to West Virginia law, the period of supervised release begins when your probation expires, your sentence of incarceration or parole expires. So, once you’re done with everything in our state, they place you on extended supervision and that can be up to 50 years. Phalen had 15 years of extended supervision.

Andy 45:39
That’s a long time. I’m guessing that he violated a supervised release?

Steven 45:43
He did. We don’t know the specifics of that, but he violated it and you don’t get a jury trial or anything, you just go in front of a judge. His circuit court found that he violated his supervised release and on June 9th 2017. He was ordered and sentenced to confinement for a determinate sentence of 10 years for his violation, he could have gotten up to 15 but they gave him 10. West Virginia code for extended supervision is West Virginia Code § 62-12-26(h)(3) and it provides that if a circuit court finds by clear and convincing evidence that a defendant violated a condition of supervised release, then circuit court can revoke the defendants release and require the defendant to serve in prison all or part of the term of supervised release. Now, what’s amazing with supervised release in our state is, you know, Phalen’s sentence was one to five years for his crime, but because he had a violation of his rules of supervised release, he now has 10 more years to serve. That’s a long time.

Andy 46:52
Yeah, I think I hear about stuff if people violate their special terms and whatnot. But so as we talked about earlier, West Virginia law provides that any inmate in the correctional Institute is eligible for parole after they have served 1/4 of their time. But so after serving a quarter of his 10 year term, Phalen appeared before the parole board which determined that he should be released on parole, and he was released June 29th of 2020. So what happened after that?

Steven 47:17
Well, that’s when the on October 21st 2020, 5 months after Phalen was released on parole, DOCR created a new internal policy that established that among others, sex offenders and child abuse neglect offenders were not eligible for parole, nor should they receive day for day good time incarceration credit if they were incarcerated for revocation of supervised release. As a result of the new policy on December 7th, 2020, the DOCR issued a warrant for his arrest. They said that Phalen had been released from custody on June 29th 2020 due to a clerical error or mistake. According to footnote six from the case document, the December 7th 2020 arrest warrant did not identify the clerical error or mistake that precipitated his release from custody on June of 2020. The court noted that the respondent had been given conflicting reasons for the issuance of the warrant and his initial summary response to Phalen’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The state respondent said that the clerical error or mistake upon the arrest warrant issued was that petitioner was not eligible for parole pursuant to the recently issued the DOCR policy. However, in a later filed supplemental response to Phalen’s petition, respondent stated without acknowledging the earlier justification given that Phalen was released on parole in error based upon the DOCR policy relative to good time. They kept flip flopping; it seems like the state could not get their story straight. But the central point of the DOCR’s policy was that Phalen violated his extended supervision. And he was not serving a sentence, so they didn’t have to give them parole or goodtime credit. Instead, he was sanctioned. And that’s why f Phalen filed this case, to our supreme court in West Virginia.

Andy 49:33
I’m guessing that he didn’t really go along with being arrested and decided to take his grievance to court.

Steven 49:40
He did and on December 23rd, 2020, he filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus from a Regional Jail, which is really odd. And he sought reinstatement to parole directly to the Western US Supreme Court of Appeals. Generally, you have to go through a circuit court. He went Straight to the Supreme Court. And while his case was pending during the 2021 legislative session, Senate Bill 713 was introduced to amend the good time statute in West Virginia.

Andy 50:15
Backup for just something that you just said in there was that he filed it directly to what court? What, what, how did he file it originally?

Steven 50:25
Well, generally, in West Virginia, when you file a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, you go to your County Circuit Court of conviction. You don’t go directly to the Supreme Court of Appeals, the western US Supreme Court of Appeals, because you need to have a hearing and they need to get a case record. But in this case, he went directly to the Supreme Court. He was represented by the public defender in the state, and they felt it was urgent enough to go directly to the Supreme Court.

Andy 50:55
That’s interesting. Tell us about the legislation. Was it signed by the governor and what did it do?

Steven 51:01
Well, the legislation was introduced, again Senate Bill 713, to remove all good time credit for any inmate who was incarcerated from an extended supervision violation. And they dated it to the day that the DOCR instituted their internal policy change of October 21st, 2020. They did that by amending the good time statute to exclude anyone who violated extended supervision, which is primarily those with sexual offenses. The legislation became effective on April 30th of 2020 after being approved by the governor.

Andy 51:39
Interesting, okay, so it’s well understood that under most ex post facto principles of the United States and West Virginia constitutions, a law passed after the commission of an offense, which increases the punishment, lengthens the sentence, or operates to the detriment of the accused cannot be applied retroactively. Can you explain Ex Post Facto Clause?

Steven 52:00
Well, according to the court and West Virginia Supreme Court opinion here, they said that ex post facto prohibition forbids the imposition of punishment more severe than the punishment assigned by law when the act to be punished actually occurred. Critical to relief under the Ex Post Facto Clause is not an individual’s right to less punishment, but the lack of fair notice and government restraint when the legislature increases punishment beyond that was prescribed when the crime was consummated.

Andy 52:35
Alright, it seems obvious to me though, so why did West Virginia legislature pass an unconstitutional law?

Steven 52:45
Well, we can pass that on to Larry.

Andy 52:49
Okay, we’re gonna kick that can down the road there. Larry, what do you have to say about why would they pass something that seems to be an unconstitutional law?

Larry 52:53
Well, there’s a number of reasons that they could have done it. And if you give them the benefit of the doubt, they didn’t know. That’s hard to imagine. But they were under pressure, public pressure, that is. bBcause I’m sure there was some sensationalized reporting about the dire consequences that would happen if they didn’t do this. And because the law is presumed constitutional, upon enactment, and they, more often than not, they win these battles, because of the strong presumption of constitutionality. The people in in prison are under the control of correctional entities don’t usually have a lot of resources, and they just end up getting away with it. But I don’t know in particular why they passed it. But they did and they were shot down.

Andy 53:44
Interesting. So because they believed it to be constitutional. And the presumption is that all laws are constitutional until challenged in a court?

Larry 53:54
That is correct. You don’t know what advice that the lawmakers are getting when they’re passing this. They have some… every legislative body has some level of analyst available to the. They rely heavily on the Attorney General and the Office of the Attorney General to tell them and the Attorney General being that they’re elected, they’re not going to tell them sometimes that I recommend you don’t pass this. Particular on something as hot as sexual offenders, anything related that. They’re not going to come in and say, I urge you not to pass this it might be unconstitutional. They’re going to say go ahead and pass it and we’ll let the courts unravel it later. That’s just typically the way it goes.

Andy 54:32
That seems super lazy to me, Larry. That seems just like passing the buck. We don’t want to deal with it. We’ll let somebody that doesn’t have a political career. That sounds like kind of a shady way to go about it. (Larry: It is.) Let me take this outside of the PFR realm. Does that happen do you think with other laws regularly or infrequently?

Larry 54:53
It happens regularly. It’s the public pressure that that causes that reaction. You’ve got citizens and people say to me, Larry, you don’t understand, all the citizens don’t support that. Yes, Larry actually does understand that. But the citizens that are vocal enough that they hear their voices, those are the ones that matter in the formulation of public policy. We can’t measure what we don’t hear from. We measure what we do hear from, and we know what we’re hearing with our emails and our telephone calls and all the various ways that people communicate with us. And we know that this is hot button item, they do not want PFRs roaming the streets any earlier than they possibly can. They want them to be incarcerated, the average citizen that we hear from wants them incarcerated, the longer the better. So they’re going to formulate public policy around that. And that goes with anything that’s sensitive. And it can go the other way in your favor. If there’s strong public support for doing something that’s good. That will be magically reflected in the actions of the legislative body.

Andy 56:03
Okay, well, we need to move on from this and keep rolling with the program. What is the bottom line, Steven?

Steven 56:10
Well, I’m going to give you Phalen’s bottom line, and then the bottom line for everybody else in our state. But just from the opinion of the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia on page 21. They said accordingly, we hold that in order to avoid the constitutional prohibition against ex post facto laws WV code § 15A-4-17(a) [2021], which is our good time statute, shall not be applied to those inmates who committed the underlying crimes for which they are incarcerated pursuant to West Virginia code § 62-12-26, which is our extended supervision statute, prior to April 30th, 2021. The effective date of this statute regardless of any contrary language contained in therein. In light of this holding, we conclude that Senate Bill 713, and West Virginia code § 15A-4-17, as amended may not be applied to the petitioner. Phalen, in this case, whose underlying offense was committed in 201 to preclude him from being granted commutation from a sentence for good contact in accordance with that statute. So Phalen was then eligible for parole immediately. The bottom line for everybody else in West Virginia, and this was a three to two decision by our Supreme Court was that those with the offense dates, offense dates, not conviction dates, offense dates prior to April 30th, 2021, will still get good time credit if they’re incarcerated for a violation of extended supervision. From April 30th, 2021 forward, if you commit a sexual offense in West Virginia and are convicted, and then you violate extended supervision, you will not get any good time credit. You’re gonna do, like, for example, in Phalen’s case, all 10 years, and you still will be eligible for parole at one quarter of your sentence, but you’re not going to get any good time credit. So, it’s not a good thing from here on out. But it is a good thing for those of us that were previously sentenced.

Andy 58:08
Do you guys have activity in the legislature that would have advocated for this to try and kill it before it would have passed?

Steven 58:18
Well, we didn’t know about it. This actually slipped through the cracks. They did… see nothing’s mentioned in the legislation about sex offenders. It only affected extended supervision. And that’s how they slid this in there. Because the only people that have extended supervision in West Virginia, for the most part, is sex offenders. Some people that had child abuse claims but the majority, 1000s are those with extended supervision. So we’ll be on the lookout from here on out, but we missed this one. And we didn’t get to duke it out with them before they passed it.

Andy 58:53
I’m guessing because I know how big the West Virginia group there, the NARSOL affiliate. There’s a hundreds of you. I’m surprised that it that it passed, slipped through the cracks.

Steven 59:02
It did, but and we track everything, anything that comes out with any of the sex laws, etc. But frankly, we were not looking for them to exclude those with extended supervision. It’s a tough law. I mean, it really is

Andy 59:20
You missed your que to say that there aren’t hundreds of people in West Virginia. There aren’t even 100 people that live in West Virginia.

Steven 59:27
Well, we’re just all spread out. It looks like there’s hardly anybody here.

Andy 59:34
Anything else before we dip out?

Steven 59:37
Oh, I really appreciated joining you guys today. And again, if anybody has any questions or anything and they want to look at our site, it’s I believe it is.

Andy 59:53
Thank you so much for joining us again on short notice so really appreciate you being here. (Steven: Your welcome. Have a good night, guys.) Thanks. I think we can go over to Colorado real quick. Is that where we should go?

Larry 1:00:09
Yep. And we got a lot to cover on Colorado. So let’s do it.

Andy 1:00:12
All right, we’re already at an hour. So this is going to run a little bit long. I will read very quickly. Your people put this case in the from the Colorado Court of Appeals called People vs Landis? Let me set it up. Defendant Christopher David Landis appealed his probationary sentence for attempted sexual assault on a child. He argued that the conditions of his probation restricting the use of the internet and social media violate the governing Colorado statutory scheme and his right to free speech under the United States and Colorado constitutions. He argued that the Supreme Court’s decision in Packingham v. North Carolina would make such a probationary condition unconstitutional. Larry, did he win?

Larry 1:00:51
No, he did not. (Andy: Oh, surprise.) The court stated that he fully acknowledged to date the internet has become one of the most important places, if not the most important place for people to exchange views and ideas. Under the circumstances here, we disagree with both of Landis’ contentions.

Andy 1:01:10
I’ve always heard horror stories from Colorado in terms of how tough things are there. I’m not sure now after reading this case, it says according to the affidavit of probable cause for arrest, Landis sexually assaulted his stepdaughter when she was 10 years old. The evidence included his to police that he touched the victim’s parts. The prosecution charged Landis with sexual assault on a child and sexual assault on a child by one in a position a position of trust. He pleaded guilty to an added count of attempted sexual assault on a child and the original charges were dismissed. The party stipulated to a sentence to probation. While that does not seem too harsh of a sentence, and the party stipulated to probation. Wow Larry, can you believe that? Why would they stipulate to only probation?

Larry 1:01:55
Well, we can only speculate. It could be that the trial court had ruled favorably on a suppression motion, that his confession was not admissible. It could be that the witness that would have testified was deemed not credible by the prosecution. They could have said we’ve got problems with our witness, or could be he was well connected with people in power. I really don’t have any idea but it does seem like a very good, good outcome.

Andy 1:02:17
Jen in chat says probation there is awful. At the sentencing hearing the prosecutor agreed with recommendation in the pre-sentence investigation report that the district court sentenced Landis to PFR intensive supervision probation, SOISP and require him to comply with the standard additional conditions of probation for adult sex offenders, the standard conditions and the recommendation in the sex offense specific evaluation, SOSE. Is it the sex offense specific evaluation that caused problems for Landis?

Larry 1:02:53
It did, ultimately, but it was the two standard conditions that were underlying the issue. The district court sentenced him to seven years as you said SOISP. As for the two standard conditions, restricting the use of internet and social media. The court required Landis to comply with those conditions but modified them to allow for such use of the internet as required by his employment at the electronics installation company where he worked.

Andy 1:03:21
Okay, I see that all right, Landis argued, among other things, that he should not be required to comply with the two standard conditions prohibiting the use of internet and social media without prior approval from his probation officer. He emphasized that he is required to use the internet in his ongoing employment at an electronics installation company. He also argued that the conditions violate his constitutional rights based on Packingham v. North Carolina from 2017, which invalidated a statute creating new felony offense for violation of post custodial restrictions on sex offender access to social media.

Larry 1:03:56
Yep, he did do that. He contended that the district court abused its discretion by imposing the probation conditions at issue because they were not reasonably related to his rehabilitation and the purposes of probation under relevant Colorado law. And I’ve used these terms over the years. And, and individual tailoring is so important. And yeah, I don’t know what happened here. But that was supposed to be your line. (Andy: It was my line.) But let’s start with the relevant points. Probation is a privilege, not a right. And the Colorado court referred cited People v. Smith, a 2014 case in Colorado. It’s an alternative to prison and it’s intended to be rehabilitive. If an offender seeks a probationary sentence as an alternative to prison, he or she must accept district courts conditions of probation. That’s the opinion on page four.

Andy 1:04:54
Okay, and CRS. What is CRS Larry? I didn’t see what that meant.

Larry 1:05:00
Colorado Revised Statutes.

Andy 1:05:01
Colorado Revised Statutes section 18-1.3-204(2) lists the various conditions of probation that a district court may impose, which included a catch all for any other conditions reasonably related to the defendants rehabilitation and the purposes of probation. The appeals court may have concluded that these conditions are reasonably related. What is the legal standard there, Larry?

Larry 1:05:31
Well, for him to overturn his conditions, it’s abuse of discretion. And the court relied on a decision called People v. Brockelman from 1997. And I’m going to read it. It says we conclude from my evaluation of the five Brockleman factors, that their probation conditions at issue restricting Landis’ use of internet and social media are reasonably related to his rehabilitation, and the purposes of probation. First, the conditions are reasonably to Landis’ underlying offense. To be sure Landis did not use the internet attempting to sexually assault his stepdaughter, however, he engaged in sexual conduct with a child. And it was reasonable to place restrictions on Landis use of the medium that could easily be used to facilitate contact with children.

Andy 1:06:21
All right, well, now I’m starting to see the picture Larry. I recall that this PFR specific evaluation, according to the SOSE, objective testing indicated that Landis’ highest sexual interest is toward juvenile females. It also concluded that he was in high denial regarding his offense, the SOSE recommended that he be monitored carefully while in the community and not have contact with the victim or with anyone under the age of 18.

Larry 1:06:50
That is, in fact, you’re correct. And that was a significant point for the court. And that is one of the reasons among others that Packingham did not carry the day for him.

Andy 1:07:01
I can’t even imagine like this doesn’t seem like one of those poster child cases that we should try to bring up the flagpole of someone that had this… this seems kind of like a gross case to try and run up and challenge with. This doesn’t seem like the right one to do.

Larry 1:07:16
Sometimes we’re stuck with what our clients want us to do.

Andy 1:07:20
Alright, so the Supreme Court specifically pointed out that in Packingham that of importance to the court was the troubling fact that North Carolina law imposes severe restrictions on persons who already have served their sentence and are no longer subject to the supervision of the criminal justice system. The Supreme Court repeated that same point soon after, concluding that it is unsettling to suggest that only a limited set of websites can be used even by persons who have completed their sentences. We need to get out of this one. What did the Colorado Court of Appeals decide?

Larry 1:07:51
Well, I’m going to read again, we conclude that Packingham is distinguishable on the on that basis, as you just said, I like to defendant in Packingham, Landis is quite obviously still serving his probationary sentence for a sexual related offense. They went on to say, quote, as the United States Supreme Court held in United States v. Knights, inherit to the very nature of probation is that probationers do not enjoy the absolute liberty to which every citizen is entitled. And that’s in the opinion on page 13. I say that over and over again, you have a diminished expectation of liberty. You do not have the same privileges that a regular citizen, you are paying a debt while you’re on probation, you’re being punished. Things can be done to a person who’s being punished that cannot be done to a regular citizen.

Andy 1:08:41
The analogy that seems to make sense to me, at least it works for me is when you go get a new job, you often have something of a 90 day probation period, you’ve agreed to it, your employer agrees to it. And if for some reason, they just don’t see that you’re a fit. They just can you without really any questions asked. I don’t know about state laws or labor laws, whatever. But that seems to be something that is in place. So you’re on a probationary period. And they can you because they don’t like how you dress one day. (Larry: Correct.) But Larry, I’m still confused, though, because the way that they say this is that he, while he can be banned from the internet, yet the Ccurt recognized that the internet is so integral to the modern world. That seems conflicting.

Larry 1:09:23
Well, a little bit to me as well. But then they say that there are ample alternatives and quoting again, the probation conditions at issue still leave ample channels of communication for Landis to engage in everyday life. For example, Landis may still communicate in person, communicate over the telephone, who communicates on the telephone? Receive news from television and newspapers and write to government representatives. That’s on page 18 of the opinion. So they are not on real solid ground here. But as I’ve said, legal people, legal minds can disagree. I said when Packingham came out that folks, don’t imagine that this is all encompassing to everybody. Because this was for people who had paid their debt in full to society and who were merely being subject to a civil regulatory scheme. They’re supposed to have, in my view, the liberties that everyone enjoys. This is a person who has not the same expectations of liberty interest because they’re being punished. Now, I remember shortly after Packingham, the West Virginia Supreme Court, they agreed with Landis. If he had just committed his crime in West Virginia, he would have the protection of that Supreme Court ruling because they said the opposite of what the Colorado Court of Appeals said. So I think this case will probably be petitioned, there’ll be a petition to the Colorado Supreme Court asking them, and it could even go higher. But we don’t know yet whether or not this is something that you can apply, the Supreme Court didn’t, that wasn’t the issue before them. And we don’t know if a person under probation supervision or parole supervision or any type of supervision has the right to be on the internet.

Andy 1:11:03
As I recall the facts of Packingham where he made a religious claim on Facebook, I know it was under a pseudonym, an alias name. But making that really puts you squarely on the First Amendment, especially with this conservative Supreme Court, if that went up, oh, my God, they would totally rule in favor of religious freedom. But he was just on, h was past supervision. So like, he seemed like a really good case for the Packingham case. This seems like the exact opposite.

Larry 1:11:30
It does. And they’ve got basis for the… they narrowly tailor this, they’re using the SOSE, the evaluation to justify this is exactly what we say we’re for, for narrow tailoring reasonably related to the underlying offense and the offender characteristics. That’s what they say here. They did tailor this to him based on his evaluation, and we’ll just have to see, but I don’t think that’s gonna be the end of this case. I think he’s gonna have to continue fighting. And we’ll have to see what happens.

Andy 1:12:02
Okay, final question before we head out here. Doesn’t that sound like a bad idea? Doesn’t that present us with potentially, like a slam dunk negative, like a defeat on this type of case?

Larry 1:12:15
Potentially, it could if it were to go the US Supreme Court, but I suspect the Colorado Supreme Court was going to be the final say on this. You eventually run out of money.

Andy 1:12:24
Okay. Wow, that’s frightening. Okay. Uh, Larry, we are like superduper overtime. We’re like, as long as we were last week or the week before. Is there any else before we get out? We got to announce a new patron. And then we can scoot out. Anything else we?

Larry 1:12:38
We got a new subscriber, his name is escaping me. But I believe he was in Maryland. And we’ll make sure we get your announcement next week. But we did, we did get a new subscriber to the transcript.

Andy 1:12:48
Okay. And then we also have a new patron named Jacob, and I can’t thank you enough. I appreciate it so very much. And make sure you sign up for the Patreon feed so that you get these as soon as I release them. And as you will know, if you’re not a patron, you will have received this on Saturday night. I got to edit this thing tonight because I’m heading out of town. Again I’ll be out of town today. And I’m out of town tomorrow. Anyway, leaving going on a long drive tomorrow. But Jacob, thank you again so very much, Larry, anything else?

Larry 1:13:19
Did he come in at the $1,400 level?

Andy 1:13:22
It was really really close. I’m serious. He was a very generous, I forgot to send you a screenshot of it. But it was very nice. And I appreciate it very much. Thank you, Jacob. We’re at 89 Larry. So we’re 11 away from 100. I got to start getting my reeds ready for my saxophone.

Larry 1:13:37
And the person who subscribed. I’m gonna follow up on that question. We’re going to talk more about hearsay evidence. I’m got to try to have Ashley in the coming week or two, to explain exceptions to hearsay.

Andy 1:13:52
Okay, very good. Find all the show notes over at There’ll be transcripts there, you can sign up for an email. I don’t ever push the email. If you want to get an email when this thing comes out. Be sure to sign up for the email notifications and certainly leave voicemail like Jeff does over at 747-227-4477. Email us at And of course, as we just said, just like Jacob supporters over on patreon at Search first over a twitter, facebook, not facebook. Yeah, facebook too. And then also sign up and like us and share and subscribe on YouTube as well. Larry, I don’t have anything else. I think that covers it all. And we will get out of here. Have a great night and a great weekend. And I’ll talk to you next week.

Larry 1:14:38
Thanks for having me.

You’ve been listening to FYP.