Andy 00:00
registry matters as 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 only recording live from fyp Studios east and vest transmitting across the internet. This is the Halloween episode 151 of registry matters. Hey, Larry, what’s up?

Larry 00:32
Oh, I love that sound effect.

Andy 00:34
How about that? Oh, saying they’re scared.

Larry 00:39
Where did that come from?

Andy 00:41
I if I told you, then we would end up with a copyright infringement and we would get a takedown order.

Larry 00:47
Okie dokie?

Andy 00:50
What do we have going on tonight? Larry?

Larry 00:53
Well, we have some, some almost late breaking news. from Georgia, from the Peach State guy,

Andy 01:01
Peach State A is a peachy voice.

Larry 01:04
Well, it’s not as optimistic is was not as fantastic as we would hope for. And we’ve got we’ve got some listener questions from inside behind the walls and from outside. And I think we might have a story or two. And then someone wrote to us with suggestion of how to get the podcast better just distributed. And since I don’t understand it, you’re gonna explain that.

Andy 01:28
Okay, I gotcha. Is this evening a special night by any chance for the pfrs of the United States?

Larry 01:37
Depends on what state they’re in. I think I think it’s Halloween across the country at the time we’re recording. But some of our states are our supervising authorities take a very limited view of Halloween in terms of what are persons allowed to do. In my State, they require them if they’re under supervision to take off work, make arrangements to not work on this date to satisfy the stay at home order. And that really bugs me that they do that because it’s hard enough to find employment, particularly COVID-19. And to say I won’t come to work on a Saturday which and retail. I think right now the retail establishments for people work are booming. box stores are just filled with people and the grocery stores are filled with people. So it kind of bugs me that that people are not allowed to work.

Andy 02:30
I went to I went out to lunch. And I don’t I don’t even think of Halloween as a thing to be honest with you. And all the waitstaff was wearing costumes. There was like an astronaut and there was a somebody dressed as Michael Jackson. And he was actually dancing a table. So it was a it was it was very entertaining.

Larry 02:48
So I didn’t I didn’t remember costumes being a big thing in Georgia back in my day. But it always has been here.

Andy 02:56
Don’t you think that I think I’ve heard you say something to the effect of, there might be something of a First Amendment challenge that Halloween for things like the costumes.

Larry 03:05
I believe there there is there, there’s certainly the right for people to express themselves and to and to decorate. And, you know, that’s one of our most cherished rights. And without any narrow tailoring, I believe that those type of restrictions would be extremely vulnerable to to challenge that you have to refrain, it comes back to having having the financial resources to fight the government. And then having the legal team that’s going to be in a protracted battle we’re going to be talking about tonight, one that’s already a year old. And and has that’s the short side, they generally drag on for multiple years. But the i think i think that would be something that would be vulnerable to challenge to require everyone not to decorate, maybe you could come up with some individualize circumstances for a particular offender where they would not be allowed to do that. But just across the board does real problematic.

Andy 04:05
And I guess what somebody has to do is like, decorate their house, and then let them come in and be on nasty about it in take you off to have somebody you know, with skin in the game, having stayed standing, I guess is the term.

Larry 04:21
That’s correct on the standing you wouldn’t necessarily have to risk arrest because to have the requisite standing, there has to be a bona fide threat. So if you’re given a directive that you cannot decorate, then you would have the requisite standing you would not have to wait because the certainty of arrest is almost imminent. If they tell you if you do these things, you’re going to be arrested. The problem with that waiting to that they generally disseminate these directives a week or 10 days out for Halloween, right and you don’t you don’t get a lot of advance notice. So therefore trying to gear up for a legal challenge is difficult because if you file this For what’s going to happen next year, we get into the international Megan’s Law situation, it’s speculative. You have to opine to the judge, this hearing the case for your restraining order that you believe based on prior practice, that they will be on order come down 10 days before Halloween that says you can’t do these things. And that doesn’t give you really time to gear up for a preliminary injunction hearing. And the states where it would be more easy to do that would be one like in Tennessee, where they have it in the statute. It’s not a policy, but it’s a statute, they have that they have that 10 or 11 day period where you’re not allowed to do things. There’s no speculation at all, and that that’s on the books. And so if you’ve already, but within the zone of the people covered by that statute, you would have the requisite standing and you could you could file without waiting for they put the handcuffs on you. So I don’t like to tell people to wait Be it to be handcuffs, that big handcuffs is unpleasant and all the consequences that go with it. But sometimes, that is really the only reasonable alternative is to be handcuffed. And then they’re still gonna argue like if they were to handcuff you and take you to jail for violating the Halloween directive. They’re gonna argue, once you finally get before a judge, they’re gonna say it’s not boot because Halloween is over. We’re ready to let him go.

Andy 06:17
wondering, I was wondering if like, I mean, do you if you were so inclined and had the resources do you go hire an attorney sometime in the summer to to just spool everything up? And as soon as they come out with it, that you would have already your guns loaded, ready to fire that you could, you know, shoot them down a week, 10 days in advance and run into the court system immediately?

Larry 06:39
Yes, that’s what you do.

Andy 06:41
Okay. Great. So and, you know, we’re talking many thousands of dollars.

Larry 06:46
Many thousands of dollars. Yes.

Andy 06:49
What about, you know, my curfew this evening started at 5pm and ends at 7am. Tomorrow? Is there anything there there?

Larry 07:00
Again, with with with any order that has no narrow tailoring that intrudes on a fundamental right. There’s vulnerability, because you have you have some fundamental rights that are enshrined in the Constitution. Are you are you being precluded from doing something that’s fundamentally your right to do? Clearly supervised defenders can can be can be restricted in their movements, that that is a given. But if they have a blanket policy, that tells every supervised defender, you cannot move between these hours, and there’s no exceptions for hardship or anything, then those factors weigh more in your favor. Because if they can’t articulate a reason for you to be immobilized, what or do you have a curfew normally? Are you restricted to your domicile in normal days? Or can you be out gallivanting the streets?

Andy 07:53
And is that you’re actually pointed to asking me that question.

Larry 07:56
Yes, I’m asking you that question. I don’t know. Are you are you under any restrictions, those terms are curfew calls here, every person who is under a sex offender supervision, they already have a curfew. So this is nothing new.

Andy 08:06
This is nothing new. But this is an extended one. This is extra restriction. Mine is normally 1pm.

Larry 08:13
Until What time?

Andy 08:16
You know, I mean, I go out and exercise, you know, it’s supposed to be like seven in the morning or something like that.

Unknown Speaker 08:21
So

Larry 08:23
anything that can’t be anything that that that intrudes in a fundamental right, without any narrow tailoring is vulnerable. But I don’t know that you have the gobs of money or would be in your interest to challenge that and do the circumstances that you’re in. And that’s what a lot of people have to consider. They have to consider what the adverse ramifications would be like, the money is the is the major barrier, but they’re also likely

Andy 08:47
to throw grenades and jump on them.

Larry 08:52
Now that’s going to cause us that’s gonna cause us to be banned because of that word. There’s, there’s a big government listening device right now that just picked up on the grade.

Andy 09:02
No, but I didn’t use the B word the four letter B word.

Larry 09:05
So while a grenade is probably big tract also,

Andy 09:09
um, I don’t know if it doesn’t sound nearly that bad. You know, like horseshoes and hand grenades. But that other word that that alright, anyway, all right, we should move on. We have we have some some questions that we’re going to go over before we hit the featured event. Shall we dig into Roberts question in Georgia?

Larry 09:26
Let’s do our best.

Andy 09:29
And so his question is during sentencing, the public defender stopped the judge to have me sign the unsigned plea papers. Is that legal? Does it give me grounds for a habeas habeas corpus? I even to me Larry just like does have me sign the unsigned plea papers When else would you sign them?

Larry 09:51
Oh, you could sign up at any point the the the plea offer is usually extended to the I’m saying usually it’s not a given but usually extended well in advance the prosecutor Negotiations are going back and forth. And you may get you may get multiple offers and counteroffers. At at the time that that you and your client come to an agreement that it could be signed before court. what he’s referring to is that is what I’m guessing he he does not write very clearly. Nor does he communicate his key points very succinctly. So it forces us to have to guess. So I’m guessing what happened was that on the day he was hauled to court, he had not agreed to the plea. And the proceeding was taken, taking place, and the judge had called the case. And he’s saying that the attorney pressured him at that point, he doesn’t use the word pressure, but he’s implying that the attorney pressured him to sign it right then. And that at that that’s what he’s want to know if there was a hobbyist for that. And the answer is probably not. Because even if he signed it, even if everything he described is exactly as he is, I’m, as I’m inferring from what he what he didn’t say, if everything was exactly like that. The the process requires an individual addressing of the person, the defendant, an open court, and all those questions they ask you, they’re pretty standardized across the country, because it’s based on Supreme Court ruling, which I can’t cite the case. But there’s an individual admonishment of all these things to understand whether you’re competent, or do your attorney has explained everything to you. And if you’re satisfied with your attorneys representation, yeah. And he and his, that wouldn’t have been the time for him to said, No, nobody does it. But that’s the time for him to said, Well, Your Honor, actually, I don’t like this plea agreement. I just got it today. I haven’t had a chance to consider it. And my attorney has told me if I don’t sign it, I’m going to go to prison for 200 years. But he didn’t say that correct? He said, he said yes, yes, he has heard everything, every question correctly, to the judge of satisfaction. So therefore, the likelihood is very low, not impossible, but very low, he would be able to set aside that plea on a habeas corpus proceed.

Andy 12:12
And real quick, what is abs?

Larry 12:15
Well, it’s a it’s a, it’s nothing more than a vessel that’s used for legal legal legal process. Well, you don’t have anything else when you’ve pled guilty, or no contest. You don’t have a lot of appeal options, in terms of undoing it. So So then, the few remaining vessels you have is habeas corpus, you can say that it’s a it’s a Latin term to bring the person before the court and justify their detention. So you use that vehicle to challenge your confinement saying that I shouldn’t be confined because this plea was not bonafide. Correct, because here’s the things that render that play invalid. Almost all of those are turned down. Because the process all they’ll do is look at the transcript and see the answer. Yes, no, yes. no to everything correctly. And, and, and as far as his incompetence, what what people like to do, and I’m going off on a tangent here, what people like to do, is they like to pretend like they’re incompetent after they’ve done the pleat. Right? They, they don’t raise it, you’re presumed competent. That’s one of the presumptions that that goes with you when you’re accused of a crime, everybody’s presumed competent. And unless some evidence surfaces to the contrary, that presumption stays with you through the duration of the proceeding. And what happens is it your deplete process, they generally ask, Are you under the influence of any medication or any drugs illegal, that would render you incapable? Well, you’re in a catch 22? Because if you say, Yes, I’m all doped up that was abolished and your conditions of release, if you’re brought on release, those are gonna lock you up for your conditions of release. Because you said, Yes, I bought illegal drugs. And if you say, No, I’m not under the influence of anything that were meant to render me and capable. Then you have to do problem because you, you, you indicated that you were not. You were not incompetent. I’ve got letter after letter after letter three years. Well, I was I was high. I was this I was on battle. When I did the play. I didn’t understand it. You didn’t tell the judge that you told the judge you weren’t.

Andy 14:21
I have to tell you from personal experience, the way that they did it here is you’re in what would be the room be called where you’re like signing those final paperwork. I mean, like, here, it was right. Next, it was attached to the courtroom. And the courtroom is loud. Or maybe it was all the other holding cells were right there and you’re trying to sign this stuff. Anyway, it was loud. Yeah. It had to be right attached to the courtroom, because like the court was telling us we were being too loud. I couldn’t hear my attorney. And she’s like, Hey, you got to sign these 45 bucks the initial initial and I’m in cuz it was. It was very distressing. It was it was not a happy situation. Well,

Larry 14:59
you had that Do tell the judge, I was enabled with handcuffs to review the documents I was signing. So therefore, I’m going to tell the court, I really didn’t know what I was signing, they would have suspended suspended the proceeding. And the judge shouldn’t have taken the plea. And the judge would have said, Counselor, make sure your client understands what we’re doing, because I don’t want this case to come back up on appeal. That’s what happened.

Andy 15:23
Somehow seems like that would have gone poorly for me in the end.

Larry 15:28
I don’t think so.

Andy 15:29
Then withdraws everything and starts ratcheting things up making stuff we’re sir.

Larry 15:33
Well, the DA shouldn’t have done that. I can’t say what the DA would have done. But it’s imperative that you understand what you’re doing. And that these these are life altering decisions. And if you don’t understand something, but the judge asked me asking you did you understand it? If you did the time besides now I did. And, and nobody does that. I explained that to to a federal judge, when I went to a to a national defense lawyers annual meeting in Philadelphia some years ago. He’s now a circuit judge, but he was a he was a district judge. And he said that he makes sure that he goes extra mile. He saw I make sure that that I that I take the time with each individual defendant. And I said, Well, he may present himself as being a great guy. I suppose that you’re doing that, in the interest of making sure the defendant knows what they’re doing. Are you interested in closing the door and habeas corpus? He looked at me like he thought there was like, like, Where’s this guy come from? But as a judge, what do you what do you expect the person to do? when they’re in the situation? When the person that they is their advocate, because I asked you one of the questions is, are you happy with your attorney? That would be like asking me when I was in foster care in front of my foster parents. Are you happy with how the this family has been treating you, as a foster child? Or as a 12 year old or 10 year old kid got to say us as Judge?

Andy 16:57
Yes, they’re the best.

Larry 16:59
Is the judge that what would you expect? When your advocate is standing at your side? And you’re asked, Are you satisfied with the work that person’s done? What would you expect the answer to be? And he acted like he might mumble something to the effect that he had, he hadn’t really thought about from that perspective. But he said he doesn’t know. And he there is really no other alternative. You can’t export a to defend it. Because that’s not fair to the other side. So the judge doesn’t get to go have a private conversation. But I didn’t lawyers present and ask, Are you satisfied? He has to do it an open court? He or she can stitches or women also, but but you can’t export. So so it’s a catch 22 for the judge.

Andy 17:41
All right, let’s move over to the snarky question says I’m disappointed after listening to registry matters Episode 150. YouTube never seemed to be positive on anything. Even when there’s a fantastic victory like the one in the Mississippi Supreme Court. Larry always seems Desh our hopes when he makes us predict isn’t that from Louisiana? They’re not Mississippi. Forgive me. Oh, yes. Lessons one. Okay. Let me back up, then. Even when there’s a fantastic victory, like the one in lousiana, Supreme Court, there always seems to dash our hopes when he makes his predictions that they will simply do a new marking on the license, isn’t it just as likely that they will realize the error and let the issue die and fade away? a positive attitude will be great once in a while. You too are something else? I’m thinking in my head. He probably was saying you people or something else.

Larry 18:37
So well, other than the state being wrong? That’s a good question. But what what I, I guess I can apologize, but I don’t know what I can do about it. I apologize for coming across as negative. But I don’t know what I can do about it. Because the likelihood of them just letting this issue die and fade away is very remote. And I say that based on the evidence we had in front of us. We had based on the Supreme Court’s research, we had a finding that Louisiana was one of only nine states that marked driver’s license in any way. And within those nine, they indicated that many of them were very discreetly done. They also opine that that that Louisianans was the worst, I’ve never cared or Louisiana or any of the states marked driver’s license. So I don’t know, which is worse, but I’m taking their word for it because their analysis was it was the most obnoxious marking in the nation. So I’m looking at the evidence we have and what we know and then I’m looking at what we what we know about how systems operate and how how this is a political decision has to be made. The the the lawmaker, lawmakers are going to be confronted with the decision to simply let the licenses be unmarked going forward, or the They’re gonna be told by the law enforcement apparatus that clearly the court said we can do it. As long as it’s not as intrusive as it was being done previously, they said that, and the roadmap is there. So you would have to be an extremely optimistic person to believe that they will go from being the worst state in the country, to just simply let it get fade away. Is that possible? Yes, it’s remotely possible that they would do that. But I think is so remote, that if I were to say that, that I think this is going to be a fade away, and be forgotten about, I think the listeners should abandon us all together as being a reliable source of information, because I don’t believe that to be what’s going to happen. I believe they’re going to try to mark the licenses again, at some capacity, but don’t know what they’ll try to do yet. But I don’t believe that let this just fade away. But I guess I could answer the question with a question. Do you want us to tell you what you’d like to hear. But when we analyze these things, or what are what we think’s likely to be the trajectory of what’s happening going forward?

Andy 21:09
I can tell you what super patron Mike usually says like he always says that he appreciates when we tell it to him straight, but he would want us to tell it to many other way, he doesn’t want us to try and make it all happy sounding and this and that, you know, I mean, it was it was it is an excellent victory for those people. But that would, if you were playing a game of chess with someone and you made some incredible move to defend against their attack, they’re not going to just go up crap they really defended Well, they lay down their queen and you win, they’re probably going to make another play, to push back against your defense, they’re going to keep pushing.

Larry 21:47
That’s my expectation. Now, if all of a sudden the people of Louisiana rise up by large numbers and say, we find it appalling that we were putting Scarlet letters on our driver’s license. Now we know this, we demand it, you don’t enact any more laws to this effect that could happen. Based on the years I’ve been in advocacy. I have not heard of a population rising up against anything that’s done to pfrs. So that would be a first But could it happen? I guess it’s possible it could happen.

Andy 22:21
In my wrong in my assumption that it comes back to us if we turned around and told our legislators to not do those things. And then if they did, we would change who the legislator is and put somebody else in there that we have questioned to say, Can you not do those things? We have the power to change these things at the legislative level. Am I wrong in that assessment?

Larry 22:43
You’re absolutely correct. But the public,

Unknown Speaker 22:47
the public, a lot of people

Larry 22:48
that their votes matter, the public opinion is going to be in favor of what they were doing. And the magic is to change public opinion. And that’s not that’s not going to be easy task. Because it’s been. It’s kind of like a lot of the myths that people began to believe they’ve been out there for so long, that people accept them as being true. Right?

Andy 23:14
Right. Um, yeah, I was listening to a podcast and it was a very pro criminal justice reform episode that they had done. And they came to the the issue of rapists. And they said that they are likely to get out of prison and immediately go find someone to rape and I was like, I don’t think that’s how it works a for rape, you’re going to be there for a really long time, most likely, and they’re going to be heavily heavily watching those individuals, when they do get out. I just didn’t see it like their recidivism rate is going to be super high. You know, a drug person is going to end up with a pretty high recidivism rate compared to almost any of quote unquote, our people. It seems vanishingly small.

Larry 23:57
It is by every measurement that’s been done. And within within a particular type of category, though the recidivism is a lot higher, the non contact offenses tend to be higher recipients. Okay, that that that’s just the given. But but the the contact offenses, unless it’s a serial individual, that diversity is like

Andy 24:18
an actual damaged, medically treated like a person that needs counseling, like it’s somebody that just makes a mistake kind of personally urinating in public, which probably doesn’t exist, whatever. But that kind of person doesn’t need counseling and has a very low recidivism rate.

Larry 24:33
That is correct. And those those impulse control ones are worth what you’re talking about, where people make an impulsive decision. People have all sorts of impulse control issues, people are compelled compulsive shoppers, and they bankrupt their families. Right there. They’re compulsive gamblers and they bankrupt their families. And I’m not equating the significance of the two but I’m saying impulse issues. You could have a sleep over Have a have a niece or nephew that that has developed physically. And you could have had a drink or two. And you could put your hands where you shouldn’t because of a lack of impulse control. And after the system has done the harsh things they’ve done to you, you’re never going to do that again.

Andy 25:21
I gotcha. And one more after this one says, this is a question for Larry, this came over from Discord. It says, There he lives in Albuquerque, right? Has he ever talked about the pretty good sized cop watch movement that goes on there, there are at least three groups that frequently post videos to YouTube of police interactions, I gather that I gather, they use police scanners to find the locations and then record from a respectful distance. The Albuquerque Police Department seems to mostly leave them alone now seems like a great constitutional way to keep the police accountable. I wonder if Larry knows or has any thoughts about it might be an interesting topic for the podcast.

Larry 26:00
While they might be a subtitle running about it, I know that the police do to litigation through the through the years and through the federal consent decree that we’re under right now that they have improved a lot of their protocols in terms of citizen oversight. And I but as far as the organized groups, I didn’t know anything about that. So this person has enlightened me to something that I’m not aware of.

Andy 26:23
If we can sort of pull back though, what would what is your opinion in general of all of the cell phones are all the cameras that everyone has running around that they capture the George Floyd events and so many other things? Do you think that’s positive? Or is that less? Is that a negative for the community and or the police?

Larry 26:44
Well, I think it’s a positive for, for both community and the police. Because I believe that the police, by and large, want to do a good job, I have that I have those rose colored glasses that they want to do a good job. And I believe that there’s systemic problems within the police bureaucracy that cause I mean, watch the movie Serpico play that was recorded in 1970, water 70 sometime in the 50 years ago. And I don’t think a lot has changed since Serpico. I really don’t. And, and so I think that the the, the cameras everywhere, give us insight into what we would never have known because of the blue wall of silence. Where it’s just the code of conduct that most officers remain silent was the videos speak volumes about what they’re being silent about. And oftentimes they’re they taint the reports with, with, with narratives that just don’t match what actually happened. And and we get a better accounting by the by the videos, the good police officers should be happy that these recordings are happening because that prevents them from being put in a position where they have to rat on one of their colleagues. The reading is done by the camera.

Andy 27:59
Okay, I see what you’re saying that that makes sense. Yeah, they don’t they don’t have to be trapped up in some sort of being a snitch inside the organization. They can just let the public speak for it and, and so forth. Okay.

Larry 28:12
So I think it’s a good thing. And I think that there’s a lot of good police officers that that are that are happy that it’s happening. And I think there are some not so good police officers that that try to compensate confiscate video equipment and phones. And they do that and say we’re seizing this for evidence. But But unfortunately, that’s going to happen. I mean, they’re they’re still they’re still bad cops out there. And they’re only human beings. That’s all. Yeah,

Andy 28:40
right. Right, right. Well, we can do this a little quick. Somebody wrote in that listen to the podcast, this came back fast later, this is only from Episode 149, where we discussed getting the podcast into the prison system. And just you know, further further talking about that, this individual is asked his referencing that he gets religious kind of podcast from a Jewish organization, Orthodox Jewish organization that he is, is working with. And he provides me provides us with some resources. And I assure you, I will check into them. But what I found from just a very intensive like 32nd, Google search was that it was going to cost us money to get our product distributed into it. And not cheaply either. But I will certainly try to try to figure out how to get them published. And that would be super fun. If we could get them actually published and set the prison

Larry 29:35
would be a Dutch bank to prison administrators would be really fond of this program.

Andy 29:39
I have a feeling that but I have a feeling that they would object to it. But at the same time, if we did have that 501 c three, which I know of work on either at the beginning of the year after the election coming up, but I imagined that that would help us. So

Larry 29:53
well, you know, there there actually would be presidents that would object but if I If they actually sit down and listen to what we say, I think a lot of prison administrators would be very happy with us because we try to call it down the middle. I have I have no hesitancy to criticize prisoners. I’ve done it over and over again about their internal code of conduct, about how they classify it made themselves and to those the sleaze balls and and terms about how they’re willing to jettison their own due process. They don’t want you to, they don’t want to administer they fight for their due process. But they don’t afford anything. Anybody else. They have their own administration of justice. That doesn’t. I mean, I, I think the prison administration would really like us because I give them credit for the hard work they do running running a prison. It’s not an easy job. It is not,

Andy 30:43
but I’m thinking back to the Mississippi, I think it was parchman. Is the prison that the riots broke out six ish months ago. Yes. Like you, no one could do anything. But go. Those are deplorable conditions. I can’t imagine everyone going back. That’s what they did. I mean, I guess people were saying that’s what they deserve. But you know, they’re in there like animals. That’s why they’re in there. That’s probably a common sentiment that people had, but they shouldn’t have been treated that way in the first place. I don’t know that anybody would, really a objectives, how they are being treated incredibly harshly.

Larry 31:17
Well, and but again, sometimes the prison administrators are stuck with that not about their own choosing. You have prison administrators who want to do they understand correctional substage ACA standards, they understand they understand how a prison should be run in terms of classification, not running a snitch system. They understand all that. But they’re not given the resources when they go to their legislature, legislature asking for resources about employee compensation, but just you should deplorable in most states, particularly the South. And when they ask for funding, they’re the lowest on the totem pole. So you have good administrators who are stuck with old ancient facilities that are underfunded, and they are tasked with doing the best they can with what they have. And then you have horrible prison administrators who are like former Sheriff Joe Arpaio, who are excited to see how much misery they can inflict on people. That’s the type of prison administrator that would not like me, because I would call that administrator out and say you could do a whole lot better with the resources you have. But sometimes, like in the southern states, Alabama doesn’t allocate very much for prisons, and they lock up too many people. And those people were stuck in a very bad situation trying to make the best of what they have.

Andy 32:30
And I will also say, Brian, thank you for writing to me directly. And also thank you for having incredibly legible handwriting.

Larry 32:37
Oh, that was a fantastic letter.

Andy 32:40
Yes, it was ready to be a part of registry matters, get linkset registry matters.co. If you need to be discreet about it, contact them by email registry matters. cast@gmail.com you can call or text a ransom message 27472 to 74477 want to support registry matters on a monthly basis, head to patreon.com slash registry matters. Not ready to become a patron, give a five star review at Apple podcasts or Stitcher or tell your buddies at 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. I think, Larry, that leads us to this, this final little tidbit on this Georgia thing, doesn’t it?

Larry 33:37
Yeah, we’re gonna we’re gonna spend some time talking about an important case.

Andy 33:43
Well, I think things started. If we do a little bit of history, the way that you wrote it up, it says on September 24, a lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court of the Middle District of Georgia challenging the butts County Sheriff’s Office practice of placing warning signs at the residence of pfrs before Hallows Eve. And then we went to court I was in the courtroom with another person from Georgia and the the the judge, like gave us the injunction. That was, yeah, that was just this last year. And that was an incredibly great victory that we had at that time that that shut down that whole process, what transpired from there.

Larry 34:26
Well, what transpired from there is the injunction for people who may be joining us for the first time. an injunction is an order granting you relief that you have not won because the case has not been tried on on the merits underlying your complaint. You’re asking for relief in advance of your case, big adjudicate and the standards are incredibly high to get an injunction. It’s not anything to do with whether the judge likes your dislikes you it has to do with The four prong test which the two most important ones, are you likely to succeed on the merits when the case goes to trial? And will you suffer irreparable harm if the injunction relief that you’re requesting hasn’t isn’t granted. And those those critical factors, those to determine whether you’re going to get injunctive relief or not. And in this particular case, the judge felt like that the evidence was there that the likelihood for success on the merits were good. And that, that the harm would be any any first amendment deferred deprivation or infringement would be irreparable harm. So he granted injunctive relief. And then that put that put the kibosh on it for those plaintiffs It was not it was actually not a class action, it was only for the plaintiffs that were named. And the the court encourage them not to do the science in general, and they didn’t but but the injunction was really directly applied to the the plaintiffs. And and then the case had to had to move forward towards the trial, where there’s going to be a full blown trial, or whether the case was going to be resolved by an agreement between the parties, or whether there was going to be a decision made without a trial through a process called summary judgment. And this case was decided in that last process, or mentioned by by summary judgment.

Andy 36:20
Did did the sheriff say anything? Did he perform any actions that really were like kind of egregious? I think there was things in the and what I’m actually getting at is that I think there were things in the case that were brought up, that there was no in tend to put these things out there to highlight pfrs. But there was stuff found on his Facebook page from the previous year of like, I’m gonna like, single these people out something like that.

Larry 36:50
So Well, I’m not sure I follow that that question. The the intent becomes too worthy, whether you have whether you have a when you when you’re litigating for damages under 1983. And your your, which is the section United States Code of civil rights, you have to be able to show that that that there was a right clearly established, and that there’s a willful intent to valido. Right. And, and if you’re getting at that part, the the sheriff’s department is claiming that they didn’t intend to intrude on private property that they thought they were that they were on the public right away. Is that where you’re going?

Andy 37:30
Um, no, I’m actually referring to because he was posting on his Facebook page just about that his whole intent behind this was to I don’t want to say that he don’t he didn’t use the word shame them. But the intent was to, you know, highlight and show everyone where these people weren’t that was, that was the intent, but he didn’t bring that forth as being quote unquote, his intent. He was just trying to just trying to keep the community safe, Your Honor.

Larry 37:53
Well, I do remember I do remember that he they said he was he was simply trying to do his duty, but it’s handled the Bible. And he said that he felt he had a duty to notify the citizens of the presence of these people. And he was doing that that was his intent, nothing more.

Andy 38:11
But the the post that he put on Facebook the year prior to this is what I think kind of got him in trouble is that there was that from the previous year. And that’s what he was trying to do. And then everyone’s like, God, thank you for keeping the people safe.

Unknown Speaker 38:24
Did they say it? Does I say it like that.

Andy 38:27
In Bucks County, they would definitely say it that way. Definitely.

Larry 38:32
Worry as far as but Horace butts county for our global audio. So if you were to if you were to look at Georgia, where would you find butts County.

Andy 38:41
If you were to find a place between Macon and Atlanta, it would be pretty much halfway between. There’s the diagnostic center for the Georgia Department of Corrections. It’s called Jackson State Prison. And it’s right in that general vicinity. It’s it’s Yeah, it’s it’s probably just a hair south of the middle point between making in Atlanta. Mm hmm. It’s pretty much nowhere Vail, though.

Larry 39:03
So yeah, it’s it’s a it’s still a small county, I think somewhere around 20 25,000 people.

Andy 39:10
Oh, and what was Mr. Long’s what was Sheriff Long’s attitude about where this was going to go if even if we won at the next level after that, you know, since the summary judgment, but you know, he lost the injunction if he had lost the case, what was his next step? What did he want to do next?

Larry 39:27
Well, he did in fact, he filed an appeal on the on injunctive relief, and that was that is pending, set for or arguments in the 11th circuit, which is in Atlanta for mid December, I think 15th or 16th. And he had he had he had taken that upon appeal injunctive relief is immediately appealable because, again, you’re getting relief that you have one and and he he’s he filed an appeal, and the appeal has yet to be decided. We argued that the appeal was moved on to The mortgage appeal was moot because the injunction was only good through Halloween 2019. Therefore, the court should not consider the appeal. Now, our posture may change. And, you know, I’m not prepared an hour by in the in the total know what to what they might do next. But one of the things you would do next would be that since the case has been resolved on the merits, you would you would consider tried to get the court to take this, consolidate the the Georgia appeal with the appeal of the merits that go ahead and have their oral arguments if you’re ready, on the whole case. But the more likelihood is they’ll probably counsel that hearing. Because it now that the case has been dissolved or been resolved on the merits, there’s no need for the for the injunction here, because the injunction is going to be lifted by the district judge who issued it. If if he, if it’s not clear that that it dissolved itself, because it was only for 2019. If an order is requested, the judge is going to issue that order, because he’s found against us and in favor of the county.

Andy 41:01
And just forgive me for a minute going back a couple questions from the listener saying that we’re all negative nancies all the time. That here is a direct example that we shot them down and got the injunction. The share should have been like, Whoa, okay, sorry, you guys are right, man, we’re gonna just gonna back off. But that’s not what he did. Granted, the Spalding Sheriff did. And then we also sent a letter down, I don’t remember the name of the county, down, like in mosquito Ville, of South Georgia, we sent a like notice citing the injunction, and they backed off. So I’m just using that as evidence to say, they may not just back down when you say, hey, you can’t do this.

Larry 41:42
They’re they’re not likely to just back down what people fail to realize is that the governmental entities have virtually an unlimited bank account. And there are a lot of attorneys out there that love to make money. Therefore, they have no difficulty finding attorneys to represent them. None whatsoever. Because they’re going to get paid, generally at an hourly rate that’s very attractive. And they’re happy to run up billable hours. So they will invent arguments, they will invent stuff that you can never imagine which if people want to bother read this decision, they did some of that. But they will invent arguments to litigate. And they are going to do that it doesn’t matter if it’s in the pristine, pure state of Maryland, where they’re wind driven. Or if it’s an Arkansas, whether it’s in New Mexico, with us in Georgia, doesn’t matter, Michigan, that’s what they’re going to do. And if you are in denial that they’re going to do that, then I can’t help you. But that’s what they’re going to do. They have unlimited resources, and they’re going to fight anytime you’re challenging the constitutionality of anything. There’s a law that this wasn’t even a law, this was that it was it action, initiated without the benefit of law, and they still fought it. So it’s a lot of wishful thinking, to think these people are just going to go away.

Andy 43:03
We have a series of prepared questions. So I’m going to between you and I, we we created a dozen or so questions. So just to try and keep things on track instead of us meandering about why was this lawsuit filed? And why do you people at Nassau not challenged the registry itself? If you get rid of the registry, this issue people have wasted so much time on will cease to exist? Larry, why do you people not just challenged the registry itself?

Larry 43:30
Well, that has been done multiple times. And it’s was limited success, because registries may not be unconstitutional. And it depends on the registry. And in fact, Georgia’s registry has been challenged and they haven’t made any dramatic changes to Georgia’s registry in a decade. Since the last since the federal case, it was handled by Judge Levy’s name’s Clarence Cooper. But by that, I mean, are you oblivious to what’s happening in the world with case decisions, we just got the decision of the 10th circuit where where it was vacated judge judge match was overturned, but by the 10th circuit. So if you want to, if you want to continue to believe that the mere act of having registers is unconstitutional, you can do that. But it’s not realistic. So the question is, Why did arsal challenged the hell we think we felt that I can speak for an hour. So we felt that if you’ve got 159 counties in Georgia, and you allow shares to invent requirements, this only happens once a year. But they can advance any requirements that’s not in the statute and impose those requirements by their own initiative, and then threatened to prosecute you if you don’t comply. And we felt and still feel that we cannot allow law enforcement 10 zero requirements. We take that out serious When they put their hand on the Bible, they’re going to enforce the law and not make the law. And that’s why we attacked this, we felt felt that this was a clear infringement on a person’s property rights. And it was compelling them to speak a message. And it was important enough to try to stop it in its tracks. So that’s why that’s why we attacked us.

Andy 45:23
And without going down that whole rabbit trail of registries being constitutional, you have described what, at least from your point of view will be, like some sort of constitutional registry, where maybe you have an app and you take a picture from your phone, there’s your updated photo, if that’s what is necessary. But all of the the restrictions, the term that you introduced me to is the disabilities and restraints, the living restrictions, the all of the other presence restrictions, all that stuff. That’s what makes this so horrible.

Larry 45:51
That’s correct. But each registry each state, and even within the state, there’s individual local restrictions that are imposed. And each registry scheme has to be challenged on whether it can withstand constitutional scrutiny, the mere act of registering someone is not unconstitutional.

Andy 46:13
What are the three claims that they were the three claims? And can we go through them?

Larry 46:19
Yes, we can. They they that that defendants, the plaintiffs allege that that vendor standing the share of compelled speech and violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution, that they the defenders trespassed in violation of state law. And they committed on a lawful taking out the plaintiffs property, advise violation of the Fifth Amendment. And those were the three claims that they put forward. Didn’t get a lot of traction on either of the three.

Andy 46:54
But they did award it to for one situation and not for the other two, I think is how we can say that.

Unknown Speaker 47:02
It’s explained that

Andy 47:04
they they awarded it to the person that doesn’t own the house, he doesn’t have like the property interests, he lives with his parents, but not the ones that either owned or rent their home.

Larry 47:13
What is it, it’s the opposite that people who who did not have the there there was there was lack of standing on on the people who didn’t own property. You can’t take from a person what they don’t know. And it’s a very minimum, at the very minimum, they had to have at least two people just live with their parents apparently just didn’t have a lease so that they didn’t really have any property rights, as far as the court could see.

Andy 47:43
And if we move on and says this case was decided on motions for summary judgment, what in the flippety flip in summary judgment

Larry 47:55
is an expedited process when when you when you seek summary judgment, either party can move the defending party or the or the or the plate of either party can move for summary judgment. And when you when you make the motion, actually, I wrote an article for the, for the rash decision out of Tennessee, and we put it in our newsletter. And, and, and I, I cut and pasted it in here, I’m going to use it again. And the court itself explained the standard, but actually, I liked mine better. I like what I’d cut from a dose versus Roush was with my, with my little add ons in it. But summary judgment is is is a way to resolve a case without going to trial. If there are no facts in dispute, and that’s the key there is the moving party is telling the court, we don’t need to go to trial here. All the facts are clear. The parties are in agreement. Therefore just decide the law, decide the case based on the law save us a bunch of time and money. And we’ll get this case over with

Andy 49:05
was the decision to request summary judgment wise in this case?

Larry 49:10
Well, being that I don’t have a law license, I’ll have to let the decision speak for itself. So in the summation that I’ve written, I’ve quoted from the court where the court said unequivocally that there were there were facts that were in dispute and and highlighted that this is but the critical issue is in fact hotly dispute hotly disputed about whether the the sides wrong right away, or whether they were on private property. And that is not me saying that I got it straight from the from the decision of the court. That that was

Andy 49:47
that for just a minute. Sure. What is the right i mean, i to me, I think of I’m responsible to cut my grass all the way to the street. I don’t cut it all the way to five feet six, whatever this is some imaginary number. However, there is a ditch, I guess, like, you know, like a water runoff an exposed drain, I guess you could call it. Am I not responsible to care for this part of the property? Because that’s probably the city’s

Larry 50:13
generally you’re required to care for that property. But the question is Can Can, can you as a private owner, do, what can you do with that other than mow the grass? Because you’re not allowed to do certain things on easement and a right of way. But but the government can I mean, your speed limit signs are generally off to the side, you know, your any type of warning signage, I mean, utilities might say that they they have what what what happened in this case, is that there wasn’t sufficient factual development about what constituted private property and where the signs were being placed. And whether they’re being placed on right of way that that that the that the occupant and homeowner had no say so over, or they would be placed on their private property that, in hindsight, should have been developed at trial. There should have been experts that talked about what the Georgia law is, and it may be individual county ordinances, I don’t know all these things. But that’s what you have a trial for it to bring in experts to talk about these things and experts cost money. And I also would have delayed this this case by another year, which would have meant the the team that we have, they were faced with Halloween bearing down on us with no injunction because the injunction from 2019, I had expired. And we were arguing that it had expired to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals saying that there’s no need for you to have been here this case, because the injunction is expired. Therefore, they were going to have to they were going to have to request another injunction and go through that process. or could they go ahead and try to resolve the case on the merits in advance of Halloween 2020. And in hindsight, we can see that the decision wasn’t favorable, but their analysis was that they thought they had at one. And you know, here we are sitting here quarterbacking on Monday.

Andy 52:07
I’m actually looking at the next question and wondering, going going back to the previous listener, a couple questions go from the listener about Won’t they just lay down? Couldn’t we apply that to us? Hey, like we’d lost decisions, should we just lay down and stop trying?

Larry 52:22
Absolutely not, I do not know what we will do. But I do know that that arsal has invested a significant amount of money not not gobs and gobs, but a significant amount of money. And we were committed to this case. And we believe in this case. So therefore, we’re not likely just to go away and say that’s the end of it. What we’re going to do next, this just came out three days ago, so we don’t know.

Andy 52:47
Can you like literally learn some someone told me like you are the best legal strategist legal mind that that we know. And yes, I’m sorry to say later that you don’t have all the fancy letters and Esquire and all that, you know, you didn’t go to school for 100 years. I don’t really care. The reason why our listeners are here. And the reason why I chose you for this podcast was because of your expertise and your strategy and your insight and all that. So now that I’m done blowing smoke up your fanny, what do you see as the options to go next?

Larry 53:18
Well, the great thing is even on summary judgment, there’s a right to an appeal. Just because of the side without a trial doesn’t mean that there’s no appellate review. So you you would you would be arguing, and this is this is a great question, actually. This, this would get us back to doe verse. Smith versus dope. The the facts, the parties? Yep. The facts that the parties agreed to a summary judgment cannot change on appeal. Those are the facts. Whether they’re facts or not, doesn’t matter. Those were the facts. And the appellate court will not disturb those facts. Because that’s what the parties agreed that they weren’t. So anything that wasn’t establishes as a fact, is resolved in favor of the non moving party on summary judgment. So so anything, if if if the county says our defense would have shown this had we gone to trial, the appellate court has to accept that as being a fact because they didn’t ever get an opportunity, because we requested they not be afforded the opportunity to put all their defense so so we’re limited in what can go go what can be considered on appeal, because the facts were established by the parties. And but that doesn’t mean that the law was interpreted correctly. There. There’s cases cited all throughout the 28 page opinion. And those cases may be applied incorrectly. I don’t begin to think that I know. I just prepared for for the podcast today that the best I could put something together. Yeah, but but what what I would say is there’s an appeal option. There certainly the request for reconsideration before you before you go up on appeal and there’s a notice of appeal to 11th circuit there’s already an appeal pending and and like say It could be extinguish, but there could be the possibility of combining these these these issues now on appeal with the 11th circuit, but, but in terms of that the team is going to have to huddle. You know, the attorneys. There’s two attorneys in Georgia, Janice blue cheese working on this case with us. I’m working on this case, to the extent anybody listens to me. And we’ve got to figure out what we can do. And and I don’t know all the things we’ll we’ll do, but I know this we’re not going to go away.

Andy 55:30
Okay. Is it possible that our cause has suffered a setback due to this decision?

Larry 55:35
There is absolutely no doubt that as of this moment, we have suffered a temporary setback. It may become a permanent setback if we if we lose on appeal. But clearly at this point, there is ever there will be adverse ramifications, there was the settlement negotiations at Spalding County, those would be potentially adversely affected. Because Spalding county is in the Northern District of Georgia. This case is in the central Middle District of Georgia. But it doesn’t change the fact that the two counties bore each other, and that the county attorneys representing the two counties, I can assure you are talking to each other, they’re aware of this. And Spalding county is going to say, Gee, I don’t know why we should stipulate to a permanent injunction and pay these people money. when when when the judge ruled against them. So that would put that settlement in jeopardy. The Georgia Sheriffs Association clearly has been informed at a price of this decision. And they have probably already communicated to the shareholders of Georgia that that this was a this is a green light to go. Now, it was such short notice before before Halloween, I don’t know if there machinations being with COVID-19 if they actually could act on it for this year. But it certainly could impact us for next year. We all of a sudden could rather than having butts and small Now we could have we could have dozens or maybe 100 counties in Georgia doing this. It’s so it’s potentially devastating to us, which begs a question a solid list. Why did you people litigate? If you could make things worse? I mean, why didn’t you just go home and forget the whole thing? We have that question come up all the time.

Andy 57:13
Just let the two counties whatever have to deal with it, and at least the other hundred 57 counties didn’t have to deal with it.

Larry 57:18
Well, that that’s that’s exactly what we’ve got a person in Clayton County that insists that that in Clayton County is very close to the to these counties that we don’t have it so bad here in Clayton County. And and with you people making all this noise, first thing, you know, we’re gonna have problems here in Clayton County. And by that standard, by that standard, we should just never litigate anything, we should just turn a blind eye and say, well, it’s a bad it’s only it’s only two counties right? Now, of course, we had the assurance, because we we learned a discovery that that the Sheriffs Association was encouraging these signs producing these signs. And they they were opining to the sheriff’s that this was legal. So what we what we do was that it was it had been encouraged by the Sheriffs Association. So just because only two were were doing it at the time doesn’t mean that that was all it was going to ever be. But now, I’m afraid that there’s going to be a rapid explosion of this because now they’ve got a green light. I mean, the Court has said it’s okay.

Andy 58:22
Can you can we walk down the path of compelled speech in regards having a signpost in your yard assign the sign didn’t say sex Fender PFR. didn’t use any of that language. It just said, don’t get candy here.

Larry 58:35
Like it actually we’ve got it here the within the analysis, no trick or treat at this address, a community safety message from butts County Sheriff gear lock, it has stopped by stop signs and warning. The warning is the most problematic warning wires they’re warning on what basis but that that’s all the sides that it didn’t say the persons on the registry. Right.

Andy 58:58
So how is this so problematic? They’re not calling the person out. I’m like if we compared it to the driver’s license that actually says, hey, you’re a PFR. It’s not the little innocuous thing in the corner that has some little code. This. I’m not saying that. I mean, I certainly am not sitting here trying to say I agree with it. I’m just trying to be devil’s advocate for just a minute. This doesn’t say anything other than don’t knock at this door. Well, that was this compelled speech, government message like where do we cross the lines?

Larry 59:30
That’s the struggle that the court had in terms of the this case because the government speaks all the time on documents. We’ve talked about the the corrective lenses, every state marks corrective lenses on people who can only pass the eye test with corrective lenses. That’s not intended to shame you. It’s not intended to do anything bad. It’s intended to keep the public safe. If you require corrective lenses to operate a vehicle safely and an officer encounters you That is the most innocuous way that I can think of this very day to convey that information to the officer that if you’re not wearing your corrective lenses, you’re not safe to be on the road. That’s all that’s for. So that’s government, that’s the government speaking to the to the cop. And this changes slightly, in my view, because it is the government speaking to the passers by. But they’re speaking on private from the platform of private property. And they’re, they’re speaking on a day that you that expression is accepted that you could express yourself. And they’re saying that you cannot interact with anybody that chooses to interact with you by this no trigger treaty here. And it didn’t say that you couldn’t decorate but I’m presuming that if the deputies brought the science by told you, you can’t hand out candy. They also told you don’t bother decorate your house. Because that would encourage people to come. Yeah, all of a sudden,

Andy 1:00:59
for anybody on the registry or if it’s just if it’s just supervision.

Larry 1:01:02
But I’m making that assumption without any evidence. But man, but I’m assuming they did that. So you’re getting it, you’re getting into, you’re getting into some really significant areas of speech and expression, that you’re that you’re disallowing. But then again, let’s take it to the cigarettes, where we’re where we have compelled speech, because Sheriff long says that clearly, that his argument was that the government is speaking and the rational person would associate that this would be a message that the offender endorses, therefore we can do it clearly. It’s the government message. Well, is it possible he’s right. When you since 1964, when you’ve bought a pack of cigarettes, there’s been a variation of some form of warning, the first one started out with warning. The surgeon surgeon I believe he said warning cigarettes, smoking may be hazardous to your health and in about 19 7071. They added they they came up with like a rotating message of like three or four different messages. They said warning the Surgeon General has determined this. Do you think that tobacco companies want that message on there? Do you think they endorse that? But isn’t it the government commandeering their, their their rapper and enforce them to carry a message that they vehemently disagree with? How is it the government gets away with that?

Andy 1:02:20
And not only that, making them pay to put the message on there too.

Larry 1:02:24
And I’ll take you one further. The government in the early 70s banned advertising on television. When’s the last time you seen a TV ad? Isn’t isn’t isn’t that prohibition on first amendment rights?

Andy 1:02:39
I guess if you think that corporations are people too?

Larry 1:02:43
Well, the Supreme Court said they are. I mean, we don’t we don’t execute revenue corporations. But the Supreme Court said they are people.

Andy 1:02:55
So you wrote in addition, most of the assertions raised in the complaint were dismissed with prejudice, meaning they cannot be raised again. Can you elaborate? Is this something similar to double jeopardy?

Larry 1:03:06
Yes, it’s similar to double jeopardy, you don’t get multiple bites at the apple, when when you raise claims that have been extinguished through through a litigated process. So these people can’t come back and raise these claims. Again, they had their chance they had their day in court, they show summary judgment. They’re out of business now. Now, this is not a presidential decision. So it doesn’t mean that the plaintiffs can’t come race, the same issues, but it means these people these claims are over. If they don’t like the science being erected, they need to vacate butts County, because they’re dumb, by and large, except for the one remaining claim, which I didn’t completely understand. But there was one that was not fully extinguished by the court. And let’s go back to the decision because it was at the very end of the of the order. And then I put it in my analysis. I think I did, didn’t I? There was there’s one Okay, what is the surviving claim?

Andy 1:04:01
I thought the surviving claim was about the people that are living with their folks. I thought that was the surviving claim. The ones that don’t if somebody owns or rents their property that they are the ones that are doomed and the ones that live with mom and dad, they’re not on the lease. Okay. Okay. Well,

Larry 1:04:19
it says, I know the section it says is there hope? Yes, there is hope because the court was not able to resolve all issues, particularly the issue of whether the signs are all public right away or private property. quoting from the order. The court first makes clear that what is it is not concluded, concluding the sheriff’s office believes it has the right to post the signs in front of the plaintiff’s homes as long as the signs are, are in. In a I can’t you’re a better reader and read that. That’s fine. Sorry. Well sure to share, sir.

Andy 1:04:51
Yep, the sheriff’s office believes it has the right to post signs in front of the plaintiff’s home, as long as the signs are in yet to be defined rights of way. That it can prosecute anyone who moves the signs. The court doesn’t reach that issue. But as noted, the defendants have scant authority to support either proposition in this court, and the court certainly doesn’t conclude, given the facts here that putting the sign in the plaintiffs yards makes sense. Rather, the court only concludes that for the most part, the relief the plaintiffs seek is not available.

Larry 1:05:23
And that came from page 28 of the opinion. So the the summary judgment precluded the court from being able to determine whether this is right of way or not. So that issue remains open at 80 of the plaintiffs could bring that back again. But everything else is gone. They didn’t trespass, and they didn’t do a taking. And they do have qualified immunity. Because this was not a clearly this. The standard is it says has to be something that’s clearly establishes violations, alleged violations, and there’s nothing clearly established on this. So therefore, they have qualified immunity. But but the remaining issue for these individuals is whether or not this is private property of government right away and the court seems to be telegraphic that they have stamp authority so far, for their assertion that this is right away.

Andy 1:06:15
Didn’t Janice Bellucci file a case when a case similar to this in California, or is this a figment of my imagination? I think

Larry 1:06:21
there was a case some years ago in Simi Valley. I don’t remember the particulars. But I do remember that, that she began on the team that she had had offered a step cleaning. And that I remember something along that line.

Andy 1:06:36
Then there is something to be said for 50 individual countries, you were just saying a few minutes ago about we have to fight each registry on its own home turf in each little state and all that stuff. So this goes to that as well that she may have won a case out there, whatever the the reasoning behind it was, and we fought a case here, different reasoning and different outcomes necessarily. That is correct.

Larry 1:06:59
And not nothing that happened in California is binding in any way in Georgia.

Andy 1:07:05
But cookie cutter copy, paste, if it applies, then some of the work has been done for you already.

Larry 1:07:11
Correct. And at your site to this persuasive authority, which which this court cited to the cases they cited to the recent decision out of Louisiana, in fact, when trying to analyze what is compelled speech. And

Andy 1:07:27
they say ironic. So the thing that we just talked about last week is cited in this case,

Larry 1:07:33
it was it was cited by the court and they said they received as a judge that he received an email about it. And and he cited he cited to the Marshall case out of Alabama in terms of driver’s license. But this gives pal speech is really tricky. And and I don’t pretend to understand it completely. This is this is this is a nuance of law in terms of what what we’re whether this is compelled speech or not, or whether this is government speech. And this certainly the right of way is unclear because the court in terms of whether it was the right away or whether it was private property. And what really wasn’t raised in the complaint, very succinctly was that, that the registry hasn’t required but and a sheriff can’t really event requirements beyond what’s in the statute, because they’re therefore you get into void for vagueness, you don’t know what you’re required to do. And you can have a law enforcement officer just because they have a badge tell you have to do this, because you’re on the registry. No, it has to be in the statute. I think if I had anything to second guess myself about I would have been more assertive about we have to figure out some way to have the claim in there that that allowing the county to invent their own requirements, makes the statute vague and void, because no one knows what they have to do. And we’re getting ready to gear up again for Cobb County, because Cobb County is doing that very same thing. Their bidding requirements are not in the statute, not in terms of helmet science, but in terms of several other things that they’re requiring. And they’re arresting people for not doing those things. One of them is if you don’t call them within 24 hours of them leaving a flyer. They, they they believe that that’s contemptuous of their authority. And they’re locking people up and saying that they don’t live there. If you don’t call them back, they leave a few flyers. And then if you’re not, if you don’t respond, they they conclude that you’re no longer there.

Andy 1:09:19
And I’m gonna be like, I don’t know the right terms for this. You have described to me that there are certain areas of authority that different echelons have I don’t know if that’s the right word to use. But the sheriff of the county is not something that’s listed in the statute as being an entity. I hope I got you close enough that you can fill in the gaps.

Larry 1:09:42
Well, that was in terms of the Cobb County Attorney’s response to nurse she said that, that in terms of the more frequent verification requirements that these were imposed by Cobb County and she she cited to the Adam Walsh Act that said that is your that Indiana Walsh Act, the language says that you’re restrictions are allowed to exceed the requirements. They she’s absolutely correct. jurisdictions are allowed to go through the legislative process. And they can have requirements for registrants that are not recommended by the federal government to be substantially who by but we’re analysis broke down. It’s like the Cobb County Sheriff’s Office is not a jurisdiction. But jurisdiction is defined under Adam Walsh as being a state or territory. So so so we pointed out to her that, that you’re headed down the right path that jurisdictions are allowed to do that, but they have to enact it through the statutory process. You can’t I mean, when you put your hand on that Bible, when you run for sure, you promised that you would enforce the law, if you want to be a law maker, Sheriff law, run for the Georgia General Assembly, and you can be a law maker. But right now, your job is simply to follow what’s in that book. And there’s nothing in the book that requires anybody to have signage.

Andy 1:10:56
And so a state or a territory would be a Georgia or Puerto Rico. Those are the two entities that you just described,

Larry 1:11:04
yes. And Georgia could conceivably put this in their statutory scheme that you’re required to do this is not recommended by that imageshack, it would not get you closer to AWS compliance, if you were in a deficient sub category, this won’t do anything, because I don’t care about Halloween restrictions. This would just make your citizens feel good. But this would not move you toward toward compliance. But you could do that you can do things that are not recommended, and many states do. And that’s why people misinterpret data bullshit. I want you to do a program but Moshe one of these days because I get emails almost every week about it. And and people still misunderstanding wash x, and they gripe about things that are not in that mosh act. And I said, Well, you grab all you want to but it’s not there.

Andy 1:11:46
And I think at all the other questions, I think this is really the last one it says both parties moved for summary judgment. This is something that I’m really trying hard to understand, because this seems to be like the nuance of this whole thing is did they move for the same summary judgment, both parties, or did they do this independently? Do they move into a summary judgment? Okay, no. I said they want this. The other guy said they want that

Larry 1:12:09
correct date, the engineer says, oh, we’re entitled to summer. Well, the each motion for summary judgment, I guess, could be considered independent of the other. So the court determines if if the plaintiff is entitled summary judgment and rules on that motion are they determine if the if the defendant is entitled to summary judgment? But But you could do it conceivably do a joint motion for summary judgment, but but in this case, the sheriff had his reasons for wanting summary judgment. And we had our reasons for wanting some summary judgment. And the sheriff had more compelling reasons that we did. So he won.

Andy 1:12:44
Okay, and you’re just saying, as in like, here is here, here’s my list. And then the judge says, Okay, you guys win, because you You submitted a better document, like copying pasting

Larry 1:12:56
on Delta, the law favors his interpretation of the law was that the case law supported the counters position, that that based on what we argued, we were less compelling. And all the inferences were resolved in favor of the non moving party on our motion, because anything that that that was not proven. The the the court has to interpret in the light most favorable to the, to the non moving party of the motion for summary judgment. So so everything went in favor of the county on our motion, and everything went in favor of us all the counties motion.

Andy 1:13:31
Is it? Do they, I guess they don’t combine then. So then he just the judge looks at it. And I keep saying he because this in this case, I don’t mean to be like, you know, all judges are only guys. Uh, he he looks at it in ways which one he feels is better. Like, that’s just the end of it. The guy with the robe, end of story?

Larry 1:13:51
Well, until there’s an appeal. This is as if there had been a trial. This is if 4242 witnesses have testified. And the both parties, both sides have rested. And the judge made a decision, he made the decision on pleadings. And the rules established for summary judgment or that the non moving party gets the benefit of the doubt on anything that’s adverse to them because they weren’t able to defend that by the benefit of a trial. Back to the Smith versus Doe, Alaska said that we want this scheme because the recidivism is high since there was no trial, and that was not able to be unpacked. And the court below, the Supreme Court was bound to accept that because that was a defense that would have been tested had there been a trial so they don’t try the cases at the Supreme Court. And everybody does understand that the appeal the appellate court is not going to try the case.

Andy 1:14:55
And just one other point with this, if if our side had said we Don’t want summary judgment. Does that negate the other side? If either side says they don’t want summary judgment? Does that mean everything then pushes forward? They both have to agree to the summary judgment.

Larry 1:15:10
No, you don’t have to agree to summary judgment. You have to put forth reasons why summary judgment is not you have to put forth. What’s the moving party shows that it believes it’s entitled to summary judgment, then you have to say, actually, their factual stuff here that makes this case not right. for summary judgment, you have to tell the court what facts are in dispute and why a trial is necessary. If If no party tells the court that there’s anything in dispute, the court is okay if the parties agree on everything. Okay. So we’re Weibo for summary judgment, we told the court there was nothing factually, there was infrastructure.

Andy 1:15:49
And, okay, so we would we had to, I don’t want to drag this out for forever. If we had said we dispute this thing that the judge could have still said, I’m awarding summary judgment.

Larry 1:16:00
Well, on our motion, we wouldn’t have disputed anything because we made the motion. So we are telling the judge, there’s nothing in dispute on when they made their motion, we could have said you should decide there’s because their facts are in dispute. We didn’t do that either. Okay, so each party has to respond to the other party’s motion.

Andy 1:16:22
Okay. That’s kind of what Okay, I think that’s what I was asking.

Larry 1:16:24
So much. So. So, yes, if they don’t identify any material fact and dispute? The court assumes there is no, there are no facts in dispute. But the court eloquently stated in the opinion that there were facts that that weren’t facts that they that they just there just wasn’t enough. There. We we didn’t. We didn’t have the facts in terms of what the right away is. We didn’t establish that.

Andy 1:16:50
I gotcha. I don’t have anything else. I think, you know, we’ve been doing this for like, 45 minutes. I think we are we are done beating this thing to death. All right. Well, on

Larry 1:17:02
that, do we have a dozen new patrons this week?

Andy 1:17:06
We did receive a one new patron this week and want to send out a huge thank you to Eugene, for coming on patron. Thank you so very much, Eugene. Mr. The deputy Hmm, I see in chat has counted and you have done three hands on the Bibles tonight. So if this were a drinking game, he would be under the table.

Larry 1:17:26
So he’s got to learn how to pronounce Bible this Bible.

Andy 1:17:30
Oh, sorry. Sorry. Sorry. Yeah, I think he’s from up north. So there’s no Bible. He’s just his Bible. Ah, oh, my God, Larry, you you have delivered us with crappy news, yet again. Catch you ever be happy and bring us good news and be happy about the good news?

Unknown Speaker 1:17:47
I could be.

Andy 1:17:52
Larry, how can people find the podcast? mate? can we can we take a quick detour about that? There was a phone call that was received today about this podcast at? I’m just gonna say the wrong number.

Larry 1:18:05
Okay. And they left a message saying that they wanted to the prisoner had submitted a question it was answered. The prisoner wanted his mother to hear though the answer. And yes, I I immediately called the person back. And the person didn’t answer the phone. And I tried multiple times throughout the day, and the person never answered their phone. And so like I for the life of me, I don’t understand if you if you call and specifically say, Would y’all call me back? And then you don’t ask for your phone? I don’t understand how that works. How would you ever get the call back? If you don’t answer the phone.

Andy 1:18:43
They immediately went and took a very long hot bath

Unknown Speaker 1:18:46
for the entire day.

Andy 1:18:48
All day, all pruney fingers and all?

Larry 1:18:51
Well, let’s see it. I’ve lived long enough to where phones were the primary means of communication for most of my life. And now everybody has such a phone version. And when I survey people, I get various answers. But the one that I get most often is I have to deal with something I don’t want to deal with. And I said well just press that little button that says end. And that’ll end the call you don’t have to deal with anymore. And people tell me, well, I’m busy. I don’t wanna be disrupted. I said, Well, just like anything else. Just ignore it if you’re busy, but don’t just have a blanket policy to never answer the phone. Because if you don’t want to call it, you can separate yourself from that I want to call and there are people who never ever, ever answer their phone anymore. And I answer my phone. I don’t I’m poking fun at you. I mean, there’s people that never answer their phone anymore. They have all sorts of software and interceptors and everything that says the party is not receiving calls. And and I don’t understand my families that way and neither of them work and they say that they’re afraid that this that they’re gonna have to deal with that. So what would you What would you not be able to extricate yourself from if a call is on one just in the call? But they feel like they have to have permission in the call. The only calls I don’t like answering are the calls that come to the office of the senator. Because I’m not allowed to end those calls. And, therefore, but I’ve been something I can’t get out of, I prefer not to get into it. But on my personal phone, I can add call at any time, so it’s easier to me if I get. I’ve been color coded last week, I probably got a dozen calls about my warranty on my car is about to expire. And each time, it comes from a different number at each time, but it starts I just hit end, and I’m done with it.

Andy 1:20:31
I don’t know what to tell you, man. I don’t answer any calls. That way. I don’t have to worry about all that.

Larry 1:20:36
So well, but but say you told me that you texted the person back. How do you know that that phone received text? you texted them? But but had they not responded? Which I’m assuming they did respond. But if you didn’t get a text back, how would you know that that had been handled without without talking to them?

Andy 1:20:55
Usually, landlines will bounce back and say that this is a landline and can’t receive text messages. Usually that happens.

Larry 1:21:00
Okay. So you would have known

Andy 1:21:02
I assume I would have known but I took my math measures plus plus, which you can’t do on the phone, which I think you can do. But it would require a lot of writing is I sent this person links to the podcast so that they could find where exactly to listen to it.

Larry 1:21:17
So well, fantastic. Just

Andy 1:21:18
click on them in their phone. So the other reason that I brought this up to you was that we got criticized kindnesses forever ago that we got to political and we started getting hate mail. darcel started getting hate mail. So there’s a disclaimer at the beginning of the program that says this is an independent program. Like we are not part of them. I granted we kind of cross paths very regularly. But now people are calling nagarsol for questions to the podcast, which I find kind of ironic.

Larry 1:21:45
So well, there is there’s a lot of overlap, because we operate from the same Post Office Box. All the mail has come to the podcast and we are getting mail now is all coming to the same peel box. So it confuses people.

Andy 1:21:59
Well, all right, so people can find this at registry matters.co. That is the website where to find all of the things and you know, were you to do some Google searching for the podcast, then you might show that that might show up to if you type in registry matters. So you will definitely find the website. How about how about your favorite thing, Larry voicemail? Where do people call to get voicemail?

Larry 1:22:21
747274477

Andy 1:22:26
The email address is registry matters cast@gmail.com. And if we don’t get another patron this coming week, then I guess we’ll just shut the whole thing down and I’m poking fun. But Larry, where do people support the podcast@patreon.com

Larry 1:22:39
slash registry matters.

Andy 1:22:44
Fantastic. We love our patrons very much they they make this whole thing very worthwhile. And I appreciate each and every one of you very, very much and all of our listeners we had a crap ton of the YouTube people this week on last week’s episode like a whole lot.

Larry 1:22:59
It’s it’s pushing 400

Andy 1:23:02
Creek. That’s a lot with all that Larry. Um, as usual, you are a Master Blaster of information about all things related to this issue. And we would be able to do it without you. And I appreciate it very much. And I hope you have a great rest of the week and you’re going to go out and scare people and dress up as I don’t know, like Godzilla or something.

Unknown Speaker 1:23:23
I am indeed.

Andy 1:23:25
Excellent. Thank you as always. I appreciate it very much. Have a great weekend. Good night.

Unknown Speaker 1:23:30
Bye. You’ve been listening to F YP

Listen to RM149: Man Arrested For Failing To Notify Angel Watch

Andy 00:00
registry matters as 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 149 of registry matters. Larry, how are you Saturday night? Welcome back.

Larry 00:23
Fantastic. Thanks for having me. We’re catching up with my age.

Andy 00:27
almost almost Um, I don’t think that anybody realizes it because the comments I received like I had it was about 10 hours of editing to put the podcast back together last week there were so many problems but everyone was like I didn’t notice anything but we had a lot of technical problems this weekend. So hopefully tonight goes much more smoothly or just about that for a word

Larry 00:48
transcription. I hope that I hope they can figure out something with that

Andy 00:53
it was a yet vulnerable See, we should put a marker to go look flag that one down when we get to it.

Unknown Speaker 01:01
Tell me what we have going on tonight.

Larry 01:04
We’ve got a plethora of little listener questions sometimes their readers come in from prison but we’ve got questions. We’ve got a discussion about the who should make the Supreme Court appointment and how did how did how did the hearing go? And the confirmation hearing that is that then we’ve got some articles to talk about. And these questions should be good because do pentas we should we’ve got set about last week’s episode we got a polygraph boisterous question. I mean, this is good stuff.

Andy 01:43
Awesome. Well, let’s let’s get going. First on the list is a letter that came into asking a question says I am serving time who sent this letter. That’s a I don’t even know who this was. Let me see that was real quick. This is from Thomas is what this is. says I’m serving time in Iowa where the state has recently started requiring voice stress analysis test to all inmates required to do sex offender treatment. The prison is telling inmates that this test is 100% accurate, which Larry, there’s no way that that’s hundred percent accurate. The question pack is given to animates to fill out prior to this test, ask many questions about other acts or crimes, but does not pose a single question regarding the inmates current crime or conviction. This packet seems to be the very definition of compelled self incrimination as defined in the McCune vs. Lyle, as completion of treatment depends on passing this test. And SMTP is required for good civil commitment. Sorry, good time versus civil commitment, etc. In Iowa, there is no way that there is a stress test thing that would tell you whether you’re lying or not. There’s just no way.

Larry 02:53
We we actually discussed if I think on an episode not too far back, I know, I wrote about it for the nozzle newsletter the digest in June. And it’s interesting, because that question also came from Iowa. So this is a hot topic in Iowa, the introduction of this voice stress analysis. And we honestly don’t have any case law, but I’ve been able to unearth on that particular thing. So so my opinion would be that we would need to look at the existing case law in terms of the polygraph. Because force incrimination regardless of what tool they use, it’s still it’s still the constitution for self incrimination. So the case law developed particularly in the tent, and I believe the Seventh Circuit, if I remember my article on the 10th circuit was the Vaughn bearing and then the Lacey versus Butz case, I believe was the Seventh Circuit. If if the if the person’s being forced to bring themselves within a zone of criminal prosecution, they can declined to answer those questions. But they can’t just declined to participate at the testing regimen. And I would, I would guess, like I say, we don’t have any any any case law on point that I’ve been able to find out about voice stress analysis. But if if the person objects to a particular question that what they’re doing is they’re doing the sexual history polygraph because that determines how much treatment the person needs. There may be a lot of victims that haven’t been detected yet. And this person may have been offending for a very long time is their theory. And so they do this sexual history disclosure again with

Andy 04:39
it, whether it’s voice stress or hooking up a kabuki machine to you to intimidate you into confessing to things if that would then be required for you to complete your treatment which would then be required for you to potentially get off early. Like get on parole, whatever term you want to use in your state. They are putting you in I guess that’s that Hobson’s choice thing where maybe you do have a bunch of victims in your past, but there’s no evidence to like there’s no criminal case that’s being brought before that. Or you could just be super stressed out, and they think you’re being deceptive. And now you’re just screwed and have to write out your whole sentence.

Larry 05:21
Well, that’s but I believe in the McCune versus Lau case. That’s what exactly what the Supreme Court said, they said that this is not to adding additional punish by that point, I was already there. Right, you’re just not you’re not getting the privilege of big, big request early. So therefore, you’re not entitled to privilege that was the Supreme Court’s reading in that. Now it gets more interesting and K in states where you’re not being released early, when you’ve actually done all of your time. And they continue to hold hold you. I’m not sure they’re doing that for treatment reasons, but they’re doing it for lack of proper and appropriate housing, that comes to have a post period, supervision period that follows incarceration once you’ve served the sentence Illinois, been example into Mexico be another example. But But when you’re when you’re being granted the privilege of leaving early, I mean, you can tell them where to take their polygraph with their voice stress analyzer. And you do not you do not have to take these tests. Now, okay, but you, okay. At some point, if you leave prison with a period of supervision, you’ll be back in the same position.

Andy 06:25
Yeah. And and the other thing that that has been suggested is, go ahead and take the test. And when they ask you the question that’s going to cause you that much grief, then you decline that question. You don’t just say a few, I’m not taking anything, right?

Larry 06:39
That is correct. And you’re going to know the question before they wire you up. They don’t they don’t just hook you up to the Kabuki machine and start asking new questions I do. They do. Free love

Andy 06:49
Kabuki seen for real.

Larry 06:53
They, they they do so the questions are pretest interview and they do they tell you what they’re going to ask you. So it’s not a surprise, barrage of questions. I’ve had people tell me, well, they just hooked me up. And they just weren’t quite sure if they did that. That would that was not anything approximating a legitimate calligraphy. Because that’s not the way polygraphs are done.

Andy 07:14
And and the whole idea there is to see the question in advance to get you to start stressing over it so that when you like the question about four years ago, when like that they’re doing it for the reason of planting the seed to get you to stress out over?

Larry 07:30
Oh, well, that’s not their theory, their theory is that they’re giving you the question about so that you can disclose at thing you need to that would cause you to have problems. But the question, it’s a question was too broad, you can work on the phraseology of the question, and that that they claim they’re not doing it because you have stress.

Andy 07:49
And so what are what is our answer for a Thomas? Is that what it was? Thomas?

Larry 07:54
Yes. Well, well, the answer, the answer is that he’s in the Eighth Circuit and the Eighth Circuit case law. I didn’t find any directly on point. The the seventh and the 10th was for Vaughn bearing came from those are persuasive date circuit is entirely with exception of one didn’t hard judge panel on the Eighth Circuit. So number one to three judge panel you draw, you’re going to get all conservative, appointed judges by various republican presidents. Obama had one appointment. That’s it. So that court, but they’re there, they’re all republican appointees slide No, we get the right decision. Because the right presidents made the appointments. But But if we don’t have anything,

Andy 08:38
there’s no snark there is there, Larry? No,

Larry 08:42
but but we don’t, we don’t have any, we don’t have any case law to go on. But I’m assuming that if I were in that position, I would argue that these persuasive cases from the other circuits would be would be not binding. But you would argue that things are persuasive. But you just can’t refuse to be polygraph. There’s got to be a threat your your your self incrimination kicks in when there’s a threat of actual something happened to you. The fact that you find a question I’m comfortable, does not put you within the zone of prosecution. And that’s the word on bearing. And the cases are coming down that there’s has to be a credible threat of prosecution. And so I don’t know where to thread that needle. In terms of how far to tell someone cooperate. You almost have to make your own decision when you when you’re faced with a situation. What am I going to do? How bad do you want to?

Andy 09:31
Yeah, I’m pretty sure Charles is asking says what if you say you have no prior crimes and you fail the stress test, then they’re going to call that you’re being deceptive and you’re certainly not going to get released early from from after that situation. I’m pretty sure you wouldn’t.

Larry 09:46
I’m guessing he’s right. But what I would never do, and and this is something that people frequently do as I began to confessionals after they’re told that they failed. He never confessed anything. uncounseled right. fashion’s council confessions. What I mean on council without an attorney, you would never admit to committing a crime without the advice of counsel. And normally you’re going to get something in exchange for that admission. But I don’t care how many times they tell you failed the polygraph, you never say that you did a crime.

Andy 10:20
And this is also behind the walls where you would have way less chance to get a an attorney to represent you.

Larry 10:26
It would be a lot more difficult. Yes.

Andy 10:30
All right. Well, then let’s bounce over to question number two, which is, maybe this is enhanced language. And this says I listen to last week’s episode about the case that went to trial in New Mexico. Although I was happy to hear what sometime excuse me that sometimes there is an acquittal. I am sorry for the victim in that particular case because she was denied justice. It’s obvious to me that Ashley is a high dollar attorney, and she was good at manipulating the jury. Now, thanks to Ashley, the victim has to carry this with her for the rest of her life. Ashley herself admitted that sex occurred, how can she sleep with herself knowing that her scheming and manipulation deny this woman justice? How many people facing sexual accusations can afford a high dollar attorney like Ashley? Geez, Larry, that’s kinda kind of harsh.

Larry 11:21
Well, it was. I didn’t put a name with it, because it would it would reveal the the person who is actually one of our advocates, that that wrote this. And there is a much embellishment here, but just a tad bit. But but there are so many questions here that I don’t know where to start. But I’ll tell you that in this particular case, actually was not a high dollar attorney. He was a very, very lowly paid public defender who who received a contract appointment that paid only a few hundred dollars. So so that that did not apply in this particular case. That doesn’t mean that people that have a large bank accounts, don’t get better representation. But this was not a case of that. In terms of how can she sleep with herself, I can answer that one, we sleep mighty fine. Because our job is not to find the truth. When you’re on the defense side, in an adversarial system, our job is to hold the accusing party to their burden of proof and make sure they carry that burden to be under reasonable doubt. We do not have any obligation to help figure out what happened. We have an obligation to make sure that the accusers proof what happened to beyond reasonable doubt. So we don’t go home and think about it. Beyond the end of the trial, when we’re not guilty comes in this last time you think about it, you celebrate and you go on to the next case. If this person, did I get away with something. I suppose that when they get a charge that next time, perhaps they’ll bring in 404 b evidence, which is the rule that allows you to bring in prior bad acts. And maybe they’ll come be different. But But you sleep just fine. That.

Andy 12:58
So Larry, on the other side of that equation, though, for the prosecution side, they’re not seeking justice, either they’re seeking a conviction, you’re seeking something of acquittal, not guilty, you’re seeking that side, but from the prosecutors not trying to seek justice, either. The prosecution is just trying to seek a guilty verdict.

Larry 13:15
Well, I would like to think that the prosecutor believes the accuser, and that they brought the case because they actually believed, but the jury didn’t. In this particular instance, the jury of 12 did not believe that the sex that was acknowledged, was not consensual. Just because sex happens, doesn’t mean that it’s non consensual. And if you’re going to try to put a person in a cage, and you’re going to take their freedom away, you have the burden of proving that what happened wasn’t consensual. The accused has no burden to carry.

Andy 13:56
I don’t like it. I still see like, should they be interested in justice? Yes, I think they should be. And we you know, we are 9597 99% of the prosecutors out there seeking justice and not bringing bs charges. Yes. But does it happen the other way too? Are there vendettas axes to grind? Yes. So then at that point, then you have people’s personal agenda getting inserted into the system?

Larry 14:26
Well, you do indeed have that you have. You have the prosecutors are largely elected at the state level, that they’re elected by the local district. That that or that prosecution office functions. And they are for a number of reasons. They could be driven to bring a weak case because of the politics but I can’t change that. That’s the system we have. It’s like but I talk about capitalism. When I talk about this system, we have a system where you have to jousting opponents We don’t have this lovey w system that people are talking about where we have restorative model, we have an adversarial system where the accusing party bears the burden to prove in a criminal case beyond a reasonable doubt. And the people who are charged with carrying out that responsibility are elected. And they have a variety of considerations, including staying at office, because they’ve got kids to feed and all this stuff. And they do have that moral responsibility, an ethical responsibility that a prosecutor has this actually greater than advanced attorney to seek justice if they know that the person did, but they don’t. Most of them don’t know that. I mean, nobody knows what happened, whether it was consensual or not. All the prosecution has is a victim of the victims advocate telling them that you need to get justice and what if that person’s politically connected? What if they What if they’re prominent in the community or connected to someone who is and they’re getting pressure? Suppose it’s a high profile case in the media and they’re getting pressure. They’re being told to get justice, the pressure on them is to get justice. A justice means convicted, someone holding someone accountable. So so there’s a variety of reasons why prosecutions happen. And it all actually comes back to us. It’s it’s us, we the people who apply this pressure.

Andy 16:17
Let’s move over to another listener question. It says thank you for your continued efforts to chip away at registration laws with the goal of pushing the wall over, I will continue to support you supporting us and this is from Brian, this who this is from I guess I could have seen that in the title. Briefly. I am incarcerated Newcastle Correctional Facility in Indiana. facility is around 95% pfrs. However, almost no one has heard of nor saw. I’d like to see nagarsol reach more and more inmates have you considered uploading your registry matters podcast to the various companies that supply us tablets. For example, here in Indiana GTL, which is global tel link is one tablet provider. Your podcast could be uploaded to the music library and we could search nagarsol to listen to any material you’ve uploaded. Use your podcast to advertise subscriptions to nagarsol, the digest Lifetime’s magazine etc. as Derek Logue says, with knowledge, we rise above the ashes, please consider expanding your reach and providing inmates with the knowledge they need and deserve. I hadn’t really considered this one. And I did like about three minutes of intensive Google searching to figure out that it looks like I would have to we would have to pay to get it to each person. I don’t know that this is for sure. I don’t know if they have any way that we could upload the podcast and let it get disseminated just on its own. But I will continue investigating this. I think this is this is similar to the transcript idea, Larry, and it might be might be an interesting avenue for us to get the actual audio feed into the prisons.

Larry 17:48
Well, that would be fantastic. If we actually had listeners, and rather than having to wait a week, or I should we try to get him out within a week, but a week to 10 days to get the printed copy. That would be fantastic.

Andy 18:00
Yeah, I was, like I said, so I was looking, we would have to know the persons in made ID all of that data and actually, like upload music to their library. So we would I don’t know if we would have to like press buttons and click and so forth to get the podcast distributed to their tablet. But it is something that we will definitely investigate. I think that’s a phenomenal suggestion. I’m all for it. And then we will move over to L This is from Steven says, I want to relocate overseas as a registered PFR. Am I allowed to do this? What stipulations are involved? I am not outright outright barred. Am I? What does the process look like? Anyone who could contact for me for more information? I would love it. This is you know, I was on the connections than ourselves social media site and I somebody just made a post that said, I am about to meet the woman who will become my wife in Nigeria, I think it was maybe it was at Nigeria. It was Kenya it was Kenya. And then there’s a picture of him like I have now met my wife that was like, Okay, this guy is taking extreme measures to get to the United States and he has gone to Kenya, he feels that PFR is treated so poorly. He has gone to Africa. Wow.

Larry 19:18
This This one is a is a regular question or variation on it that this person Steven, it’s in the Texas state prison system. What we’re going to assume since the letter short and we love short letters, but we don’t have all the information. We’re going to assume that you have a period of supervision to follow you, Texas as I recall and imposes a long period of time. You might have a 20 year sentence but but you’re eligible to be to be released after a fraction of that, which then you have that that remainder to be under supervision. But if you’re under supervision, I don’t imagine that the Texas authorities are going to approve a transfer to A foreign nation. So that would be the first thing that you would have to ask yourself and answer, am I under any type of supervision? If you’re not under the supervision, if you walk out of Texas prison free, you can go anywhere on the globe. There, there are no barriers for the United States will preclude you from going you can go anywhere. The question you have to find out is whether any of those nations you would like to go to, would allow what American convicted of the type of offense that you have, if they would allow you in as a temporary guest, or if they would allow you in to a residency status and give you some kind of permanent status. And that’s on a nation by nation basis, whether they would do that, and we’ve got someone or we’ve played videos from that seems to think that Germany is a great place to go that you would, that you would love to find welcoming and that they don’t hold your conviction against you, but but the US does not stop you from going the door is wide open, you’ll have to notify us authorities that you’re going to be traveling outside the country. And they will send a notification blurb to the foreign nation that you’re that you’re you’re coming there and you that you that you have a conviction and all likelihood not not everybody gets those notices, but but it’s in terms of America standing in the way, you know, you go to where you want to.

Andy 21:23
And we could point out that there’s the registered travel Action Group that I don’t know how accurate their information is. But I don’t know anybody else that has any information that says what countries will turn you away at the door, or ones that will let you in. I suspect that Kenya probably doesn’t care, I would suspect they have a lot of their own issues. Otherwise.

Larry 21:45
I used to think that but when I was at one of the National Association of criminal defense lawyers, ideal meetings, I met a person I believe that was the National Conference state legislature I was I was at a meeting. And the the that’s not necessarily the case, the African nations are being put under intense pressure to stop the sexual trafficking of people coming through what so they they’re signing up for IML alerts, and they’re doing everything there can so I would not make that assumption at all. But he’s wanting not only to visit, he says I want to relocate, which to me implies a more permanent status. And and I’m not, I’m not so sure I would definitely not spend a lot of money. flying to a foreign day should only be turned around, I would find out if you’re going to be able to achieve any type of long term entry into the country because it as with America, we do the extreme vetting. And we turn away people, I would expect that other nations would have similar interest in turning away people, including those who have what they would consider to be kind of bad. criminal past.

Unknown Speaker 22:55
Definitely.

Andy 22:58
I think i think i think i think we’re ready to go over to this little ad hoc thing that we are, we’re going to cover Do you wanna play the clip? You want to set it up? Do you want to?

Larry 23:07
Alright, so do you want to do you want to do justice question or skip that one? Because we have one more we’re gonna call it. We’re gonna skip. Okay, we’ll

Andy 23:14
Yeah, we’ll skip it.

Larry 23:16
Okay, all right. So, I’ve gotten I’ve gotten some emails about the Supreme Court, and I’m sure it’s been the topic. And so I wanted to answer what my opinion is, should the next president make the Supreme Court appointment? This doesn’t have anything directly to do with registry. So for this segue, but people you may want to, you may want to hit the skip and pause or whatever you do when you don’t want to listen to it. And then what my impression were of the hearing of the hearing, so I’m going to I’m going to start before before we play the clip that say that I agree with rush limbaugh on the clipping it’s about to play. I actually agree with him. And the only problem I have with Professor limbaugh is that that’s completely contradictory to the position he had in 2016. So so let’s let’s hear what rush says about which President should make the appointment.

Unknown Speaker 24:12
But the Constitution is clear. Trump is the guy who makes the choice Trump is the guy constitutional, you make the choice. The controlling election on this nomination is 2016. It’s not the election in 20 days or however many days it is. The controlling election for judicial nominees like Amy Coney Barrett is the one in 2016. Trump was elected by the people 2016 President served for four years. During that four year term, Ruth Bader Ginsburg passed away creating an opening. The President of the United States, Donald Trump is empowered, in fact duly constitutionally required to choose a replacement and the Senate’s role is just to advise as a consultant, that’s it. There’s nothing about waiting for the next election if it happens, it’s real close. Nothing like that at all. That’s just a democrat made argument, a

Andy 25:13
Democrat made argument, what was the what was the situation in 2016, when Scalia passed away?

Larry 25:19
That is what is so intellectually dishonest about that is because that was not a democrat made argument. That was a republican made argument for a vacancy that occurred in February of 2016, which were at the very front end of the primaries, and hadn’t even didn’t even have nominees. And so so he misled his audience, which is billions of people. That is not a democrat made argument. That was their argument. That’s what they said. And now, if he were intellectually honest, I agree with him, the President is president for the entire four years. Now, realistically, having said that, depending on how late the appointment is, if you’re not doing a railroad operation, rushing it through the normal, the normal processes are so time consuming, that they put through the FBI background check. And then setting scheduling the hearings and giving the minority party a chance to do their background check. All those things take time. So normally, this process drags out for a few months, and this one’s being expedited, because those things were recently done in 2017, when she was appointed to the Court of Appeals. But I only wish that we knew how to play the game with the other side, because the rules change. Just in four short years. It was it was a whole different rulebook back then, just four years ago, it was the In fact, they said that they might not confirm any, if Hillary won, because the polls pointed toward that they said they might not confirm any Supreme Court Justice, let the court run on eight. That’s what they said, back then. Not only were they not going to prove Obama’s who was the sitting president in February when the vacancy had occurred, they said they wouldn’t approve anybody.

Andy 27:06
All right. We don’t need to beat around this one. I have like a million things to say. But we won’t. We won’t stick around here. So let’s cover some news items.

Larry 27:14
So while I was put out of the hearing, I wanted to say what little bit Oh, go ahead. Go go go. So the hearing the hearing about if we had not politicize this process, I will tell you that this, this nominee is extremely qualified. She gave magnificent answers. She was she was polite on like the last nominee, who was rude and obnoxious. She has the temperament to be on the court. And philosophically, she might be a little bit off for her I would like her to be but she is eminently qualified. So I don’t see how they can vote her nomination down. When it comes to a vote. I don’t see how they could do it. I know it’s going to be a party line vote. But in terms of if you were just that, not regarding politics, looking at the qualifications, a law professor and the fact that she’s already a second highest tribunal being on the Court of Appeals. I mean, the question should be is she qualified? And she’s she’s no doubt very Emilie qualified to be able to Supreme Court. But I’m just struggling with how the rules change and how they’re doing this simply because they can. And Senator Whitehorse from Rhode Island, I think he’s from Rhode Island somewhere, but that that part of the contract, please throw it on him. But he reminded them that when you do something because you can. Don’t be surprised when you’re in the minority if things get done because we can. And that’s like, that was a warning shot of what’s to come.

Andy 28:44
Right. I understand that. Yes. This is Yeah, the whole process is politicized. I recall hearing that RBG got confirmed with something like 97 or something like that. votes. So how do we go from getting 97 votes to getting like it’s just going to be 53 to 47? I’m pretty sure

Larry 29:03
we’re not gonna get it won’t be 53 they will allow the the Tater and republican women to vote no, because they’ll still have the margins so they can go ahead and allow three people that are in close contested races to vote no. Which will be surely it’ll be Collins, pepper koski. And lol what is as possible one more if there’s someone who needs to be allowed to duck because their constituents want them to vote a different way. So they’ve got three votes to spare. And they are predict they will probably use those three votes to give people a pass that really don’t need to take the heat. So they’ll be it’ll be 5050 or 51. Resident than 53. But But how we got to that point is is hard to explain because it used to be that that was a question of qualifications. There was a tad bit of polarization politicization and 68. But this was in 68. It was a it was, it was the Democratic president who wanted to replace the retired Chief Justice. And it was the democratic conservative democratic senators from the south, who did not want any more. They’d had enough of that liberal stuff. And it was the democrats who stood in the way of their president making the appointment, they handed off the chief justice to President Nixon. And they’ve never there’s been, every time it’s come open since then. There’s always been a republican president. So since 1968, we haven’t had a Chief Justice appointed by democratic president.

Andy 30:43
Yeah, I know it’s been highly slanted in the Team Red camp since then. Ah, all right. Maybe we move on now?

Larry 30:51
Sure. Let’s do it. Okay.

Andy 30:53
So first one comes from the Associated Press, Idaho prisons tell inmates about relief check eligibility, we should merge that with another article that we have coming up, I thought there was one. But this talks about the relief money that came up with the cares Act and the whatever all the crazy names, that they come up with these things, that people that were incarcerated, they’re going to get that money, too. That’s what this is, right?

Larry 31:16
That is what this is. And again, I want to remind people, that this was an example of overreach by the executive branch at the direction of the Internal Revenue Service without any statutory authority. They ask prisons to withhold the payments. This necessitated a lawsuit. And the judge has ruled in favor of the inmates at less than the people. If the Congress had wanted people in prison, not to be entitled to this funny, they would have said that, and they didn’t. Therefore, the administration invented a requirement. And yes, I’m bashing a republican administration. But just to be clear, I bashed the former governor of California, just I think the last episode four inventing requirements for early relief that weren’t in the legislation. It’s all about policy, folks. It’s all about policy, pointing out that the administration did this without any statutory authority, and they got caught with their hands in the cookie jar, and they’re being slapped out.

Andy 32:29
Right, and that second article that we have is from the Washington Post, and I’m going to press a snazzy little button, and I think it’ll switch over to it on the on the screen when it gets over there. But yeah, so this is, uh, so people in prison are going to get their 12. This is the 1200 dollar check. And I guess this would then give them the money that may come down the pike, if that ever gets signed into whatever, the one that you said we were going to get.

Larry 32:53
I have been proven wrong so far on that on that prediction. They the I would, I would guess that if there’s a change in administrations, because it looks very unlikely they’ll there’ll be another relief packet collected election. If there’s a change in administrations, there will be immense pressure to exclude prisoners from any, any any of these payments, because it’s so heinous, that we’re giving 1200 dollars to people that incarcerated, were already paying for their care, and sending them hard earned taxpayers money. So they can sit in prison and live the high life I mean, saw but often suspect that the republicans would be very adamant about inserting that into future legislation, because the courts are saying that unless you unless they’re precluded by statute, you can’t do it by executive action.

Andy 33:41
Can we can we take a quick detour just to sit on that subject for a minute, I hear from people from time to time about the the people that have received the money that should and like we’ll just go dead people received it. Can you briefly explain how, because of the way that they did this, like it was let’s get the money out as fast as possible how people that were completely ineligible, and I don’t mean prisoners, I mean, dead people as an example, they might have received the money.

Larry 34:10
Well, it would be because of the, the, the the urgency of getting the money out. And remember, we had the economy in freefall because of the of the shutdown. So we had an unemployment rate that jumped from 3.5 3.6% to 14.3%. And one month reporting cycle, like, like 20 million people lost their jobs. And this was, was it when you take 20 million people out of the workforce, that that has an economic hit, that’s significant. So this was this was created to try to put cat cash back into the economy. And magically stimulus is okay when you have when you have this administration. But that’s a separate topic. But how this happened was that they decided to use previous tax returns. Well, there’s no direct link between those tax returns. who’s still alive and who was dead. So So when you’re using the IRS has direct deposit information for for people and addresses and people who filed a tax return, it’s quite conceivable because if you had filed an 18 or 19 return, they were using that. And if you didn’t file an 18 or 19 return, they were using social security. Now, Social Security does keep a pretty good track of who’s who’s alive. But still people collect Social Security, their debt, some of those fall through the cracks. But but that’s how it happened. People who were given payments actually had to ceased. It’s kind of like people who vote and they die before the actual Election Day. You’ve had early voting already going on for a couple weeks now in some states, and some of those people will actually die before election day

Andy 35:44
that have cast votes. Right. So then so somebody does some sort of poll, like checking out who voted and then you find john smith had died, and they voted. How do you have dead people voting? It’s because

Larry 35:57
that’s, that’s one of the conspiracy theories that they come up with. They’ll they’ll they’ll do. They’ll do a research they’ll do their research and find out that there were people dead that voted, but they were mostly alive when they voted. And it’s difficult to track. Precisely. You could die the day before election. You could have failed your your ballot three weeks before the

Andy 36:18
Sure, sure. Or overseas and you’re killed in some car sidebar in a roadside bomb like okay, I’m with you.

Larry 36:26
Okay, yeah, this is one of those things where it was unavoidable. You try to recover the budget, they’ll try to recover the money from the from the people who should have gotten it but it was no grand conspiracy to give people money that weren’t entitled to it.

Andy 36:39
Ready to be a part of registry matters, get links at registry matters.co. If you need to be discreet about it, contact them by email registry matters. cast@gmail.com you can call or text a ransom message 27472274477 want to support registry matters on a monthly basis, head to patreon.com slash registry matters. Not ready to become a patron. Give a five star review at Apple podcasts or Stitcher or tell your buddies at 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 over the Tampa Bay Times. This is a this is pretty disturbing to me. This is the Hillsborough County Sheriff publicized a sexting did it target gay men. These were people that were being a little bit like voyeuristic or exhibitionist and having some some naughty times in a public space. And I think it’s like a misdemeanor for it to be done. But then the sheriff decided to like publish it to their hundreds of thousands of followers on the on the social media sites. How do you feel about this in the way that I’m reading this article? It definitely seems like somebody is not fond of the same sex couples partaking in activities where they probably would have just said, hey, go get a room. Stop that. If it were a hetero couple.

Larry 38:13
That was actually I, I, I put this in here with a great deal of trepidation because I hadn’t read it. And I want those who believe in evidence. And I hear this accusation all the time about these bias biases, which do exist. I mean, humans have biases, like to see evidence. And so I put this thing in and I asked Brenda, to take a look at that for me, cuz we’re gonna talk about the podcast and I want I don’t want to sound insensitive. And she said, Well, you better read it. And after I read it, I said, well, gee, this is pretty clear that they were that they were targeting and what I interpret they weren’t actually having sex. They were meeting up with the hope of having sex. Fair enough. They weren’t meeting at the park with the hope of having sex. And the odd thing about it is that that, according to all the information in the article, the neighbors had complained that was my argument that race. Well, Brenda, I said, Well, you know, Brenda, here’s the deal. If you’ve got a park, and the people around the park are calling and complaining about activities, and it turns out that that most of the activity is between consenting same sex couples, the police did pick and choose who’s there at the Park fornicating. I mean, it is what it is. But that’s not what was happening to this situation. This was on overfunded law enforcement agency that has too much time and resources on its hand. This running an undercover operation that no one has asked them to do. And we’ll be talking about defunding the police. This is yet another example of why law enforcement could do with less funding.

Andy 39:54
There was a word I didn’t know I so the men arrested in these stings typically face a charge of entering or remain In a place for the purpose of prostitution, lewdness, or asik. nation I had I had to go look up that word.

Larry 40:08
I don’t know. Nope, never heard.

Andy 40:11
Oh, and now I gotta go look it up. Let’s do a quick Google search. It is an appointment to meet someone in secret, typically one made by lovers. Ah, that’s what the article says. I didn’t know that word prior to.

Larry 40:23
So so you people in Hillsborough County. You could you could do with fewer deputies. Because they clearly have far too much time on their hands. Now I’m not saying you should abolish the Hillsborough County law enforcement. I’m saying you could probably do with less.

Andy 40:45
There is also a picture in the article of the park layer and it looks like it’s an overgrown, not very well trafficked kind of area to it doesn’t look like it’s, you know, like whatever park there it is in in New York, where you just see gobs and gobs of people are sitting there on the Washington mall with the Washington Monument in your face and it’s just an open Park and people are flying kites. It doesn’t look like a park like that. At least the picture doesn’t depict it that

Larry 41:07
that picture doesn’t know. So

Andy 41:10
they are they are and then they’re just shaming people for for going and having the Ron Davis and ecig nations

Unknown Speaker 41:18
or what ecig nations?

Andy 41:22
Should I highlight? Should I emphasize the the first three letters that

Larry 41:25
Yeah, because the transcriptionist is never going to know.

Andy 41:28
As diggnation See, and I’m not cussing in this. Alright, too much too much. 12th grade humor. All right. And this is over a courthouse news and then a companion article from the Washington Post. Military tells High Court there is no time bar to rape case. This is I think this is something along your your one of your hot subjects of what’s the word statute of limitations?

Larry 41:53
Yeah, this is gonna be an interesting case when it comes down next spring, early summer. This is where you’ve got the the the the military and the the ministration. Kind of on different sides about the weather. But But statute limitations, not a constitutional right. Okay. It’s something we’ve had in law, but it’s not a constitutional right. But but they change the statute limitations after people commit their crimes. And therein lies the problem, because that’s what happened in this case, they changed statute limitations and they polished in 2006. Let me remind you in 2006, Congress, the White House was under the art camp when they did that. But that doesn’t matter, when when they abolished the statute limitations for for these type of offenses. So it’s something we’ll circle back on later. But but the military tailor tells the High Court that there’s no problem. And I tend to think that it’s a statue of limitations, whatever was in place at the time, and that should be the guideposts. But the way the courts have interpreted is, since it’s not a constitutional right, if the statute, there was a place at the time hadn’t expired, that they that they can barely extend the statute, which they made it an unlimited statute limitation on these of these crimes back in 2006.

Andy 43:18
I don’t even have anything to say, because I know that the person that has been the victim of this feels that they need to get their justice i that is a really hard thing to square there. And I know that you want to you draw the hard line and said, well, Justice has a time limit. I do find that that is a that’s a hard line to just cross over.

Larry 43:42
It is for me, Oh, well. Well, again, remember, the system is designed to be fair to both sides. Right? And you you’re leaving out you’re you’re acting as if the victim is the only side of the equation. We don’t only owe that alleged victim fairness, we own the accused fairness. And the more time that passes, the less likely we can give the accused fairness because the the quality of the case degrades and the witnesses die, and members fade. And we have a situation where we can’t give the accused a fair trial. So we cage a person who didn’t get treated fairly. And that’s the part that the victims advocates lose sight of. I understand your argument. If a person suffered or trauma, someone’s getting away with it. If they did it. That is all sad and everything. It’s unfortunate. But I worry about the caged the caged individual who didn’t receive a fair trial which is what one of the the ideals that our country is supposed to stand for. We are supposed to be the model of fairness and for the world to end And if we just make it so easy to get convictions on the appeals court that military appeals court said that that the charges should be dismissed because of the statute limitations that this like say the US Justice Department is arguing against a military say that that the military appellate court got it wrong. The Court of military appeals got it wrong. They called the Court of Appeals for the armed forces. But there’s they’re arguing to give the court of the military and I find that odd because it seems like to me that in terms of the campus stuff, this administration has been on the side of due process and presumption. And it seems like to me that they would understand that if if enough years go by, there’s no way you can get due process, just like the hated senator in Alabama, Roy Moore, the what would be center he never he never actually achieve the status of Senator but but but that to me, it’s it’s not that hard, because I’m for all sides be treated fairly, not just the accusing party.

Andy 46:07
And what is the punishment in the ucmj? For this for for a rape crime? I’m not sure. You tell the second paragraph it says For years, the US military code is placed no statute of limitations on the lodging of rape claims as the crime is one punishable by death.

Larry 46:25
I don’t think I don’t think they actually impose that punishment. But

Andy 46:30
that is correct. They said somebody in 1960 did something and they actually sought the death penalty. Payment if that’s on the table. Wow, that is a frightening. Oh,

Larry 46:43
but yes, this will be one that we’ll be circling back on. If we’re still in business. When this decision comes.

Andy 46:48
Larry, we are we are only like a quarter an eighth of the way to our run of 1000 episodes

Larry 46:57
was that we’re gonna shut down after 1000.

Andy 47:00
We will hope to we will have the registry problem solved by 1000 episodes guaranteed.

Larry 47:06
Already, I’ll write that down in my book.

Andy 47:09
All right, the next article comes from the collateral consise kakade. I can never This is such a hard thing to say collateral consequences Resource Center, Michigan makes sealing of convictions automatic, including for some felonies. We have a second article from the Detroit Free Press about this one too. This is pretty awesome that how many states this is there’s only a one of a handful of states that have become automatic expungement or sealed records states where after x period of time for such and such kinds of crimes, that you have a clean slate so to speak. That’s pretty awesome.

Larry 47:45
It really is. And I wish we had a Michigan person here to explain it. But it it is well explained in the collateral consequences Resource Center about those, it’ll be automatic and those that won’t be automatic. And then the exclusions are down to the bottom of the of the article. And of course, you know who got excluded?

Andy 48:05
I’m pretty sure be of ours are excluded.

Larry 48:07
Yep. That’s always what happens. But but it is a step, a significant step in the right direction. And it was bipartisan, Michigan is under democratic governor but Republican legislature and they came together and got this done. So it’s fantastic news.

Andy 48:27
And is there anything that we should cover the Detroit Free Press one is also quite long as I’m looking through it.

Larry 48:35
Yeah, I didn’t even read that one. So I don’t know what’s in Detroit Free Press.

Andy 48:40
Just Just this what the legislation does over in that article says the state follows Pennsylvania, Utah, California and adopting an automated system to wipe clean certain convictions from public records after a period of time, Michigan law will apply retroactively, and is the first to automatically clear prior low level felonies.

Unknown Speaker 48:59
It’s fantastic.

Andy 49:00
Jen and chat says Josh worked on it. Yeah, our friend over at the decarceration nation podcast. He had some hand. I don’t know what his involvement is. But he had some hand in helping move that along.

Larry 49:13
I think he drafted it himself. He may have

Andy 49:18
we should pause right now and I’ll call him up and try and get him on the show. So we can have an interview with him right now.

Larry 49:23
Let’s do it. Okay, the next one is about more about stimulus.

Andy 49:27
Okay. And this is the one from the appeal. I forget No, no, no, no, no, I move that one over because that was the same one that we did back. That’s the stimulus money that’s going to the incarcerated

Larry 49:41
kid so we don’t have to deal with that one.

Andy 49:43
Correct. We we combine that with the other one. This is a this is Florida’s most powerful pro police lobbying group is an anti reform force. This is from the Florida Sheriffs Association games a third of its multimillion dollar budget by selling big ticket items like truck And mobile command centers to local sheriff’s departments and other government agencies. This to be sounds like policing for profit layer. This sounds like you could in the nefarious kind of ways you could have the police actually go hunting for people that are committing crimes and then they go impound the vehicles and houses and whatever stuff they can find, and then they go sell that off at auction so that they can have more money in their budget.

Larry 50:25
Well, what I took from it is the immense amount of money that they spent in Florida to to extinguish any reform legislation. And they documented that in this appeal article about about the significant presence they have and even even things that are that are bipartisan, beat a dead end, but when the Florida Sheriffs Association, oppose it. So again, reform can’t happen until we get the law enforcement apparatus on board. And that that’s the problem here. The

Andy 51:02
What do you think about them like snatching, not snatching, I realized that’s not the right word, you’ve committed a crime and then they impound your car. And then next thing, you know, Hey, can I go get my car back then? Sorry, we sold it.

Larry 51:14
Well, that’s a whole separate debate. We have been here for a long time about asset forfeiture, which I’m dead set against but but I wanted to focus on during the 2020 session, the former Sheriffs Association opposed a bill from Republican state Senator Rob Bradley that would have imposed limits on maximum sentences for those convicted of certain drug offenses. And even americans for prosperity, the lobbying group founded by by brothers, Charles and David Koch, supported Bradley’s bill, but after the Florida Sheriffs Association, analysis, opposition, the bill failed array there there. The next quote says, There are very few things the legislature we find bipartisan support behind. But the criminal justice Democrats or Republicans are finding common ground. Unfortunately, it’s law enforcement and prosecutors calling the shots. This is not Larry saying that. This is the reality of what’s happening. We’re up against the law enforcement apparatus and the people that you’ve like, they’re a little pretty things that they wear and all that insignia that you vote for that tell you how wonderful they are. And these are the people that are preventing reform from happening.

Andy 52:25
So yeah, we are voting for the people that turn it like I remember when I first left, I read an article in reason magazine, it was about the prison lobby, like the guards lobby. And I think this is pretty much exclusive to California, that they would lobby to make longer sentences and harsher and all that stuff. And I was like that’s a really severe conflict of interest that people get locked up, then they lobby to make more people locked up that creates job security from a not a genuine incentive structure.

Larry 52:59
What do you mean by not a genuine incentive structure?

Andy 53:02
Well, I mean, it’s not like they are seeking justice, so to speak, they’re not trying to seek reform of being in the prison system, they are enhancing sentences so that they can keep their jobs. Go. I know. And I’d like I’d never considered this as like the incentive structure. And this is the same thing here in this article of like, well, we need to keep our jobs. I shouldn’t police go into their job, like the job of Nassau is we would really like to not have to exist, that is the like, the ultimate goal of NASA would be same thing with us here. Our goal would be that we don’t have to worry about a registry, which will probably never happened. So the police officers and the prison guard Association should their goal should be to have 100% safe cities and not need prison guards, because everybody abides by the laws that we have established to be like the the social contract of living society a certain way.

Larry 53:56
Well, that’s ideal is a function. What would that? Of course, well, how many people want to abolish their own jobs and their own careers?

Andy 54:03
I get that, but for a safer, more wholesome society, like society at large. I know it’s like, I know, I know. It’s a what’s the word? down it there’s a p word. I’m thinking of the liberal do good isms. What it is, that’s what it is. So anyway, so this is this is a misguided incentive structure that they could be in, they could vote to have harder and tougher laws and resources that they can acquire from just citizens who make some kind of mistake and then they steal the hundred thousand dollar car and go sell it at an auction. And that helps fund their system that would then just feed the system.

Larry 54:49
Oh, well, it’s it’s one of those realities of life. What did I say about it? I haven’t said it for a while. It’s not the world the way it should be. But what’s the other part of that?

Andy 54:57
The world as it is be?

Larry 54:59
That’s right. The world as it is B and the the the law enforcement organizations beat Sheriffs Association, police associations, district attorneys associations, these people, they get to come to the legislature, largely on public funding, because they incorporate that into their day duty. They don’t volunteer and show up and take off personal time they show there. In fact, they generally designate someone to be their lobbyists, but they get to come in and scare people to death on public body about how these token reforms that are very well thought out would be would be so disastrous. It further an article each year, the Florida share civilization employs a battalion of lobbyists to ensure their prison sentences remain long, mandatory minimum drug laws, sell the books, and police departments can’t buy up all the equipment they’d like. That’s again, that’s them saying it not me saying it. But that’s what’s that’s what happens. In my experience.

Andy 56:06
Sure, totally. Okay, well, then let’s move over to Mother Jones. And this article is titled private prisons have spent more on this election than any other in history, I think this is probably going to be a pretty short segment. But if you look at the graph, what I have up on the screen, or I can describe it super quick, just a bar graph of how much they have spent to various candidates. And in so 2020 2019 and 2018, they have spent what would appear to be two, three or four times as much donations to Republican candidates than everybody else. And the number seems to stay roughly the same two Democratic candidates. Well, that

Larry 56:46
seems to be going down, if you look at the blue part of it, dropped into it. But yeah. But I’m gonna take a moment to say that that I don’t want to imply that they’re buying Republican votes, because I’m actually on the backside of this. And most of the money comes because they like to weigh your voting. They like the speeches you give, they like to put your say, but this graph says what I could never say what people would say I’m a person. And this tells me and should tell you that they like the republicans a lot better than they like the Democrat Party. If you look at what sliver of their donation skills, the Democrat Party, and then you look at what cost of the republicans and then the other parties, I don’t know who other what party setting that accomplices, but the democrat party doesn’t get a whole lot from private prison industry.

Andy 57:41
Yeah, and just for anyone who wants to yell at me for having an article from Mother Jones, the the source to it has come from says opensecrets.org, which I haven’t heard of, to be honest with you center for Center for Responsive Politics I have heard of, that’s where their source data came from.

Larry 57:59
Now, now, I can dig a little deeper and tell you why the Democrat Party typically would not be on the receiving end of private prisons, the prison workforce so that the public sectors are largely unionized, and that they’re there, they’re not going to be typically strong supporters of the Republican Party, very, very few unions and endorse Republican candidates, because republicans generally aren’t not pro union, generally speaking. So the so the the the private prison operators, which largely are not union, they’re not going to be attractive to the to the democratic party that they feel is just the reality of how the the democrats are more for having a presence in the public sector, not in the private sector. So that’s why you’re not getting that. That’s why they’re not receiving the donation. So the democratic side? Sure.

Andy 58:46
And then our final article is going to be this one’s funny. He’s just, you gave this one a couple days ago, it’s from justice.gov. It’s a sex offender arrested at LAX, attempting to leave us allegedly failed to provide authorities notice of his international travel plans. I’m pretty sure this is IML. Related, there.

Unknown Speaker 59:06
It is.

Larry 59:09
Well, this is one of those things where I encourage people to follow the law. And if you read the article, he had initialed on his registration. As recently as a few months before his arrest that he understood that he had this obligation under federal law to to notify. And he didn’t provide notice that they actually had left the gate as I understand it, and they returned to the gate to deplane him and prosecute him and he’ll get a federal term of incarceration. And this is one of those things where I wish that the litigation would really zero in on this 21 day advance notice requirement because I feel like that that’s where the meat of this argument is. All the other stuff is less compelling about so imaginary right you have to be in a foreign nation. But you do have the right in my opinion, to travel without being impeded, particularly with this 21 day advance notice they don’t provide any exigent for any exigent travel under circumstances. And this notice that they say, and it’s fairly innocuous, but it does say that a person has been convicted of an offense against the child or minor. And, and it’s, it’s tragic to me that there hasn’t been more focus on this prior restraint of travel, you don’t have a right to be in Singapore. But you do have the right to try to travel to Singapore, Singapore will let you without being impeded by your own government, requiring a 21 day itinerary and all the stuff that they require. Now, Singapore still may not want you. But that’s up to them. But you don’t even get the chance to travel Singapore in any any circumstances where where you can’t give the advanced orders because there’s no exception under law for not giving it I

Andy 1:01:02
still don’t quite get why we care if somebody wants to leave we covered a Supreme Court case, if I’m not mistaken. And like Elena Kagan or someone like that said, like, why did we go get them from whatever destination country they were in and bring them back? Like they were gone? They can’t recidivate in this country? If they are not here. So if this person wanted to go to Egypt, why would we not let them go to Egypt?

Larry 1:01:25
Well, he’s not leaving permanently. And the reason why is because we have made agreements with other countries, that we want them to give us information about people who are traveling here, who would be less than fully desirable, so that we can turn them away. And if we do not provide information, it is less incentive for the other nations to provide us information about people we might not want to admit. And it could be people who have criminal convictions, or it could be people who are on terrorist watch list, or various things that we would want to know from foreign nations. So we are in an international agreement. That’s why they call it international Megan’s Law, that we will provide a two way flow of information of all of our, what we consider to be bad guys, if other nations will provide us information about their bad guys. And so the reason why we care is because if we don’t do this, there’s no incentive for other nations to do the same thing for us. That’s why we care nd

Andy 1:02:28
I see. So it’s just about the reciprocity with other nations.

Larry 1:02:32
That is correct. And we do receive information from other nations about people for a variety of reasons. And believe it or not, we don’t admit a lot of folks in the United States, I do not have over Wait, we do not have open borders. Now. I wish the people who are so adamant that they have the right to be in another nation. And I wish they would lobby our government, that we just allow anyone to come in here that wants to be here. And magically, they quickly changed their opinion, for some reason about having open borders into America, they only want or open borders for an American to go someplace else. Correct.

Andy 1:03:12
And this is a, this crime faces the statutory maximum sentence of 10 years in federal prison for not filling out some paperwork and providing advanced notice.

Larry 1:03:23
Well, but that’s not the way the prosecution will spend it. So they’ve already done a press releases of CC, this is an immediate press release. So so so this is this is going to be a high profile case. And they are sending a message to people in that jurisdiction, that the US Attorney’s Office takes this very seriously, that you have to provide this notice. And if you don’t, we’ll put you in federal prison. So they will be seeking a significant prison sentence and they will use anything they can, including, like if he happens to have a distasteful offense that that you can really embellish, they will do everything they can to give him as much time as they can give him so that he understands and the whole community understands that this is serious business. We’re not going to let you do this and get away with it. It’s like a slap on the wrist. So so this is this is going to be dealt with very harshly.

Unknown Speaker 1:04:13
Crazy. Okay.

Andy 1:04:15
Well, that is all the articles, Larry, we have a special event coming up in a couple of days.

Unknown Speaker 1:04:21
Do we?

Andy 1:04:22
Yes. I have been teasing it for a while people may have seen some Twitter postings. They’ve seen connections postings with a big just a blank thing. That’s 654. And I’m telling everybody this because on the day that you’re hearing this when this gets released, there is been a movie released that fyp Studios has released and it’s called the intruders. Have you watched it?

Larry 1:04:45
I’ve watched it. What do you think? It’s fantastic. It is so funny and and very, very realistic, but maybe a little embellishment, but very, very good.

Andy 1:04:58
It is totally meant to be satire. I sat down with a friend of a friend and he writes movie scripts. And he I saw some of the little shorts that he made. And he wrote a script with a guy named Freddy offender. And he is doing his Halloween ritual. And the intruders ensue. And so that the the handlers come in and they harass him. And there’s a takedown and it’s it’s all it is a lot. It was a lot of fun. It was a lot of work. And I think it came out quite excellent. And I’m going to release it to the world on Tuesday, and I’m super excited about it.

Larry 1:05:32
I think that our our audience is going to go up exponentially.

Andy 1:05:37
And actually, Teresa points has something it’s based on a true story that which is very true. It is based on actual events, and you know, using different people’s stories together because like will in Tennessee still has challenges going to church during Halloween, which is ridiculous.

Larry 1:05:52
They have that blackout period of like, almost a month, I think.

Andy 1:05:56
Yes, it was 21 days, I think. So anyway, I hope everyone enjoys it, you will find it over at the YouTube page. That’s pretty much the only place that I have a way to deliver it to you. So go check out the registry matters YouTube page. And Tuesday it will be released to the world.

Larry 1:06:12
Alrighty, well, we have we have some fantastic news about new patrons. This week.

Andy 1:06:17
We do we do? We got to and I hate when this happens. I don’t hate that we have patrons but we have two Michaels. So Michael, thank you. And then Michael, number two with a very generous contribution. Thank you. Also, I can’t thank everybody enough for being patrons. And I would also like to point out that there’s like 100 people in chat and that’s embellishing but there’s a like a dozen people in chat and I think all of you for for participating this evening. Really appreciate it.

Larry 1:06:43
It is soon going to be that we have as many people watching and listening to us as we record as rush has on his digital cam is just a better that is.

Andy 1:06:53
It could be true. Could be true, Larry, I think that man I thought that we were gonna have a lot more there was gonna run longer. But I think we’re about done.

Larry 1:07:01
How do people how do people contact us and support us and all this kind of stuff? Oh, I want to I want to promote the the transcripts where we’re getting a little bit of traffic. But I was hoping for more the first our soul digest newsletter whether add in there without and it should have all the prisoners should have it by now. There was some delay because of elections. And bulk mail takes backseat to election mailed by statute and are both business mail. We’re still hearing that they were trickling in this past week, but they should all be out now. But we we want to get more transcripts out we are set up for getting transcripts out, we would like for people in the prisons to be able to to share the podcast via the transcript. So subscribe combined into to more than one of you go in together but buy a transcript for a housing unit and share the thing but but it takes a $15 a month patron and you can designate for your loved one to receive the transcript or we’re letting the people subscribe directly to us for $10 a month for the transcript and they are put out usually the last few weeks. We’re getting them in the mail by Tuesday after the recording, but they they go out no later than the week of the public gets that they’re going to go out that week at some point. But I’ve been getting about Tuesday.

Andy 1:08:21
So what you’re saying, if they’re a $15 patron, you’d have to reach out and either through Patreon, you could message us email registry matters. cast@gmail.com tell us we’re going to need the full run name, inmate number, all that address stuff to get somebody to get it into prisons, which we could then tie this over real quick to making the nonprofit because that’ll help get it into prisons, won’t it?

Larry 1:08:44
Well, we’re hoping it’ll help do that and get some financial support, we would like for the price in prison to be less. But it pretty much devours what we’re charging for the production cost and the postage cost and the the envelope are sending about an envelope. So for the moment, and and we’d like for them to be less costly. And if we do the nonprofit if we get approved, and then that’ll be part of our educational mission. And then I would imagine there’ll be donations to help support the prison component of the podcast and then we can we can cut that price down as much as we can cut it down which I’d like to see it go down dramatically.

Andy 1:09:19
Fantastic. That is all in your neck of the woods, man. I don’t I’m not handling any of that. And I appreciate you doing all of that. That’s really good. But we were about to say so the website is registry matters. dot registry matters.co I’m feeling like gonna have some, some brain farts here that you always have. And phone number 747-227-4477. I already said it registry matters cast@gmail.com. And the best way to support the podcast to show your love is@patreon.com slash registry matters. And thank you both both of the Michaels for supporting the podcast this week. That’s all I got there. thank you as always for joining It

Larry 1:10:01
is my pleasure, Andy. That is why I am here. Have a great night.

Unknown Speaker 1:10:09
You’ve been listening to F YP

Listen to RM148: Jury Acquittal Explained by Attorney Ashley Reymore-Cloud

Andy 00:00
registry matters as 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 Hey, just a quick little note about tonight’s show, is that there were lots of technical problems that went on between on my end and on the guests and, and so this is everything seems to have come together. Okay, but just wanted to warn you that some audio challenges exist and that guests switches from a pretty high quality setup to just using the telephone. But just to give you a heads up, recording live from fyp Studios, east and west, transmitted across the internet. This is Episode 148 of registry matters. Lady someone in chat just a second ago. Apparently I forgot to feed the Gremlins because they’re angry and everything that could possibly go wrong has gone wrong tonight.

Larry 00:48
This it’s it’s a plot by the authorities they are trying to registry registry matters off the air.

Andy 00:57
This could be true man, this could totally be true. Well, what do we have going on tonight?

Larry 01:03
Well, we have an interview coming up later with our special guests. Ashley rebor, cloud defense attorney from the State of New Mexico. We have a couple listener questions. And we’re going to zip through some articles that that shouldn’t take a whole lot of time. So let’s let’s

Andy 01:20
let’s roll. All right, well, we will certainly get the ball rolling quickly. The first article that should be directed to those questions, first article we have comes from the crime report could pandemic jail reforms turned permanent in Colorado, which then we also have a like a companion article that talks about something very similar except for not quite the same thing in California. What’s going on here with these two things?

Larry 01:47
Well, in Colorado and Arapahoe County, which is a suburban Denver County, they’ve they’ve reduced the jail population. And they they have acknowledged that, that the doomsday scenarios did not materialize. And that they may want to keep doing business this way because it’s more efficient and less expensive. So congratulations to the ACLU to the officials in Arapahoe County. And unfortunately, that’s not the same thing happening in California. There’s a law enforcement initiative in California, which is our next article that they want to roll back recent reforms because there’s just it’s just not feeding the system, the number of people it needs to sustain itself. So they’re going the opposite direction. But it’s but it’s it’s underwritten by the police. What is amazing surprise.

Andy 02:36
But, you know, I don’t think of if we were to like, pigeonhole these things into team left or team, right. I wouldn’t call it Colorado like a bastion of leftism, but I would definitely call California that it would seem that California would be all over having these things become permanent, and maybe less so for Colorado, but this is coming out kind of the opposite way.

Larry 03:02
But you have the wild card that California has the initiative process that could cause bad things to pass by voter, you use the emotion of the moment, which since the pandemic and all the rhetoric about the tidal wave of crime as a law, a disorder, like of law and order. it’s it’s a it’s a great time to scare people and to get people to vote. So this is proposition 20, that if it’s passed, we’ll undo a previous reforms. And And the thing is, it’s underwritten by the conservatives, by companies, and by law enforcement. I mean, I’m just reading from the article. So it’s it’s one of those things where you really can’t judge the politics of California so much by who they elect because they have a process that bypasses that. And they can do it directly by going through the voters and the voters are not necessarily the best informed.

Andy 04:01
So there’s something that I was going to bring up those that Costco you were talking about different companies that are supporting or not supporting that they have pulled out of this proposition 20s passage, and they were asking for a refund or the $50,000.

Larry 04:15
I notice that and and, but the major donors of this or are a police union, a political action committee, benefiting Republican Representative Devin Nunez of California, and, and an Energy Corporation, and several grocery large grocery chains like Safeway, Costco, Ralph’s have collectively donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to promote the initiative, which means PR advertising and, and Costco has pulled it supported, they want their $50,000 back, but this is this is something where the voters will vote based on emotion of the moment. Because if there’s enough fear about the tidal wave of crime, and the police are telling you if you do this, you’ll be safer. It’s very tempting to vote for this. Right?

Andy 05:03
Yeah, it’s all about keeping the like the fear the impression that this is going to keep you safe. Larry, we are joined by a very special guest this week, Ashley raymar. Cloud. Ashley has been with us before cache like I don’t know, four or five, six times actually as a former assistant district attorney for the 13th Judicial District Attorney’s office who left last year to pursue criminal defense work, specializing in PFR cases. She spent the better part of her 25 year legal career as a prosecutor in New Mexico. She’s one of those people Larry, as a prosecutor. She has also held positions as felony DWI supervisor, arson division, supervisor and supervisor of the DA clinical program. during our time at the second and 13th district. Judicial District Attorney’s offices, Ashley has prosecuted and tried numerous cases including child sex crimes, murder, property crimes, drug crimes, domestic violence, escape from jail, arson and DWI. In addition, she has extensive technolog technology experience and forensics, cybersecurity, knowledge management and ediscovery as a consultant for law firms, and working for various software companies. Welcome, welcome. Welcome back. Ashley, how are you tonight?

Unknown Speaker 06:19
It’s great to be back. Thank you for having me. Again.

Larry 06:23
We can set this up. Ashley has just tried a case that involved sexual accusations in District Court here in bernalillo. County, which is Albuquerque, and it resulted in an acquittal. So we’re going to do a somewhat deep dive into to the results of that trial, the nuances of that of that trial. And I want to begin by congratulating Ashley with the many dozens of congratulatory messages that she’s received from, from our colleagues in the Defense Lawyers Association. For those who were skeptical if she actually does defend people, or she’s a sellout, I think that this would be one of those where when you look at what the person was facing, which we’ll get into, and the result of what now he’s facing, is a spectacular, spectacular outcome. And it’s, it’s those who say that, if lawyers would try more cases, we’d have more of these, we’re going to go into that and explain why that’s not necessarily true. But first of all, we had a listener question if Ashley’s back, like to do the listener question before we start going into this.

Andy 07:32
Excellent, excellent. Okay, so, so first question is Hello, my name is Michael from South Carolina. And I have a question for Larry, and Ashley, regarding the Fourth Amendment, if you are on supervision, but also reside with someone or family who isn’t? Can they disregard the Fourth Amendment rights of the family members? Also in that same situation? Can they legally tell my family members not on supervision? Not to put up any Halloween displays? That Hey, it’s that time of year? They’re?

Larry 08:03
Great question. I should go first, if you like.

Unknown Speaker 08:07
So, I’m in a resort to Larry’s talk answer, which is they can until they’re made to stop, technically, can they do it? No. Do they do it? Yes. Do they do it all the time? And have we challenged it? Yes. And Larry, I’m gonna let you just jump right into that.

Larry 08:25
I agree with that they can do almost anything until they’re stopped. And what stops them is either of the courts. And sometimes that doesn’t even work when they lose, or their own morality. But But in terms of when you’re living with a person, and they have approved that residence, one of the conditions they have is they want they want unlimited access on ferritin, I think is their terminology, unfettered access. So what they would do if they didn’t have unfettered access would be we have unfettered access to this. What they would do is they would say this is no longer an approvable residence, I think you’d have to challenge that. But they would say, since since you’re impeding us from doing our job, that we will say that this residence is not appropriate for you. And then you find yourself in court fighting about what is unfettered access, not unfair it

Unknown Speaker 09:16
like unfettered.

Andy 09:18
Does this have anything to do with small animals?

Unknown Speaker 09:25
Oh, well, that’s a sign of old timers, like, right there.

Larry 09:30
I was thinking about your animals. But

Unknown Speaker 09:33
that was hilarious. That was awesome.

Larry 09:36
Pretty good. But yeah, that if they tell you that, that your residence is not no longer deemed appropriate, then what’s the next step? Actually, they tell you got 24 hours, 48 hours, 72 hours to find another place? What happens next?

Unknown Speaker 09:50
Then the next thing you do is you take that before the judge on your probation, assuming you’re not under an interstate compact, which is a whole other situation. But you take that before the judge yourself. To judge and you ask for clarification on your conditions of release,

Unknown Speaker 10:06
I’m sorry, probation conditions.

Larry 10:08
If you’re, if you’re on parole, that presents a different type of issue for you, because you’re under, you’re under a board of authority versus the court. And if you were to take the thing into court, most courts would do their best to duck it somewhat, but most would figure that that was an administrative issue for the, for the parole authorities to determine, and they would do their best to duck out of that.

Andy 10:30
So they, they can tell you that we didn’t have a problem with you living here, but because of Halloween decorations, because maybe the person, they do things that they don’t like they can then say you can’t live here.

Larry 10:47
That’s not only what they can do, that’s what they do, do. They, they, they tell people that that if the if the household see the households on under supervision, they can’t give any orders to the household members. But they tell them that that if the household won’t cooperate with your rules, then this household is not appropriate for you. And without the cooperation from the household members. It’s like the thing of the Second Amendment, you have every right don’t want to own a weapon. But they say we don’t want any weapons in the house for our safety. We that they can’t preclude you from from having the non supervised person from having the weapon if they were not a convicted felon. But they can tell you that you’re not gonna live there because we’re not gonna go to a place that has weapons everywhere.

Andy 11:28
Do they have some level of compassion about it of if like the room could be not necessary for the gun thing? I have a feeling that there would be almost like something that you couldn’t get past. But other things could they? Hey, if you lock off this room, maybe there’s a computer in the room just as an example. If you don’t have passwords to it, will they like give you a bye?

Unknown Speaker 11:50
Did you just use compassion, probation and parole in

Andy 11:53
the same sentence? I did. And and I breathed even breath I took a breath there as well. So is that is that? Is that a negative? Like, no, no.

Unknown Speaker 12:04
That’s a negative.

Unknown Speaker 12:05
Yep. That doesn’t make it are you

Andy 12:06
speaking specifically from the state of the New Mexico? Or is that what your collective experiences across the country

Unknown Speaker 12:16
on New Mexico and Georgia, but Georgia was not nearly as bad about that stuff, as New Mexico is new, Mexico’s horrible, horrible about it. They don’t care who in the house, they don’t care if it’s face recognition, software, and you can’t ever even get into that computer, they want. As Larry put it unfair to access.

Larry 12:36
Now, you’re gonna really mess up our spellcheck, or trying to figure out how to we got ferreted so many times, and he’s gonna have a real, real problem with that with the transcripts,

Andy 12:46
make up make him earn his keep. That’s all I said, especially with what he’s getting

Larry 12:49
paid. So, but so yeah, the short, the short answer is, Yes, they can. And you’re in for a fight, if you if you if you don’t like the fact that, that they impose these conditions on the household members, and they do it indirectly, because they cannot give them direct orders. They barely give them orders through you, you have to tell your household member, I’m not allowed to have these things where I reside. And if the household members are not willing to give up those things, they have a right to do that. But then they they will tell you this resonance is no longer approved.

Andy 13:22
Well, that sucks. But go ahead. Actually.

Unknown Speaker 13:28
No, I was just gonna say that we’ve seen that actually, not just in New Mexico in Georgia. We also saw in Illinois, where if a family member had a dog, And they didn’t want to approve the house for the family member having a pet or having a smartphone, they wouldn’t approve it for parole.

Larry 13:44
So it sucks it but that’s the way it is. That’s the way it is b i haven’t used that for a while.

Andy 13:53
But this is hyper state specific based on how your handlers are going to be in that specific state. Some states are significantly more aggressive than other states. I mean, just just the comparison in New Mexico and Georgia where I know people that have multiple PFR is under the same roof where Larry you’ve said that would absolutely 100% not happen in New Mexico. So your mileage may vary based on where you are.

Larry 14:19
Yeah, absolutely. Right. Absolutely right. they would they would never put to put unless it were husband and wife spouses it doesn’t have to be husband, it could be husband husband these days, but if it unless it spouses, they’re not going to put two pf RS on to the same. They’re just not gonna happen here.

Unknown Speaker 14:34
And, and even then they would try and break up the spouses. We’ve seen that right, Larry,

Andy 14:40
that was my next question. Are they gonna like intervene into relationships that may that they may deem like, I mean, short of it being an illegal relationship. Let’s just say they have some sort of personal vendetta against the opposite person. They can then step in and go, hey, there’s nothing really wrong with that person, but we don’t like them. I know. It starts to get sketchy, but they could do that too.

Unknown Speaker 15:02
Yes.

Unknown Speaker 15:07
That’s not cool.

Larry 15:08
All right, let’s, let’s move on number two.

Andy 15:11
All right. So there’s a case that you guys are going to bat around. I’m gonna sit back and listen.

Larry 15:15
No, we got we got a question.

Andy 15:17
Oh, wait that what we’re going to do question number two first.

Unknown Speaker 15:20
Yeah, yes. Yes. That was a question I should actually wanted to do.

Andy 15:23
Okay. Okay. Oh, my bed, my bed my bed. All right. Well, then here’s question number two. It says, Look, I don’t know how many times I’ve been asked this, but I still don’t understand. So I hope you people will try to simplify the answer. Larry utters that legal mumbo jumbo and some of us need to be explained in simple terms. I am on an interstate compact in Georgia, and my conviction is from Jersey. I had community supervision for life in Jersey. Larry pontificates that the state of conviction controls the punishment. Yet Georgia requires so much that New Jersey did not. Georgia has Exclusion Zones where pfrs cannot live or be present in New Jersey did not. Also I have a curfew in Georgia, and my CSL in Jersey did not. Does Larry know what the hell he is talking about? Or does he just make this shit up as he goes, and I have embellished that because I

Unknown Speaker 16:15
was gonna say as much as I’d love to say that Larry makes a shit up. He doesn’t. He actually knows what he’s talking about the interstate compact, oddly enough, was a bunch of states getting together and saying, okay, we’ll take your person on probation or parole from your state, but we’re going to put some conditions on it. And our conditions, if you don’t like them, then don’t send your probation or parole he and the other state said, Okay, fine, we’re gonna do the same thing. And next thing, you know, under the interstate compact, that’s how it is. So the sending state controls whether or not you get actually truly replicated. However, the supervising state, which in this case would be Georgia gets to set whatever conditions they want. And if you don’t like it, you just go back to your setting state. Right, Laurie?

Larry 17:02
That’s mostly the way it goes. And and I would say the exception would be if there were a clear cut constitutional violation, and you wanted to litigate that clear cut constitutional violation. And if you could find a court that would actually receive your complaint, which is proven extremely problematic for those of us who have wanted to litigate these issues, you might be able to have the constitutional violation challenged, but simply having exclusion. So those Exclusion Zones have largely been upheld, largely up in upheld, so that while you under supervision, all those have largely been upheld for a supervised offender. So you’re probably not going to get a lot of traction on challenging an exclusionary zone while under supervision. But But what confuses him probably more is that Georgia has Exclusion Zones that are part of the of the registry, depending on your key dates of when your offense occurred. And the band of exclusions gets greater and greater. The more recent your conviction, the old was conviction. there either is no exclusions or there’s like maybe just schools, and then the more recent conviction, so he has to deal with figuring out what registry exclusions he has as being a registered person in Georgia. And then he has to figure out what supervision conditions Georgia has added his CSL that he didn’t have in Jersey, and whether or not he actually has a constitutional issue, not liking it is a constitutional violation. And that’s hard for people to comprehend. I didn’t have to do just in Jersey does not make that a constitutional violation in Georgia. Should you agree with that?

Unknown Speaker 18:43
I completely agree with that. And the other thing about it is that what it says into the interstate compact, and what the sending state agrees to is as long as they are enforcing the same conditions among similar people. So the existing people on probation or parole in Georgia are getting the same conditions as the person that they send, ie those Exclusion Zones, then it’s been upheld across the board.

Larry 19:11
Absolutely. And therefore, I would encourage anybody in this doesn’t be that this particular person, but anybody who’s in this condition where they have additional restrictions imposed in a receiving state, to think very hard about whether you want to sink a bunch of money into litigation, because it’s going to be expensive. They have unlimited resources. And they’re not going to want you to set a precedent that they that people come in from out of state can set their own terms of supervision. But what you want to do when you when you go to another state, you want the exact sentence to follow you and it does in terms of duration, but in terms of how they effectuate that sentence, the same thing would be if they interstate contacted you to serve your prison time. If you went from a really progressive state and they They had shortage of bed space. And if Vermont had to farm you out, which is one of the states that does for people out of interstate compact, and you get to Alabama, and you tell the people in Alabama that when you’re serving your prison time, that when I was in Vermont, I had this list of privileges and you show them your Vermont prison Handbook, they do not care about that person handbook for robot, you’re not in robot, and you will be incarcerated and wear the uniforms, and you will have the privileges that the Alabama Department of Corrections give you. And that’s the same thing under supervision, you will have the privileges, if any, that the state where you’re being supervised affords to you while you’re being punished. And if they are not doing any extra conditionals to thwart the spirit of the compact. If they just put those conditions on you individually. You have a complaint. But if those are standard conditions, as Ashley said, if you’re consistent with how they supervise their in state convicted people, there’s very little courts going to do about it. But you can’t sink a bunch of money into it if you like. But it would probably not be the best investment of capital.

Unknown Speaker 21:01
Right.

Andy 21:02
I just wanted to throw out and clarify a couple terms. We use CSL and that’s community supervision for life and pfrs. Our persons forced to register I did we somebody suggested that we start using that term. But it’s I like it. It’s my most favorite.

Larry 21:18
It’s one of our listener suggestions, and it’s it’s it fits and we probably ought to do it regularly because the listeners come in and they don’t know what a pf.

Andy 21:27
Teresa says she loves it.

Larry 21:30
Okay, so, actually, I just, we just had a little technical issue, we think we got resolved. So let’s try it again. Congratulations, all just magnificent victory that you had in the second Judicial District, which is Albuquerque, bernalillo. County, New Mexico, awesome, significant sexual charges, allegations. I don’t know the specifics of your case. All I know is that we talked about it and you were stressing about it. Go go into trial. And and and the client, the client insisted on going to trial because he wouldn’t go make no deal. And you you had what you thought was a very good plea offer and took it to the client. The client said No way, Jose, not taking that. So so you you, you took it to trial, you had a jury verdict and the jury, the jurors can take days, hours, different amount of times, how long was your jury out on this case?

Unknown Speaker 22:22
Well, my jury was out over the course of two days, almost seven hours. But to back up, there was no good plea deal that because I even went to a settlement conference. And unless they were going to just drop the sex offenses. I refused to take a plea in my client refused to take a plea. Now what he did absolutely insist on even though the judge tried to give us multiple continuances based on the pandemic and several other things that happened, my client would not except in a continuance. So we went ahead and we tried the case in the middle of this pandemic, and it was worth it. But they were out a little over seven hours, and it wasn’t even on those sex charges.

Larry 23:05
Wow. Well, let’s be specific. What can you tell us about the charges? What were the charges? And when you use the abbreviations try to explain what that means. And then when I when I get to charges, I want you to tell us how much exposure he was facing. And by exposure, I mean, if all accounts had been convicted convictions, if incidences had been posed consecutively, how much was the exposure that the court would have had available to it? So what was he charged with? And how much exposure was he was was he facing?

Unknown Speaker 23:41
So when we started the trial, he was facing two counts of criminal sexual penetration with personal injury, and one count of criminal sexual contact, then an aggravated battery charged with great bodily harm and two misdemeanor batteries. If all of those had run consecutive, and he would have been maxed out on him. He was facing almost 25 years. And he was also facing indeterminate parole on the criminal sexual penetrations and the criminal sexual contact. And that’s what we started with.

Larry 24:13
Okay, and then when you went when you got your jury verdict, what did you end up with in terms of conviction? So sad thing.

Unknown Speaker 24:22
So the criminal sexual contact and two of the battery charges I had directed verdict out, which meant that after the state put on their case, there was not enough evidence for it to even reach the jury. So all we were left with going to the jury were two counts of criminal sexual penetration and the aggravated battery great bodily harm, and then I got in an intoxication defense. By the time everything was said and done. He was convicted of the aggravated battery, great bodily harm, and he faces a three year exposure.

Larry 24:55
So he went from 25 to three

Unknown Speaker 24:58
Yes.

Larry 25:01
And I think you told me you had made an offer to the state even though they didn’t make an offer. And what did you offer? To try to resolve the case? Do you mind say,

Unknown Speaker 25:12
Sure, I offered them the aggravated battery and to stack the batteries. And then he had another outstanding case on something completely unrelated. I offered to give them nine years of jurisdiction, but I would not take a plea to the criminal sexual penetrations in the criminal sexual conduct, or I would have pled we could have come up with other charges, alternatives. And I would have given him that kind of jurisdiction, but absolutely no, in no uncertain terms, where are we taking the place? The criminal sexual penetration?

Larry 25:42
Well, that leads to my next question, because we got 10,000 listeners out there, and let’s say different number they’ll regret having entered into plea agreements with the state. They have, what we’ve talked about is buyer’s remorse, I should have gone to trial. So we’re going to try to unpack about rolling the dice and going to trial. And since you’ve been on both sides as a prosecutor, and now as a defense attorney, you can probably unpack this better than anybody. And so I want to go through some various components of what you’ve evaluated, I kind of went through my ideas of how, how a case would be analyzed, when I’m consulting with attorneys, these are the things that I know we’re looking at. But you could just work off my list or you can go from your own but but I’d like to unpack what if everyone? Well, this his first question, what if everybody would just go to trial, the system would crash? What was the answer that if everybody went to trial, what would happen?

Unknown Speaker 26:39
Oh, it be impossible. If everybody went to trial trials, people would be sitting in jail, waiting for trial, especially because here we do what’s called a pre trial detention, and we hold people until their trial. And there would be sitting in jail for years and years and years, just even trying to do a couple of trials. They’re having to bring in other judges here right now. So it’s, it’s not feasible, but everything go to trial. But if a case is close, or there’s a good defense, or you’ve got nothing to lose, let’s say they make an egregious offer, and they’re offering him nine years, you’re like, you know what, I’ll roll the dice, I could get that after a trial, then roll the dice go to trial.

Larry 27:22
So well, you chose to roll the dice where there was considerable exposure here. So so let’s go through some of these factors that you that like I said, I know that when I’m consulting, we look at we evaluate the strength of the prosecution’s case, what does that mean, when you when you’re evaluating the strength of the process, we look at the elements to have to prove the strength of their cases, I can prove this. Explain that to the to the audience. What do we mean by that?

Unknown Speaker 27:48
Sure. So when you’re evaluating the strength of the prosecution’s case, and in this case, I’ll use a few specific examples. I interviewed the complaining witness, I interviewed another person that had a recording of some of the actual incident, I interviewed the officers and of course, the person who had done the physical exam on the complaining witness. And then I flat out told the prosecutor at that point, I said, you have problems with your case. And the prosecutors response was there’s problems with every case. And I said, Okay, let’s go to trial and see how big your problems are. So that was part of evaluating the strength of the prosecution’s case, in my mind, it was a 5050. It could go either way. And it was going to be a he said, she said case, which we’ll talk about a little later. But that was enough for me to roll the dice. There’s different percentages and different attorneys. In fact, the attorney that had it before me not to call him out, wrote the notes when he transferred the case to me saying basically, it was going to lose if we went to jury trial, and I just didn’t believe that. So it does depend on the attorney as well.

Larry 28:51
Okay, now, you said you interviewed witnesses. Now, that’s not is not an option available in some jurisdictions. But you did do that. What did you determine in terms of the credibility, we talked about credibility? In my mind, we’re talking about how well they’re going to testify how believable so what did you determine in terms of credibility of the witness? That would be that would be the primary witness at trial? What did what was your analysis?

Unknown Speaker 29:15
I believe she wasn’t credible. I believe that she was either lying or mistaken about some really weird things, which made me not believe the rest of her story. And it was stuff that was kind of common sense. And I figured if I put her in front of a jury or at the State Theatre in front of a jury, that they weren’t gonna believe her either and they didn’t. They flat out didn’t believe her.

Larry 29:37
And, and, okay, so we’ve got we’ve got credibility is an issue. What happens? How is that handled if the person in the course of investigation if the accused has made a statement to the police, and they’ve signed a statement, and in particular, if they’ve been mirandized? Would you have had the same outcome? Or have I gotten since I don’t know the details of the case? Did your client make a statement to the police and did you have overcome a confession.

Unknown Speaker 30:03
Oh boy, did my client make a statement to the police. So part of the state’s case and what they rested on was an hour long. And I wouldn’t even call it an interrogation, interrogation was basically my client spewing stuff to a police officer after he had been arrested, voluntarily talking to him and telling him everything under the sun. However, in my case, from the start, he said it was consensual sex. So and then he didn’t talk about the fact that he beat her up. So what we really had to overcome was whether the jury believed that it was consensual sex, and also that he didn’t tell the officer that he beat her up, which we were saying in trial he did. So I had to walk a very, very fine line on that statement, and determined how we were going to proceed and how we were going to address those issues. But from the start, my client made a very big statement. And I told him, I said, if you’re ever in a situation, again, don’t talk.

Larry 31:02
Well, well, assuming that that it was not he said, she said, but and not only listen, I he said, she said, the issue of whether the sex occurred was not in question. It was whether it was consensual, but say the issue had been whether the sex was non consensual, and your client had made a statement? Would that have almost sunk your case?

Unknown Speaker 31:27
Yes, it would have. Because our whole defense was that it was consensual, and the the battery the effect that he beat or happened after we had an explanation for it. But they if they would have made a statement and said, No, I pulled her out of the car, she was saying he pulled her out of the car, tackled her and then raped her. He was saying, No, we had sex in the car after they had just met and they were drinking. And then she did some things that caused him to blackout any better. And that was the version that the jury actually ended up believing. But if it wouldn’t have been for that, and there would have been more evidence, and she would have been more credible. And then my client made a statement said yes, I pulled her out of the car, and I raped her, it would have been a whole different ballgame.

Larry 32:10
So those listeners out there, many of them already already past that point. But But making a statement when when you have two different outcomes. So in our case, and what we’re trying to illustrate here is it’s just simply having the courage to go to trial, it’s not all the considerations, we’re going to get into more. But oftentimes, your cases suck by actions that you’ve taken. And so ahead, he made a statement, what would you have done in terms of trying to suppress that, and what what about high viable with, with what emotion to suppress have been.

Unknown Speaker 32:41
So actually, in this case, the prior defense attorney made a motion to suppress that statement, because he felt it was very damaging, I thought a little bit differently. But he did make a motion to suppress and it was denied. Even though my client was in custody and sitting in a jail cell, when the officer questioned him, the problem was that he voluntarily made that state. And he videotaped him. And he talked to them and gave him all those and and never, he never stopped talking to the officer.

Larry 33:18
Okay, so. So a motion to suppress the point we’re making is, they’re difficult to have granted and you hit really have to climb up a long rope to get a suppression granted in it. So it’s better not to make the statement than to put your lawyer to the position of trying to suppress the statement that you’ve made. And when you consider going to trial, what do you what considerations do you make in terms of the jury, but potential jury the pool? Do you look at the the intelligence level, the sophistication level? rd, are all jurors all the same? If you’re in Clovis, New Mexico? Are you going to get the same package or you’re gonna get here? bernalillo County?

Unknown Speaker 34:00
No, definitely not completely depends on where you’re at. So the makeup potential jury, we were really worried about because of the pandemic because you don’t get the same jury makeup that you do before this before COVID-19 happened. And we sent out special questionnaires about whether people could wear masks for five days, which we believe the trial was going to take if they there were other special questions about if they had ever been abused, or they use somebody that had been abused and things like that. So right off the bat, we struck 20 of the potential jurors before we ever got to court. The state I sat down and just struck them. The with regards to just general jury makeup done in Clovis. It might have been a different outcome here. I figured we at least had a 5050 shot up north no telling and then Georgia juries, no telling what I was banking on was that they were going to hate the complainant witness so much. Because she got into a car with somebody she didn’t know and drink With them right around the corner and drank and then stuff happened that they might actually blame her and believe that she brought this on herself if in fact, they believe the section is non consensual.

Larry 35:11
So what what would your analyzing, going to trial? We’ve talked about the jury as a backup. What about the judge? The Mexico’s what are the few states that I think maybe the only state I’m aware of where you can excuse the judge the Fed that can do that? And what do you would you make a different decision? If you had just retired judge, Ross Sanchez, or someone like Ross versus you had judge Brown who was a former prosecutor and is a very well respected jurist, does that play into it to go into trial, who’s it who they’re going to be trying the case before.

Unknown Speaker 35:53
So in normal times, it does. But New Mexico, as soon as the pandemic hit the cheap, Supreme Court Justice here did away with our ability to excuse judges. So that knocked out that you can even do a little bit of foreign shopping, neither side can. The other thing is because of the way they’re not splitting up the jury trials, the assigned judge may not even be the one that actually tries it, they just pan it out. So even if you’ve been dealing with, let’s say, Judge BROWN All this time, by the time we get to trial, we didn’t know who the judge was actually going to be. But we had already committed to go to trial on it. So in normal times, yes, I do consider who the judges and what kind of rulings I’ll make. However, we don’t have that luxury anymore. And we just had to roll the dice and just hope for the best.

Larry 36:39
And you ended up? I mean, you’ve been practicing long enough, I could name some judges that you would not have wanted to try this case before. But I don’t think it would serve any purpose to do that. But But the point is that a good attorney, a good legal team, you’re going to look at a plethora of considerations and and if a case has high profile, and I don’t know if this one was but if a case is high profile, what does that do to the equation and an analysis of how that case is going to play out.

Unknown Speaker 37:21
So it’s funny that you asked that because this case wasn’t particularly high profile might have gotten a blurb in the news, somewhere along the line, but it wasn’t big hope high profile like one that I have coming up in the next month or so. And we’re going to have to quiz the jury a lot differently. And this one’s judge brown out the jurors, if they had heard about it, read about it anything like that, you may have to do a change of venue if there’s too much publicity. We actually in the other case, had to do a gag order against the state in two different jurisdictions because they were going to the press on everything and that other case, and they were going to paint the jury. So it is a big consideration of a high profile case. Plus, if you have a judge that isn’t nearing retirement, or you have a judge that’s up for reelection, that those high profile cases tend to make them make different rulings, it shouldn’t. But they do because they’re concerned about how the public’s going to view them. If they go easy, or they make a ruling that’s unpopular, and the state goes to the press. So there’s there’s a lot to consider in a high profile case.

Larry 38:24
And and that doesn’t the state generally allocate a little more resources to a high profile case, because their reputation as a prosecutorial entity is also on the line. My observations have been that they find way to channel more resources to those cases, you were that side of the equation. Does that happen in your office? Did? Did you get more? Did you receive more resources in a high profile case?

Unknown Speaker 38:45
Yes, actually, I did. And in that other high profile cases, exactly what you’re saying. I went into go do a hearing and there was me and my client, there was an entire packed courtroom with the press and everything. And there were no less than five prosecutors from two different agencies and their bosses on the other side, trying trying to fight the motion against me. So they do they absolutely are resources into it. They pay a lot more. It’s

Unknown Speaker 39:16
it’s an uphill battle.

Larry 39:19
So well, let’s talk about this jury that were out seven hours and they weren’t talking entirely about the sex. What? What was the makeup of the jury? I think it we had our conversation prior to recording. You told me that there was a really surprising makeup. So describe the jury, what did you get?

Unknown Speaker 39:37
So in 25 years that I’ve been doing jury trials, and I’ve done hundreds of jury trials, the average age of the jury is somewhere between 45 to 65. Depending on which part of the state you’re in this jury, we only had three people over the age of 40. And everybody else was younger than 30 with the exception of like to people who were in their early 30s. And when we pick the jury, we basically did it on the questions and everything. And the average age of the jurors were right around 25, which was really shocking. But they did a great job. And it turned out the firm and that they picked was not one of the older people that I expected it to be. It was actually the foreman was about 23.

Larry 40:24
And, and, and I know that sometimes their interaction with the jury after that after the verdict. And did you did you consider this to be a very intelligent jury compared to? I mean, I’ve seen some doozy juries, people have had to be before, what was what was, and that that is so important, you really need to consider that if you’re in a farming community, a small community where that that’s all they’ve done all their life, and very few people have anything more than a high school or less education, they are going to be predisposed to believe what the experts are telling them. And they’re not going to feel that they have the expertise to combat. And they’re going to say, Well, if they say they’d done it, I reckon they’d done it. And you would need to consider that when you’re making your decision to go to trial, would you not?

Unknown Speaker 41:20
Yes. And in fact, we asked both the status, I asked if the state was in a worse position that I was on this question, but asking them how much evidence are you actually going to need? And overwhelmingly, they were like, it isn’t enough for the complaining witness to testify. It isn’t enough for us to hear an officer testify. We want scientific evidence. We want other evidence. We want physical evidence we want a lot before we’re going to convict somebody. And they said that unanimously in borders. So I was I was pretty happy that they were holding it to that standard and not the folder here. So they’ve done it standard.

Larry 41:57
Would you just briefly use that term border? Would you explain what that means? So people that have never done a trial?

Unknown Speaker 42:05
Sure, right here is the French for to speak. And what it really means Okay, both lawyers will go in there and say, what it really means is we’re asking questions, and getting answers in an effort to pick a fair jury. But really what both sides are trying to do is pick a jury that sympathetic to their side of the story. So as part of it, you’re also educating the jury a little bit about what the trial is going to be about. And if you have a real issue with the trial, that’s your time to start asking the jurors because if somebody answers and says, Oh, I have a problem that you don’t have DNA, oh, I have a problem that you don’t have this, or I have, I believe that everybody that accuses somebody of rape is, is telling the truth, there’s no reason why would they lie? Those are things that you find out during that voir dear process. So it’s a really important component, but it literally just means to speak to the jury and ask them questions.

Larry 42:58
Well, as a defendant, there’s there’s a couple of decisions that they make. One is whether they’re going to go to trial or not. And I guess the other one is whether or not they’re going to testify. What decision did your client make? And how did you come to that decision in terms of whether he testified?

Unknown Speaker 43:17
So we believe from the start that he was most likely going to have to testify for a couple of reasons. Because in like I said, it was a he said, she said case in this. So if they put her on the stand, and then they didn’t hear from my client, even though they’re not supposed to take that into account, because he has the right to remain silent. And the judge said about 50 times that I can just sit there, we don’t have to do anything, and the state has to prove the case. However, in this case, we felt it was important that he explained some of the things that he did not explain adequately during his his confession or his statement to the police. The other thing was that the details were consistent with that statement that he made about the consensual sex and all the details. And then we felt it was important to put him in front of the jury. Now, even right up until the time where he took the stand to testify, we were still going back and forth about whether we really really needed it, especially after half the charges had dropped off. But I was also putting up an intoxication and mental illness defense on the aggravated battery, which could have dropped it down to a misdemeanor. And we felt it was important for him to testify about how intoxicated he was as well. So with that, I put him on the stand. But most attorneys will tell you that they will not put their client on the stand. It’s it’s almost universal. They’ll tell you don’t do it. Too many things can happen. For us it went very well. But there was also a lot of prep work involved in that in terms of making sure that he understood only to answer the questions I asked him and not just go off on a tangent. So it worked out well for us but it is a very difficult decision for attorneys and clients to make

Larry 45:00
And I guess I’m going to start wrapping up here. But our people are going to want some advice, particularly those listeners who are have charges pending and what did when when you’re making this monumental decision about to accept a plea, or to go to trial? And we’ve gone through a whole litany of considerations, but But what would you tell them to do, as as succinctly as possible to help make that decision, so you won’t have as much buyer’s remorse.

Unknown Speaker 45:31
So the first thing is, if you are in a position to hire an attorney, make sure that attorney actually understands the charges and sex charges and what is required for proof and also make sure that they understand registration obligations. And then the next thing that I would tell them is, for me, and some attorneys will never ask you, if you did it, I ask my clients every time I want to know the whole story, so that I can formulate a theory about what we need to do in a case. So be honest with your attorney, as honest as you can be, even if it’s bad, your attorney is not there to judge you if your attorney is there to figure out how to mitigate any damage, if there is like, for example, if you made our confession, and you really shouldn’t have to tell them about it, so they can deal with it and make an adequate assessment of the case. But it really, really comes down to picking an attorney from attorneys will tell you Oh, yeah, I’ll charge this much. But they always intend to plead the case. So ask your attorney, I might want to fight this, I might want to go to trial unless there is a really, really good plea offer. Are you willing to take this to trial and ask them from the start? Because if that’s what you want to do, and I mean, there’s so many considerations, as Larry, as you pointed out, as to whether you take the test to trial or take a plea. For example, if, if the State offers a plea, and there’s no jail timing, you can get a conditional discharge in New Mexico, which means you do not have to register that might be worth not going to trial for but in some of the other cases where they’re like, no, you’re going to plead to discharge, and then you’re going to have to register and then you’re going to be on this indeterminant parole, that might be a good enough reason to take it to trial. So a lot of considerations. But first and foremost, make sure you’re honest with your attorney, and that you pick a an attorney who is well versed in cases like this.

Larry 47:22
Well, I would add to that I agree with that i would add to find out how many trials they’ve done in the last couple of years, because you’ll find out that very few attorneys have that are taking large sums of money, because they’ll tell you, I’m willing to go to trial. And then magically, as you get close to the day of reckoning, they’ll tell you really to play this out. So ask them how many cases they’ve tried in the last year or last two years? And if they have, if they don’t have any recent trial experience, I would be leery of going to trial with someone who has not done a trial. I mean, it Don’t you have to keep your trial skills sharp by actually doing trials actually.

Unknown Speaker 47:58
Yes, you do it. It’s not like riding a bicycle and you don’t do it for a few years. And then you come back, it’s actually difficult you forget a lot about a lot of stuff. And then the rules of evidence change. They’re not supposed to change that often. But they do you have local rules. So also make sure your attorney is practiced in front of the court that you’re actually in because they’re often local rules and customs, that if your attorney doesn’t know how to do it, they’re going to be at a disadvantage. So absolutely ask those questions that your attorney very, very well before you give them a single dollar.

Larry 48:34
And they will, they will tell you that they have done trials. But if you haven’t tried a case, like give you give you an example of DWI, when actually when you started practicing 25 years ago, DWI were handled completely different than now. So if you had not done a DWI trial in 25 years, you would have Not a clue if you did if you hadn’t stayed abreast of all the changes in terms of the law. And what we how we handled AWS now because what you do 25 years ago is out the window. Would you even take a DWI case, but would you even take it to the FBI case? It’s been so long since since I don’t think you would you were at the 13th unit duty of your prosecutions Did you?

Unknown Speaker 49:16
I haven’t done them in so long. And then I got one recently assigned to me. And the it wasn’t because it was a DWI, there was another charge but I got the other test dismissed and have to play them to DWI. And the poor client asked me they said well, what do I have to do as part of the DWI? And I had to turn to you there. Luckily, there are a ton of people who just do DWI in New Mexico and say what do they have to do? And I looked at the statute, but yes, you’re absolutely right. It would have it would have been different if it was going to go to trial.

Andy 49:46
Ready to be a part of registry matters, get links at registry matters.co. If you need to be all discreet about it, contact them by email registry matters cast@gmail.com You can call or text a ransom message 27472274477 want to support registry matters on a monthly basis, head to patreon.com slash registry matters. Not ready to become a patron, give a five star review at Apple podcasts or Stitcher or tell your buddies at 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.

Larry 50:35
So well, I want to tell you, I really appreciate you coming in here Saturday evening on very short notice and spending some time with us. Hey, Larry,

Andy 50:46
I would like a couple questions from listeners.

Larry 50:49
Sure, I didn’t realize that.

Andy 50:51
Um, so first was from Michael says, question for actually having been a prosecutor in South Carolina where I was sentenced, I was told the prosecutors were mandated by the Attorney General to maintain a 94% 95% conviction rate or they will lose their jobs. What is your opinion on something like that? Ashley?

Unknown Speaker 51:11
I think that’s completely wrong. Not Not that that is wrong, that you’re saying that that’s what they require. I just think ethically it’s wrong. And the reason I think ethically is wrong, I’ve said on the program before is that prosecutors take an oath to uphold justice, Justice does not mean getting convictions. Justice does not mean prosecuting every case. justice means looking at every single case individually and determining what is best and balancing the rights of the accused with the rights of the public.

Andy 51:40
All right, I think that covers that one pretty well. And then Paul asks us At what point should they stop interviewing you during mine? I asked for a lawyer seven times. They even wrote that in the statement a few times, they either rewarded the question or went on to the next one. And he said then follow up. He says I was scared to make a bad decision. I figured he asked me for a lawyer would stop the interview. I didn’t know the law. So I thought they were doing right at the done.

Unknown Speaker 52:07
No, there’s nothing stop the interview immediately upon you asking for a lawyer. In fact, my client in his interview, and this one mentioned that he might want about an hour into the interview, I might want to speak to a lawyer and the officer said, Okay, we’re done. And said, No, no, I didn’t say I wanted a lawyer. He said, Nope. It’s enough that you even said that. That’s how they’re supposed to handle that. That’s what

Andy 52:28
I that’s sort of what I thought so then, I mean, I think his case happened in Wisconsin. I don’t know that jurisdiction even matters, but I’m pretty sure that’s where that all went down. Hmm. Is there any recourse that somebody would have like that? Does that like call into question their, their their case?

Unknown Speaker 52:50
any of that should be a motion to suppress? Because I mean, there’s clear clear case law, on your right to counsel and your fifth amendment right. And there that is definitely like, here, I don’t know about Wisconsin, I can’t speak for other jurisdictions, but that would be grounds for suppressing the whole statement. The second anything after asking for a lawyer, but if you ask multiple times, and they continue to talk to you, the entire statement would probably be thrown out. But that’s that’s about the only recourse there is.

Larry 53:18
Yeah, now that doesn’t make the case go away at all situation, because they may have enough evidence, despite your confession, that would just be the icing on the cake. But, but it could, it could severely damage the case. If they had a weak case and you You did a confession, and that’s usually when they will push the hard for confession is because they don’t have a strong case. Remember this if they need you to confess, they don’t have a strong case. If they’ve got an airtight case, I can tell you, we’re booking you to jail. Have a great day, we’ll see you at trial because they don’t need you to when they say that things are going to go easier it’s gonna go easier on them to convict you. And I remember a case this goes way back to ancient history and nobody cares about it, but I do. There was a contrast in jurist jurisdictions and but but I’m trying to illustrate a point rather than just the fact to have a good memory. But the point is to contrast and how they, how they do things that jurisdictions. There was a high profile case in Boulder, Colorado, and 1981 in that era. And the the the the suspect had had left boulder and go to Florida. And boulder detectives went to Florida to interview them and they were assisted Of course by the Florida detectives in Boulder actually went by the book. I’ve committed Alex thunder, who’s district attorney and the establishment there many times and boulder immediately did what they said we’re done. But Florida said nope, we ain’t done here. We got a few more questions and they kept pushing and that was case of tattoo Bob Landry. And, and the district judge in Boulder suppressed the statement made by Landry because he asserted It has right in Florida continue do the interrogation. That’s the difference between the jurisdictions, bolder do better. Florida had had been doing things the way that they’d always done it. And they said, we go, we don’t keep going

Andy 55:14
to go back. What was this person’s name?

Larry 55:18
tattoo Bob Landry.

Andy 55:20
Okay. I just wanted to make sure I heard that right.

Larry 55:25
So well, you can Google

Unknown Speaker 55:26
it, it’ll probably come right. I will pass on that for now. I have enough stuff going on over here with all the technical challenges. So Yep.

Larry 55:33
Yeah, he, he got he got suppression of his of his state. But ultimately, they convicted him because they still had a pretty, pretty good case. So the point is your case won’t necessarily go away. But you don’t want to strengthen the case the state has against you that we can she would plead negotiations, it does not make you have a stronger hand by giving them a stronger case. It does give someone a stronger hand, but not you.

Unknown Speaker 55:57
Okay, right. And it’s funny that, that you should say that because of what actually what actually came about in the trial was the officer explained his interrogation techniques. And he said, The first part is open ended questions, just trying to see how much information that my client would tell him. The second part was him actually bluffing. And he admitted that he was completely dishonest about how much DNA they had and what evidence they had to try and get my client to confess to more. So the moral of that story is, don’t believe that they have anything. And Larry is 100%. Right? If they have to push that hard for confession, they don’t have it, because otherwise they just put you in jail, and they worry about it later.

Larry 56:44
So But well, Ashley, was the thousands of listings we have someone may want to contact you. And do you want to give people some method to contact you? Because there will be questions and perhaps maybe someone might want to retain you because in addition to the the famous lawyer up in New Jersey, excuse me, Connecticut, that got an acquittal, a year or so ago. You have a court acquittal down similar charges. So you hit you have joined that club of elite attorneys. So how would they contact you?

Unknown Speaker 57:24
Sure. Anybody that wants to reach me?

Unknown Speaker 57:28
They can reach me at Ashley sh L. Ui at Zenn la VN la w.net.

Larry 57:39
Okay, well, thank you. Thank you so much, Ashley, for being with us. And congratulations, on behalf of the audience. In particular for me say this is the business I’m in. It’s a fantastic win. I don’t know anything about the case. But I know that it’s a lot of stress to put on a trial where the stakes are so high. So So kudos to you. I guess

Andy 58:02
we can we can we move over to the new york times article, Texas police officer charged with murder in fatal shooting of a black man.

Larry 58:09
Sure that shouldn’t take but a moment because it’s one of those where I don’t know guilt or innocence. I know that the stick Texas what they call the state authorities, I forget the name of their state police, they’ve they’ve they’ve salt charges. And the guy’s been arrested. And he’s entitled to his presumption of innocence and his due process. But at least there is an accountability happening. He is being held to account for shooting the person in the back. And the person was just calmly walking away as I understood it. They didn’t choose to be engaged with the police and they decided to walk away.

Andy 58:44
Oh, all right. This is the dangerous.

Larry 58:48
I don’t I don’t see a problem with that. Do you

Andy 58:51
know not a problem with that at all? I think you should always a discharge your weapon into somebody back. That seems like that would be the best way to approach it.

Larry 58:59
So but but yes, at least But see, we this is all the people of my persuasion want. We want good, clean, thorough investigations. And we want accountability where there is questionable behavior, that a real investigation takes place. And that if charges are appropriate, that they face charges, and that they be held accountable, then trust is restored in the police when you know that the police don’t have a license to do anything they want to do. That’s all that’s all we’re asking for.

Andy 59:34
I I’m with you. I’m with you. All right over at Forbes IRS must pay $100 million worth of 1200 dollar stimulus checks judge orders and prisoners lawsuit does this roll back to the previous stimulus. The cares act where a bunch of our people and people in prison didn’t receive funds.

Larry 59:52
That is correct. See, we talked about it on an episode that I can’t remember the number of course but but we talked about whether or not This was a case where there was nothing in the statute that precluded them. And we talked about it like in the Social Security Act, a person who is in custody for being convicted of a felony. While they’re in custody, they don’t receive Social Security. And then one previous demos payment, they specifically put in the act that people serving type were were excluded. They didn’t do that in this. They did, but they might have intended to, but they didn’t. And the IRS decided on its own from administrative adarsha. I actually not inertia because actually, they had plenty of inertia, they issued the directive to the prisons to intercept these checks, and to prevent people from receiving these payments. And, and that’s where the problem, because the law is what you would like it to be the laws what it actually was, and there was no exclusion. These people may have been in prison after they had earned the stimulus, and you didn’t really earn it. But you know what I’m saying baby entitled to it, if you worked all the way up to April 2 2020. And you’re in prison on June 14, when they when they set your payment out? Why would you be excluded? Unless Unless there was a specific exclusion in the law there wasn’t. This is the correct ruling. I would expect the Trump administration to appeal it because it’s very popular to say that we’re not going to give these freeloaders money off the backs of the taxpayers. And they’ll probably try to to to overturn the lower court ruling but for the well but it’s a great victory.

Andy 1:01:38
And then over at the Brennan Center for Justice Amy Coney Coney kind of keeps on coming up. I know why Amy Coney Barrett’s judicial record in criminal justice cases. And I did not get a whole lot of chance to read this. But I think that you have a pretty short way to sum this up.

Larry 1:01:58
Well, as, as we’ve learned, and as I’ve said, we don’t know what they’re going to do when they’re on the bench. Occasionally, people surprises. And we had surprised with an appointee under george HW Bush with sudo was recommendation. And we ended up with his name’s escaping me, but we don’t know what they’re going to do. But what we do know is based on this judge’s writings, that she is not particularly sympathetic to, to rights of incarcerated, but it looks like on gun rights, she’s very strong, which will, which will be nice for our province, our people are not allowed to hold weapons. That’s the only problem with that. And it looks like she has had some sympathy for, for for the Drug Enforcement overreach on a search warrant. So so it’s a mixed bag, or most everything. When it dealt with criminal defendants rights dealt with rights of incarcerated. She’s on the wrong side. But it looks like if you’re a gun supporter, she’ll be just fine for you. And it looks like also that if if if there’s a issue of police overreach it to search and seizure, you might get some consideration from her. But we truly don’t know. It’s one of those things. If we were doing the proper vetting, we could actually pose those questions. But under the circumstances, nobody wants to vet this person because she’s already been vetted for the appellate court. And now we should just rubber stamp and put her on the Supreme Court. That’s kind of the attitude.

Andy 1:03:29
I understand that as well. That seems to be the plan. And then courthouse news, California justices take up extent of voter back to parole expansion. I don’t have any idea what’s going on here. But you’re gonna explain it.

Larry 1:03:45
This is one of those propositions where, where I believe that that specifically the language of the law did not carve out the pfrs exception, but administratively, they did proposition 57. And the if, if they did carve out, it wasn’t a complete exception for all pf ours. But the way the California Department of Corrections is interpreting it is that anybody who has to register is as is they don’t, they don’t get the benefit of Proposition 57. So to the credit of Janice Baluchi, the Alliance for constitutional sexual offense laws, Janice brought this case against the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. And we’re going to find out if you can administratively exempt people from the law. Again, this is similar to what was done with the checks. You can’t do that the laws the law, if if the legislature had wanted to have everybody that was required to register be dotted details the benefit of 57 they would have written that that should have gotten into proposal, but Jerry Brown vowed that, that nobody would have the people who had sex for conviction would not get any benefit from early parole. And by God, they have stuck to what Jerry promised that when the voters passed this, he said they ain’t gonna get no early release on my watch. There you go. And when this when this case is over, I’d love to have Janice explain all the nuances, but but I’m glad she’s doing it and I’m pulling for the success and maybe the Supreme Court of the state would say it’s sorry. The Department of Corrections cannot do what they’re doing.

Andy 1:05:32
And almost finished Florida from the Tampa Bay Times Florida ruled felons must pay to vote. Now it doesn’t know how many can Florida’s amendment number four was supposed to restore the voter voting rights of up to 1.4 million felons. Instead, it might be America’s big business. Biggest case of voter disenfranchisement.

Unknown Speaker 1:05:53
Ah,

Andy 1:05:53
so by 2014 voters in Florida voted to allow felons to have their voting rights restored, based on an amendment got amendment number four would have to be almost like Florida initiated their constitution. Okay, well, then we have amendment number four that had to follow suit almost immediately after that, that prevented felons from voting. Well, I guess in the, in lieu of all the technical problems, we will close up the show. But before we let everyone go, I would like to thank our new patrons. We had a Bradley has increased his patronage and thank you so very much. And then we also have a new patron, Adam, and in being very generous, thank you so very much, really, really appreciate it. And I think we’re pretty much done then Larry.

Larry 1:06:35
Well, how do people support the podcast and contact us and leave questions, we got to tell people that for at the very least,

Andy 1:06:42
of course, of course, registry matters.co is the website and the phone number that I use to talk to Ashley this evening is 747-227-4477 you can email us at registry matters. cast@gmail.com. And of course, Larry, the best way to support the podcast is what

Larry 1:07:01
patreon.com slash registry matters and and do your gross pay. I thought

Andy 1:07:08
we were gonna have people take out second mortgages.

Larry 1:07:11
Well, that’ll come next week.

Andy 1:07:14
All right, then. Larry, as always, thank you so very much, and I really appreciate that you are here to share all of your insight and wisdom.

Larry 1:07:23
It’s my pleasure. That is why I am here.

Andy 1:07:28
Good night, Larry.

Unknown Speaker 1:07:34
You’ve been listening to F YP

Listen to RM147: Dr. Pelloski’s Analysis of Media Bias on PFRs

Andy 00:00
registry matters as 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 147 of registry matters. Larry, What’s up with you?

Larry 00:22
Well, we’re catching up with my age, we don’t have that many more to go to. We’ll be up with me. Not that many more. I,

Andy 00:28
Hey, I’ll throw this up on the screen for you. So I selected a photo of your I think that’s like your elementary school graduation photo.

Larry 00:35
Well, it actually will be a sketch. We didn’t have cameras back then.

Andy 00:40
How did you get everybody to stay still, for so long to get a sketch of like, 2030 kids,

Larry 00:46
it was not easy.

Andy 00:51
I wanted to share with you that I got a new little gadget for a production that I’m taking part in and I have buttons that I can push and I can make things happen just on the cuff. Are you ready to just pressing a button, I can make this happen. And then I got this one. I can do it all anytime. You’re ready, man. I can do like you people. I could do all those things just at the push of a button. I’m excited.

Larry 01:17
Fantastic.

Andy 01:19
All right, we have a truckload of stuff. We have an interview coming up later. And we have, I don’t know, 700 articles that you loaded us up. So it’s going to be a chop chop chop show tonight. And I want to start with a question that you threw in here and you may have slightly altered it. And so here we go, but

Larry 01:38
let’s do it.

Andy 01:38
Are you ready? Yep. Okay. I’m so confused about the registry. And the more Ellison of registry matters, the more confused I am. You too? I guess he would say you people keep insisting that there’s no federal registry yet. Everybody knows there is. What do you think that drew soden? I don’t know how to pronounce that website is? Is that not a federal registry? And the most ridiculous statement I’ve heard in my life is Larry keeps saying the registry is a non punitive civil regulatory scheme. It’s obvious he’s either on the side of the system. Larry, are you like part of the system? Are you part of the man a fair is he too senile to understand jack shit about registration? Any you know, anyone knows being forced register is punishment.

Unknown Speaker 02:24
Wow.

Andy 02:26
How about that? that’s a that’s a lot going on there. So are you part are you like part of the system? Yeah,

Larry 02:30
he probably thought we wouldn’t actually publish that. But it’s drew drew should do now. We’ll see if the computer can Oh, again, spell that. We will see what the computer does. Oh,

Andy 02:43
I got I got the true part. Could you say the last name again? Sure. Diem? Wow, SJO di n is what that is. I can I can I take a first crack at the firt. Like the website there. The website is just an aggregate list of all of the people that are on registries in the States. This doesn’t indicate a federal registry. It’s just like a meta search. Let’s call it

Larry 03:05
fantastic. And that is what that that is correct of what that is. And if, for example, if you’re registered in a state where they do not list your registration publicly, you will not be able to look in through the national website and find the person there because it’s only a it’s only examination of what the state is revealing publicly. But when we say there’s no federal registry, what we’re talking about is there’s no federal agency that registers individuals, there’s no federal reporting. You I’ve been challenging to find out if any state has a federal registry office. I’m not aware of any. But if there is, please let us know. But there’s no federal registry. And that sense now there is the krushi website, and there is the there’s a person filed in the Indian CIC where the those who are registered are entered by the registering entity. And that’s the form of a national registry. But again, it’s merely is if they had issued they had listed a warrant that’s outstanding for you, there’d be a person file for that. Or if they if you had a concealed carry permit, they would they would in in error you and the person file for that information. And there’s a number of person files for missing people in for I mean, we could go on and on. But but it’s laid out. It’s not in that point

Andy 04:18
of view, anybody with a felony would be in that system to potentially so

Larry 04:23
anybody who’s ever had a warrant, even though the warrant is served, and they withdraw the warrant from active from active alert status, the fact the warrant was there is still there. But But as far as when we when we say there’s no federal registry, what we mean is that there’s no federal registration office to report to and my assertion is my personal assertion is that there is an independent federal duty to register and I’m not oblivious to what the court just recently said in the willmann case, it doesn’t change my opinion, one iota. But, but there is there is no federal register. That’s what we’re talking about.

Andy 05:00
And it couldn’t Couldn’t we point to some sort of specific Oh, US code, whatever it would be called? I mean, couldn’t we point to something like that to say, this is the code that says, here’s the federal registry? If there were one?

Larry 05:14
Well, we could and there is there’s there. That’s what the listener is talking about. There is the the data mall Schachter was that federal statute, but it’s largely, it’s largely a recommend a plethora of recommendations to the States, please do these things. So that we will have a more uniform and more cohesive, more workable system of registration, they did not create a federal registry. And they knew that there was that there wasn’t really jurisdiction to do that. Now, the current administration is actually trying to make it easier for there to be more reach in by the feds. And I’m very terrified, I think terrified might be too strong. I’m very concerned about what may happen. Once this these regulations are adopted after the comment period. I believe that many states will pass very vague laws that say that that that a person cannot be removed, if it would, if it would be inconsistent with federal sorta, but just data Bosch act. And I would be very concerned about that, because then the states that have petitions for removal, that would that would empower the judge to deny the petition, if if that person would have had a longer obligation under federal law. So if you’re in Arkansas, and after 15 years, you go to your local circuit court that convicted you, you file a petition, and if Arkansas doesn’t do anything, other than saying that you can be removed if you meet the following criteria, and then they add one more sentence that says or unless it would be contrary to the terms of registration, as suggested or as required by how they word it by the by the ball shack, then all of a sudden, you’ve got a new ballgame.

Andy 06:52
And something else in there says the most ridiculous statement I’ve heard in my life is that the registry is non punitive civil regulatory scheme. Like, okay, so you go to the office, and you do your registration. And that’s the end of the equation. Is that, is that a problem?

Larry 07:09
Well, the reason why we say that, because that’s what the courts have said, when they’ve examine the the requirement, because the mere act of requiring a registration for something doesn’t translate magically to be punishment. And we’ve said over and over again, that young man between 1826 are required to register for the draft, they don’t get a choice. They were required to do that. There is absolutely nothing punitive about the requirement. It is an order so that we have current information to contact the young man that only applies to young man between 18 and 26. And they are it’s made very easy for them to register and to keep their registration current. And if they don’t do it, they’re subject to a possible five years of federal imprisonment, and they lose student aid and all sorts of benefits and citizenship. But no one has ever argued that the mere act of registering for the draft is punitive. The mere act of of being required to register in and of itself isn’t punitive. So therefore, each time there’s a concern about registration, the challenging party has to show that that registration scheme, not the generic idea of registering, but that particular registration requirement has so many disabilities and restraints that it is punitive.

Andy 08:28
And that which would be potentially living restrictions, any sort of driving logs, which would be presence restrictions, things of that nature.

Larry 08:35
Yes. Like, like if you look at the decisions that were where things have gone favorably, you look at the decisions where things have not gone so well. This the jurisdictions that have more restrictions and more disabilities, or restraints have more difficulty with with the challenges they they lose those challenges. Recently, in the Miller vs. camper, which was originally built versus Rankin. They’re just what weren’t enough disabilities or restraints, and Colorado and it certainly did not rise to the level of being cruel and unusual punishment. And and and in fact, they found that there had been no previous decision finding the Colorado registry to be punitive, which was the step one before you get too cruel and unusual. But I understand registration probably as well as anybody out there. And no, I’m not a part of the system. But I recognize what what we can do in the courts and what we can’t do. And what we have to do in the courts is we have to bring challenges where clearly the registration has gone past what can be reasonably construed as civil regulatory. And we have to be prepared to finance these challenges so that there’s an adequate evidentiary record record built, which there wasn’t in Colorado, the lawyer did not have the money to build a record. She was thankful that the judge did one a lot of evidence. But those things are important, because the burden is on you the challenger. The law is presumed constitutional, and that’s what we’ve been hammering for almost three years we’ve been doing this program

Andy 10:00
And I really want to highlight the senile and jack shit part.

Larry 10:05
While senile, I’m not sure I’ve heard anybody say that before, but are you? Are the jack shit for it? I, I’m kind of recognized as an expert. So I don’t know where that comes from. But that that’s,

Andy 10:22
that’s an opinion, I suppose. So let me tell you about three ish years ago, I was going through my Rolodex and I was like, I was under the jack shit folder and saying, okay, who knows the least about the up Larry, that and I picked you because you’re the guy that knows the least amount this stuff. So that’s how we got started because you are the most ignorant on the subject for sure.

Larry 10:41
I appreciate that.

Andy 10:43
Yep. And that’s why we keep having you back week after week, because we’re trying to learn you about the whole registration thing.

Larry 10:48
That’s really brilliant. I really appreciate that.

Andy 10:53
And finally, anyone knows that being forced to register is punishment. But like you said, the act of registration, you know, we always use Vermont, and I’m sorry, Vermont. So you send in your little postcard every year, whatever the hell it is, as far as what their requirements are. But it’s all the other baggage the the North Carolina, the packing ham of having internet restrictions, having to release all of your internet identifiers, having relationship kind of restrictions, like all of that stuff is where the Paul highlighted in these terms to always use disabilities and restraints, it’s an incredibly powerful combination of words is to say, disabilities and restraints, I think that really sums it up incredibly, concisely, to describe what we’re talking about.

Larry 11:32
And to me of the seven factors, that is the most important of those Kennedy, Mendoza, Martinez, seven factors and in terms of the analysis of the court, you need to build a case around the disabilities of restraints, throw your recidivism in the dumpster, because that will not win your case. Because they try and they cocked their head every way they can to argue that it does not work. But if you actually show how you’re disabled and restrain, you have a lot better chance of success.

Andy 12:06
And to word that I guess to try and go the other direction where it even if we even if the recidivism rate were incredibly high, it could it could still be unconstitutional, the disabilities and restraints, those could still be shown to be true, and it would be struck down. We just try to use it to make people feel less afraid, I suppose is the way is where that’s coming from. And can you can you toss out your machine gun analogy?

Larry 12:33
Well, they they obsess over it because it was in the in the Supreme Court’s dicta. And they think that that’s the reason why the Supreme Court made the decision they did in 2003. And they did not make the decision because of that they made the decision because there weren’t any disabilities of restraints. And they said that repeatedly in the Smith versus doe decision. But somehow no other people focus on dicta, rather than what they actually said in their findings. And they, they they worry about that the Supreme Court was handed that as a fact from below, because the parties had agreed that since they didn’t do it through a trial they did for summary judgment of the opposing party, the defending party, they were entitled to have their facts believed that they said we would have put on had there been a trial. And for some reason that goes over even the legal professionals had, that if you do summary judgment, everything that you would have asserted as a defense is presumed true. The court doesn’t get to select what they want to believe you have conceded that that defense is valid. When you say there’s no material facts in dispute, you have acknowledged that they would have been able to prove that recidivism was high.

Andy 13:45
We need to we probably need to spend like a good portion of an episode talking about that again, of how did we get there with summary judgment, all that stuff? And so we’ll put that on the agenda for some episode where we can go into that in more detail. That would

Larry 13:59
be a lot of fun. And maybe we can have Paul come in because I’m sure we see several. There might be some difference that we’re talking about Paul doodling from, from

Unknown Speaker 14:07
audible he loved to have him on. So

Andy 14:11
all right, well then we will start moving on and knock these things out because we are already like 38 minutes in which you don’t know that yet. Because I’m tapped time traveling. There’s going to be another segment spliced in here somewhere but at the moment it’s 38 minutes but that’s not what it’s going to be on your timer right now. See how I’m doing tried to time travel right now. They’re a fantastic. Alright, from Trib live.com. Norman Reimer ag candidates must discuss a fixing trial penalty. I think what you are going after here is so you, you get offered a plea deal of like I described I think just last week, my roommate had offered a three to one for some, some kind of killing of his wife, ex wife, and ended up getting life in prison without parole. What is this case about?

Larry 14:57
Well, this is a case that’s in the federal system and the it was decided just the 28th of September, so just a few days ago, where a person had asserted that they were subjected to a trial penalty, and there is that is a reality of life and there, you can cut your head all you want to there will always be a trial penalty that we will never be able to stop a trial penalty. And there I go again, doom and gloom, right.

Andy 15:28
Yeah, I mean, I really didn’t intend to bring you on the show every week for 147 seven episodes just so you could be doom and gloom? Can you give us something positive? Well, the reason why you

Larry 15:37
can’t eliminate a trial penalty is because plea agreements, stop the judge from being able to do things that they can do at the end of a trial. When you go to trial, whatever the accumulated exposure is for the crimes you’re convicted up, if you get convicted of three counts in each one of those counts carry a maximum of 10 years, you’ve got 30 years of exposure. Therefore, nothing precludes the court from from imposing the 30 years. If you do a plea agreement, you have the the court is restricted, because hopefully your lawyer agrees, forces the prosecution to agree to a capital and sentencing. And sometimes that’s not possible. But sometimes you achieve the same result by reducing the number of counts, which reduces the exposure. If the if they have three counts, and they agree to drop two of them in exchange for the plea and do an open ended sentencing. That’s where the judge can send us then all of a sudden, that say there were three charges that carried up to 10 years each, you’ve cut your exposure down to a maximum of 10 years. So therefore, you don’t have the potential for the court to impose 30 years this case as about a person who decided to go to trial, because she wasn’t gonna take no plea for what she was accused of bilking Medicare, and Medicaid, health health care providers, she was in a conspiracy. And and one of the conspirators committed to tried to commit suicide, it became incapacitated and they weren’t able to continue the prosecution. They made plea deals with the other two. And this is the case of the United States versus Daniela gauloises. Wagner from the Fifth Circuit. case number 19. Dash two a 157. And she decided that she was going to go to trial. Well, what they did what her attorney probably didn’t do, I can’t say for sure, but I’m guessing they didn’t do what I would have done, as I would have told her, because the original the original case, it was under the Obama administration. But when she didn’t plead, she she was indicted again, in 17. I guess what happened in 2016?

Unknown Speaker 17:54
Do you have any recollections the executive

Larry 17:56
and and and that led to a new head of the Department of Justice named Jeff Sessions and Jeff, Jeff Sessions gave an order early on in his tenure, to the to the assistant US Attorney General’s around the country to seek maximum counts to stack as many counts as you could. But prosecution because this was the law and order president coming in. And I’m in favor of this, Larry. And he also said seek any type of enhancements you can. So and so this administration, they filed a superseding indictment in 2017. And they added charges, she was originally just charged with one count. So they they filed a superseding a die, but they gave her two counts of conspiracy to commit healthcare fraud. And they added a conspiracy to commit money laundering. So all of a sudden, she had a whole lot more exposure. Because she didn’t she didn’t plead. So So her argument was that that she siphoned off the least money of the conspirators. But yeah, she got the most time. And and she said that the other ones took took plea deals correct. And the Fifth Circuit said, Nope, doesn’t work that way. Because you, although you went to trial, the trial judge mentioned several times in the proceeding that she had exercised the right go to trial. But they found out that despite going to trial, that he sent us well below the exposure that she had, based on the counsel, she got convicted, and she chose to expose herself to those extra counts by not pleading. Nothing stops the government from filing additional counts against you. If they have anything remotely resembles evidence that will support those and in this case that they apparently had enough to convince the jury because the jury was only out three hours. And I was saying what I would have told a person is if so if we had a case that was pending in 2016, I would have said, Well, you know we’re about to have a presidential election. And elections have consequences. Now, this candidate running on a load order platform, which says that we need to protect society from from for bad guys. And if they win, it may be that we don’t get the deal that they’re offering now offered to us again. And you need to take that into consideration when you’re deciding whether to reject the plate, and I’m not telling you how to play because you’re gonna be the one who does the time. But if looking at this voluminous amount of evidence, and I can tell you with with a fraud case like this, there would have been so much evidence they would have had, they would have had tons of it, you wouldn’t have been able to put it in document form, they would have gotten it, they would have gotten it on already called the thumb drives, I would have got there, we got the reams of evidence. And based on what I would dare say they could go through this. And I could probably dig up another counter to warn you. If they do that, that changes the equation in terms of how much exposure you’re going to have. And you need to take that in into your thought process before you let this administration leave office. But the average criminal isn’t going to think about that. They’re not going to think about politics, because I hate politics. It’s disgusting to talk about politics. And all that does is just get on my nerves. But those things that get on your nerves may have a direct impact on your life. In this case, it had a direct impact on her life. Because she got 20 years, she got to 10 years sentences stacked consecutively. And the Fifth Circuit said don’t no problem here. They send us below the guidelines and the guidelines, get the guidelines or what Congress has decided would be appropriate sentencing for particular crimes. This exposure was not decided by the judge. This was what you decided when you like to your members of Congress, that the proper penalty range would be for this crime, the severity level, you decided all that the judge did.

Unknown Speaker 21:53
Is there anything else before we move on?

Larry 21:55
Just like I just think that we need to our listeners need to take into account that what we’re talking about who holds the Office of President when it comes to federal crimes, there can be a significant impact on how the Office of the Attorney, the US Attorney’s offices operate in terms of what they’re doing. We give them credit for the first step act, although it wasn’t their initiative, they did sign it, they helped bring it to the finish line in a watered down fashion. They’re also imposing some very harsh sentencing. And we don’t need to lose sight of that. And that’s what I brought this article in for.

Andy 22:32
Gotcha, gotcha. From here, we’re going to move over to an article from Politico that is making a phone call from behind bars shouldn’t send your family into debt. We also have another article talking about something similar from current.com. But this one is I you’re gonna give credit to the current administration talking about this one, I believe, I am

Larry 22:53
indeed, the how weird. I know, we’re for all the criticism I get. But we try to we try to give credit where credit is due the set of sub the previous administration, at the federal level, now we may need to dive in just a little bit calls that originate and terminate within a state those are referred to us and prostate calls. And those have generally been regulated at the state level calls that originate and terminate outside of state those are interstate calls. And those are within the purview of the FCC. Well, that runaway previous administration, they decided that they felt they could regulate all phone calls. And they they put forth a regulation that that would have regulated kept calls it force it submitted that they were interested in five sets Interstate and and the the the the phone companies challenged that in court, and they took it took it on appeal to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals and they won. And this is finally years later, the the current administration has decided that they’re going to they’ve put forth a proposed regulation to reduce the price of calls dramatically. I think it said 44% and there are some who think it should be even lower than that. But I’ll take whatever I can get I’m an incrementalist if if if this administration recognizes that the cost of stay in touch with loved one as too expensive and they’re willing to cut it almost in half? I’ll take it What about you?

Andy 24:20
Definitely, I just have always really struggled with the idea that you know, you’re in prison, this is the start of your rehabilitation, blah, blah, blah, oh, we’re gonna gouge the crap out of you for Christmas packages having stuff sent from home you know, or phone calls, and they’re gonna make it incredibly impossible for you to keep in touch with people on the outside and we’re gonna and I mean, it doesn’t cost you the inmate money. It costs your family generally I know people can some places can put money on their on their phone cards or whatever. But generally, it goes to the to the individuals on the outside to support this and that’s what this goes to is people having to spend a mountain of money to try and keep in touch with their people on the inside.

Larry 25:01
Well, we’ve talked about this through the history, the program. And the the flip side of that is that prisons are the most difficult thing to fund. Because of all the things, we’re competing for funding, when you run for office, try going out talking to one of your legislators that are running for reelection, I really want you to put a lot of emphasis on increasing the funding for the corrections department. And tell me, tell me how well that goes for you. And it just doesn’t have all the other glitzy things that governments do. Funding prisons just doesn’t have a built in constituency. So so they’re, they’re faced with trying to figure out creative ways to get money in the phone companies as technology advanced, figured out that they could provide an immense amount of security for institutions in terms of monitoring what people were talking about, and they offered the services. And then they offered a kick back of ships kick back a percentage of the revenue to the prisons, and desperate, desperate tempting, because when you’re looking at funding your presence, if you can bring in one or 2% a year from from from from from that, that that’s, that’s an offset that you can put into education or subsidies far more popular. They’re funding people, the taxpayers just do not like funding prisons. They think that people broke the law, they need the bare minimum necessary. We don’t need to be spending a whole bunch of money making mollycoddling those people and let’s see if I could spell mollycoddle.

Andy 26:34
In this particular article from Politico, it’s a good start is little subheading. It says under pressure from families and advocates of people in prison, Congress has been weighing legislation that would be a good first step in addressing the problem. In March, the following of the work of Senator Tammy Duckworth, and Representative Bobby rush introduced the Martha right prison phone Justice Act, which was included in the nearly three and a half trillion dollar heroes act now. So who were the two people that were sponsoring the bill? They’re they’re,

Larry 27:03
well, they are Democrats. But apparently this is something that has gained some bipartisan support, according to the article. But yes, those are, those are Democrats that have that have pushed that on heroes act is is a piece of legislation has passed the House in late May. And the Republican Senate has refused to consider it. In addition, they refused to consider a most recent scaled down version of the heroes Act, which cut about a little over a trillion dollars off of the price tag. And they’re not considered that either. But that’s a topic for another day.

Andy 27:32
Yes, I understand. I was setting you up to let you go on a little rant for a minute. What else should we know about this particular segment?

Larry 27:41
Well, we were just given credit for the for, for the Trump administration for at least the FCC commissioners recognizing that this is a serious problem. And it goes contrary to stated policy of the Federal Bureau of Prisons, to keep loved ones in contact because it’s the best thing to improve the odds of success and and 44% reduction is a good thing.

Andy 28:05
Right? Well, we have an article over at USA Today it says police should not create crime. I we have talked about this on a number of occasions of how do you move someone how does something become actually entrapment of a cop like dangling the baggie of weed in front of you or something like that is that entrapment? If they if you somewhere in there, that the line gets crossed of them, staging something from them, enticing to where it actually becomes criminal activity. And this is a whole article that describes a scenario of almost like a ring of people that got trapped into being drug dealers all of a sudden and it was all set up by the government. Well, the law enforcement agency,

Larry 28:50
well, it was a it was an officer pretending to be a student. And dealing with these challenge. I don’t know how the politically correct term but but somebody students that are that are not helped me out here. But but they I don’t know if it was all to stick or what but anyway, they they, they

Andy 29:09
they were saying they were special needs kids didn’t necessarily specify how so

Larry 29:13
yeah, it they they took advantage of this. But when we talk about this, the reason why this happens is because the police have excess funding. And those of you who hear that term, defund the police. Please get it out of your vocabulary, and no one is talking about D funding the police and their entirety. What we’re talking about is reducing some of the excessive funding that would make the police agencies have to pick and choose and prioritize what they can do. This looks like it’s just stories remotely accurate. This does look like a trap. This kid had no intention until the until the officer named down that was supposedly a fellow student asked him how to get a hold of some drugs. And that that is The classic entrapment if the person’s predisposed, and they approach to the officer trying to find drugs, but the way it was presented as the officer approach to get,

Andy 30:12
which is almost now we we’ve covered stories on the PFR side of the house where someone goes on to an adult oriented place to maybe find a date, whatever. And they talk to somebody who is of age at the time, who’s actually a cop anyway. And then all of a sudden, at the end, like, Oh, wait, no, I’m, I’m 18 years old, I’m 13, I’m 14 years old, and then the situation changes, and then then they still go meet the person had they cut off conversation at that point, then nothing would have transpired further, but they went to the meeting, and but then there’s still no kids. So who’s the victim? Well, it’s no, that’s not what this article is about. But

Larry 30:49
it’s similar because like, say the the these are allocation of resources that if if we took our responsibility, and we told the conservative line, which is to look at each agency’s funding, and make them justify, we would have better oversight in terms of how they’re allocating the resources. And we would say, wait a minute, you’re actually putting resources in this area, and you’re looking for crime, you’re a solution in search of a problem. We need to pare back your funding. But But if you ever talk about reducing $1 worth of funding to law enforcement, somehow know that you want to defend the police, and you want to turn loose a tidal wave of anarchy. And that’s the way that they’ve cast it. If you mentioned about anything about cutting funding for police, you’re a gift the police

Andy 31:36
say same as if you say this, something like that about military. I was I was having a conversation. This is maybe a month or so ago, right. You know, when the defunding the police really started hitting a crescendo of his conversations. And he’s one of our people. So he’s a PFR. And he was like, our you can’t take away one red cent from the police jeep, because like, look at how safe The streets are, he was just going on and on and on. And anything, if you want to do anything, you would have to just completely increase funding to add into this other agencies. He wants cops to go there, full lock, stock and barrel, all the protective equipment and de escalate situations like Robocop would

Larry 32:19
so well, that’s, that’s tragic, because of conservatism really had any consistency in intellectual honesty, that would be exactly what you would do, you would you would look at every aspect of spending across the board, and look for ways to work more efficiently to innovate new ways of doing things. And if there’s things that could be removed out of place, hands that could be done more efficiently. You’d be all for that. That’s the true basis of conservatism. My friend way wasn’t my friend, but someone I admired in Texas Ray therapy, he used to, he used to espouse that he was conservative Democrat, and he said, but if we’re going to be conservative and intellectually honest, we need to look at all aspects of spending, and not have our sacred cows. The conservatives have their sacred cows, and they’re not intellectually honest. And that’s what really disturbs me. If we’re going to be efficient about the use of taxpayer resources. Let’s look at all spending with a critical eye. Shouldn’t

Andy 33:13
we then have like privatized police departments then? Because they would do it better, wouldn’t they?

Larry 33:17
Well, no, I don’t think that they imagined they would. They would magically flip flop on that one.

Andy 33:25
I know, I was like, I was like, oh, man, we should have privatized police departments. You know, get up who’s the who’s dick cheney’s group that was a zip Blackwater? Who was like the militia group that was being funded like by the CIA, or whatever. Yeah,

Larry 33:40
I think it might have been that long ago.

Andy 33:44
Yeah, it was a while ago. Okay, so then this one you’re like punting to give to me is from Fox says the truth about violent crime in American cities explained in 11 charts, and anything with mapillary you kick over into my into my camp. This is a piece that with in a whole lot of gory detail with all kinds of charts and graphs and descriptions talks about how crime is the lowest that has ever been in forever. But it also, you know, there’s a couple aberrations that since we’ve been on since the whole COVID, the human malware has started that there are specific areas where there have been upticks. But did you did you want to like try and cover anything in specific or do you just want me to ramble for five minutes? You can

Larry 34:25
ramble for a couple of minutes I I was fascinated by what I could understand. But I’ve been saying this for so long that I don’t know what else to say because people believe that crime is increasing. But the trends are just not there. I mean, you look at those charts way down there. There’s a header people believe crime is increasing despite alarm drop. And you look at the crime rates, which is what I presented at the National Conference some years ago, when when we almost had a suicidal the spot. You almost like spit on

Andy 34:57
your shoe on the spot.

Unknown Speaker 35:00
I should say help us address no suicide.

Andy 35:03
Yes, he was he was going to come after you. But so in specific areas, there have been an uptick. I think it’s even in this article that when talking about Portland, where like, there was a whole, like the number of protests that were happening after George, what I want to say the number was 1500. And out of that, it was in the single digits where things had gone violent. And then when they threw in the feds, then everything escalated, oddly enough. But then with everybody at home, all kinds of property, crime, all of like the whole range of crimes, except for things that would be occurring at home, some kind of domestic abuse, those kinds of crimes have gone up. Obviously, if you put a bunch of people at home together, they’re going to get irritated and maybe they start punching at each other. That doesn’t seem like unusual to me, or unreasonable to think that, Larry, if you and I spend a lot of time in the same hotel room, we’re gonna fight eventually. I’m just saying no. Commercial burglaries are up, I guess, recently since protests was okay, so there was like looting and stuff but other like in general crime. And that whole trend line is just on a steady decrease. Probably because of things like technology with like more cameras and surveillance. That’s probably one of the primary drivers of it.

Unknown Speaker 36:27
Lucia, are you still with me? I thought you

Larry 36:30
thought I lost you.

Andy 36:33
I just said stop for a moment. I you know, anyway, so there, this is like for Vox. They don’t normally like cover things this long. This is a pretty pretty long article with a million graph. So I guess it’s at, say, 11. But there’s a lot.

Larry 36:45
Well, I hope our our listeners and our, I guess our our prison population won’t be able to see this. That’s too bad. We got to figure out a way to provide this to the prisoners.

Andy 36:57
We could probably get in trouble for that then because that would be like no reproduction authorized, blah, blah, blah, something like that.

Unknown Speaker 37:04
So

Andy 37:06
well, but it’s good stuff. I like Fox a lot.

Larry 37:09
So thank you for putting that on the agenda.

Andy 37:14
It was still you. This next one comes from law 360. In email attorney client privileges, paddle how sides with inmates? This is disturbing to me that when you have a letter sent to you in prison, Larry, from from a law office, you get caught up to the mailroom, they open it in your presence, they dump it out to make sure there’s no contraband. They like maybe open up the letter just just to make sure there’s nothing attached to it. They pull the thing back up, they put it back in the envelope, and off you go. So they’ve just checked it for contraband. The same thing should get exist for electronic communications. And since we’ve had the human malware, the Coronavirus, there isn’t a lot of attorney visits inside of prisons and jails. The only thing that they could then rely on would be email. And that is being watched just like email to your Aunt Rose and your uncle john and whatnot that that seems disturbing to me and you working in the defense side of the house, that would probably bother you greatly.

Larry 38:14
It does. And it pleases me greatly to say some bipartisan support on this where there’s a resolution on the House of Representatives to deal with that. And we’ve got representatives, Hakeem Jeffries from New York and Collins from Georgia, and across the political spectrum. Jeffries is a democrat and Collins’s Republican, and they both recognize the significance of this attorney client privilege and that the corrections to law enforcement established but should not be reviewing what the attorney is talking to with their client. And that’s a good thing.

Andy 38:53
This is this is, you know, if we’d been covering, like the phone call thing, once once we put somebody to be a ward of the state, there are costs that are associated with that. And it would be, you know, the inmate can’t do it themselves. Or they probably could if they you know, like start doing some some extracurricular activities to make some money and you can set up your own communication channels. But otherwise, you need the state to provide you with effective secure communications, to talk to your attorney so that you can get proper representation.

Larry 39:24
That is That is correct. Like I say, this is something that that that bothers me greatly. And I’m glad to see the bipartisan cooperation. It’s a rarity these days, but apparently, that this, this has been something that’s understood by both sides of the aisle. Hopefully, it’ll make it through the Senate, and hopefully make it to the President and I know that the President was cited.

Andy 39:46
The piece in here that I didn’t even really consider that something that you probably would have was, once you’re gone prisons, hold on to your email. And in the case of communications with your attorney, that’s not should be scrubbed and purged. You know, if you have your own legal letters, you put them in a manila envelope and you walk out the gate. But what do you do with the digital stuff? Why would you take that home? So, that would be challenging. Larry

Larry 40:12
does something I had never thought of.

Andy 40:16
Me neither. Over at the crime report with why redefining violence should be a justice priority. This is a neat kind of obscure article of how you would take the term being a violent offender of some kind. And this doesn’t just relate to pfrs. But if you’re the driver of the getaway car, and they go in and commit some really nasty burglary, you know, bank robbery, whatever. And those people are listed as violent offenders, that you can be sucked into that too, even though you only drove the getaway car. This it’s interesting. I’m really big on terms that if you mean this term, please use that term. Because it’s really important for us to be able to communicate effectively and forgive me for using big words, but they’re they’re more juicy. And so using the term violent if you didn’t commit something that was like a kidnapping and I mean, legit, like cuffing somebody or putting, you know, tying them up and manhandling them around. I, why do we use the term violent if it’s not actually violent?

Larry 41:22
Well, you’re gonna get millstone attached. I think it has a lot to do. It has a lot to do with the victims advocates. I remember the show from Bill O’Reilly, many years ago, when he was debating a person who was talking about pf Rs, and that it was a woman I guess it was a spouse or a brother of a of a person who had been convicted of a sexual crime. At rally gave her a few seconds to say her piece. But then he said, Ma’am, I hate to tell you, but all sex crimes are violent. And all sex crimes are not violent, right, unless you have unless you have a really distorted view of what violence is. And it’s so sad, because it’s not only on the area of sex crimes, but in other areas of criminal justice, where they where they, where they label something violent. And there’s actually no violence. And it causes the security designation to change the amount of privileges and opportunities they have to be altered by having a label of violence. And we don’t really consider all the ramifications that when we just stamp violent crime or a list of offenses, that’s a crime of violence. Well, let’s make sure that it actually is a crime of violence. So let’s make sure we agree on what violence is. And that’s really hard with the victims advocates because they want everything to be violent.

Andy 42:33
They certainly do. I mean, like, you know, a felony jaywalking dammit, that’s a violent crime, because you could have made a person driving their car with the kid in the back, they could have swerved, and now you’ve harmed the child. So yes, felony jaywalking could be a violent crime.

Larry 42:47
Well, I mean, domestic violence would be a better example than that, where there’s, there’s there’s some significant violence that happens that what are people, people do some bad things, of course, but also domestic violence, even though they call it domestic violence. There’s domestic violence, which really doesn’t include any violence in domestic violence could be interfered with communication, you know, with a domestic partner. You haven’t done anything violence, there’s no black eyes, there’s no dishes across the forehead, there’s nothing like that. But, but you’ve committed domestic abuse, and therefore, you’ve been deemed violent, but you haven’t done any violence. You pull the plug on the cell phone, or the landline, that they can’t call out, but

Andy 43:32
is that violent? You may have prevented them from summoning help.

Larry 43:39
You hold the scarf up, and you make a little knot. And you say, if you don’t do what I want you to do, and you jiggle that thing. Have you done any violence that you’ve liked? You may have caused the person you’ve attempted to, but you’ve attempted to would know, but you haven’t even done that you’ve made the person believes that there’s potential correct, but but you have you haven’t inflicted any violence yet.

Andy 44:06
I understand with you.

Larry 44:08
So do we label that person violent? I don’t know that that but that’s where that’s where the where the debate comes in. Well, they could have they could have taken that scarf and put it on the

Andy 44:20
Yes, they could have but they didn’t you could have also taken the pencil in a junk drawer and stabbed you in the neck. But they didn’t do that either. Do you they labeled that as the violent person just because the potential is there.

Larry 44:30
So yeah, but but that’s that’s that’s a biggie for me. I’d like for us to define violence better, and not label things so freely violent, where there has hasn’t been any violence.

Andy 44:40
Very good. Ready to be a part of registry matters, get linkset registry matters.co if you need to be all discreet about it, contact them by email registry matters cast@gmail.com you can call or text a ransom message to seven 472274477 want to support registry matters on a monthly basis, head to patreon.com slash registry matters. Not ready to become a patron, give a five star review at Apple podcasts or Stitcher or tell your buddies at 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 this is from Vice News. The only witness who heard police announced themselves at Briana Taylor’s door changed his story. You’re gonna fire everybody up with talking about Brandon Taylor.

Larry 45:45
I am but it’s consistent with what happens when you change your story. People try to do their pleas and say that when they told the judge that the factual basis existed, that that they should be allowed to change it. And that when a witness comes forward and says I I want to change my story, now recanting that I said, the person did that, then that person is no longer deemed credible. If a key witness in the investigation of Breanna Taylor’s death has changed their story, to be intellectually consistent and honest, we would no longer deem that person a credible witness in any way, shape, or form. And that if if you

Andy 46:25
don’t you have to evaluate the state of the individual when they made the first statement, maybe they were under some kind of duress, or hadn’t quite processed everything prior, you know, at the first interview versus the second. I mean, isn’t there a way to to figure out which story would be the accurate one?

Larry 46:48
Well, I suppose if you want to stretch that far, but this is where the police said that they announced themselves or not. How would you be able to be inconsistent in that story? Either you’re the police, a police or you didn’t hear how could you have a recollection later? That they that they did or didn’t How would that it’s like Scalia said about the 18 was 18 minutes it now they either said police or they did? How could you have a Tiffany, it say that that they didn’t announce themselves after you had previously said that they did. You’re no longer credible.

Andy 47:20
With the research that I have done about memory and how it works. You could have not heard it. And and it’d be there and just because of the overload of sensory stuff at the time, and then reprocessing it now I don’t know if you would then actually remember them hearing it, or did you insert the memory? I’m so sketchy on that particular subject that i don’t i don’t really believe much of what anybody’s memory is, per se, because it’s so subjective to your particular situation at the time, whether you’re sleepy whether you have some extra caffeine, and then, you know, how has your life transpired up to that point? It’s so subjective, that I really don’t put a lot of stock in what people’s memory is to begin with. But this is the only eyewitness to say whether they did or didn’t say police when they knocked on the door originally.

Larry 48:10
Yeah, well, it’s it’s struggling now, because this is such an important significant case. And what is the police announce themselves is critical in terms of the actions that they took, it would be very reasonable for a homeowner to start shooting. If they didn’t know that they were police. It would be very, very reasonable. And everybody on the law and order side of the aisle should be applauding that. That’s exactly what you would want people to do would be to defend themselves in their homes.

Unknown Speaker 48:38
Yeah, right. I think so.

Larry 48:41
I mean, if you’re intellectually honest, you would but

Andy 48:44
even like if you were woken up out of a dead sleep, whether they said police or not, there’s some amount of time for waking up at a dead sleep. There’s no cognitive processing going on there. Whether they said police are not if they came in now all you hear is them in stomping feet moving around and whatnot. Now you know that you have a threat inside your house. You didn’t hear them say police when they knocked on the door and open it up originally. You just know someone busted in your door. And you heard a loud noise.

Larry 49:08
I agree with that. But, but But now, but now, like I say this witnesses magically remembering that they did say police, when initially the witness said that they didn’t say police. So that’s very, very critical. Because if there’s if they’re going to believe that story that there was an announcement and decide that there’s no charges based on the fact that the police did announce themselves, then I would like you mister law enforcement apparatus to give the exact same consideration when someone has a change of memory when it relates to a conviction. That’s my whole point of thing that that’s where I’m going with this. we deem you uncredible when you come in and change your story, magically now since the story suits the law enforcement apparatus, it is being given more credibility. And I don’t understand I’m a big one about consistency. There doesn’t seem to be any here.

Andy 50:03
queuing your silly terms like consistency, Larry, what am I gonna do with you?

Larry 50:08
It’s ridiculous isn’t it

Andy 50:10
is we have an article over at collateral consequences Resource Center, we we get articles from here, they’re they’re usually pretty interesting. But this one is about Michigan to be the sixth state with automatic conviction relief. This is a I don’t want to say it’s narrowly tailored, but it is, you know, it’s not everybody, it’s not pfrs that we get any kind of relief. But there are only a handful of states where after X amount of time you just fall off the list you your records are sealed. And does it does that mean like you are I, I want to be careful how I word this, but just like tongue in cheek like you are no longer a felon at all, like your your your your record is clean from a cursory glance of your of your hat, your past layer.

Larry 50:54
It looks like that’s what it would mean, if I understood it, they have a set aside process in Michigan where, where the that the the person can be granted that status by the court. But apparently this is going to be an automatic set aside after a period of time. And and with no set asides. That was if the conviction never happened. Now, there’s still gonna be stuff in a law enforcement database about you. But supposedly it protects you from the public humiliation of that of that prior mistake, because it shields that record. When that when that conviction is set aside as best I understood it.

Andy 51:26
about maybe the second section and it says under current Michigan law, eligibility for expungement is quite restrictive. A person may seek expungement, either for a single felony conviction. As long as the person has no more than two misdemeanors or for no more than two misdemeanors, the person whose felony is set aside thus cannot seek set aside for their misdemeanors blah, blah, blah. So the key is set aside like a common term for legal or law for records keeping like that.

Larry 51:54
It’s not something that that’s in my jargon here in my state, but I’m familiar with it with it in Michigan because of a case that that that came to our attention was Zach Anderson. Okay. And, but but but yeah, I’m not it’s not a it’s not a widely known thing to me. Anyway, I was

Andy 52:10
talking to Josh Joshua from the decarceration nation podcast not too long ago about this, it was like a big deal coming down the pike of getting a certain number of people to have immediate sealing of records is the best way that I’m going to term it. And he was pretty excited about that this was coming down the path. Just wanted to put it on everyone’s radar that Michigan is making a lot of changes.

Larry 52:35
Well, it hasn’t passed yet. To my understanding this is this is a proposal, isn’t it?

Andy 52:39
It says it’s set to be seen as a series of bill that would dramatically so I mean, it says that the bills are headed to Governor Gretchen Whitman for signatures assuming then that means it’s okay. Was it

Larry 52:50
that it has passed? Okay, well, then that would be fantastic. I had there’s a whole list of bills that are apparently headed to the governor. Very good. So this will be this would be an instance of Barre parts incorporation because Michigan has split government a duplicate the legislature still under republican control, and therefore this means that it got bipartisan support, which is what we hope that’s really all you can do with the way criminal justice reform if you don’t have bipartisan support, you’re certainly going to be vilified and if even if it with bipartisan support, sometimes you still get vilified. But But without bipartisan support, you’re going to be vilified there still doubt.

Andy 53:29
Right on. This one just showed up in the lab. Yeah, this one’s dated yesterday. And this is from reason magazine, publishing registered sex offenders home addresses before Halloween is gratuitous, unethical, and reckless, a petition urges patch and other news outlets to reconsider the practice. This is uh, you know, we’re ramping up here. So it’s October 3, when we’re recording this. And you know, here in another, whatever, 27 days, we’re at 28 days, we’re going to run into Halloween, which is on a Saturday this year. And patch, I don’t know why is patch so hell bent on doing this. But they, you know, they’re very local, hyper local, kind of online outlet and they post these maps of where all the PFR is live and met parents keep your kids away from these people because they’re terrible, terrible. Like, I don’t know why they’re on this kick. But with the urging of NASA I think that they did this based on a press release that went out. And then reason picked it up and wrote an article about it, which I think is awesome that NASA does this and then that real reason would latch on to it to bring awareness to the silliness that the media will portray for all the pfrs during the Halloween timeframe.

Larry 54:39
Absolutely shout out goes to till an arsenal team. Sandy, and I think Connecticut was involved in it with one standard justice and this is fantastic work and thank you.

Andy 54:53
Yeah, and there’s a like five or there’s five bullet points that are I was actually having a conversation. With someone recently and I wanted to bring up this one, it says the vast majority of sexual abuse minors 93%, according to 2000 BJs, it’s a Bureau of Justice Statistics are assaulted by relatives, family and friends or other people they already know. I know, you don’t want to talk about recidivism and statistically, but that means that so 93 out of 100 times that person is already known and not someone that’s on the registry, most likely.

Larry 55:27
That would be correct. And that, but yeah, that was like a well over 100 hundred $50 member the total number of signatures to this but it was it was phenomenal. A cross section of advocates that signed off

Andy 55:38
Yeah, they listed a whole bunch of Lenore skinny easy, is a very popular lady. Yeah, there’s a there’s a whole list at the bottom of the article. Even Fred Berlin was at the did a presentation at the National Conference this year, and several others. And super awesome article of reason is a really neat publication because when I first started reading it, I was so confused about like, are they left? Are they right? I was just absolutely baffled because I’d never heard of a libertarian before when I’d left. And they I don’t know, I really liked their publication and they provide a an interesting balance to what you would hear from a left or right leaning publication.

Larry 56:16
So well, fantastic, and are fine. Great job. norsok.

Andy 56:19
Yeah, I like it. And our final article is a correction. This is from Vice News. A correction officer who called blackmail the inmate the N word is getting fired for the third time that is fired for the third time a deputy in the same Georgia County was fired after video of him repeatedly punching a black man pinned to the ground went viral. Now, why are we covering this letter?

Larry 56:43
I couldn’t help myself because it’s from my old stomping grounds of, of Georgia and, and we talked about the need for a law enforcement registry so that it would make it more likely that an officer could could jump around and inflict improper behavior, unbeknownst but this officer let’s set it up properly. The counties we’re talking about are Clayton and cahuita in Georgia, and they’re not adjoining but they’re not very far apart either. Clayton is more of a suburban Atlanta and then Kavita is a little bit further to the southwest. But after being fired from cahuita they go to work for the person goes to work for Clayton gets fired at Clayton and then is rehired by Clayton that would be hard to imagine to conceive of Clayton not knowing that he had been fired previously, since they were the ones that fired him. So I’m not sure a registry would prevent that. If If agencies are willing to rehire people who have been bad officers. I don’t know what to do about that. But the only thing that I didn’t have the ability to figure out is if if the firing occurred because of the change of administration. So the reorg I’m not clear on the timeline because a sheriff Victor Hill, who’s been Sheriff twice now he ended up leaving office because of his own criminal problems. And he was acquitted and he got elected again, I’m not sure if the victor was the fire or the rehire, but it’s just ironic that did a person can be fired three times, at some point. Law enforcement, if you’re listening in Georgia, don’t hire this officer. Again, he’s not appropriate for police work, let him find something else to do. He may need to find something else I so I highlighted here the racist incident will mark the third time this individual has been fired from a corrections job in a decade. I come on, man. We can probably do better, but I don’t know that we can do better. They’re like it. The people that are working in as correction officers. It’s not that NASA had stopped hiring. So this was their second choice. No, it’s it’s one of those jokes I make when when people are talking about what they want to be in their career. I have never heard anybody say, Bob, I can’t wait. When I get out of college. I’ve got to go to work in a prison or Correctional Facility. I don’t think I’ve ever heard that. I have heard people say they want to be juvenile probation officers and work in juvenile justice. But I have never heard someone in 164 years of life say that they wanted to work in an adult Correctional Facility yet that that was their first choice of work.

Andy 59:23
Larry, joining us right now is our guest for the evening. It’s Dr. Christopher polaski. And Dr. polaski, earned his medical degree from Northwestern University Medical School in Chicago in 2001. And it was accepted into the radiation oncology residency training program at the University of Texas. Medical division. Is that right? medical division?

Unknown Speaker 59:44
Yeah, MD Anderson.

Andy 59:46
Yeah. Okay, so MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston and served on the faculty there, and the Ohio State University comprehensive, comprehensive cancer center. He ran his own full clinical practice supervised his own basic science research laboratory. served as the OSU department’s Residency Program Director, and as the director of pediatric radiation oncology. Chris is a survivor of childhood sexual abuse and subsequently suffered throughout most of his life with undiagnosed and untreated Post Traumatic Stress Disorder with disassociated features. After a federal CP conviction, he was sentenced to the federal correction institution Elkton, that halfway house and he completed supervision probation in July of 2020. Dr. polaski has received numerous literary rewards for both his books about his experience in the criminal justice system and hopes to be a strong advocate for change in social policies and a better understanding of mental health issues. First and foremost, we invited Dr. polaski to examine a recent story aired by NPR on August 25 2020, there was a follow up piece on September 8, about the pandemic loosening in person registration, there will be a link in the show notes to the article. And the point is the story was not presented fairly and Dr. polaski reached out to NPR management, in addition to the matter with NPR, we will talk about his books a little bit later in the interview. Welcome. Welcome. Welcome, Dr. polaski. Welcome.

Unknown Speaker 1:01:09
Well, thank you for having me on. I’m, I’m a big fan, longtime listener of the show, and pretty honored that you guys would have me on here, so so Thank you, appreciate.

Andy 1:01:23
There, you got a whole battery of questions to go over about this art, this whole thing from NPR?

Larry 1:01:30
I do. And thank you for being patient with us because we actually had this on the on the agenda for several weeks, and, and then we ended up not doing it because other things were were breaking and thought they were this this, this is press, inaccurate reporting. And this is an ongoing thing where there was no real urgency. And in fact, I thought maybe we’ll give NPR management a chance to respond. But we appreciate your patience and the fact that you’re still willing to join us after waiting a month or however long it was. So thank you for being with us. So you, you, you you’ve, you’ve touched on an issue that’s very important to me in terms of accuracy and reporting and what we can do about it as a society. And you wrote to NPR, what prompted you to write to the National Public Radio about about your concerns?

Unknown Speaker 1:02:24
Well, you know, I was driving home from work. And it was a Tuesday afternoon, August 25. And I hear this story about, you know, the sex offender registry on NPR. And, you know, I was a pretty regular listener of NPR, you know, they don’t yell at each other, they don’t have all these talking heads on there. Some like, oh, okay, they’re gonna discuss maybe some nuances, some info, and I’m listening and, you know, their, their, their main thrust was that there are a lot of people that go, the whereabouts are unknown, or they’re not registering, you know, they’re not in compliance. And then they use the term absconded, you know, so there’s thousands of them. And we should all be scared. And then, you know, she’s going through some of these very disturbing cases. And as I’m listening to this, I’m like, this is NPR and it feels like I’m listening to some, like local news network, getting the listeners in the neighborhood, all scared, and it just, I was, I was so disappointed. It just stuck in my head. And so the next day, I just kind of wrote out this letter, and I sent it to the reporter, Cheryl Thompson, as well as the All Things Considered.

Unknown Speaker 1:03:55
Senior Editor.

Unknown Speaker 1:03:58
Let’s see, it’s Courtney adorning never heard back but I, I just kind of this, let it all out there how disappointed I was in the type of reporting. And, you know, they make they made this, or she made this argument that there’s thousands of P of registrants in their their whereabouts are unknown, and we should all be scared. Then later on, she kind of says, Well, the only time these upstanding registrants are apprehended is when they have run ins with the law. And what was interesting is she kind of missed the whole point there is that there’s thousands of people that aren’t compliant. And they’re only sort of discovered when they get in trouble with the law. Well, that means there’s thousands of registrants that are really not causing any trouble who have moved on in their lives and doing well. And that entire point was just missed, and instead They know they focused on some of the dairy in extreme cases. But those were individual cases, you know, really not looking at the population or the bigger picture. And it just, it was pretty maddening to listen to, and to see that even within their own data that they’re presenting. They’re missing sort of that obvious point. You know, and they say, Oh, well, the, you know, law enforcement isn’t out looking for these people and trying to find them. And I would argue it’s like, well, because a lot of law enforcement knows that. It’s not worth the time and energy because they’re not the ones causing problems. They have a finite amount of resources, you know, and it just, it just struck a nerve. And I, you know, before I sent it, I shared it with Sandy rose ik of Marisol, and she ended up posting that letter on the nurse all website. And, you know, I’ve never heard back from either the reporter or the the editor of all things considered, and they’ve even run another segment. And in some parts of that they are they’re kind of acting like vigilantes because they were hunting people down and saying, Hey, you know, go look for this guy. We found him, police man. And it. It was just, it was just really disheartening. You know, I haven’t really listened to NPR cents. So because I,

Larry 1:06:33
let’s let’s, let’s move on to the next question. Now, we all know that that people in the registry do have various issues with compliance. And my point is that I raises that people are often non compliant, because they’ve built the compliance to be such so strenuously tedious, this easy to be non compliant. And then they say, I got you. I got it. I got you here. Yeah, you didn’t make it in within 24 hours of some key change that you had. So we got you. And NPR, if they are doing the balance reporting that we expect of of them? Do you believe that they truly don’t know that the registry is, is as an addition to what they think of the person who goes out and snatches a child off the street, which that’s the stereotypical person or the rapist does not know that the registry is filled with people who’ve had consensual sex. Because there’s only a slight difference in age that might make it illegal. In some states, it could be a matter of days difference if someone is slightly under 18. Or it could be finity, for indecent exposure, which we would call streaking, do they not know those things? Or do they not care?

Unknown Speaker 1:07:52
I think they definitely know. I mean, you don’t have to go digging very deeply. To know these things about the registry and who can end up on it. You really don’t have to do much investigating to see the low recidivism rates.

Unknown Speaker 1:08:12
And I don’t think they

Unknown Speaker 1:08:15
I think they purposefully ignored that because they don’t want to upset their listeners and their sponsors. And wait, wait,

Larry 1:08:26
wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, but not that this is this is what we expect from commercial journalism, where profit is the motive? Are you telling me that NPR would contradict science? Because of financial reasons? Are they are they no different than CNN and Fox and all the other the commercial broadcasting that’s really disturbing. Is that was that what you’re saying?

Unknown Speaker 1:08:50
That is what I’m saying.

Unknown Speaker 1:08:53
You know, I was kind of under the impression to like they’re this unbiased arbiter of, of information and but now they’re they’re beholden to sponsorship dollars, you know, I thought the bulk of their funding came from Congress or the federal or state governments but the bulk comes from individual donations and corporate sponsorship and then accounts for almost 60% and so if you’re gonna go out and you know, put out pieces that look remotely in favor of, you know, sex offender Law Reform work, hey, maybe we should look at this differently. There’s that fear that you’re gonna lose the you lose your listeners and lose your sponsorship. So I think they’re just as beholden to, you know, dollars as CNN and Fox are in anytime you have dollars attached to a News entities existence, that’s gonna affect the content. And I think that’s that’s what’s happened with this NPR piece?

Larry 1:10:08
Well, you provided us with a pie chart of their of their funding, I think we’re gonna make Aranda, we can make that available. Can we? Did you? Did you? Did you want to just hit the high parts of where their funding comes from? Because I don’t want to minimize the importance of funding. Whether you’re NPR, whether NPR, or whether you’re a commercial broadcast entity, you have cost that you have to cover, you have personnel, you have assistance, you have all sorts of costs related to being on the air. But if we, if we talk about where their funding comes from, and they have to be beholding their funding, then what would the answer be? If we truly want journalistic practices that don’t ignore science? What would what would some options be? Because we can’t, we don’t want to use public dollars. There’s only like, I think, but what the pie chart show like 8%, or something of their funding from, from, from what, what would be an alternative if we can’t use public dollars, and they can’t be beholden to their, to their sponsors and their donors, what, what would we do?

Unknown Speaker 1:11:09
Well, for me, personally, I’ve sort of entered into this world of podcasts. And, you know, because I was on, I came off of supervision only as recently as the end of July. And so I didn’t have you know, I didn’t have a smartphone and but I, I’ve started listening at various podcasts, and I’m now under this feeling that podcasts are like the last bastion of true unbiased journalism

Andy 1:11:42
we make, can you talk about podcasts for a second? I’ve never heard of this. Tell me about this real quick.

Unknown Speaker 1:11:49
Know, exactly, I’ve listened to your podcast, a few others that really get to an issue, really get the details that you would never get from, from really any source at this point. Everything has to be very brief. But I think these podcasts allow you to really get down, you know, into the, into the reads and really see what’s going on.

Andy 1:12:19
Yeah, they let you get hyper targeted to a niche into a very, very focused, specific area.

Unknown Speaker 1:12:26
Yeah, that’s, I mean, that’s, I think a lot of these the grassroots efforts, and, you know, organizations like our soul, where, you know, your your content isn’t dictated by your sponsorship, but, you know, it’s an I understand there is a business like to get your to do programming, it does cost money, but I just feel like it’s in even prior to this experience with NPR was like my last chance, or last hope to get what I thought was unbiased news. But now I, I just don’t know what to do. Because anytime there’s an event, I’ll try to get news from multiple sources. And sometimes I’m like, is this covering the same event? Like, it’s just, it’s just really bad. And I feel like, That really hurts the sex offender law reform effort, because it’s like, everyone knows all this stuff. But everyone’s afraid to say it. It’s really,

Larry 1:13:36
I don’t know, it’s very frustrating. Well, wait, wait, we covered what I had on my mind. And, and you’ve written some books, and we wanted to give you an opportunity to talk a little bit about your books. And so you’ve, you’ve written more than one book, tell us why you wrote the books. And let’s, let’s have you plug your books cuz we have 10s of thousands of people listening, ready to ready to purchase these books?

Unknown Speaker 1:14:00
Well, you know, the first book was just, it’s called drama, shame and the power of love. And that really focused more on my journaling, going through my abuse therapy. And, and I showed it to some friends and colleagues, and they’re like, Well, hey, you should, you know, this could help a lot of people you should publish. And, you know, maybe one day when your kids are old enough, they can kind of read and understand what was going on. And what was also interesting is one of my, the one colleague who really helped me get it published quickly said, Well, you know, the, maybe the medical board can, can read, you know, what actually happened? Maybe they’ll have a better understanding because the, the local news media certainly didn’t do any favors at all. And so I did that. And, of course, that didn’t matter the local news, were there to put The heat on the Medical Board and the cameras were rolling and the board cited incorrect him from incorrect and inaccurate information from the news when everything started. And so that was kind of the first book, The second book is a torturous path. And I really wasn’t going to write a second one. But after going to prison and meeting a lot of the people that were in there with me and going through the post incarceration experience, I’m like, again, I have to almost feel like the story, everyone’s story kind of needs to get out. There needs to be some type of counter narrative to what the news and what passes for journalism now is going on. So that’s kind of the those are the reasons why I wrote these books.

Larry 1:15:59
And, and one more time gives a give the title both on are they available out there for our listeners?

Unknown Speaker 1:16:08
Yeah, the they’re both there’s print, you know, like a paperback and an ebook version. It’s on Amazon. And the first book is trauma, shame and the power of love. And the subtitle was the fall and rise physician reveals himself, kind of a mouthful. And then the second book is a torturous path, atonement and reinvention in a broken system. And they’re, they’re both available on Amazon. And, and surprisingly, they’ve won some awards, which I take that as a good sign that sort of the uninitiated, people who don’t know me, would read it, and learn a lot from it and put their name to it by giving it an award. So I, you know, that’s, that’s one of the goals is try to inform the general public people who may not even be aware of what the sex offense laws are all about, at least, at least think about it, even if they don’t agree with me, at least they’re considering it.

Larry 1:17:14
Well, I’m going to wrap up with one question and hand it off to Andy. How is your understanding of the sex offense laws evolved? I mean, compare where you were before you encountered the system to where you are now. And and what was transpired in that intervening educational experience.

Unknown Speaker 1:17:35
Educational understatement there. But uh, you know, the, I kind of grew up with that misinformation. You know, they frighteningly high rate of reoffending and recidivism brought up by, you know, Justice Kennedy. That kind of became instant fact, in, you know, and I was a victim of, you know, childhood sexual abuse. So, I think I kind of I had like this. I don’t know how to describe, but I was kind of down and contacted vendors. And I was very defensive. Like why I didn’t do that this was done to me, blah, blah, blah. But as time goes on, I realized that no matter what the sex offense was, the, the likelihood people are going to do that, again, is very low. The likelihood of them having prior convictions is very low. And just the overkill, the the whole approach to how sex offender laws have dealt with, it’s just, it’s, it’s assuming everyone is like that evil, relentless, remorseless monster. And regardless of what the offense is, that’s not the case. And I’ve, you know, over time, I’ve forgiven the people who abused me and realize, you know, they were probably suffering in some way or, or another as well. And, you know, it’s kind of I’ve kind of gone through this learning process, and I’ve had to go through the legal system and have this like, personal catastrophe happen for me to kind of open my eyes so I’m aware of how difficult it is for other people who don’t have that experience to kind of see the other side. And that’s where I’m hoping like my books could come in and kind of fill in those gaps.

Larry 1:19:50
Well, we are very delighted to have you here and you indicated you wanted to be more of an advocate and there is plenty of an ample opportunity for you to to do more in the way of advocacy, from anything, anything from, from legislative advocacy to writing to speaking, I mean, it’s it’s out there and your credentials would be impressive. I would think anyway, maybe maybe they will go down the crapper after you have a conviction. But I would think that your lifetime achievement should not be negated by this one mistake.

Unknown Speaker 1:20:23
Yeah, and I have, you know, started to get more involved. I’m a contributing author now for in arsal. I had my first article out in the

Unknown Speaker 1:20:36
Marisol digest,

Unknown Speaker 1:20:39
getting involved with other types of writing. But uh, yeah, I think, you know, starting to speak more, and get involved in the more the legislative process. I think that’s on the horizon. But you know, I’ve only been out of supervision for a few months. So, pregnant, take me a little while. Well,

Larry 1:21:01
welcome to the cause of advocacy. And and thank you for joining us. And Andy, did you have anything else?

Andy 1:21:08
I really like the question you asked about the change of mind from before and after, I thought was an incredibly good question to ask. But also that when you do listen to podcasts like yours, you are self selecting yourself into a filter bubble of sorts. And unless you’re like, the anti, the anti registrant person to listen to this podcast and try and like it, the people that listen to this podcast, generally are already in our camp. So we’re, you know, we’re preaching the choir, so to speak. That’s really all I wanted to add to the podcast movement thing.

Unknown Speaker 1:21:39
Right. And that is one thing I you know, I want to avoid the echo chamber effect in my work as well, in some ways, that’s kind of what NPR was doing to, you know, being an being an echo chamber.

Andy 1:21:57
Well, again, thank you so much for joining us. That is a we really, really appreciate you having you on. And, again, welcome to the advocacy movement.

Unknown Speaker 1:22:07
Thank you very much. And like I said, I love the work. You guys do. Thank you.

Andy 1:22:12
Yeah, thank you for becoming a patron to

Unknown Speaker 1:22:15
Oh, yeah,

Larry 1:22:16
yeah. He came. He came in at 1200 a month.

Andy 1:22:20
Absolutely. do without you.

Unknown Speaker 1:22:22
Yeah. Yeah. Well, you know, mortgage rates low.

Larry 1:22:27
that’s a that’s a joke we have about the staples paper where we’re asking someone to make their entire statement was paper, but I was taking us up on that yet. So, so thank you, sir. Good night.

Unknown Speaker 1:22:40
Good night.

Andy 1:22:41
Bye. That wraps it up. Man. We finished it. I’m surprised that we got all that and I was trying to dump articles. And you said no, we can do it. Just keep it short. And we did, we did. Alright, so now we’re gonna announce some new patrons, Nate, who was an existing patron and has been for quite some time, he has increased his contribution. Thank you so very much. And we got a new patron named Michael and a super extra special thank you goes to Anna, with a very generous contribution. Thank you to all of our listeners, and especially our patrons. Thanks, guys very much appreciate it.

Larry 1:23:12
And how do people contact the program?

Andy 1:23:16
They they do it by turning on their computer and preferably your monitor also, because it’s hard to use it without seeing it. And you navigate your way using Netscape Navigator. And you wait for your modem to dial into America Online and you wait to the little noises and you go to registry matters, that CEO.

Larry 1:23:36
Okay, then if they want to leave a voicemail, which we haven’t had any recently that I can think of how would they do

Andy 1:23:42
that? They would pick up the phone. And so there’s the rotary thing. So go to 227472274477 Do you remember those days of rotary? I do

Larry 1:23:54
a deed but what about if they want to contact us by

Andy 1:23:58
electronic message? They would go to registry matters cast@gmail.com.

Larry 1:24:06
And what’s the best way of all that you could show your love for the registry matters podcast,

Andy 1:24:14
send a blank cheques to 123 Main Street in what there was always like a certain town that they would use like in Colorado, it was like Pueblo, Pueblo, Colorado, that was where you would always send in like the sweepstakes forms. But go to patreon.com slash registry matters. And it is incredibly endearing and humbling that we have so many people that support us, and I think each and every one of you, I really appreciate it.

Larry 1:24:40
And that’s the best way. You can do that for as little as $1 in any amount. I think you want it’s free form. You could do whatever you want, right?

Andy 1:24:48
Yeah, I mean, $1 is the minimum but you could certainly make it the maximum that you’d like to.

Larry 1:24:53
So and we’re looking for 1000 a month from somebody in person.

Andy 1:24:59
It could happen. It’s Point, Larry, I still very much appreciate having you here. And I look forward to having you here again.

Larry 1:25:06
Well, thanks so much for having me.

Andy 1:25:11
Did I do it right this time?

Larry 1:25:13
We’re getting closer.

Andy 1:25:15
Alright, let’s cuz I got a button this time. Thanks guys very much for joining us, Larry. As always, thank you and I hope that everyone has a great rest of your weekend and we will talk to you soon.

Larry 1:25:24
Good night.

Unknown Speaker 1:25:27
You’ve been listening to F YP

Listen to Transcript of RM146: Denied Parole for Refusing to Admit Responsibility

Andy 00:00
registry matters as 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 146 of registry matters. Layer eight. When I listened to the recording last week, I was like, welcome to registering like my voice cracked like I was a 14 year old going through puberty.

Larry 00:29
I didn’t notice that.

Andy 00:30
I didn’t either until I went back and listen to the recording. But how are you on a fine Saturday night?

Larry 00:35
Fantastic. We had a wonderful Balmain, 92 or 93 degrees here today.

Andy 00:39
It’s almost like a, I guess I call it an Indian summer. I wonder what the origins of that is? And does that actually? Is that something that shouldn’t be said anymore? Because it could be considered racist? I never thought about that until just now.

Larry 00:53
I would never use that phrase again in my life if I were you.

Andy 00:57
Yeah, I was like, hey, maybe it’s an edge. Oh, crap. I probably shouldn’t say, all right, so we will scratch that from and I will bleep it up before this goes out to the world. Can I ask you a quick question about something political. And I don’t, I don’t want to charge up the political debate. I didn’t prep you for this. But I was having I went saw movie today. And I was hanging out some people that I’ve never met before. And the the individual that hosted the event was definitely left leaning. And had a disdain for the current administration, but couldn’t bring herself to vote for the other side of the opposing party. Because she just finds him to be wishy washy. And like, you know, he’s old, which I totally get. But she just like, so she’s abstaining from voting, which I was like, Wow, that’s a really bizarre position. You totally don’t like the person in office, but you won’t vote for the other person. Because you don’t like him either. So you abstain from the process, which I find to be very odd, kind of like what we dealt with four years ago with Hillary, people just absolutely hated Hillary.

Larry 02:03
I wish I had an answer for that. Because whether or not you like either one, which I have rejected that as being a standard, liking or disliking is irrelevant for me. Again, policy, public policy is what’s important now realize that we’re dealing with humans. And humans have these things about liking people. And I can’t change that. But for a person to abstain from the process, you’re going to be governed by someone. Yeah. And if you don’t like the person, for whatever the reasons were, that you’re taking at age and wishy washy, and whatnot, someone is going to be at the helm, they’re going to be making crucial decisions. I think we’re facing one right now this beam that was announced today, I think that that that the head of state in terms of who’s going to respond in the middle of the night, when there’s a global crisis, there’s all these decisions, and someone is going to set the tone for the prioritization of expenditure of federal resources. And you ought to be able to look at the bigger picture of how important it is for the person that’s more aligned with your views to make that choice. So to abstain, I really think is just mind boggling.

Andy 03:17
Yeah, I have felt the same. Anyway. Yeah. So I’m not trying to go through all of the reasons of liking, disliking. And we talked about a lot on this podcast of looking at something in its totality. Like you could say, I don’t like this politician, because they made we’re going to talk about this later, but they they made sex offender laws harsher. And I get that that impacts our lives directly in a very negative way, most likely. But did the person do other things that would be considered good or so I don’t know. I’m just anyway, if you look at someone in their totality, maybe you can come up with with an answer of what you should or shouldn’t do?

Larry 03:53
Well, again, I’m going to jump in and say that I reject that no person makes laws harsher by themselves. Right. That I know I totally I totally understand. It’s so ridiculously absurd to think that and we’ll get into it more that in that particular segment. But But if we don’t, we don’t govern ourselves by one individual.

Andy 04:17
We do not absolutely that we don’t have some sort of unilateral person makes it all the worst for us. in one fell swoop. There was a whole whole thing of processes and things that went into getting us here where we are now.

Larry 04:32
Correct. We’ll have fun with that later.

Andy 04:35
Okay, well, let’s let’s start you you provided us with a couple questions from people along the different channels like from from actual like prison mail and other things like that. And the first one I don’t even know who it comes from, from Kathy I guess. And it says it has to do with the Bo P and access to email. And it. I swear I think we’ve covered this Halfway recently, but there’s some conditions that sex offenders in federal prison generally don’t have access to communicating with the outside world via email where the traditional the normal crimes, I guess, they you know, they put someone on their friends list, whatever, and they’re able to do email conversations back and forth, but the pfrs are not?

Larry 05:25
Well, I think we did talk about it recently. And this was a question that comes in regularly. And and what happened in this case is that the, the program statement allows each individual facility I believe, would be the warden, but the facility to make the decision about which, which individual site grant the privilege to and they’re considered a privilege. And what I said when we last dealt with this is that those are administrative decisions and privileges are not something that courts are going to disturb. And I don’t see it any differently. Now, no matter how many times this question comes in, it will continue to come because it should be in a perfect setting that people regardless of their crime, we would strongly encourage and make communication and connections with the outside world as this seamlessly, patiently painless as possible. And we would not do any restrictions except for upon an individualized showing of of cause. But everything that this that this, this writer said about the reason why they have the blanket prohibition is is the same thing could be said about the telephone, I mean, you can you can carefully Barker email, like electronically with all sorts of goodies that I can’t begin to explain, but I know what can be done. And you can you can require that the person be pre approved before you can email to them. I mean, you don’t have to have an open ID, I don’t think you would just have to allow open email access date to whole world would you

Andy 06:55
know, I remember describing that with my kids email that you have to be within the school systems email system to be able to email the child’s eat school email address. So I’m specifically talking within that own container. I mean, if he goes out makes his own gmail account, like that’s not restricted, but within his, you know, my school, district.gov, email, whatever, whatever edu, only people within that entity can email, my son. So by that same by extending that the you as the inmate person would say, I would like to email my mom at my mom@gmail.com. And then those emails can go to and from, I don’t see that this I don’t understand this makes no sense as to why other than them just saying no, this would be a thing, it would be so much easier to monitor electronic communications than it would be to monitor a telephone or snail mail.

Larry 07:50
I would I would think so particular with this sensitivity with mail. I mean, they’re getting tighter and tighter since this administration has been in power, the federal level, they’ve gotten so tight that we can’t even send anything with a label on it anymore. It doesn’t matter if it comes from a business or not. They just they reject it and say it’s not acceptable. But contract and the reason you put

Andy 08:10
lauricella STI or something on the back of the stick. That’s the reason.

Larry 08:14
The reason why I wanted to circle back on this is because people don’t draw the connection. When you cast those ballots. Next month, you are deciding on who will administer the Federal Bureau of Prisons. Now, the president doesn’t have any idea of what goes on the Bureau of Prisons. This one does, the previous one didn’t, nobody does. But they set the tone for who they appoint to lead the Department of Justice, which which the Bureau of Prisons is whether that umbrella. And in terms of making things better for prisoners. That’s something that you need to be aware of when you’re asking for people’s stance that are candidates, because Congress could put a lot of pressure on the administration, even though even though it’s from the opposite party, both Democrats and Republicans could put pressure on the BLP to allow more open access as you go to the polls and make your decision between now and then, if you have a chance to be at a candidates forum, particular for any federal representative or Senate office, asks them this very question. How do you feel Would you be willing to put pressure on the Trump administration to allow more access to modern communications, including email for prison prisoners without the blanket ban and see what they say? Now they’re going to do a dance around and pretend like they don’t know what you’re talking about? They’re going to say that they believe that contact with family members is a good thing and they’re going to try to evade your question but sable specifically, to get my vote. Will you commit to pushing for whatever it takes to To allow force to BLP to allow more communication with families using all the platforms, including email, forced them tried to Don’t let them do their little Dodge, get them to say yes or no.

Andy 10:16
I almost have to think that this goes back to I can’t remember which which senator said it way back in the day, where he said the internet is a whole bunch of tubes. And this is maybe in the 90s. Or like, I would imagine, generally speaking, politicians are generally older, and they’re not so savvy about how modern day technology works, that they are just scared of the new thing that they don’t necessarily understand. So well. It seems to be like this would be a carrier, like everyone knows how the phone works. But this email thing, it’s kind of like some voodoo magic, you press a button and stuff just shows up on your computer. And I don’t know I there, it would be superduper simple to make it so that it’s only tech. So now you’re not letting any sort of viruses or anything come in. And you can do all of the keyword filtering out the Ying Yang, like a spam filter, just gear it towards contraband conversations, you know, inappropriate conversations that someone may have, it seems like to me it would be super duper easy to do.

Larry 11:16
Well, I I don’t know enough. But it seems like that to me that if you could monitor phones effectively, you could certainly monitor these communications effectively. And I’m disappointed that that that the prohibitions are existing. But what I’m encouraging is, don’t become optimistic that the courts are going to force the prisoners to do this. We’re going to have to do it through the processes of self governance, through enlightenment of our elected officials to put pressure on the executive branch, who actually controls the Bureau of Prisons, that we’re talking about federal there may be many states that have emails, or even email options available to the race. I do not know which states do which states don’t. But we’re talking about at this particular point, we’re talking about the bureau presence. That’s what this question was about.

Andy 12:03
Yeah, let me I think this this hits home on specific points is the Bo p itself encourages inmates to stay in touch with people on the outside, whether they be family, friends, religious advisors, members of the community or other supporters, such contact aids and rehabilitative efforts, improves morale and provides emotional support for all parties support, which is so often lacking for msos. And their loved ones. messaging is superior in many ways to a telephone call, since it can be printed out and read or re read, does not require both parties to be available at the same time. And facilities communication with loved ones who are speech or hearing impaired. I didn’t even think about that last part. You know, that’s me being biased that I don’t have to deal with it. But yeah, if you have a you have a person that has hearing issues, whether that be the inmate or the mom or dad or you know, other family members, maybe they can only be this would not only maybe that’s the best way that they would be able to communicate is through through visual things through reading.

Larry 12:59
I like I like like the arguments, but again, I’m trying to direct people towards the courts are not your salvation for every bad policy. Because sometimes there’s a policy that’s bad, but it is not unconstitutional. And the courts have resoundingly found all across the spectrum, that prison privileges are subject to severe restrictions. And as long as this is deemed a privilege, you’re not going to get very far in court trying to compel the privilege be granted to you.

Andy 13:32
I have a feeling that this show is going to be the get out and vote like voting matters, because what you’re saying is your legislators have control over this and then the executive branch has control over this.

Larry 13:42
Well, ultimately, the executive branch has the final control but they can be subject to pressure. In some liberal Duka democrat context, IT department justice and says I’ve got a whiny in beta says they should have email, they don’t care about that. But what they will care about is if they get a bypass of the of the 435 members of the House and 100 members of the Senate, if they get a significant number of those say we’re Mr. President, we’re very concerned about Mr. Trojan we’re very concerned about this. That can cause a change of policy.

Unknown Speaker 14:16
I understand I’m with you.

Andy 14:19
Um, let’s move over to a second email that we received. And this has something to do with someone that has been refused parole who refuses to excuse me who has been denied parole for refusing to admit responsibility for their crime. I have run into people like this layer that 100% adamantly to the like, they are going to die on this hill and they say, I am innocent of these crimes. And you go into your treatment program, whatever that is inside or outside and they say, hey, look, I need you to admit, you know, take responsibility for your actions. It would be really hard Larry to go, yes, I did these naughty things with this person. But you didn’t do it and I know that like you know, there’s benefits on the other side, but now you’re being you know, you’re thinking And that hubsan whatever that Hobson’s choice. Anyway, the person continues, can they deny parole? Yes, they can. And we go, I say this would be your time. So can you be denied parole? for refusing to admit to your crime taking responsibility for it?

Larry 15:17
Yes. Now let’s, let’s, let’s, let’s clear up what we’re talking about. We’re not talking about, can you be denied release when you’ve paid your entire debt to society. But in the case where you’re being released early, if you got a sentence of seven to 20, and you’ve served the seven, and the parole board visits with you and says, well, you’re at seven years, and we would like to consider you for parole, but meaning that the other 30 years, you’re not gonna have to serve behind the walls. Are you willing to acknowledge your transgressions to society, you have absolutely every right to say No, I’m not. But on the other hand, they have absolutely every right to say, well, you get to stay with us. Because they’re giving you a privilege of serving the remainder of those 30 years in the community. With conditions. Now, when you’ve served all 20 of those years, they will let you go unless you’re in Illinois, because and not only Illinois, but some states where they have a period of mandatory supervision that follows your sentence. It’s, it’s a second sentence. But in a case where it’s within the same sentence, if you’ve got a seven to 20, or three to 10, or whatever the case may be, and you do not wish to acknowledge something that you’re in so doing, you have every right not to acknowledge that they also have every right to keep you where you are. And that’s what they will do in this case, in all likelihood.

Andy 16:48
That would be incredibly hard to do like, you would just be like you, if you then admit the guilt, that or I guess not admit the guilt, take responsibility for it, like acknowledge that you did the bad thing? Whether you did it or not, you did get convicted of it. I guess that would make the pill easier to swallow. But this would be a tough pill to swallow of saying, Yes, I did the bad thing. Okay, well, now you can go but like now you’ve admitted it now your parole probation officer, whatever they’re gonna say, Okay, well, you, I don’t know, that would just call into all kinds of doubt about how you got where you are.

Unknown Speaker 17:24
So

Larry 17:26
well, in this particular case, the guys from Texas, and they’re pretty tough in Texas, and he, he’s, he’s eligible, and they gave him a they’re gonna consider him again in three years. And barring some miracle, the answer is going to be the same in three years. And he’s concerned about his appeal. He’s, he’s concerned about his appeal. Now what what I’m confused about because the way I interpreted the letter, he he did a plea, which really limits your appellate options. He says, like, I plead guilty under the 65 year sentence threat. Okay, but so you’ve already acknowledged that you did the crime, when the when the when the court accepted that guilty plea, that there was a factual basis established, you have to establish jurisdiction and sufficient facts, that would, that would be covered by that statute that that you have that you’re about to be guilty to, you can’t just walk in and say I want to plead guilty without the court establishing that it has subject matter jurisdiction, and that a crime occurred within the jurisdiction of the court, and that the facts underlying that are sufficient to meet the elements of the crime. And he’s admitted to that by his guilty plea. So I don’t understand I don’t understand how, you know, we didn’t get the letter, it would have gone on and on if you don’t have those details, but he pled guilty, he got a sentence. And now he doesn’t want to accept the responsibility which he accepted with a guilty plea. I feel bad for him. He may have not he may have felt, pled guilty because of the threat of the 65 years. Plenty of people do that. But having made that decision, he’s kind of got he he’s, he’s kind of stuck with. He’s already admitted, the factual basis existed. It’s going to be really tough. Don’t do that. Because now he’s got to show the burden is on him to shows it that the evidence wasn’t there that he was incompetent or something really draconian for him to undo that plea.

Andy 19:21
And probably pass the habeas corpus timeframe and things like that.

Larry 19:26
I don’t think Texas has a time limit on Hey, does the federal atheists Okay, he may be past that, but but I think Texas is one of those states where you can file a habeas at any time. I think that’s what Richard gladden said one time when we had him on if I remember right, don’t hold me to it, folks. But I think he did say that.

Andy 19:43
Let’s move over to this a forever long article that you posted here from Forbes says the trial penalty and the case against Preston bird. What is this about there?

Larry 19:55
It’s about stuff. All right,

Andy 19:57
cool. Um, you gave me I guess Like some some cheater notes here says you had a trial. And you wanted to highlight some quotes as you had a trial. Why did you decide to fight? Did you think you would win?

Larry 20:10
Well, the reason I put it in here is because it shows that that the the number, it’s a long read, and most people like the one read it, but it shows the trajectory in terms of the number of people who go to trial over the last several decades. And it was never a large number, but it was comparatively large. It was at one point it was 20%. You know, now we’re down to 3%. Well, you know, that’s a significant decline. But still, it’s high watermark, you were talking 10 20% of people we’re going to trial. But without getting political. And the federal system, which I’m going to concentrate on tonight, because that’s what this case is about. We can talk about states systems that some other EPA in some other episodes, and the federal system in 1984, during the Reagan administration, they changed the practices of federal sentencing. And one of the things they did was the sentencing guidelines. Because before then they had such a disparity in sentencing for people in a federal courtroom in Alabama, versus a federal courtroom. In San Francisco. With the exact same crime, the person Alabama would get a trip to the federal prison. And those liberal pointy headed lifetime judges in San Francisco would give a probated sentence. And that was not justice as far as what the conservatives working. Were saying at the time, they said that we needed to have consistency and uniformity. So they did the sentencing reform act of 1984. They abolished parole, they abolish good time, except for 54 days a year 15%. And they put this grid system into place in terms of what the citizens would be at one of the things on the grid is acceptance, responsibility, and you get dinged for going to trial. On to the sentencing guidelines, there’s a there’s a trial penalty, because that’s avoidance of responsibility. Again, try not to be political, I’ve only tried to provide information of what happened. Therefore, from 1984. Till now, the low number of people who went to trial has even shrunk significantly from that, because of this trial penalty, which is what we’re talking about tonight. This man had expected that he was going to get a fair trial. He had no idea anything about sentencing reform, he’d probably never heard of it. He didn’t know a system that existed prior to 1984. He might not even be old enough. But if he was old enough, he could care less because he was not a criminal in his mind. So the point of the article is what you find out when you get into the system versus what you thought you knew, when you were pledging allegiance to one nation under God with invisibles, liberty and justice for all, to let that’s the reason why I put put the article in here is to is to let people know that sometimes if you just don’t believe everything, you think you’ll be a whole lot, you’ll be a whole lot better informed. And this is a guy who recognizes he recognizes clearly that what he believed wasn’t true.

Andy 23:12
I ran into multiple people who, while guilty of a crime, were much more willing to take whatever plea deal the DA offered versus the potential for the other side. Pretty sure I would have mentioned somewhere along the way, my roommate for a period of time, I’m just taking this all at face value can’t verify any of it. So just deal with it. My roommate was convicted of murdering his wife, or ex wife, maybe it was and somewhere in there. The da offered him a three year sentence do one Georgia has split and split sentence thing. They would have reduced it all the way down to whatever that would have qualified for. Instead he took it to trial and got life I believe without parole and has since passed away in prison after doing 17 years.

Larry 23:59
Well, I tell the story. I think brown I think grandma Esther has died here in New Mexico, but she did the same thing. She was accused of child molestation. And they offer her probation. She couldn’t make bond and after she’d been in prison for about prison in county jail for two years. They offered her probation. Okay, she said that she said I take it no probation. I want a lawyer that will fight for me. So the judge said all right, well, you want another lawyer. I’ll give you another lawyer. It’s gonna cause your trial to be delayed because this is a complicated case. With a judge Stover judge Ross Sanchez said, Well, you know you you’re getting a pretty sweetheart deal. You’re gonna walk out of here today. What it is a sweetheart deal is you done something but I don’t know. And so she insisted on her day in court and she got convicted of every count. And she got 99 years.

Andy 24:51
And she was already how old roughly?

Larry 24:53
Well, her name was grandma. Salt. You can deduce from that she was pretty she was pretty I think I might have heard that she’s passed away. But if she hasn’t passed away, she’s a miserable condition because the prisons are not very kind to people in general. And they’re very harsh on older people that have infirmaries that have infirm conditions.

Unknown Speaker 25:17
And infirmaries actually, were actually where you would be in the prison.

Andy 25:21
Yeah. And then the second quote you have So looking back, I also realized the value of creating a working environment that encourages teamwork fairplay and maintaining a healthy respect for the rule of law. It was my night. Did you already cover this whole part? It seemed sounds like you may have already covered this. But

Larry 25:35
we I wanted to get some quotes for the first part there where he found out that the prosecutor had the prosecutor was vindictive. I think that that that’s something you would never he went to trial. Just read that quote, sir, I went to trial believing that I would win because, yeah,

Andy 25:50
okay. Go ahead. All right. So I went to trial believing that I would win because I was naive enough to believe that this justice system would be a fair and play by the rules. I was wrong. The prosecutor prosecutors lied to the prosecutor knew that the man that worked for me committed this crime. He wasn’t interested in justice, he was only interested in pursuing me. I later found out that the same prosecutor had been looking into my affair since 2010, trying to find something on me. So he went along with the story of I told my employee to commit the crime. Even if that had been true, which it was not the prosecutor knew without a doubt that my employee had committed the crime, but chose not to charge him with anything. That was not justice. It was something else, and cheated throughout the whole process because they wanted a win. They needed a win. I prevailed in civil courts over their buddies, man go into civil court, like how much did that cost the dude?

Larry 26:42
Plenty. Yeah. And say he would have been one of like a normal citizen, who had been law abiding, paying his taxes, he would have had no reason to believe that prosecutors would lie, he would have no reason to believe that he would have believed as justifiably, your neighbors that you get mad at, would believe that the police are overworked, short staffed, and that the criminals have all the advantages. That’s what you’ve heard, it has been pounded into you. You would never fathom anything like this, it even when we start talking today about maybe reducing some of the resources, they quickly twist that into D funding. And we’re gonna let a tidal wave of crime loose on the country. And that scares people to death. And it would scare anybody if you didn’t know any of this stuff. And he would had no reason to double just because all he was doing work in taxes, paying taxes, trying to get ahead.

Andy 27:36
And then so the second quote, looking back, I also realized the value of creating a working environment that encourages teamwork fairplay and maintaining a healthy respect for the rule of law. It was my naive belief that these ideas were understood by all that they were displayed inactions in our daily interactions with others, that you don’t have to tell an adult to be fair or respectful or play by the rules. So taking those ideas for granted, it was never an intentional focus. Having gone through this experience, I now realize it has to be a very intentional conversation that is also reduced to policies, procedures, and protocols.

Larry 28:09
And that is so well stated, because I say that all the time. And I, I have carried on battles with colleagues at regardless of whatever business idea I’ve been in, that we need to do the right thing. We need to do the right thing. And they said, How do you do the right thing? I said, Well, you don’t you know, what you’d want done to you. And that’s, that’s how, you know, when you’re doing the right thing. And sometimes you have to push back, you have to push back and say, No, I can’t do that. That isn’t right.

Andy 28:39
Yeah, that there’s a there’s a concept that I only learned post, I call it AP after prison that it’s called the veil of ignorance. So if you the prosecutor would be willing to withstand the scrutiny of what you’re about to go do to that person. And maybe that I think that’s a decent example, just to be willing to, if you don’t get to pick which side of the argument you’re on, you’re going to institute you’re going to fire up this whole machinery of prosecuting someone, would you be willing to be on the receiving side of that, and I’d be willing to bet most prosecutors would not be willing to have all that character slander, and the microscope on their lives the way that gets put forth, and maybe things would go a little bit less aggressive if they considered that mindset.

Larry 29:29
Absolutely. That was addressed in the article he talked about the the perp walk and all the press conferences and stuff that they that they did to him and and again, sometimes you have to say boss, I’m sorry, I can’t do this. This is not right. And believe me,

Andy 29:44
but Larry, if you if you don’t want to if you don’t do the well, if you can’t do the time, don’t do the crime. That’s the expression right. Well, believe me if you do

Larry 29:51
this, your life will not end. You have value as a human being. You will survive this even if They do terminate you, and they might not terminate you that you’re assuming and projecting what they’re going to do. But try standing up and saying, No, I can’t do this. This is not right and see what happens. You might be surprised they might be so in awe that someone cares enough about ethics, they might actually back off and say I had never thought of that.

Andy 30:20
I think you would be on the shortlist to get fired.

Larry 30:24
Well, that has happened, but not for that reason.

Andy 30:30
Okay, let’s move over to the Washington Post. It says Amy Coney Barrett potential not anymore potential Supreme Court nominee wrote an influential ruling on campus sexual assault. This is one of your hot buttons Is this the the due process part of things where people in schools are accused of things and they pretty much guilty just by accusation alone without all the due process and protections for the defense?

Larry 30:56
It is indeed and I think it should be for everyone. I’m, I’m flabbergasted. And people say I’m in denial for like, I can’t understand why anyone who could call themselves a patriotic American, who claims that they believe in the Constitution, how you could believe anything other than what we stand for. As a nation, we stand for their presumption of innocence, we stand for the burden of proof being on the prosecution, we stand for the accused not having to take the stand or prove anything. And we we we These are our These are our central values in America. And this case, I pulled it today, I was not aware of it, I read it. I read it with some diligence, it’s 30 pages, it’s in the show notes. And I can’t find anything whatsoever wrong with what judge Barrett wrote, or the analysis of the three judge panel, it is absolutely completely spot on every point. So so to those out there who think that I have an axe to grind. I know you’re out there. I don’t see anything wrong with this decision that having said that, there are a whole lot of decisions that I don’t have any knowing about work what she has, has written. But this isn’t one where she deserves any condemnation. This is spot on.

Andy 32:22
And this is about the men in these trials being discriminated against, and siding just with the woman, the female, most likely the female, because I probably doesn’t always end up that way. But somebody makes the accusation. And then the dude is just automatically guilty, probably restricted from individual classes, if not restricted from the entire campus.

Larry 32:44
That is correct. This was Purdue University. And this this was was was a case where there had been a romantic relationship. And this heightened awareness of assault, campus assault, and the directive from the Obama administration to to make it so that we can find more validation of and find more support for what everybody knows is happening and just rapidly on campus, which there probably is some truth is that I’ve been around campuses enough to know all the party and the people in a drunken stupor. But what they did, I mean, when your drunken stupor, you can’t be you can’t be totally at yourself in terms of your behavior. That doesn’t excuse your behavior. But people do crazy stuff when they’re drinking. But this case through this case, didn’t come close to anything that resembled due process. Will you read through this, you would be shocked at this could happen in America. They did not let the guy have the the the statement until the day of the hearing. He didn’t have any chance to prepare any witnesses to call a rebuttal. Two of the three on the panel said they had didn’t need to hear from him that they had read the complaint that they already knew where they were going. Now this is based on what he said his complaint and since the federal court below, dismissed it, summarily without a hearing. The appellate court can only review his complaint as if everything he said was true. But they they they didn’t give him anything that would approximate any type of due process. He had a witness to call they would they want to hear from the witness. They did not allow. They didn’t even need to allow her to come to the hearing. They said that that her statement was sufficient. So he wasn’t able to have any type of confrontation. He was he was denied a continuation of his education. He was kicked out of the ROTC based on the finding of the university which they held that he that there was that there was a substantial evidence that clearing clear and convincing offer at what level evidence but they found that there was enough evidence, and they they they they found him essentially guilty and their kangaroo court and then he got booted out the artists CC, they banned him from campus for a year. Until he until he got and like I say this, this is they go right down through the legal analysis. They go through the standards. Though one of his claims about the well established to have to have a qualified immunity, qualified immunity exist unless there is is clearly established precedent. And he and he he was he was trying to strip qualified immunity. And they denied that they said that that one of these precedents was not clearly established, therefore, it wouldn’t have been done. But I looked through this, and I can’t find any reason if you’re evaluating her on this decision alone. You cannot find fault with this, unless you believe that a person is not entitled to due process, that they’re not entitled to the presumption of innocence. If they’re not entitled to confront anybody Did you can script them off their privileges of their education? If you believe in that, then this decision is exactly what you would like. But that’s not the America that I that I want to live in.

Andy 36:04
Yeah. Can you remind me of the different levels of evidence? And like you clear, convincing, you just said or reasonable doubt? Can you quickly run through those just as a reminder for folks?

Larry 36:14
Well, it’s preponderance of the so what I was looking for, which is tipping the scale slightly more than 50%, they found by preponderance of the evidence,

Andy 36:21
okay, and then you also use clear and convincing,

Larry 36:25
clear and convincing as the next level of stronger evidence and then to beyond a reasonable doubt is the as for criminal proceeding, where they’re actually going to be suffered criminal penalties, he was not suffering a criminal penalty here, this was this was this was not going to be his punishment, this in terms of a period of incarceration or anything like that this was to determine how the campus would respond. And the capitalists decided that the best thing to do would be distressed about his education. Like say, if, if this is all you’ve got, then you need to come up with something else because this, isn’t it.

Andy 37:01
I do understand. And so those show notes that that case will be in the show notes as well. Let’s move over to another article from the Washington Post. It says Kentucky GOP lawmaker indicted on assault accused of strangling woman with an ethernet cable. That sounds pretty harsh, Larry.

Larry 37:21
Why? Well, because it blends right into what we just talked about. Okay, there’s all there’s all these shrill demands that he resigned. But the only problem is, he has been convicted of anything. Now, let’s be clear, he’s a republican. And it doesn’t change the analysis at all. He’s entitled to the presumption of innocence. And that presumption follows him through the duration of this proceeding until he decides either changes plead guilty, or until a court finds him guilty. If he chooses to remain in office and present himself for reelection if he’s up for reelection right now. I didn’t get that deep into it. But if he is that’s for the voters to decide. But he should not be forced to resign because of these accusations. Now, there is some irony he he was a big proponent of the strangulation bill, which is part of what is causing him problems now because he’s being charged under that the the criminal justice victims advocates are are trying to expand the definition of what constitutes strangulation and they want it to be so loose that if anybody gets near your throat, this is an attempted strangulation. It’s kind of like the thing with with it with the with the human trafficking. If you define everything as human trafficking, that’s that’s what they’re trying to do with strangulation. Well, yeah, we didn’t fall for that here. They came to with their with their language. And to the credit, our legislature scrapped their language, and they actually designed something that approximates a real strangulation. Yeah, but but that that’s not what they want. Because strangulation is serious and it is serious. If you’re being deprived of oxygen. It’s very serious.

Andy 39:04
But it doesn’t take long for that to end.

Larry 39:05
Yes, it can be very dangerous in a very short period of time. So I’m not minimizing strangulation, but you don’t call it strangulation, just because you want to subject a person to a more severe penalty. If they if they if they if they hold a scarf, and they hold it in front of you, and say, You better do what I tell you, or else they haven’t strangled you. nor have they attempted to.

Andy 39:29
Well, I’ve heard that used with, uh, with kidnapping It was like, get in the car. Well, no, now you’ve already attempted kidnapping because you forcefully demanded someone move from their current location. So

Larry 39:41
well, I have this strange, crazy belief that if you’re going to call something strangulation, there ought to be some strangulation happening.

Andy 39:50
Suppose you’re not successful at it and and you were thwarted in your attempts.

Larry 39:55
But But I would like to see that there actually. So my tip to strangle this To disregulation words or words are not enough. I would like to have all the money that there is in the banks on the weekends. But that doesn’t make me guilty. That doesn’t make me guilty of

Unknown Speaker 40:12
bank robbery. Man, I was in with you on that plan.

Andy 40:17
Wait, how can we execute on this? Do we need any help from anybody?

Unknown Speaker 40:21
But

Larry 40:22
But anyway, that’s the point of this is that he is innocent in the eyes of the law, don’t lose sight of that. It’s our burden as the prosecution to show that he is not innocent. It’s not for us to conjecture. He can decide to plead guilty if he chooses to, he can decide to do what article above and he can go to trial and see what happens now. He wanted to weaken the evidentiary standard and prove it would be sad if it actually comes back to bite him. His all work comes back to bite him, but he is entitled to nothing less, and it doesn’t change one iota according to his political party.

Andy 41:02
And I don’t think you touched on this. He’s accused of doing this more than a decade ago. I don’t know what the statute of limitations would be on this type of thing in Kentucky, but it might have already passed that. So this is just another hit job sort of like the Oh God, Roy Moore in Alabama from 40 years ago, or whatever.

Larry 41:21
I didn’t even pick up on that.

Andy 41:23
I just happen to be scrolling through and saw that.

Larry 41:25
Well, that’s why that’s why you get paid the big bucks.

Andy 41:29
Yeah, I guess so. I guess so. Is there anything else before we move on to RBG?

Larry 41:36
No, I think we can move on. We’re we’re making good time. We’ll be out of here before you know it

Andy 41:40
before you know and until we get to the one that’s gonna like train wreck this whole thing. So this is from the Marshall project, and this is RBG is a mixed record on race and criminal justice. The subtitle is Ruth Bader Ginsburg was a revered feminist icon, her legacy on issues such as prisoners rights, capital, punishment, racial justice, and tribal sovereignty has been less examined. And you put this in here. Why?

Larry 42:05
Well, I think that the my main motivation was that that her original point, but was there was some vilification of that she was a liberal ACLU, do gooder, and she’s been characterized as a liberal. This is a very, very long read, and I would encourage people to read it when you read it you’ll find out that is a jurist she wasn’t nearly as liberal as what you would like to think she she was just truly wasn’t on on something she was a little bit on the conservative side. So I’ll go through these. And the takeaway is that you’re not going to agree with was with a justice on all issues. You don’t agree with your wife unless you’re Andy, on everything, but but your your

Andy 42:52
smart move, man, I’m telling you, it’s just a smile.

Larry 42:57
But, but you’re not gonna agree with them on everything. But some of the vilification and the shrill criticism that you’re hearing, in the case of Coney Barrett, maybe overdrawn dramatization, and what you’ve heard about how horrible who’s Bader Ginsburg, and how horrible the liberal wing of the court is, you may be getting a false narrative, because looking through this, she just really wasn’t all that liberal on a lot of things.

Andy 43:27
Which I think you could also then transpose that to say that maybe Amy Coney Barrett wouldn’t be as conservative on all things.

Larry 43:35
That’s where I’m headed with that, that what we, what we are hearing may be a hit job, and it may be accurate. But I’ve lived long enough I remember the anxiety that unelected President Ford went through when he appointed john paul stevens, to succeed to liberal Justice William O. Douglas, who was a liberal, unquestionably a liberal. When, when when when Ford was given that appointment, which the Democratic Party did not attempt to stop him from having even though he was never elected president, or vice president, he was given that appointment, and he turned out to be a verified justice. And in fact, he turned out to be more more of a liberal than anybody ever imagined. Is it possible that the same thing could happen here? Sure. It’s possible.

Unknown Speaker 44:27
Absolutely. is.

Andy 44:29
Yeah, we talked about pretty regularly of looking at someone in their totality. And and I know that the abortion debate is is something that will always poison the well and like, you just have to stop on that thing. But you would try and gather as much information as you could on their history, what they have said publicly at speeches or how they what their actual voting record is, and you know, you have a pros and cons column. Maybe they vote this way for this and this is something that you’re in favor of and they To go against you, and they vote in favor of this different thing, but that doesn’t go along with what you believe that that takes a lot of work, Larry, maybe we need someone to help us actually do that. So we could just be pushed button voters?

Larry 45:13
Well, unfortunately, on this way, I don’t really want to have an abortion debate on the on the podcast, but there are no numbers out there. There’s a strong base on the conservative side that that that analysis you’re talking about, they’re not willing to do. That is the issue for them. Yeah, they, they do not care about anything else, because to them, if you’re on the wrong side of abortion, I don’t want to hear more. I don’t hear any more, I don’t care if you were me the right side of 80% of what I believe in, if you’re not against abortion, you don’t deserve it. That’s just that’s just the reality. And, and we’re not gonna be able to change that, that those those voters are going to go to the polls November, thinking that they’ve got a staunch anti abortion, don’t think that they’re missing, the only thing that they’re missing. And this is that even though she may be that may be her personal opinion, she may be able to separate her personal opinion from the reality of what the Constitution has been interpreted. And the fact that it’s that interpretation has been around for approximately 50 years now. And, and she may, she may disappoint you, just like judge Justice Roberts has disappointed so many people. She may she may come as a surprise to you that her personal belief may not decide maybe how does she decides the case when the inevitable abortion question is presented to the court and it will be they will accelerate every cert petition that can be imagined on anything related to abortion, they’re going to file those because in their mind, they’ve got a six to three solid majority after this confirmation is complete. And this is going to end Rowan Roe versus Wade once and for all. And that’s what they want to see happen.

Andy 46:59
here Yeah, um, let’s see here. Again, this is Marshall project always writes like, almost like Atlantic level length articles. It is a long one, if you want to get a pretty deep insight into RPGs.

Larry 47:16
History. You might you might find she she wasn’t as liberal as she is all

Andy 47:23
ready to be a part of registry matters, get links at registry matters.co. If you need to be all discreet about it, contact them by email registry matters cast@gmail.com you can call or text a ransom message to 747274477 want to support registry matters on a monthly basis to patreon.com slash registry matters. Not ready to become a patron, give a five star review at Apple podcasts or Stitcher or tell your buddies at 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 moving on I will play this clip. And then we will talk about

Larry 48:17
well, let’s set it let’s set it up before we play the clip. This confirmation process predicted would not happen I was clearly wrong, it is going to happen. It’s going to happen over apparently what if you can believe polling data is over the objection of the American people that that a strong majority feel that there should not be a confirmation. I don’t recollect that it’s ever happened this close to the election. I know that in 2016. In February, it was too close to the election. And I know that that’s changed as far as the hypocrisy of those who are making decisions. Now. The standard they said in 2016 installed over the standard now. But that being said, it is going to likely happen. They’re going to accelerate all the processes and they’ve set it up because Amy will be someone who has been previously been vetted. So they don’t have to do they don’t have to do as much vetting. And

Andy 49:12
just two years ago, she got put on the federal bench.

Larry 49:14
Yeah, she so that’s gonna, that’s going to cut out some of the stuff that would normally have had to do. But there are going to be there’s going to be deep emotional, it’s going to scar the country again, we’re gonna have we’re gonna have division. And the reason why I put this clip in here because again, it’s almost 50 years old. And it was from a president who left office, recognizing how great the country is and how we should put pettiness aside, those who win this, this confirmation, they’re going to be happy. And those who feel their voices weren’t heard. They feel that rules were changed. They’re going to be very angry. I would not be surprised to see protest. I wouldn’t be surprised to maybe even see some violence and I hope that it Doesn’t happen, but it wouldn’t surprise me. But I would encourage you to, don’t do that don’t hate the people personally don’t wish ill to them as far as bad things happen to them, their personal safety, register your resentment against them at the polls, your senator in Kentucky is up for election. He’s the one who’s changed the rules. That is what you do. And that’s why I have this clip here. Rather than being hurt and violent, just remember what President Nixon said on his final day in office, they said to a staff, this is a very short clip. Always give your best. Never get discouraged. Never be petty.

Unknown Speaker 50:51
Always remember, others may hate you.

Unknown Speaker 50:56
Those who hate you don’t win, unless you hate them.

Unknown Speaker 51:02
And then you destroy yourself.

Unknown Speaker 51:05
Very short clip,

Larry 51:07
the less the less don’t destroy ourselves over this. Let’s Let’s do our best. And those who are happy will will rejoice at those who are hurt about what happens. Let’s do our best to change the trajectory of going forward. And you can do that at the polls. You’ve got one third of the United States Senate up for reelection. And you’ve got a presidential election. And this is where in America, we do our expression of dissatisfaction. We don’t burn things. We don’t engage in violence. We we don’t even we shouldn’t even hate people who we disagree with. We should change those who are there in those positions. That’s what I encourage people to do.

Andy 51:57
And where we’re coming from on this is an article from the New York Times that talks about the Supreme Court how it’s usually how a Supreme Court justice is usually appointed, that it usually takes many months. And even with that, maybe they don’t get it done. By the time of Election Day, there’s still a very comfortable amount of time before Inauguration Day. Takes normally like 70 or 80 ish days, somewhere like close to the three month range. We’re definitely three months away from Inauguration Day. And as you’ve been pointing out, your president for exactly how long?

Larry 52:29
Well, unless your name is Obama, your president for the entire term. But But this, this is correct. Now, generally, in a lame duck session, you would not do anything this controversial, because some of these people will not be reelected. Some will, but some won’t. So normally a lame duck session, you’re you do cleanup legislation, you finalize things that must be done before before the new Congress comes in. But there would be the potential to come back and finish this process in the lame duck. But under the McConnell, Graham rules, this would not have been done because they said, unequivocally we played clips, there’s no need to go through that. They said that in a presidential election year, the American people should be allowed to weigh in. And the American people are not being allowed to weigh in on this. And that’s really disappointing because they you don’t know how to play the game if the rules constantly change. And the rules changed in a very short period of time.

Unknown Speaker 53:32
Why do you say mark and people?

Larry 53:35
Because that’s the way I’ve heard that people that are pushing for this pronounce it?

Andy 53:40
I’m pretty sure that’s how McConnell actually says, I ended up with a pretty long conversation, I wasn’t really in the mood to like, keep going about it. He pointed to all kinds of differences, like they have the power to do it. Therefore they did it with the advice and consent, blah, blah, blah. Obama did the nomination. He did his duty. And then the Senate had the privilege, I guess you could say they had the authority to then go. Now, we don’t like that person, and they didn’t do anything with it. Here. They are in agreement with the person that has been nominated this go round, and they’re gonna go everything through, like they’re within their authority, power, whatever. They’re like, they’re justified in doing this the way that they did to are doing it and did it. I think that’s what the person’s arguments were.

Larry 54:28
Well, the only problem with that logic was that they did not give the person even a hearing. They did not even let them make the rounds on the capital. To give them the consideration. I think he was allowed into the capital efforts nomination, but the normal meetings that they have, and the normal, the normal processes weren’t followed. You can’t give advice and consent if you refuse to consider the person that’s that’s not really advice and consent. And that was just obstructionism. And I know that they’re trying really hard. To explain it, and they they try to date they’ve come up with a theory that, that if the Senate and the President have the same party, then the seat doesn’t belong to the American people that point. But basically, the whole doctrine of blaming the American people will still need to start with, because the American people and trusted to play this president was four years, as in another four years. And that seat opened up early in the final year, but there was almost a year left of the presidency almost a complete year, 11 months left. And they hold that they pull that out of there. You know what, that didn’t bother the American people, the American people had already decided when they voted that that that was one of the things that the President would be nominating supreme court justices should any open. That was a seat that they fall. By all actuality they did not. That was not a seat that should have been held, held open. Now, if an unqualified nominee had been put forward, and they had done the vetting, and the votes weren’t there, that would be another whole different situation. They could have held hearings and said, Well, sorry, you should have a vote.

Andy 56:07
Right? Because, I mean, they held the majority in 16, at the time that this happened, and

Larry 56:12
that is correct. And but but say they would had a hard time that he was already sitting on the DC Court of Appeals, and a well respected jurist, they would have had a hard time voting about so that he says chicken cop out way was to never have a vote because it would be very hard. But it’s the same position I’ve got now, because they’ve got a person sitting on the Seventh Circuit, who’s been vetted just very recently. And so now you have to take an ad to 14 or whatever it was at 216. Confirmation, which obviously included some Democrats, significant number of Democrats. Now you’ve got to turn around and say, well, we were wrong. She’s not fit for federal judiciary, that’s not gonna happen. Is that that, that would have happened what Merrick Garland? That’s the reason why they didn’t have the vote.

Andy 56:55
Of course, of course, of course. Anything else?

Larry 57:00
I think we’ve beat that to death.

Andy 57:03
Very good. Um, and now that I try and pull it up, Larry, I tried to pull up just as we were doing pre show, there was a there was a subreddit that I follow, it’s called s support. I don’t like using the actual full term of sex offender. But so it’s so support has 1600 members, and somebody decided to pop in there, I think it was roughly yesterday, and call it out a particular politician in New York and sit and just sit like, very, very nasty, like, I hate this person, this person should die because they made so laws worse for our people. And I also want to like counter that with over on the the norsok connection site, the social media platform, want to give that a little bit of a plug, if you’re not on there, you head over there. I posted like a positive quote from the former governor. And right. There was a quote from the governor about the it just it was just a positive affirmation kind of question or a statement. And so somebody immediately writes back he’s like, I don’t like him because he signed the the tougher sex offender laws. And I was like, well, we are the ones that vote for the politicians, like the governor, or the politician directly, didn’t do it on their own. And I got cussed out and all this stuff after all this, and I wanted you to explain it in a very educated sense on how these things go about getting all the way to the governor or the President’s deselect IML. How do we go from someone making the claim to make these laws tougher or less tough and go through that process where like, this person’s calling out this particular one politician for doing the bad thing?

Larry 58:47
Well, it’s a conversation that we’ll have relentlessly repeatedly because people mistake the veto power. And theoretically, a veto power does exist. But a veto a veto is not realistic to expect when something passes unanimously or close to unanimously because generally the override margin margin is two thirds. And if it passes unanimously, you can clearly see that two thirds is less than unanimous, right? Yes. Okay. So what you’re dealing with when you have something passed unanimously, or close to unanimously as something where a veto would be futile. And yes, you do possess the power. So we can go through President Clinton could have vetoed the the the Megan’s Law in 94. President Bush could have he possessed the power in 2016 to veto the Adam Walsh Act. And President Obama has possessed the power to veto international Megan’s Law. You could you could move any of those presidents to any of those different errors and it wouldn’t have changed anything. You could put Obama In place of Clinton or bush in place of Clinton, and they will sign those because they come to them. As far as the President is concerned. That’s one of the few things when you get something where there’s your nearly unanimous support. And it comes to them as far as they’re concerned. at first blush, there’s no problem with it. Because when the people’s representatives conclude that there’s no reason to oppose something that gives an executive of heart palpitations, well, I get to sign something where there’s almost unanimous agreement. So you don’t you don’t spend the same amount of diligence looking at something to take an animal’s consent. I mean, just think about that. When it goes to the executive desk, the tallies, they’re looking at the executive, it passed unanimously, oh, well, it must be pretty good stuff. And then, even if someone tells you Well, there is actually a miss presence is actually a couple problems in here. That caused some consternation, but ultimately, they were disregarded, then the president or the chief executive has to do a calculation of do I want to try to muster the support for a veto to sustain my veto veto is worthless, and it’s going to be overwritten. So when you do a veto, when you issue a veto, what you’re doing is you’re standing in the way, you’re standing between the American people, the citizens of Georgia, whatever state and and what they have decided that they want, as a matter of public policy, a you’re saying is the ultimate check and balance, I am going to stand in the way of this because I know best. And you don’t want your veto to be overridden. At that point, you go looking for votes, because you you’re trying to prevent the supermajority from materializing. And when you go looking for those votes, trying to find them becomes increasingly difficult depending on what the issue is. Because you automatically have to write off the opposing party. If you’re a democratic president, you’re not going to generally find a lot of Republican votes to suppose to sustain your veto. Because it’s it for the opposing party. It’s a way of weakening the executive power. If you can override the executive on this, what else can we override the executive? Well, so So you’ve just admitted your your your your pool for how to get to that one third plus one, you’ve diminished it by 50% right away, because you’re not going to likely get in from the opposing party, then you have to lean within your own caucus, to try to find one third, knowing that the other side is going to vilify them. And that’s a tough sell. Because something like international Megan’s Law, Sunday, like being tougher on sex offenders, the opposing party is not going to just stand down and say all go Ella President feel pretty strongly about that. So we’ll just keep that kind of low key, but forget all about the DeVito that they’re not going to do that. And just go become a very significant campaign issue. And it’s just not realistic to expect a veto on this type of thing. So the lesson in it is you can’t allow it to get to the executive. If it gets to the executive, it’s too late. It’s going to be sign. And I challenge anyone out there to show me a significant piece of criminal justice legislation that got vetoed. And any state that that would have a crackdown, now you can show me some where it would have made things better, but showed me something where they were increasing penalties, or prison sentences, that got vetoed, and you’re going to be hard pressed to find it, it just, it just doesn’t happen. because realistically, that’s going to be politically devastating to veto that. The governor, he was a Republican, it got his desk, he was gonna sign it. If it had gotten to Jerry Brown’s desk, he would have signed it.

Andy 1:03:45
Sure. And, and my whole point was, is that uh, these things don’t happen in isolation, the person, the government, or any anybody, any politician that is under the gun for these things, the public is superduper in favor of these things, they because it makes them feel better, regardless of what the recidivism rate regardless of if it’s effective or not, the public is in favor of these things. Then, then they’re going if that person wants to be reelected, Next go around, then they had they have to support it. I mean, maybe not that one issue would sink their ship, but I mean, it could because then then you end up with all the attack ads from the other sides, oh, this person was not in favor of making the lives of the pfrs worse. They don’t there’s no political cover for them on this issue. So you would have to use all the back channel kind of polityki things that you talked about, to to thwart these things from getting to a vote on the floor to get to the executive desk.

Larry 1:04:46
That is correct and and when you say the vilification let’s be clear the vilification normally comes from the conservative side. Again, I issue a challenge. Show me a democrat who is vilifying a Republican. Criminal Justice, positive reform, and we will call that person out on this program. It just doesn’t happen that they do vilify republicans for other things. I’m not saying that they’re that they’re purist but driven snow. But on criminal justice reform. It is a one sided vilification. It’s the republicans and the conservatives who vilify the Liberal Democrats for wanting to turn loose the tidal wave of crime. We can’t fix that problem if we don’t admit that it exists. And I strongly believe that if you are in denial about what the problem is, you really can’t come to a solution. The problem is on criminal justice reform as what happened in the first step back, the conservative Republicans led by Senator Tom Cotton, watered down the first step back. That is the reality of what happened. It’s not me attacking Tom Cotton. I’m just simply telling you what he did.

Unknown Speaker 1:05:57
So

Andy 1:06:00
any anything else? Before we move on? I think I think we’ve covered that pretty well.

Larry 1:06:05
So yes, I don’t think that justification of Governor Schwarzenegger is fair at all. And we’ll see if we’ll see if the computer can understand sports and agar and spell it.

Andy 1:06:18
I bet it does. I’ve totally bet that the the transcription will will pick up Schwarzenegger. And just to take one time, I don’t have a question that you said for the girls question. I don’t have it anywhere.

Larry 1:06:29
Okay, well, I do. Okay, so this, this is a PDF

Andy 1:06:34
of it. I don’t see it in the in the show notes. Oh, oh, that question. Nevermind, I know what question you’re talking about. Oh, so Okay, nevermind. So one of our patrons, a long, long, long, long, long time patron, send an email about I don’t I don’t want to divulge too much information about someone close to her, trying to figure out where to begin trying to like some removal from the registry, becoming an advocate, and so forth. And I asked you to try and address this as much as you can. Now and talk about

Larry 1:07:05
it. I agree. I don’t want to I don’t want to divulge too much. But there is a potential of the registration, because some states still have a process. And what has to be done is that did an individual analysis has to be done. on that particular person’s offenses, for example, he already reached out to Colorado attorney. And the Colorado attorney said no. And I’m guessing that probably because there might have been more than one count. In Colorado, the registration is only available if you have one count, not one, not one conviction, but multiple accounts, but just one count. I’m guessing there was more than one count in that conviction. But, but now that the person is off supervision, there would be that potential that we try not to engage in state shopping on the air, because that would be devastating to the state. But on the other hand, the processes that are out there do exist, and people who are shopping for a legal representation. They deserve the best representation they can get. And if we can help them find the best representation they can get. That is all the better for as far as I’m concerned. But I don’t know enough at this point to give any advice other than I would, I promise I will reach out and get more information in the coming week or so. And we’ll talk about it. But yes, if there might be a way off the registry, and I certainly don’t see who would would want to be able to register it they don’t have to be

Andy 1:08:35
I think I would like to stay on it just indefinitely just because it feels fun.

Larry 1:08:40
Well, and but but everybody please understand. All these the state that releases you from registration can release you from their obligations. If you leave that sanctuary, you could find yourself back on the registry. And and that is just so hard for people to comprehend. Like, like, I get emails all the time. And I say all the time, that’s like an exaggeration, but I get regular emails about I don’t understand I got off the register this state and now back, or I think I’m gonna have to be back in Yes, that is absolutely true, you may find yourself back.

Andy 1:09:14
And just because of the way the language is if you’ve ever been convicted of a whatever, wherever it doesn’t matter, you will be registering here,

Larry 1:09:21
that is correct. Or as it might be this your work there look back period of so long, that it might encompass your conviction, we’ve got states go back to the 1950s 60s and 70s. And so it may not be has ever but it may be effectively has ever been convicted because your your crime occurred in the last 40 years. And and that could that could catch catch you or if you have if you’ve ever had a duty to register. There’s just all sorts of things that can trip you up and having to register again. So So my advice to you, if you’re going to state shop, find a state that you can actually stay in for the rest of your days. Otherwise you’re wasting your money if you’re trying had to go state shop to get off the registry thinking you can end up somewhere else. It doesn’t work that way.

Andy 1:10:08
Okay. Well, so Larry, very exciting. We we got two new patrons this week. And that is James and Christopher, which I’m super excited about to get to more, we’re getting close to that 1000 person threshold that we’ve been trying to achieve for so long.

Larry 1:10:25
Is that right? 1000?

Andy 1:10:27
Yes. That that? Well, I mean, you know, whatever pick pick whatever number we’re trying to reach. 1000 is one of the thresholds we would try to reach. Do you agree with that?

Larry 1:10:35
I agree. But we’ve got a long ways to go.

Andy 1:10:39
Yes, we do. But also, Christopher wrote an incredibly, incredibly nice message that I asked permission to read because maybe, I don’t anyway, didn’t want to call a person out for giving too much information. But since I have needed to travel a lot for work driving many, many hours. I have been binge listening to your show, and they are incredible. Sometimes it makes me want to add another hundred miles to my trip, which is kind of funny on its own to drive an extra hundred miles just to listen to me and Larry banter. But with 2 million people plus directly and indirectly involved in the registry, this podcast could and should be a unifying force with great numbers. I will try and help spread the word. As time goes on, I hope to raise my monthly contribution as cost towards other things in my life begin to wane. Larry has an incredible grasp and articulation of the legal machinations regarding this ridiculous sex offense laws. And his banter with Andy makes her very compelling listening. Lady, please keep up the great work. Christopher, thank you. Thank you. Thank you a million times over. Thank you for that. That’s super sweet, that will probably end up on the website as a testimony. And again, I appreciate it very much.

Larry 1:11:41
That was very, very kind and keep us informed when he raises his donation because he’s already at 1000.

Andy 1:11:50
Yes, absolutely. Yeah. He’s totally like turning the lights on. And you’re getting ready to quit your day job because of the contribution.

Larry 1:11:57
And we had to preach. So I really don’t know how much people I don’t use the names of patrons, but I never scour the list. If your patrons fantastic, anywhere from any level that you’re supporting us. It’s just touching. So I generally don’t know how much anyone’s giving.

Andy 1:12:15
I know it’s it’s it’s, it’s it’s it’s wonderful. It’s very nice. It’s a stress reliever, I guess. But it is we’re trying to reach as many people as possible, but we definitely appreciate it and it makes it a it inspires and encourages us to do it that much more and put out a good product.

Larry 1:12:33
Well, there is some work goes into this. Some people go out and party on Saturday, but other people will the same actually spend Saturday working on the show.

Andy 1:12:42
Yes, there’s an immense amount of work that goes into this. I don’t you probably don’t know this, but I spend six ish hours in post production probably.

Larry 1:12:50
I was gonna I was gonna say that on Sunday. It flips after the podcast because I spent more time in prep that you do, but they do spend a lot a lot of time and post show that I don’t have to deal with.

Andy 1:13:01
Yes, I do. I do. I do. But you remember last week, we were talking kind of silly about coming up with names for the the nonprofit entity. I do. And so our super patron Mike came up with with a he, he gave us 12 and somehow 1212 is missing. So he gave us 13. But there’s one missing. And I wanted to read some of them because one of the funniest ones to me is the Center for registration and compliance information. That one really triggers me It says the show, The Andy show featuring the guy from the Lincoln administration. Sir Larry talks a lot. Those are my two favorites. Did you have any that you wanted to highlight?

Larry 1:13:42
They were all funniest for those concerned. We got some creative people out there.

Andy 1:13:47
Yes, we do. fyp Industries for pfrs. Who got screwed. Thank you, Mike. So very much these these things made me laugh. They’re funny. So yeah, we’ve

Larry 1:13:57
we’ve got some creative people. Beyond names. We’ve got some creative people that can put together quite a production. I’m looking forward to when that gets distributed to our patrons. What pot production. I’ve heard of a production of of what what happens when when when you get the knock at the door.

Andy 1:14:18
Oh, oh, that production? Yeah. See this? Larry, we’re supposed to keep that on the download.

Larry 1:14:24
Oh, really? Okay. Well, then let’s

Andy 1:14:25
strike that for the record. Yes, I will. I will remove that. Don’t tell anybody. There may be a little video clip coming out very soon. I think that about wraps it up, Larry. Unless there was something else that we missed, I think.

Larry 1:14:39
Fantastic. I think we’re fitting within our with our page limit, you know, went out of an arbitrary page limit of 16 pages.

Andy 1:14:47
I thought it was 1816 is it 16 Okay. 16 it is? Yeah, we’re I’m sure we’re we have about another five minutes. Do you want to ramble for another five? Nope. Okay. Well, we record the show usually live On Saturday night 7pm Eastern. You know, Larry, I had a conversation with someone yesterday talking about I was going to get together with him on Monday and he’s in the the eastern Texas time. So he’s in Central Time Zone. And he so I said, Can we meet at two? And he goes, Okay, that’s 3pm my time and I was like, no, that’s not and he even like, extended down. He’s like, well, that would be 4pm this time and five, I was like, wait a minute, man you are so it, it would be an hour behind. Anyway, I will continue. patrons can listen to us record the show live. But if you can’t listen live, you can always do so on demand, which is the whole point anyway, to listen on demand. We want to make this available to you at your convenience. And if you do me a favor and subscribe your podcast app, when you subscribe, you’re sending a signal to them that you want this material. And maybe it would suggest things to other people that are listening to similar things. And but you know, we even have a YouTube channel and subscribe there as well. You can also sign up on our email newsletter to get notified when the episodes come out. And you will get this promptly Tuesday morning. And you can find all of that stuff at registry matters.co. Larry,

Larry 1:16:07
phone number 747-227-4477

Andy 1:16:15
I think the email address

Larry 1:16:20
that would be registry matters cast@gmail.com.

Andy 1:16:24
And of course we love all of our listeners and patrons are near and dear to our heart. Where do people go to support the podcast directly?

Larry 1:16:32
That would be patreon.com ptren.com slash registry matters.

Andy 1:16:41
As always, Larry, you’re an abundance of information and I greatly appreciate it and enjoy the time we spend. Thank you very much and have a great weekend. Good night, everybody.

Unknown Speaker 1:16:50
I you’ve been listening to F YP

Listen to RM145: Registration in Wisconsin Requires Annual Payment of $100.00

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 145 of Registry Matters. Larry, I’m telling you, it feels like we’ve been doing this for like an hour already.

Larry 00:23
It does feel like that. I wonder why.

Andy 00:27
I have absolutely no idea. Let’s kind of like just dive right in, that I will, I will start with this. That uh, there’s some breaking news that happened last night. Ruth Bader Ginsburg passed away. If you haven’t heard of this by now, I don’t know where you’re living. She was 87 years old. She was a pretty significant individual on the court. She’s like, became something of a rockstar.

Larry 00:49
That’s what they’ve been saying. I didn’t realize it until the obituaries we started hearing from the news, but apparently that’s the case.

Andy 00:59
Yeah, she she ended up becoming like t shirts, getting set up all kinds of stuff. She was very, very popular individual and an inspiration probably mostly for women to step up and be powerful and accomplished and just as a good role model in general.

Larry 01:17
Yes, it’s it’s sad. Anytime that that anybody who’s served with distinction, which she has, and I kind of wish she would have stepped down sooner. But anyway, it’s sad, her passing, and it opens up a whole bunch of stuff we’re going to talk about in a patron extra today.

Andy 01:34
Yes, good. You want to give a quick synopsis of the 30 or so minute Patreon extra that we just recorded.

Larry 01:39
Well we’re gonna, we actually did talk about the process of replacing the supreme court justice and what it might look like. And we we bring out a lot of comparisons between the situation of ‘16 versus now and the hypocrisy of the Senate leadership compared to where they were in ‘16.

Andy 02:01
Very good. All right. I think we can we can shut down the ticker tape parade going on, and we can jump right into so there was the breaking news of Ruth Bader Ginsburg and we just talked about that. All right, then let’s jump over to an article from the Guardian, which we have two articles, one from the guardian and another one from ABC Action News. That a man spat, Florida man cleared of rape and murder conviction after 37 years in prison. Larry, you’re not telling me that someone was falsely accused and then convicted and spent almost four decades in prison?

Larry 02:35
Yep, that’s what I’m telling you. And the funny thing is he’s not gonna get any money.

Andy 02:39
Wait a minute, so why wouldn’t you get any money after being in prison for that long wrongfully convicted?

Larry 02:47
Well, apparently they have a clean hands rule and it since he has other criminality in his past, you don’t get any money but but that that’s that’s the sad thing about it.

Andy 02:58
You’re saying you do felony jaywalking, and then you commit murder inaccurately, and because you did felony jaywalking, they won’t give you any money for it? Because you already have a record?

Larry 03:09
That’s the way I understood it. Yes.

Andy 03:10
That’s ridiculous. 37 years in prison. That’s not like you spent 300 days in the county jail or something. That’s a long, long ass time.

Larry 03:22
It is we’ve got listeners that are not even 37 years old.

Andy 03:26
That is probably very true. Um, anything else besides this being like ridiculous?

Larry 03:32
That’s the main reason I spotted it. I thought that it’s one of those things where the nuance of the law was that since he had other criminality in his past, he can’t, he can’t receive any compensation.

Andy 03:45
That’s crazy. So he was exonerated based on DNA evidence. See, we’ve like, there, there seems to be an ability for us to collect DNA and then even process DNA, but then getting the DA to use that to potentially overturn someone wrongfully convicted, often seems to be a roadblock.

Larry 04:04
It is and the sad thing is, it shouldn’t be but it is. You’ve got finality as far as the victim is concerned. They’ve gotten their, they’ve gotten their justice. And, and and you you go back and reopen the case, you’re revictimizing them again, to even doubt that that that this conviction is valid. And therefore, the people’s attorneys just vehemently object to going back and first of all, they have to admit that they might have gotten something wrong, then they’ve got to revictimize the victim. And it’s just it’s just standard operating procedure that you try to preserve the conviction. You shouldn’t, but that’s what they do.

Andy 04:45
Yeah, it seems like I feel like we should be interested in justice and accuracy instead of convictions and numbers.

Larry 04:54
Well, what what’s the dangerous thing is that the person, when you have a wrongful convicted person, it means the perpetrator is on the loose and (Andy: Correct.) That’s the real danger. But But you should not never want an innocent person because of the morality of it. But that means that a guilty person is operating freely. And the guilty person may get your loved one next.

Andy 05:17
Right. Yes, I think we’ve talked about now you end up with three people that are in the wrong situation. You end up with the wrongfully convicted person is in the wrong place. The victim, if there was any sense of wholeness and getting justice, like now they don’t have it, and the person is running around free and they should be getting justice.

Larry 05:37
Yep. And, unless the perpetrator may be dead in this case, but but you should never want an innocent person to be incarcerated, because that means the guilty person is still operating freely. And we we certainly wouldn’t want that.

Andy 05:54
Gotcha. Well, all right, then let’s move over to the Marshall project. And this is before election, Trump tries to stack prison sentencing agency with right wing allies. This, this seems complicated to me that he is like he is like the the saving grace of our criminal justice system by signing the First Step Act. What was that maybe even that was probably two years ago Larry. That was that was a while ago.

Larry 06:19
Yeah, he did. He did sign it. And, and he, he deserves credit. Not only did he sign it, he also, he also used the prestige of the White House with Kushner and himself to lean on McConnell, who did not even want to vote. Leader McConnell didn’t want to vote. And so, we got a watered-down version of the First Step Act that had been neutered by a coalition of conservative senators led by Tom Cotton. But to his credit, he signed it. But this is one of those one of those things where you have to watch the totality of what they’re doing. You give them credit for what they have done right. And you illuminate and call them out on what they haven’t done, right because we want them to write those wrongs. And this is one of the things that that is not right along with the seek the maximum penalties with the with the DOJ with the prosecution arm. They have not rescinded their policies to stack charges and to seek the maximum enhancements and to go after people with with the full resources of the US government. And that also determines the length of sentences or whether or not a person is even federally prosecuted. So although he gets credit for that, he gets dinged for… he gets credit for the First Step Act. He gets dinged for not reversing course on the prosecution side. And he gets dinged for wanting to stack the Commission on his waning days of what what could be his waning days, he also could be reelected. But this is a little bit troubling to be on the Sentencing Commission, because the Sentencing Commission is the one who makes the recommendations for the sentencing guidelines, the US sentencing guidelines we’re talking about. And when people say, Well, my son only did this and he got sentenced to 11 years. Well, it’s the sentencing guidelines that rendered that result. And these guidelines are written by people on this commission. They determine the severity level, they determine, they determine how many points you get on the scale. It’s like It’s like this maze of a grid, and they determine the severity level of the offense. They determine what mitigation factors that they’ll award points for. The Sentencing Commission is extremely crucial in terms of the length of federal prison sentences. And you can’t have it both ways. If you truly want reform, and which most of our people say that that they do, then you would need to hold the president accountable, where he’s falling short. Hive him credit where he’s deserved, and call him out where he’s fallen short. He also has executive clemency that he can use it, and it seems like his pattern has been to use it very sparingly. And only for people of a high-profile nature, and where they can put forward those people and say that we’ve done this for Blagojevich, we’ve done this for Joe Arpaio. But as far as the run of the mill clemency, I think his numbers are at an all-time low or close to it in terms of… that that’s another thing, so he needs to be called out on that. But but he also gets credit for citing and helping push the First Step Act.

Andy 09:24
What is the big deal about like cramming these, like there’s something significant here besides just I don’t I there’s some there seems to be something more here, then why is it being rushed? Wouldn’t this be something that sort of just happens throughout the term of a president instead of just trying to push them all through and getting… Would the president try to find people that would be balanced? Or is he just like kowtowing to them, the people that have his attention the most, most donors? Something like that.

Larry 10:02
I don’t really have any insight on who’s getting on the Sentencing Commission and how that process is taking place. I know that that that there seems to be based on this article that there seems to be a rush to get to get more people on the Commission of his choice, of his choosing. It seems like some of these that have been mentioned are not particularly, they’re all prosecution oriented. And I don’t think you’re going to get as much leniency on the sentencing guidelines if you only have people from the prosecution’s side.

Andy 10:35
Okay, then we should probably move over to I think this is Yeah, this is your favorite Article of the night. So this is from The Appeal of Arizona. Man faces eight years in prison for not returning a rental car on time. Come on now, this can’t be. This has got to be something like there’s a whole lot of other stuff that went on also. But they just decided, hey, you missed your your check-in appointment by a couple hours, and they throw them in the slammer for 8 years.

Larry 11:03
I’ve read just the beginning of the week, and I have actually forgotten all the nuances. But you’re right, there were a lot of nuances to what to what he… they spent a lot of resources, as I recall, basically targeting him to make sure that they found him. And they found him with a tiny little bit of drugs, and I don’t know their measurements. So when you when you talk about whether it’s a significant amount, I don’t know how to equate that because you know, what is 4.6 grams of heroin? I don’t know what that means. I don’t know.

Andy 11:32
I think that’s actually a pretty considerable amount.

Larry 11:35
I don’t know what .13 grams of crack and 4.6 grams of heroin, I don’t know if that’s a gallon, or if that’s a little tiny speck on the end of an ink pen that doesn’t mean anything to me. So you’ll have to help me with that. What is .13 grams of crack?

Andy 11:49
Well, that one, I don’t know. I just happen to know somebody that’s into the heroin game. And he told me how much he gets and how much it lasts. And if you said four grams, that sounds like a mountain to me from what he says he uses. And he’s a heavy user.

Larry 12:01
Haha, well, maybe we should have him on the show and we can have him do some explaining of what this stuff means.

Andy 12:09
that would be an amazing episode Larry. I’m telling you. He’s an amazing human being and it would be very entertaining.

Larry 12:16
But yeah, the guy had had a had a criminal history. And apparently, they want to make sure that he goes to jail. And Arizona is notoriously tough. And then we’ve got one of our loyal supporters that’s facing remainder of a 75-year term that had his conviction overturned in federal court, his state of Arizona conviction because the Arizona statute was unconstitutional. And then the circuit court reinstated the conviction. So I mean, they’re they’re tough over there.

Andy 12:48
And that happens to be in Arpaio’s territory. That’s Maricopa County. (Larry: Yep.) That sounds awful. Doesn’t sound like they, like maybe they got rid of Arpaio. But they didn’t replace him with a Krasner. Larry Krasner from, you know, Philadelphia, they didn’t replace him with somebody like that.

Larry 13:05
Apparently not. But But the people, the people. That’s not a particular liberal place. I mean, I’m supposing that that Maricopa County would probably be more liberal than other parts of Arizona, but Arizona is not a liberal state.

Andy 13:20
Yeah, I’m aware. And I guess then over at the New York Times police or prosecutor misconduct is at the root of half of exoneration cases study finds. Hmm, wrongly convicted black defendants are slightly more likely than whites to be victims of misconduct, especially in drug and murder investigations. Like the police are, like maybe not being honest, and maybe covering things up when they’re dealing with citizens and arrests and all that. Is that what this is talking about?

Larry 13:51
Well, it runs the gamut of that of flat out perjury, concealing discovery from the defense side. And using confidential informants that have something to gain to get them to make untrue statements. I mean, it’s bad. And the thing that’s going to have to have happen to change this is the same thing that’s going to happen with police misconduct. Police who engage in misconduct are going to have to be held accountable. Prosecutors who engage in misconduct are going to have to be held accountable. And when we start holding prosecutors accountable, rather than saying they’re immune, for willful misconduct, now they have to be immune for their decisions in terms of their strategy. Whether they choose to prosecute, I mean we can’t second guess that, but when you hide the ball, and you violate the rules of ethics, in particular, a prosecutor’s heightened ethical responsibilities. We have to hold them accountable. It may mean disbarment. It may mean that they lose their law license and I think that that that Duke Lacrosse that’s actually what happened to that that prosecutor. He lost his law license. And, and I think when we take away their livelihood, then they will be a little bit more accountable in terms of what they’ll do to gain a conviction because they’re just simply pandering to the voters. The voters want convictions.

Andy 15:19
Someone in chat just said, it makes me wonder whom really belongs behind bars. And I would then just say, well, we have chosen who is behind bars based on who we vote for.

Larry 15:29
That’s a good analysis. That’s exactly what we’ve done in terms of at least in terms of the state. And that’s in the States, almost all prosecutors are elected. But in the federal system, they’re appointed, but we do like the president who appoints the US Attorney’s, once the Attorney General and then down the line through the, through the through the US Attorney’s offices around the country. But we do choose that. But in the state system, they have to run for reelection, and you just don’t, you don’t generally win a lot of public support by talking about wanting to dismantle the system. Look, look how well that’s playing right now by just reducing funding for the police.

Andy 16:05
Yeah, that’s surely going really well.

Larry 16:07
Do you see the vilification that’s happening?

Andy 16:10
I think we put a little clip on a program here about the phone ringing off the hook.

Larry 16:13
Yeah, and, and that’s only going to get worse as we as these polls continue to tighten, which is what I predicted and it’s happening. They’re going to continue to try to peel off more and more, you would logically, now this is me telling the Republicans what they already know, you’d logically try to make inroads into suburbs, you’re not going to get a whole lot of inroads in the inner cities in urban centers, you’re not going to do that on the Republican side. (Andy: Rural side.) But on the, Oh, you’ve already got that on the rural side, the Republican Party, but I’m talking about republicans trying to pick up votes. You would continue to try to scare the urban dwellers to death, about all this stuff that’s in the urban centers that’s coming out to you. And I’m all that stands between you and an anarchy. And that’s what they’re doing. They’re calling them anarchists. They’re saying that they’re that the Democrat Party wants to defund the police. And it’s amazing they use that term defund when you’re talking about reducing funding. And I want to I want to jump on board with them. And every time conservatives want to cut funding, I want to say so you want to defund that right? Because they have set the rules. This is their standard. If anything is being reduced, it’s defunding. So we need to say to them, okay, so you’re wanting to defund Medicare. Okay, you wanted to defund the VA. You wanted to defund Headstart, you’re wanting to defund school lunches, or whatever it is they want to reduce. You want to defund the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which they actually have been trying to defund that for decades. They have they have tried multiple times to zero out that budget. So that would actually be a defunding.

Andy 17:46
Well, okay, I don’t think there’s anything else there that we need to hit on. And then we have another article from the appeal. I like this one Larry. This is how legislation meant to overhaul probation and parole in Pennsylvania strayed from its roots. The way that I read it is a particular party’s politician introduced a plan to make I think it was like if you have a misdemeanor, you are on supervision for three years, and then it just ends. And if you have a felony, it’s five years, and then it just ends, there’s no, you don’t have to go to court. And then another party went through and watered the whole thing down and took stuff out and made it much more better-er.

Larry 18:26
Well, yeah, and see now I want to try to qualify this. What we try to do is inform voters, and I know that everybody who listens to us, everyone can’t vote, but a lot of people can because they’re off supervision. And they don’t have a felon disenfranchisement for life. And you have spouses, and you have family members. If you believe what you say you do, then I’m trying to help you to understand what’s happening. Now, this is in Pennsylvania. And this is the Appeal, so I’m going off of them so don’t vilify me. But the appeal has done an analysis of an attempt to reform Pennsylvania system, which has one of the highest ratio of people under supervision in the country. And the Democrat Party, a senator named Anthony Williams introduced a piece of legislation that went nowhere for nearly two years. And then, according to the appeal, this is not Larry and Andy. According to the appeal, the the legislation was was introduced in the House by Representative Cheryl Delozier and Jordan Harris, both are republicans and then the committee, House Judiciary Committee Chair Rob Kauffman, who is a republican, they gutted it. Where it actually, according to all the stakeholders who had been behind the democrat bill, oppose it now. That what what has replaced it and they say it actually makes it worse. And if the appeal is accurate, then this is an issue where when you go in that booth to make your decision. If you’re for reform, you can’t honestly vote for these people, if they actually did what was alleged in this article. And that’s what I try to do is let people know that sometimes what you say you’re for is being undermined by the people that you’re voting for. So, all the people in Pennsylvania, just remember that if you do want to cut down on your astronomically large number of people under supervision, then you probably need to change who you’re voting for, because it’s not going to happen under the current regime that you have there.

Andy 20:43
Alright.

Larry 20:45
I like the quote from Representative Delozier. She said that, that the changes were made to quote appease probation officers. Now what she means by that would be that under the system that had been proposed by the Democrat, that that there would be need for fewer probation officers, which would mean there would be a downsizing of the supervision caseload, which would mean there be downsize of the workforce. And anyone will tell you, they want less work, but no one will tell you they want fewer jobs. In particular if they hold that type of job. And so this was done to keep more probation officers employed. Now, but this is being done by the small government people who claim they want to eliminate wasteful spending.

Andy 21:31
I see. Okay. Yep. I understand. Well, Larry, joining us now is a gentleman named Justin, who posed a question to us maybe a month or so ago, and then I guess you got another one on the NARSOL side. And I think I’ll just set this up by reading the question.

Listener Question
Are you people aware that the law regarding registration in Wisconsin that requires payment of a $100 annual fee?Aare we required to pay $100 a year, even while in prison to register in Wisconsin? I’m wondering if I move back to Illinois, will I still have to pay Wisconsin the annual fee? I’m guessing that I would have to pay Illinois or whatever state I register in as well. That seems really absurd to me. Is NARSOL or anyone working on a national registry to replace all this confusion caused by us having to deal with this maze of state by state requirements?

Andy 22:23
Alright. Welcome. Justin, thank you so much for taking the time out of your schedule. And you’re like, almost on a satellite phone in the middle of nowhere.

Justin 22:30
Yes, yes. I’m actually on top of a mountain in Colorado. Leadville, Colorado as a matter of fact,

Andy 22:36
God, I need to be there Larry. Can we make it so that I can record from there? I bet it’s beautiful where you are.

Justin 22:42
Oh, it’s it is absolutely beautiful. It’s blue skies. And right now it’s about 55, 60 degrees. And it’ll be down in around in the 30s tonight.

Andy 22:52
Jeepers. All right. All right. Before I start drooling, then. So what do we have going on?

Larry 22:58
Well, we we’ve got, we’ve got a great question. And that comes up from time to time. And so I thought we’d take a little bit of a deeper dive into it. The the answer to the second part, we can jettison that pretty quick. There is to my knowledge, no organization that’s working on a national registry. And if there was such an organization doing that, it would be doubtful there would be jurisdiction to have a national registry. And the way I’m interpreting national would be that the federal government would run the registry. And I don’t believe that there would be jurisdiction for the federal government to run a registry where the officers and all the administration and everything would be done by the federal government because these, the majority of people who have sexual offense convictions have been convicted under state law. And it’s the states who determine if they’re going to to deal with with registration or not. That’s the reason why we have the Adam Walsh Act to begin with. So the but no one that I’m aware of is pushing for a national registry and that would include NARSOL.

Justin 24:05
Actually, if I can jump in real quick, I was reading on Florida Action Committee, a post about the Attorney General had filed in the federal registry accepting comments for something along the lines of a national registry I believe, or something to that nature anyway. Which is also discouraging. And I will say that the Wisconsin requires you to fill out Annual Registration paperwork. And then in addition to that, there is a $100 fee and being in Florida, I’m obligated to pay the hundred dollar fee. I’ve never paid it. They haven’t pursued anything on the on that front of it. But I’ve always filled out and returned the verification letter that they mailed me. Because if I don’t do that, there could be a criminal charge. Just like if I don’t, you know, in Florida, I have to go and report in person twice a year. If I don’t do that, I’m non-compliant. And I could, you know, face a charge.

Larry 25:16
Okay, so so the question the question has never been debated, about the hundred dollars. That Wisconsin request that they pay, the people living out of state, pay the hundred dollars. So we’re gonna get into tonight is whether they can do that or not. And whether its constitutional, and but yes, that that that has been a repeated complaint we’ve heard and we acknowledge that $100 is assessed and you will continue to receive your bill from Wisconsin. But But what I did is I looked at the case that was provided to me and I remembered it once I read it that I had read it back in 2015. The Circuit Court of Appeals of the United States said that that, that they that that fee was constitutional. And it probably is constitutional. But that’s a separate issue. But the case we’re talking about Mueller, the case from from the Seventh Circuit. I don’t know how to how to pronounce the last word or the last name, but that’s the case we’re talking about. And that is an example of idiotic litigation. To begin with, the people who brought who brought the challenges, brought challenges they would have done them no good had they won, because they were living out of state. And they were subject because to those states’ registration requirements. So the only thing that it would have accomplished for them, would, and they challenged every aspect of registration, they claimed that it was unconstitutional in every way possible. They threw everything but the kitchen sink at it. And when you do litigation, contrary to popular belief, you want to focus on the issues that directly impact you. And the only thing that directly impacted them with Wisconsin’s registry, they didn’t have any proximity restrictions to deal with. They didn’t have any compliance checks to deal with. All they had was an annual letter that said send us $100. That’s not particularly punishment. But they argued that that was punishment, because of costs due to the fine. And fines have always been punishment. Not necessarily. Now a fine generally is punishment. But the the hundred dollars is an administrative fee. And the Court of Appeals said, Well, this is not an exorbitant amount of a fee, compared to the cost of actually tracking the people who are no longer in the state. And that our state has an interest, Wisconsin has an interest, I shouldn’t say our state, but Wisconsin has an interest in tracking people who are no longer in Wisconsin because of the of the satisfaction of knowing where people are. But what this decision does not do is that this does not give Wisconsin jurisdiction to prosecute anybody. If you read the decision, the state stipulated that they had never prosecuted anybody who had who had been non-compliant. And they even came close to stipulating that they didn’t even think they could if they wanted to. Because the prosecutor person in Wisconsin, you have to have a crime that was committed within the boundaries of Wisconsin. And the registration that you’re that you’re doing in Florida has nothing to do with Wisconsin. Wisconsin no longer has jurisdiction over you. So we still don’t have the answer to whether or not there’s jurisdiction. But what I think we’re going to have is we will never get the answer, because two things are going to keep us from getting the answer. First of all, the state is not going to be stupid enough to prosecute anybody who doesn’t send in the form. They’re not going to they’re not going to try to extradite anybody back because the last thing you’d want would be to extradite a sex offender back. That would be as idiotic as anything you could do. What happens if they get stuck there and they start offending there? So, we’ll never get to have an attempt to extradite. But before the person would be brought to trial, the first motion you would file would you would claim that they didn’t break Wisconsin law. That you agreed that they didn’t that they didn’t return the form, but Wisconsin doesn’t have jurisdiction. And contrary to popular belief, that’s not a federal court decision. That’s for the for the state of Wisconsin to determine whether they think they have jurisdiction or not to criminally prosecute someone, and when you’re putting forth a criminal prosecution, you establish the grounding jurisdiction. So your affidavit of probable cause says that on or about this date, that a person did these things within the jurisdiction of this court, and therefore, there’s probable cause to believe they should be prosecuted. And the first thing that any good defense attorney would argue if Wisconsin was stupid enough to try to extradite anybody for not paying the fee is they would say that that they didn’t commit a crime in Wisconsin. That the regulatory fee that the Court of Appeals said is not punishment. Therefore, it can be applied to people retro actively, that still does not give them jurisdiction to prosecute. And only the state court can decide if it has jurisdiction. So, this case does not do what people think it does. It has not answered that question.

Justin 30:12
Can I jump in there real quick? (Larry: Sure.) The question I do have is the form the Annual Registration letter form that they send that I have to, you know, it’s a verification letter that I have to complete sign and send back. It states on there, failure to return that form is a class H or class G or whatever, class felony. So, they’re threatening me, because I’m convicted in Wisconsin, obviously, they’re threatening me that if I fail to reply, or fail to report or send that form back, that I’m now facing a criminal charge. So, wouldn’t that be grounds for filing a charge and extraditing me back to Wisconsin because I failed to report that form back or send that form back?

Larry 31:03
Well, first of all, I’m assuming I’m assuming that they use that form for everybody, including people who live in Wisconsin. And therefore, if you live within the borders of Wisconsin, you would be subject to prosecution, I don’t think they have a special form for out of state residents. But just because the form says it doesn’t make it so. For a prosecution to be successful, there would have to be a prosecutor willing to seek an arrest. And that process means an affidavit of probable cause, taken before a judicial official, a state judicial official, because this would be a state prosecution. And the state judicial official saying yes, I agree, there’s probable cause. And then they put out an extradition. Whether they will pick this person up in their state or the surrounding states, they have levels of extradition. So they would put level one level two, or nationwide, or even outside the United States if they want you bad enough. But you’d have to find someone who could overcome the stupidity of why you wouldn’t want to bring a sex offender back, number one, you’d have to get a judge to agree there’s probable cause that a crime has occurred in Wisconsin where the court has jurisdiction, you would have to have willingness to extradite a person to expend those funds. And then you would face an immediate motion to dismiss because that would be the first motion that I would make is that there’s been a law broken in Wisconsin. Wisconsin cannot continue to impose registration. Now, having said that, if you took your vehicle from one state and you move to another state, and the previous state continued to send you a bill and say you need to pay it, would you pay that? Of course not, you wouldn’t pay that. But if they sent you the bill, and you paid it, and you continue to pay it, I’m sure they’d be happy to collect your money. And they would tell you, my goodness, why keep registering their car here? Our citizens would like to know, if we have some border cities that straddle each other, we’d like to know where that car is so we can keep track of it. But just because Wisconsin wants the money doesn’t mean that they actually have the jurisdictional hook to get the money.

Justin 33:03
Correct. And then another valid point that I saw in that decision by the seventh district, that it spells out the fact that in Wisconsin’s legislature in the statute for registration, it says if you live out of state, you’re required to report and register with the state that you live in. So what they’re doing, what they essentially are doing with me is redundancy. They’re, you know, in that decision, they they went in to say the judges or the judge panel or whatever, went in to say that they if a person or a registrant lives over the Wisconsin border in Illinois or Iowa or Minnesota or whatever, that they want to know that. Well, that isn’t that the point that they’re, the Wisconsin law says that I’m obligated to report to Florida. So, I’m already on a registry. I’m already it’s already public information where I live. So why do I have to have anything to do with Wisconsin?

Larry 34:16
Well, in my opinion, and my opinion alone, I don’t think you have to have anything to Wisconsin. I think that you could ignore the letters and I don’t think anything would happen. But that’s just my personal opinion. But I’m sure they’ll keep taking your hundred dollars as long as you’re willing to send it. And what they would argue is that their registrants in Wisconsin, Wisconsinites don’t go to Iowa and all these other state’s registries, so they just want to look at the Wisconsin registry, and they won’t know what happened to you. So therefore, we need to keep that up to date. But you could tell them in response to that, well, you can use the other states’ registry, and you can you can track it that way. You can you can check with them, but but I ain’t sending you nothing. And I can tell you unequivocally, if I had a conviction in Wisconsin, and I’m speaking for myself, I would not send any form to them nor would I pay them a dime. And I will almost guarantee, you could ever guarantee because there’s always a nutty prosecutor somewhere, I can almost guarantee you that no one that resembles being in their right mind would want to go through the cost of extraditing a person that might be stuck in Wisconsin. You’d rather have them offending another state, wouldn’t you?

Justin 35:22
Absolutely. Why bring them back?

Larry 35:22
And that’s why they haven’t. That’s why they told the federal court that they haven’t brought anyone back. And they’re not likely to.

Justin 35:36
Yeah. Now, the dilemma, and I think I speak for everybody on the registry. Nobody wants to voluntarily violate a rule, or you know, and as we all know, how strict Florida is. Their, you can’t keep up with their laws or their registration requirements, because they change them like every six months, it seems like, and they just get worse and worse. So I’ve watched it over 24 years, you know, just go from a one and done to, you know, I’ve got to donate my left kidney, you know, I mean, it’s just ridiculous. But nobody wants to go, voluntarily get in trouble or violate a registration requirement, under the hopes and wishes that nothing might happen. And that’s in my case, I’m, you know, now 45 years old, I don’t want to, you know, run into legal issues, and get, you know, arrested and extradited and deal with any of those legal issues. I would like to, you know, I guess my question that I’m posing is, how would I go about dealing with this on a proactive level, so that I’m not facing, you know, criminal charges? I’d rather do it on my end. Not theirs.

Larry 36:50
And that’s a great question. And, and sometimes there’s no way to do what you’d like to do, because you have to have a justiciable controversy. And, meaning that there has to be a real, there has to be a real controversy, not an imaginary one. Could the fact that the letter says that you’re subject to prosecution be enough to get you in a declaratory judgment action in the state of Wisconsin? Maybe. I’m not a legal professional in Wisconsin, but the best way this question is going to be answered is when someone has actually been extradited, and it has to go through a motion for dismissal and waiting for the trial court to rule on it. And then it being appealed. And we have we have state court ruling on whether they think they have jurisdiction on people out of state, but I can assure you, the federal court cannot tell the state who it has jurisdiction over. And therefore, this is an unanswered question. And the only way to have it answered is to have someone either prosecuted, or we would have to be able to convince a court that you’re within a zone of prosecution if you don’t do this and see if they would entertain it. But if I’m the if I’m the, the the other side of this in Wisconsin, I’m going to argue, Your Honor, there’s no justiciable controversy here. We’ve never prosecuted for this. We’ve never extradited anybody. This is just wishful thinking on this guy’s part, we just want him to send $100 in, we don’t prosecute anybody. We never have. Now, there have been court decisions that said just the fact that you haven’t done it doesn’t mean that that that you couldn’t do it. So, if you haven’t renounced that that you won’t prosecute a person, that might be enough. So the answer would be if you want to spend some money, and you want to try to do a declaratory judgment asking a Wisconsin trial court to declare that you’re no longer subject to this requirement, and see what happens and then take that up on appeal. That would be the way we would find out proactively or tell them to take it and shove it and see what they do. That’s two ways to find out.

Andy 38:43
Say fyp when you do it, too.

Larry 38:51
fyp would do it and I just about a bet nothing would happen. Because the last thing they want is the $100 to stop coming. And they don’t want an appellate decision saying that nobody has to pay out of state. And I don’t even think that they would even get that decision, because I think about it here on the recording, because that’s a separate issue. The hundred dollars is a separate issue about whether, if I’m the state, I’m gonna argue that that’s an administrative cost for us to keep track of you. But whether or not there’s jurisdiction to prosecute you, if you don’t choose to be kept track of, that’s a whole separate issue. So, the hundred dollars is a separate issue is what I’m going to argue. And if I can think of that, I tell people they can think of that. And that’s what they would likely argue is that, you know, we need that to offset our cost. If he can keep a track of him, even if he doesn’t turn the form in, we have to try to we have to try to keep track for our state citizens to know where this person is. And that’s a fee and we’re not going to prosecute him. That’s a whole separate issue. So you may not ever get an answer on this until you tell them that you’re not going to you’re not going to participate with their little boogie show and see what happens.

Justin 40:00
Yeah.

Andy 40:00
How much would it cost them to actually like go and get him? I mean, that would be several, several thousands of dollars to like go extradite them.

Larry 40:09
probably not thousands. The way they do the extradition transport companies now it’s a lot cheaper than it used to be when they sent officers. But it would be money, but that that’s only one component of it. The other component is you may have an offender that ends up staying and that would be the last thing you would want. If you bring 100 offenders back, I mean, I know that we believe the recidivism is zero. But it’s not. If you’re bringing 100 defenders back, and they’re living out of state, and it’s only 3%, you’ve got three offenses that happened in Wisconsin, that would have happened in other states. That’s not something I’d want to explain to my constituents that I brought offenders back so they could commit crimes here. So that we get to pay the cost of both the extradition, the transportation, the incarceration, to release them in community under supervision so that they can’t offend again. I mean, that’s just nutty. And that’s why they don’t do it.

Andy 41:02
Wouldn’t you end up with Wisconsin acting like Sheriff Long was *southern accent* “I’ll take this all the way to the Supreme Court.” So they go round them up?

Larry 41:12
Well, well, when you say go round them up around the country, I don’t think so. I don’t need to extradite people; I don’t think that a single person would ever be extradited. The fact is, the proofs are there. They haven’t extradited anybody.

Justin 41:25
So, Larry, this goes back to the question or the conversation we had a few weeks ago. I do have a question about, we didn’t really get too much into detail on that on this. But my question a few weeks ago was if I moved to another state and petitioned the state that I move to, the local court, to be removed from registration, because it’s been 24 years. And let’s just say, in a perfect world, I’m granted that petition. It’s approved, and I’m removed from the registration, the registration requirement for that state that I now live in, I would still be obligated under the what’s going on with the Wisconsin and the requirement with the letter and the, you know, um, you know, if I’d fail to reply, blah, blah, blah, I’m still required to be on registration. So, like, in this and my question, my question actually goes to as far as my passport. I’d received a letter from the Department of State that my passport was cancelled, because I don’t have the identifying mark on the passport. So, there’s no way for me to get you know, if I was removed from registration in, you know, the state that I moved to, I’m still going to be on a registration because of Wisconsin. And the state that I moved to has no jurisdiction to tell Wisconsin Oh, well, he’s not required register anymore. So, I’m pretty much screwed, right?

Larry 43:06
It doesn’t sound good for that. Now, being on a state registry website, it’s not the same thing as being registered as far as being in an NCIC system. The NCIC is not the state website. But that’s a topic for another show. But in terms of, if you’re going to continue to send the form into Wisconsin, and there’s no way to be removed, and you’re still on their website, showing it your address that you’re reporting to them through your mail in form. I would, I would say that that’s, that’s gonna be a major problem for you in terms of your passport. (Justin: Okay.)

Andy 43:40
All right. Are we, can we close that out?

Larry 43:44
I think we can.

Andy 43:46
Justin, appreciate it very much. And I hope you have a good rest of your weekend.

Justin 43:52
Thank you so much for everything you guys do. And I really appreciate the time and in the call and so on.

Andy 43:59
Fantastic. Thanks Justin. Take Care, good night.

Justin 44:04
Goodnight, thank you. Bye bye.

Andy 44:01
Ready to be a part of Registry matters? Get links at registrymatters.co If you need to be discreet about it, contact them by email at registrymatterscast@gmail.com You can call or text a ransom message to (747)227-4477. Wanna support Registry Matters on a monthly basis? Head to patreon.com/registrymatters Not ready to become a patron? Give a five-star review at Apple podcasts or Stitcher or tell your buddies at 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. Where should we go? Should we move over to I think we actually then done and we can move on to the second listener question is that where we’re ready to go to?

Larry 45:04
Sure. And I was a little confused by this one, but I’m gonna do my best with it.

Andy 45:09
Alright, so I will read:

Listener Question
I am the wife of someone who is affected by the registry. And therefore, and I have listened to pretty much all of your episodes along with dear hubby. (Andy: Well, thank you very much for the both of you listening sounds like a nice time to like sit around by a fire and you get some popcorn, and you throw on the podcast and have a nice date night.) Thank you for your education and insight on all of these issues. Today I was reading through the proposed changes on the SORNA rules, (Andy: God, we’re going to go back to that again?) And I came across the following in paragraph D, reporting of departure and termination concerning residents, employment, and school attendance regarding moving from one state to another. Certain pieces of this section sound to me like they are opening the door for a national registry. But then again, I work in accounting, so I know nothing about law speak, can you guys take a look and comment on it?

Andy 45:55
And for those that you happen to be watching on the YouTube side of things, you can read some of the text if you can read this little bit of like small font on the screen.

Larry 46:03
And and that’s very insightful for an accountant. And that’s exactly what they’re doing. But they’re doing it in a in a very sneaky way. As we said in the earlier segment, I don’t whether it will be earlier or later when you play it. But there isn’t really a national registry, there is a national looking resource that it looks into the state registries, but there’s not a national registry. But the intent of the Adam Walsh Act was to get the registries as consistent, at least in terms of minimum standards, as possible. And that 14-year experiment has largely failed. That the states have done not so well at the key components of the Adam Walsh Act. So the small government Attorney General that that has put forth is proposed to modify it, what they’re hoping to do, and this is my personal opinion, I I’m not authorized to render this on behalf of any other organization that I may be involved with. But they have given up on doing it through the legislative process. So what they’ve done is they’re going to try to implement as much as they can administratively. And they will be, they will be handing forms to the states that they’ve already I’m sure produced. And they will be, the registrars and the states will be asking the offenders, and not just asking but demanding, that they sign these forms agreeing to these terms, because they’re gonna say they’re a federal law. And, and people are going to willingly do that, like they did in West Virginia when 99.8725% of them went running in to sign the required form that said, if you’re going to travel internationally, you have to give 21 days’ notice, which is not in Virginia, West Virginia law. But once they signed that acknowledgement, even though it’s not in the state statute, it’s a federal law, and the requisite notice has been given. And that’s what I think they’re going to do. So, we’re going to have a de facto national, federal registry, and states are going to end up keeping people registries longer, and they’re going to cite to, well it would be a violation of federal law. And you’re registered, you’re tier two, and although our state law is 10 years, I mean, the federal law actually takes control because you’re a tier two, or the or you’re a tier three, and you have to do lifetime. And so you’re going to have those states having to to carry the cost of all these extra requirements, the shorter, the shorter turnarounds between changing, updating information. A lot of states don’t have a three-day requirement in terms of that it’s a longer period 7, 10, five days. And in order to be able to receive those updates, if you’re not going to be electronically, you have to have more personnel allocated, which means that the effectively the small government people are imposing an unfunded mandate on the states.

Andy 48:50
unfunded mandates. We don’t want those.

Larry 48:53
Well, normally those people don’t want that, but amazingly on some things they do.

Andy 48:59
Can you describe how that actually then goes down? If there’s an unfunded mandate? So like, I mean, I think at the state level, so the feds with the Byrne grant, like money goes into the states, and they collect it, but then the counties are often the ones that are administering the registry, but they don’t get extra funding for it directly, do they?

Larry 49:19
Well, actually, they do for the compliance component of it. There’s a compliance residency check where all the small government law enforcement agencies have their hands out to get as much federal funding as they can for the compliance check. And that’s why you get these multi agency knocks at your door with people in SWAT regalia giving you a hard time but but also the the Byrne grants are available to local governments as well as state. So it’s the state, the way I understand it, and a person who’s more expert can come on in and correct us but my understanding is that the state is, they lose the state portion, the 10% comes off the state they don’t penalize the local Funding because it’s assumed that a county can’t make its own rules. Now, there’s exception to that. We’ve got a county in northwest Atlanta Metro, called Cobb. And Cobb County seems to feel like they can make their own rules. They consider themselves to be a jurisdiction. But they’re actually not. You have to be a state or territory or tribe to be a jurisdiction under federal SORNA. But they’ve decided that since they would like to have more of Georgia’s laws to look more like the fed’s, they’ve decided that they can enforce federal requirements because they are a jurisdiction and they’re dead wrong about that. They’re not a jurisdiction.

Andy 50:36
Because it’s not accounted for in the original drafting of the law?

Larry 50:42
Yeah, jurisdiction is defined and it’s a state or a territory or a tribe. Cobb County is neither a state, nor is it a territory, nor is it a tribe.

Andy 50:53
It would be a Puerto Rico kind of thing. (Larry: Yes, because that’s a territory.) I understand. I think so What was the confusing part? You said, when we started this, that you weren’t necessarily even sure you understood the question? What’s the, what is your confusion?

Larry 51:07
Well, I mean, she spotted the the part about we’re moving towards a federal registry. But I don’t know what the question is, per se. Like, what can we do about it? What can we do about it? Well, there’s really not much we can do about it. Because the states are going to be more than willing to acquiesce to this power grab. And, of course, what you could do about it is you could vote the power grab out of office in November, but but you know, that that would be a lot to expect. This is, this is where you would say, look, I do believe in small government, I do believe in the concept of federalism, I do believe in states’ rights. And I thought you did, but if you don’t, I will register resentment against you at the polls. But amazingly, they get forgiven for that. And people say, Well, I’m going to vote for him anyway, despite that, because they’re more important issues. And but that’s one thing you could do. But the states are going to be more than willing, the local law enforcement units that administer registration, they’re chomping at the bit to do more and to impose more requirements. That’s what’s so scary about this are people think that because their state is a compliant, that they’ve rejected AWA, they haven’t. They just haven’t substantially complied, there’s a difference in rejecting it, and failing to substantially comply.

Andy 52:28
Take a state like Vermont that, you know, as we talk about, and I know, like the people in Vermont are like, Oh, my God, the registry sucks. And the people in Alabama are saying, Wow, that registry sucks. But they’re not the same, they’re not the same compliance requirements. And Vermont has just chosen to comply less than Alabama has decided to comply more.

Larry 52:47
Well think Alabama is designated as substantially compliant. Vermont is nowhere close, not even in the ballpark. But Vermont is one of those states that at this point has not really wanted to comply. But a lot of states who have not complied, they either already over compliant, or they just have failed in their implementation because they need legislative action. Like our state, we need to be compliant. We need to add more offences that are currently are not registered here. We can’t do that by by administrative action, it has to be put on the list or at least indirectly, we could pass a law that we talked about, that would say that the list of sex offenses will be determined by the designation from the sex offender management, apprehension, registration tracking, by the SMART Office. But other than that, the administrative bureaucracy cannot add to list. Also we need to register adjudicated juveniles who have been adjudicated of an aggravated sex offense if they’re over 14. And we can’t do that by executive action, by administrative action that has to be through the legislature. And so New Mexico, trust me, the bureaucracy, the law enforcement apparatus wants to comply. They are eager to comply. They’re desperate to comply, but they have not been able to comply because the New Mexico opposition has been more successful than they’ve been in terms of attempting to pass compliant legislation. But everybody says well my State hasn’t complied, they’ve rejected it. Nope. Your state hasn’t complied not because they’ve rejected it. That may be the case. But but more likely, your state has just failed in all the parts that need to be achieved to be substantially compliant.

Andy 54:32
Alright. And we have another question. That is from Toby.

Listener Question
Is there anything I should know about living as a PFR in South Dakota? I was told that I would have to register? Is there any way I would not have to register? Am I not allowed to access the internet for three years? Everything is done on computers nowadays. How am I supposed to reintegrate into society? I thought that was the purpose of federal supervised release?

Andy 54:58
Yeah, like supervision in general is supposed to like quote unquote, help you reintegrate into Society, right?

Larry 55:01
Well, in particular federal supervised release because it follows a period of incarceration. And that’s different than federal probation. It’s the same people, the probation service does both but but actually, the intent and spirit of supervised release is to take that offender who has paid their debt to society, all except for the 15% potential good time that they they might have gotten off their sentence, and then they’re supposed to be reintegrated. So he’s correct. That is actually the stated purpose of supervised release. But as with everything else, it has become blurry through the years that that, that that concept came about in 1984, under the Reagan administration with the sentencing reform act 1984. And they abolished parole in the federal system, and they put this Sentencing Commission in place, and they put these stringent requirements and, and diminished any behavior, any early release for good behavior to more than 15%, I think it’s like 54 days a year. And so so the answer to the question is, that is the purpose, but it doesn’t turn out to be that way. Now, in terms of the internet, we’ll take that the the absolute ban, we’re taking at face value. I’m not allowed to access the internet for three years. Now, it could be that the actual language, the language of his document may say without prior approval of the probation service. If it truly does, say, an all out ban, then he’s got a potential cause of action, if they cannot articulate an individualized reason why he should have no access, because the case law is just a significant amount of it. You can’t just ban someone from the internet. So therefore, I would ask him to consult with a legal professional, and find out if it is a total ban, that that they force the probation service to state a reason why that that they need to totally ban him because it would have to be significant. But in terms of registration, I’m afraid that if you’re serving time and have served time in the federal system, anything that I can think of that the feds would convict you of in a way of a sex offense, it would be registerable, in any state that you would go to. I can’t think of anything off the top of my head. Therefore, whatever state you choose to be released to and to begin live at, you will end up having to register in that state. And therefore, my suggestion to you would be that if you have options, you’d want to try to figure out the most favorable state that you could live in. And I think we have an episode not too far back where we said, Where should I go? If you have an option or where to go, then you would take that option. Now, sometimes you’re stuck with going back to the jurisdiction where you were convicted. If you you may be at the time you were released, you may be in three states away, five states away from where you were because the feds can send you anywhere. And you may not be anywhere near, but my understanding is that more often than not, you end up back in a jurisdiction where you were where you were convicted.

Andy 58:05
I wanted to just clarify, something you said about anything that you could be convicted of at the federal level is most likely a registerable offense. I just wanted to provide the comparison back that you could be convicted of something super benign in a state that doesn’t even really consider that to be a crime or it’s a misdemeanor in another state and you move there and they don’t get swept under the rug. But now you’re not under a registration kind of environment. Did I describe that halfway well?

Larry 58:32
well, there’d be state offenses where that some states you’d have a registration obligation and the other state would say no, we don’t register that offense, our registry, and I always bring up the Georgia thing with obscene phone calls to minor. To my recollection, nobody other than Georgia does that. And in fact, I think that there was a reform piece of legislation that that would have removed that from the list of Georgia registerable offences. But if you go to Vermont, chances are that would not translate to anything in Vermont, and they would terminate your duty to register. And but in the feds, since the universe of federal sex offenses is not that large to begin with. It’s not like the states where they have everything. The federal list is much smaller. And everything that constitutes the federal sex offense from possession of child porn to production distribution, to a sexual offense in and of itself, is probably going to be registerable in a state it’s going to fit under and then the states may just have that any, any, any any obligation, they may have their law that says any obligation under another jurisdiction would automatically trigger a duty register under state law. I can’t think of any way you’re going to get out of registering. I’m sorry.

Andy 59:50
Can you circle back there’s language in certain states, I guess it’s almost similar to like the SORNA language of being substantially compliant. Isn’t there language, when they do translations of the only one that I can think of is substantially similar. I think aren’t there a couple other ways to word that of whether things get translated and how well they get translated?

Larry 1:00:11
Well, ours is equivalent here. It has to be, there’s no substantial, it has to be equivalent.

Andy 1:00:17
Literally word for word equivalent?

Larry 1:00:20
Well, that’s how they define it. It says these offences or their equivalents from another jurisdiction.

Andy 1:00:27
All right. And so going back to the obscene phone calls, so you make some naughty phone calls in Georgia, and you move to New Mexico and like, sorry, we don’t have anything here. So kick rocks, have a nice day?

Larry 1:00:40
Well I don’t know what you mean kick rocks and have a nice day. They would tell you that you don’t have an obligation to register here.

Andy 1:00:45
That was the kick rocks part. Yeah, the registration office is gonna tell you to leave like you don’t have any reason to be here.

Larry 1:00:52
Well, they would like to register you. But the law doesn’t give them that prerogative. In fact, when we did our lawsuit here, which we ended up having to dismiss for, for reasons that I won’t go into, but they wanted to change the law to eliminate the term equivalent, they wanted to insert in the law that if you have a registration obligation anywhere, that you have to register here. Now we’ve managed to defeat that in the last legislation session, it will come back, it will come back. And, and, but but but right now, it says equivalent. Only problem is we don’t have a process to determine that. So, we have, we have a form up in Santa Fe, and we have a lowly paid bureaucrat, who goes through that form and makes a few check marks on boxes. So yep, it’s equivalent. And you don’t have the opportunity to be heard, you don’t have the opportunity to contest any information that they’re using to make the determination, you don’t have the opportunity for appeal. It’s just that if a bureaucrat says it’s equivalent it is. and they find it as much equivalent as they can. Again, why would you want us to be a safe haven for people? So the apparatus wants to have no safe haven. So therefore, they try to find everything equivalent. To their credit, occasionally, they get it right, and they find something not equivalent, and they tell the person that they don’t have to register, but it’s very rare. Usually the person has to fight their way off the registry.

Andy 1:02:14
I think that, I don’t think there’s anything else for us to do tonight. I think that covers it all.

Larry 1:02:20
That’s fantastic. We’re gonna have a short one. Have we ever gotten done in an hour and 15 minutes before?

Andy 1:02:25
Yes, we have. We’ve actually we’ve had one that was maybe a hair like a tiny little hair over an hour.

Larry 1:02:32
That must have been in 1979.

Andy 1:02:36
Larry, should we should we announce our intent to expand our presence? What’s not presence is the right word. Legitimacy, maybe that’s the better way? Should we announce that

Larry 1:02:47
that? Yeah, we got a few minutes, we can do that what we’re thinking of doing and this will be a good time to get listener participation, we, we realize that we’re branching out in terms of reaching into the prisons where people desperately need information. And our intent is not to compete with anybody, we don’t even think in those terms. Our intent is to augment what is lacking, which is information. And we undertook the transcript transmission service, which is in its infancy, but my prediction is that it will grow and it will grow significantly. And we don’t want to not serve anyone, we want to be like NARSOL. NARSOLserves everybody on the newsletter. If if they’re indigent, and they want the newsletter, NARSOL provides it to him. I’d like to be able to do the same thing for this, that we’d like to provide the transcripts. So what we’re thinking about doing is is incorporating and filing for 501(c)(3) for Registry Matters. And we would be this would be clearly education. What we do here is we walk through, explain things to people, this is an education podcast, and we would provide information and education. And I think that would be a nice umbrella to qualify under the 501(c)(3) status and we need a name for the entity. We would certainly do businesses Registry Matters but but we need to come up with some corporate name. I mean FYP is certainly on the table but we have name suggestions of what we would…

Andy 1:04:11
Duh, it’s totally going to be FYP Studios. Duh.

Larry 1:04:15
well I don’t I don’t know so much about that. But but it would be it would be fun to see what kind of suggestions we can get for for naming. We put a lot of effort into coming up with an NARSOL name you know to replace the RSOL name which was Reform Sex Offender Laws and trying to keep the the RSOL in the name was was a challenge because we didn’t want to let go of that. Well, we certainly want Registry Matters to be prominent, but the corporate entity, we may not want to name it Registry Matters.

Andy 1:04:42
Right so I can just see one of us going to the bank and opening an account and like Well, what’s the name of this? FYP Studios. Um, can we spell out FYP? and so you’d be like, Huh, you people…. haha that would be that It would be such an amazing day

Larry 1:05:02
well it’s it’s something that we’re probably gonna try to get done by the end of the year in terms of least incorporation the (c)(3) status will take a while because you have to apply and the IRS to review what you do and and but the first step is to incorporate

Andy 1:05:17
fantastic that’s amazing that’ll be fun that’ll be an exciting transition for us to move into and that opens up some avenues that it happened early in our infancy someone offered to contribute some money and they were going to do it from a trust and we had no no way to do that at the time.

Larry 1:05:33
well hopefully you kept their number and their name on file

Andy 1:05:37
probably could go find it somewhere along the way all right Larry Well, we can we can dispense with these things. so registrymatters.co is the website phone in at 747-227-4477 if you want to leave some voicemail. I don’t ever answer any phone calls there. registrymatterscast@gmail.com is the email address and Larry we love all of our listeners but especially our patrons. How can people support the podcast?

Larry 1:06:01
By a lavish, lavish monthly gift?

Andy 1:06:06
As low as?

Larry 1:06:08
As low as $1 all the way up to… didn’t you create a $1200 per month option or something like that?

Andy 1:06:15
You can adjust the number if you want to. You can come in at the highest level and then change the number and Oh yeah, sweet a Carnival Cruise for two someone says in chat. perfect Carnival Cruise for two. Even though youprobably can’t get on the boat or get off the boat on the other side.

Larry 1:06:30
Yeah, patreon.com/registrymatters.

Andy 1:06:33
Fantastic. Larry, I appreciate it always. And I hope that you have a wonderful evening and I will talk to you soon.

Larry 1:06:40
So Good night, everyone.

You’ve been listening to FYP

 

 

Andy 00:00
registry matters as an independent production. The opinions and ideas here are that of the host 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 144 of registry matters later. that’s a that’s a prime number, not a prime number. What’s a cube number squared number? 12 times 12 is 144. We’ve reached it, man. We can shut it down after this.

Larry 00:31
Sounds like a good plan to be

Andy 00:33
quite great. All right. Take care. Good night. Talk to you soon. You know, I’m pretty excited though. I haven’t spoken to you all week.

Larry 00:43
Really?

Andy 00:46
How about that? Talk to you all week. I guess you called me yesterday. That was like a whole week. I was like, Ah, this

Larry 00:57
is a vacation. No, I didn’t even call you that. First time we spoke this week it was today.

Unknown Speaker 01:02
You sure sure it wasn’t yesterday.

Larry 01:04
Nope. didn’t talk to you yesterday.

Andy 01:06
Okay, well then sound it felt like So hey, I even had an extra day and I didn’t realize it. Fantastic. Love it.

Unknown Speaker 01:13
So so I’ll play that one

Andy 01:14
more time. I can do it one more time. We’ll chat is all like man, that’s great music because you know that’s what he listens to when he is rocking out at home. He’s listening to some some hardcore rocket elevator music because that’s what will does. We have a interesting program tonight, Larry, I’m looking forward to what we got going on.

Larry 01:41
Well, let’s do it. I think it’s got a big side and we’ve we’ve gone through and cut down from 2025 articles down to just a handful.

Andy 01:51
So we got we got some news items. We are going to go rehash the AWS segment that we covered four episodes ago and then we have some listener questions. We got new patrons great, grateful program that we have going. But let’s let’s start off here we’ve got a an article from reason magazine cops use pictures of adult women to trick men into meeting for sex and then arrest them as child predators. I know that we’ve covered this before, but boy does it keep coming around. This is from Lenore Skenazy, who she has presented at norsok conferences before and it’s a going into the details of how that you get people to they do a bait and switch like, Hey, I’m 23 years old, they meet them on maybe like a Craigslist kind of page, and then they switch midstream in the conversation and say up maybe I’m like 13 and then when you show up, it’s an adult cop. Who’s the victim Larry.

Larry 02:45
Well, this has been a this has been a beef of mine for some time. Because, and I really appreciate Lenore and the work that she does, but this is this is an imaginary crime. Right and and it’s It’s one of those things where when we talk about as the way the conservatives pitch it, defunding the police, right, this is one of the things where if you reduced funding, which is what people were actually talking about, rather than the funding, if you reduce funding, they wouldn’t have the human capital to do these type of operations, because there’s actually no one actually solicits a miner for sex in real life in terms of being a real miner. Of all the years I’ve been doing this, involved in this advocacy, I think I’ve seen it once. This is all an invention of law enforcement, creating a problem. It’s a solution in search of a problem. They change the statute. So they made the pure the punishment more severe than if you actually have context sex, and they sit around and they do everything they can to trick these people into committing a crime that they had no intention of committing. They were not in any Any environment looking for biters? And this is just, it’s disgusting. I mean, I don’t know any other way to describe it. And if you cut back on police funding, they would probably have to choose to cut back on some of these. Some of these programs that they have. This would be one that I’d like to see go.

Andy 04:19
There’s a there’s a couple paragraphs in there where they’re describing that, I don’t know I didn’t read it that carefully, like the operation underground railroad hour, as it is called donated more than $170,000 to the Washington police to support these things. These funds paid for additional detectives, hotels, food and overtime, seemingly in return the police help the organization reap positive publicity and of course, the more predators the cops catch, the more people are eager to donate to an organization focused on this gouge

Unknown Speaker 04:49
are

Andy 04:50
so like this is policing for profit Almost.

Larry 04:54
Almost but, but the lives that ruins and the cost. We can’t just look at the end The cost of this operation in terms of what it costs, we have to look at the societal cost. We’ve got a 20 year old that’s talking about in this article named jack Hambrick, a young man. So he’s got 50 years of possible work, a career ahead of him paying taxes and being productive citizen. We just took that all away from him. And we hurt society by doing that, because all of us who have our paws out, wanting to collect, we won’t be able to collect nearly as much. The more we do this to people they can’t pay because they’re either in prison, or they’re in dead end jobs. And I don’t know when people are going to wake up to that, that we need people producing at their optimal level. So that those of us who think that it’s our turn to collect we can collect from those donations that they’re making. And we’ve we’ve got the cost of his incarceration, that we’ve got the cost of, of lost productivity. For what, what did we gain from this, we gain A person, way I should say we gamed a person into committing a crime, that that he had no intention of committing. And, and and we are really proud of ourselves You should be ashamed of yourselves is what you should be

Andy 06:15
the the person you’re referencing, if I’m looking at the right person, he was sentenced to 18 months to life and a minimum of 10 years on the registry.

Larry 06:24
So, but his life is his life is less the laws change in terms of being able to eradicate this history. His life is at all actuality, damaged beyond repair, but he’d be able to pull himself up by his bootstraps. Maybe Will he be able to hit Will he be able to exist? Maybe, but we’ve made it the barriers significant, because we’re having fun to do something to to arrest people for crimes that are not committed. Yeah.

Andy 06:58
Well, yeah. So there it is the It’s reason magazine that’s linear scan AZ. And we don’t really need to dwell on that one that long. This one is a great news over the Washington Post, we’ve covered this guy Curtis flowers will finally be freed. prosecutorial misconduct remains a problem, however. But this is a cat that was in 96. can at least try I guess, and yeah, convicted of quadruple homicide, and then through six trials, I think it was and just massive prosecutorial misconduct, bias in the jury. He keeps going back to trial. And then finally, I think that the Supreme Court finally stepped in and said, there’s enough going on here that you probably shouldn’t try this guy again, and he’s going to get out soon ish. Maybe he’s already

Larry 07:40
out. I think he’s already out. But this is six prosecutions and six convictions. They sanitize the jury and I did a little research. The community is roughly 5050 between black and white, but they used to say use their prep free trial just to make sure there were no African Americans on the jury.

Andy 08:02
and and the the county if I’m not mistaken at the towards the end of it the they say that it’s it’s not quite a 5050 split as far as the the journalist or the demographics

Larry 08:14
close to it. Yeah. 44% I believe it was.

Andy 08:17
So why would it be so hard to come up with a jury that is at least closer representative of the population of the area? Well, it

Larry 08:25
wouldn’t be that hard. They did not want to that was the whole point of one of the appellate points the prosecution use their peremptory challenges to strike any black that would have been considered for jury duty. Because in like, you have you have challenges you can utilize for no reason at all. And they use their peremptory challenges to do that.

Andy 08:47
Tell me there was a Supreme Court case I’m you’ve mentioned the name before that. This got brought all the way to the Supreme Court and they rolled maybe in the 80s I think it’s

Larry 08:57
Batson

Andy 08:58
Batson. Very good man. The man in Can you describe Batson real quick if hopefully you can.

Larry 09:05
Well, not not prepared but remember there was a dealt with with with severely excluding, but already jurors and the state can’t do that anymore. Okay, but but they did they did it for a long, long time.

Andy 09:20
And just just because person has the skin color of what you don’t want you just say like that’s your reason but now they they have a you may have seen the movie runaway jury, I believe it has an actor named john Cusack. I have okay. It’s also got Gene Hackman and when like there’s this whole war room thing going on where it’s big, big high profile case. And they have all of the background all the you know, everything that you could find about a person that’s going to be on a jury and they’re relaying information into the courtroom on who they would want to keep and who they would not want to keep. I have no no concept of whether this would be real or not. Maybe for something like an oj kind of trial. Not really Something in your local, local, county, whatever. But like big deal of having some sort of strategist of jury strategists maybe Is that Is that a fair position for someone to have?

Larry 10:12
Well, I’m not sure I’m understand your question. But but but jury selection is is a significant part of strategy if you’re going to go to trial.

Andy 10:20
Okay, right. Right. So with a high profile case, would there be like a whole team of people doing background checks on the potential jurors?

Larry 10:30
Well, if there’s the money there, if profile cases has the money, we don’t always make the resources available to people who need them. But in a case like was oj Yes, that would have been extensive work work done in terms of jury selection demographics, and you’d had to have a huge pool to pick from because there’s so much publicity but there’s so many people who be dropped just because they they would not be able to even pretend that could be neutral and unbiased. But this basslink case has to do with just using your challenge without cause you simply say, that juror is not acceptable. Each side has so many peremptory challenges. And that’s what they did. And this guy’s case they use their peremptory challenges to get rid of minority jurors.

Andy 11:19
Doesn’t sound fair at all. It doesn’t sound like would you then appease me and give me a valid reason why you would just say I don’t like that person? Not for racial reasons. I mean, I know we can come up with all kinds of reasons why they wouldn’t qualify, but it seems like everyone should qualify for jury duty.

Larry 11:38
But you might not like them. You might feel like based on their background that you don’t feel like they could be fair. Would you want 12 police officer sitting on a jury that is it that you were facing trial? I mean, honestly, it’s like you could I don’t think you could believe that. They could be unfair. So you would you I mean, be unbiased, you would be with that. So that way when you’re when you’re trying to when you’re hoping for a mistrial, you You may go into trial because your client wants to go to trial and you know that the evidence is overwhelming. And you’re looking for Who’s that magic person, they can provide you the hope of a mistrial and hung jury. And, well, if you put 12 officers, most, most jury consultants will tell you that the officers are not going to look for ways to equip people, they’re going to look for ways to convict people. So that would be an example. That would be an example of somebody you would just exclude if you have if you’ve got six peremptory challenges. And a law enforcement officer pops up on the radar. I’m not gonna even go bother. So this person in question, we don’t want that person. Yeah. And it would have to be a law enforcement officer could be a former prosecutor, it could be any number of things that you that you don’t feel, you know, in a civil case, it could be someone who had who had ties to the industry, and you wouldn’t think they could be fair to your client who was suing that industry. So they’d be valid reasons for excluding people but but in Batson they did it simply on race. And and the Supreme Court said you couldn’t do that and that was way back in 1986. I just pulled it

Andy 13:00
Okay, very good. And then we will bounce back over to reason says the title is a bust, police unions their consistent force of organized resistance to commerce safer, less aggressive policing. Only thing that really jumped out at me I’ve been I’ve been listening to a bunch of podcasts and things that cover the subject it to me it sounds like police unions are significant challenge in us having any sort of anything as far as policing reform. But the guy that Oh, the the first gun, the first police officer that was at Parkland that responded to the scene that everyone then went nuts over because he didn’t do anything. he actually got his job back and all the back pay. I thought that was and that was all because of the police union. And I don’t want to get into whether He justified firing justify not going in there. I’m not trying to go into that but he got his job back and all the back pay that he was owed.

Larry 13:54
Well that’s quite common the outcome when when people when you try to When you try to address police misconduct, though the union comes in and I’m pro union, I make no bones about that. This country’s a lot better off because of organized labor and what what has been contributed by organized labor. But in the process of being pro union, I’ve also been able to recognize that, you know, sometimes are not they’re not the solution to a problem, that sometimes they create problems. And in the case of of the police unions, I find it ironic that it is conservatives skill they normally don’t like unions. But yet magically, the police you know, it’s just adorable to most conservatives, and I can’t I can’t figure out what, what makes that distinction. The police unions do everything that private sector unions do. They try to make sure that their people keep their jobs. They tried to negotiate for the best benefit packages, they can get the best working conditions they can get the best retirement plans they can possibly get the best health care plans they can possibly get. They do all those things on behalf of police officers. And yet somehow that is appreciated by people who normally don’t like unions. But back to the, to this to this particular case here. That typically, I as I’ve observed what happens when police are discharged or discipline? It’s it’s often overturned on appeal in the process of discipline is overturned and the unions. I know they’re squawky here in my state, they’re squawking here at APD. About how horrible that these reform efforts are that the DOJ in the city agreed to four or five years ago. They they’re saying how it’s just inhibiting their work and how old it is just in the unions are constantly saying that if you just let us do what we do, we know what to do best. Well, yes, really. There’s Why are you killing and choking so many people? Why are you doing all these things? If you know what’s best? We we tried it, we tried it your way.

Andy 16:11
It’s very strange to me. I, I know that you’re pro union and I can see, you know, we we I can see that’s legit that we would want them to have a good benefits package. But then when someone gets fired for some, you know, Eric Gardner kind of thing like that person might not be shouldn’t be. He shouldn’t be in public enforcement. Maybe he would be filing paperwork and whatnot, but like, it doesn’t seem like that would be the right person to have in the public sphere.

Larry 16:44
Well, I’ve had that discussion all my life since I was an adult. I worked in a grocery company it was union. And some of these problems I was able to observe as a youngster would see people that were slackers, and then when management attempted to deal with that slacker I was I would say the union come running, which is what we paid our dues for. That’s exactly what they’re supposed to do. They were supposed to come running and make sure that the company’s contractual obligations were followed. And the due process was was followed. But I would, I would, I would see, I recall instances where management just threw up their hands and said, there’s nothing we can do about it. You know, we we can’t, we can’t get rid of that person. And it’s always amazed me that the police officers say that 9598 99 whatever their percentage, just all of us are wonderful people. And we’re doing a good job. And we’re following the rules. It’s it’s baffled me as to why they stand back and let bad people be mixed among them. It would seem like to me, you would want the bad apple gone. In order for the community to see how the 99% or whatever that percentage is, it’s doing a wonderful job. I don’t understand the blue wall of silence. I don’t understand right, trying to keep a bad one among you, you would want to fair Those out, I would think. And I said that when I was when I was at a union job, we don’t want bad people here.

Andy 18:06
I think the answer then is with the blue wall of silence that it would then let corruption just run rampant and take bribes and so forth. If you have that blue wall of silence and then just everyone is complicit in not reporting on each other, whether someone’s on the take or someone does something dirty, and then everyone’s just, it’s it’s a you know, it’s a mafia, it’s a gang.

Larry 18:28
So, well, I would sure like for some of our listeners to explain it to me why police unions are good. and private sector unions are bad, because they do the exact same, say the exact same thing you’re doing your goal is to do the exact same thing, which is to provide the best compensation, best benefits package, the best retirement package, the best working conditions, all those things are part of what you just do, and to provide due process for discipline. And, and I don’t understand why you can be a union hater how you can be a union hater. Be a union lover.

Andy 19:03
I do understand let’s move over. let’s let’s let’s circle back to episode. I think you told me it’s 140 and about the new proposed AWS regulations that got everyone’s hackles all up in air. And so I have prepared expertly and meticulously, I’ve prepared a bunch of questions for you that I thought we could go over and try and help people resolve their fears or extend their fears.

Larry 19:29
Well, I don’t know which one it’s gonna do.

Andy 19:33
Right. All right. So you ready to go?

Larry 19:36
I’m doing my best. Okay, I’m okay. I’m okay. I’m updating my cheat sheet, but it’s not opening night. Isn’t that funny?

Andy 19:44
That is terribly funny. Well, I’m sure you can answer this one right off the bat. So it’s like several people. We did get a bunch of email and comments from people about the proposed regulations. People have messaged me privately about it. And so what is what is the AWS Can we like cover like the quick 10 second 32nd history of what the NWA is to begin with?

Larry 20:06
Well, the NWA is a congressional Act passed in 2006, Adam Walsh Act, and it was signed by President then President Bush. And it, it recommended to the states that they that they improve the efficacy of their existing registries. And it gave a three year compliance period for substantial implementation. And at the end of that three year period, the states have who had not substantially implemented, the recommendations faced a 10% loss of their burn, Justice grant funding and that that’s what the AWS is there’s a component in there called SORNA. And we talk about SORNA as if federal is the only way it has sort of but every state has something that resembles sort of, they may call it Sora. They may call it something else but but will be When we hear sorta for purposes of this discussion tonight we’re talking about federal Sora.

Andy 21:08
All right, and the attorney general has proposed something what what did he propose to do? This is William bar. This isn’t from a previous administration. Is it? This is the current administration. That is correct. They what is the current administration proposed to do?

Larry 21:25
Well, the the they have proposed under under the regulatory framework, the the Congress delegated to the Department of Justice to to promulgate regulations, which they’ve done 10 years ago or so they they promulgated the regulations so that they interrupt rules and they promptly or they promulgated regulations of how they implement what the states would need to do. they’ve discovered in the intervening more than 10 years after promulgating those rules that that a significant number of states have not been able to achieve substantial compliance. They’ve gone back to the drawing boards, and they’ve worked out a way to make it. Their whole goal is if you understand their whole goal is to have more states come into compliance. So they put their collective brains together. And they came up with a way to try to adapt the regulatory framework to make it easier for states to comply. And that’s what they’ve done. They’ve put out a new proposed regulatory framework.

Andy 22:24
riddle me this, though, why, like if all of this the state highway systems don’t fit the same thing, why? Why does the federal government even care to the degree of compliance that there is?

Larry 22:39
Well, this, this had at the time in 2006, there were 50 state registries, they all had registries. Some of the states barely communicate with each other. And when they went they passed this they were attempting to address a real problem. There had been lacks enforcement because The state that the person was registered in who left was happy that they left and the state that they had gone to. didn’t know they were there. And therefore it was, it was purported that 100,000 of approximately 500,000 registrants at that time, were off the grid. So as a matter of national policy, the Congress said we can’t have this we told we asked the states to create these registries back a decade earlier, and 94 when they passed a Jacob what what are the active we’ve got 50 registries that barely communicate with one another, and we’ve got 100,000 people off the grid, and that’s not in the public interest. So they they set about trying to figure out a way to have more uniformity and consistency and how the states operate their registries.

Andy 23:50
Okay, and, and moving into this so the Attorney General proposed some, ask for comments and What is the point of having a 60 day comment period?

Larry 24:04
That’s a good question. And what the comment period does is, is it’s primarily for the purpose of expressing that the that the law that was enacted that that the regulations are attempting to implement, that they’re either exceeding the law, or they have not accommodated the law. And that’s the purpose of the comment period. So the stakeholders, theoretically, if you were, if this were an EPA regulation, the stakeholders that would be subject to the EPA regulation would have the opportunity to look at what Congress did. And they would have a chance to look at the proposed regulation. And they would have a chance to say, well, they’ll actually Congress didn’t want that they actually wanted this aid. You didn’t do that. And this is going to be the adverse impact of that. Therefore, this is going to drive us out of business or whatever. That’s the purpose of the comment period. But what are people think it’s, it’s like it’s a it’s not an option. tunity to read debate, sex offender registration, that debate was already had

Andy 25:06
is about that.

Larry 25:08
It’s already been had twice now, in terms of the Jacob Wetterling Act and the Adam Walsh Act. We’ve, as a matter of national policy, we want our states to have sex offender registries. So if you’re going to debate the efficacy of sex offender registration, this is not the forum to do that.

Andy 25:26
Because for my stupid person understanding there, my big issue for our people is residency restrictions, because that seems to be like the biggest barrier and then also work restrictions on top of that. That’s not part of the AWS or the Jacob Wetterling act.

Larry 25:43
That is correct. That is what so many things

Andy 25:46
that they get before Of course I like but if someone wants to live somewhere, let it just would create all kinds of problems anyway. So if someone wants to bitch and moan about residency restrictions, and they would go on here And complain about this, they’re barking up the wrong tree because it doesn’t apply it that is at your state where Alabama is 2500 feet Georgia as 1000 feet, etc.

Larry 26:10
Now it would be correct. But But even beyond that, if you don’t like the registry itself, the fact that we registered offenders convicted of sexual crimes, this is not the venue to have that discussion. These are bureaucrats who work for the Department of Justice, who have been tasked with carrying out the will of the American people, as expressed through their, through their elected representatives and senators and signed into law by the President at the time. Bush at this is not the place for that discussion. And that’s what people are tempted to want to do. They want to say well, the registry doesn’t work but that’s nice, but that these people can’t do anything about that. whether it works or not.

Andy 26:53
Let me let me make another stupid person analogy. You get pulled over by the cops for speeding running red light, and you want to argue with them about, well, this is stupid. It shouldn’t be that way. Look, he’s only there to execute what the law already said. You have no reason to debate with the person about him executing his duty. William bar is the executive of the judicial branch, but he’s part of the executive branch.

Larry 27:17
That is correct. And that analogy about if you’re if you’re going down a highway where the speed limit, your view should be 70. And at 45, the officer did set that at 45. Right. So your beef about it should should be 70. It’s not what the officer

Andy 27:36
Yeah. and is then what would what would be a valid comment. Can Can you posit what an acceptable a rational comment, a realistic comment would be for the 60 day period?

Larry 27:51
Well, I know you’ve read all 93 pages with a fine tooth comb right?

Andy 27:56
Without a doubt. Absolutely. It’s sitting by my it’s on my nightstand by my bed? I kind of glanced at it as I’m going to sleep.

Larry 28:05
Well, I mean, you can make any comment you want. And you’re right. But what would be a valid comment? And we’re struggling with this because as I’ve done a less than thorough analysis of the 93 pages, what I see is merely a reflection of the will of the Congress, the will of the Congress and the will of the American people. The will of the Congress was a result of the willed american people who were calling and griping about 100,000 missing sex offenders. So we got to do something. And the Bill O’Reilly Factor that went on and on and on about it in 2006, bashing ted kennedy for for filibustering, all this stuff. This this is a reflection of the American people but what a what a valid comment would be, would be if there were something being done. That was not the will of Congress. If you if you if you put a proposed regulation I guess we would be able to give an example of what happened in Maryland when when Maryland passed their version of AWS back in 2010. They the the same process took place they pass they pass their law and then the the regular regulatory directive was given to the Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services, I believe to to drop the regulations to implement it. And they broke regulations that exceeded what the of what the Maryland legislature had done. They put in some additional things that they thought would be good measure they put in that that local law enforcement unit as they call it in Maryland, shall continuously check on an offender and I may not have the word exactly right. But that’s about what I remember it saying I helped draft the the comments that they’re Maryland fair, but in we were successful, they they pull those regulations, but But you put they put things in that weren’t weren’t in the act that the legislature passed. And we pointed to those specifics. I think the 21 day advance notice might have been another one for international travel. I don’t think that was in the the Maryland law as I passed it. And the people that wrote the regulations, they looked at AWS and they said, Well, just 21 day notices in there. And clearly, we should be checking all these offenders. So they put in there that things of that nature, but that wasn’t actually in the law. Simply put in the comments. Sorry, you can’t go that far because the legislature had they wanted that they would have said that. And then we set up I don’t know sabotage campaign. We contacted all 23 counties in Maryland, we contacted the county attorney’s of those counties. And we said Guess what? When you when you look at this regulation, your law enforcement people were required to continuously check on these offenders. And let us tell you what’s going to happen when when one of them inevitably real friends and The first thing that the attorneys seeking recompense from the from the county is going to ask is where’s your log of how often they checked? And if they reoffended, obviously, they didn’t check quite often enough, right? Sure. That would be that would be the argument you would make if they if they checked every 30 days. You would you would argue as a plaintiff’s attorney, you would say, Well, I had checked every 10 days, this might not happen. Right. So we we use that to scare them. That that that they were on the hook. So we we did that with county attorneys, county commissioners, we had a team of people, thanks to the leadership of Brenda and her breakouts and coordinating a team of people we put we put the pressure on the counties. They came to the table. They showed up at the hearing because under Maryland law, there’s a process to have a legislative oversight of these when when a regulatory proposals put forward there are some significant some significant issues raised. They can convene a hearing with a legislative committee and they such a committee Hearing was convened. And they decided, after hearing from the parties that the that the that they had gone too far. And of I think it was centered or broken, tells them unequivocally if we had wanted that in the legislation, we would have done that. It’s not for you to do that. Translation if we can find something in these 93 pages that they have put in there that was not the will of Congress, then we have something to hang our hat on. not liking it is not enough.

Andy 32:36
Okay. Is anything about the tier notification stuff? Is that something to I’m trying to come up with some other kind of example to to see about because like the the federal SORNA guidelines thing is, it’s worded different than what people end up with on their internet publication side of things as far as how they rank people on the tiers. I think.

Larry 32:59
Well, I’m confused. That question.

Andy 33:01
Okay, then nevermind, do you want to bring Brenda on?

Larry 33:05
Well, if she’s if she’s raised her hand if she has anything, anything she’d like to say, but that’s that would be an example. Now. There are political strategies that can be utilized. And in fact, Brenda, Brenda, and I talked about that earlier today, what you might want to do as a political strategy, and it’s a really, really long shot, because conservatives magically do an about face on a lot of things. And this would be one where they would likely to do it. And what we can do is we can take a look at things like REAL ID, which is another mandate by conservative Congress passed in 2005, signed by President Bush, requiring the states to totally revamp how they issue identification. Again, there is no national ID card like there’s no national registry. The states issue, both ID and driver’s licenses. And they told the states, we want you to have IDs that have these features that I’m not security expert, but there’s certain things in the idea itself that they wanted to have. And they want to have source documents, even though you’re 50 6070 years old, and you’ve already proven who you are, they want you to capture the source documents all over again. So after I go in on my next trip in to get my license, if I want a REAL ID compliant, I have to take my birth certificate I took in 50 years ago, and have it scanned into a big old federal database so that that all the the the identification issuers across the country can access that database. Normally conservatives are dead set against big ol federal databases. But magically they did a flip flop on that, wouldn’t they think it’s a wonderful thing. The point I’m making is that if we could get someone to be true to their values, who claimed that they believe in federalism that they believe and not pushing unfunded mandates on the states if there’s a core of conservatives like the the six or eight in the Senate that were led by Tom Cotton That gutted the first step back, if we could find a corps of true believers and an example be like Rand Paul, he’s consistently good about defending fiscal responsibility and not running huge deficits. And even to the, to the surprise of his constituents. He says we can’t be doing what we’re doing. If we could find that group of people in the Congress, and it at the state levels, and not just in Congress, but at state levels, and we could go to those people in those states and say, Look, you need to weigh in on this, because these regulations are about to be adopted. And guess what? You’re going to have to pay for registries, registrations for many, many years beyond what we require in this state because there’s a federal duty to register. And it looks like they’re trying to power grab at the present administration is trying to uniform the periods of registration and work all of a sudden going to have to carry and track these things. for 25 years or life, and if you could have some true believers, and they would submit their comments, we might could have some impact if the saints would weigh in and say, we don’t want to register people for these long periods of time. But barring

Andy 36:14
that unfunded mandate,

Larry 36:16
absolutely. But the conservatives will be okay with it. That’s what I’m telling you. They do a flip flop on certain things. And this is why I

Andy 36:24
watched about that from like the state level and then they put it down to the county level for them to do the registration. It’s an unfunded mandate at the county level that they do the registration stuff, and I’ve never made the connection that this would be a federal mandate down to the state level, yet state only has five years of registration in the state. I don’t know what the database says. But so they would say, well, you’re gonna register these people for x even though you are only doing it for y.

Larry 36:48
That is correct. But I’m telling you that I’ve been in the round our legislature for 30 years and the people who profess what you’re talking about about unfunded mandates, they magically do a chameleons Which, when it comes to this, and they’re okay with unfunded mandates that they like, and this is one where we would need A true, true believer that does a flip flop on something when it when it when it’s a law enforcement thing. And if we could find that core of people, we would make the appeal to them like we did in Maryland. And, and, and if they would put in comments, say on behalf of my state, I don’t want this because I don’t we don’t want to be carrying people on our registration list for the minimum period is 15 and 25 in life and the 15 can be reduced on tier one to 10 years. But, but in most cases, it’s either going to be 25 or life because most sex offenses are at least a felony that’s gonna put you in the 25 year category. And then depending on the age and some other factors that could be a lifetime obligation, and they’re states who who are not carrying people anywhere near that long presently. And this is this is to put has the potential the potential to Cause that to happen.

Andy 38:02
So So back to the the comments section, the unfunded mandate might be a decent comment to go post.

Larry 38:09
Well, it’s gonna be more powerful if like when Maryland we did, we didn’t have all the power ourselves, we had counties coming in saying we don’t like this because we don’t want to be responsible for not checking all these offenders frequently enough.

Andy 38:25
Wait, I gotcha.

Larry 38:26
We don’t need the offenders to say the cost is, is too much. Nobody cares about that, what you think about the cost, but what we need as the state of Vermont to come in and say, we have no interest in caring people for these long periods of time. This, this, this is this is too much. That might be a strategy but we need conservatives who will not flip on us and who actually say, I believe in federalism, and this is this is a direct attack on federalism, the state get to decide how long they register people or if they register them at all. And and that’s that’s where I’m afraid that that’s such a long shot because I think that although it’s wishful thinking, I think it’s really a three bar shot that we can actually find people that’ll that’ll do that. Hey, I mean, remember the Michelle Bob bar type hundred percent from from 2016. She’s one of those who claimed that she believes so much in in states rights. And on the debate stage before she got knocked down like they can’t be the same sex marriage was was being discussed. And she says Absolutely, I believe in state rice, that they think that they can decide who gets buried, but she said also believes that the federal government can come in and use the supremacy clause, and that the federal government can define what a marriage is, and the federal government should do that. And that’s how they do. You know, they magically flip. If it’s something they don’t agree with, that all of a sudden what they claim to take With a flip away from it, and they say it’s something different. But if we could find some true believers, our audience is filled with a lot of conservatives, if you can, if you know somebody and your state legislature, that’s what you need to be doing. You need to be reaching out to that person and say you’ve been a big proponent of federalism, and allowing the states to run their own show. How do you feel about the bar administration, trying to federalize registration? of sexual offenders? And I’ve just about bitchy, right. Well, that’s such an important issue for public safety. I think that I could go along with you ever we had we had King Alexander on and he said that we needed a Federal Way. You remember when I shouted him? I said, What do you mean key of all people? You can you remember? You remember that? I do. Yes. Well, but that’s what they do. They magically do a flip on you and that’s what they’re likely to do, but at least we can dry.

Andy 40:54
And then I guess the one of the remaining questions is, haven’t most states or regions Did implementing full AWS?

Larry 41:03
No, they have not.

Andy 41:05
All right. Well, some states, Pennsylvania, as an example, will list somebody whose work address. I think that’s part of AWS where Georgia doesn’t list where you work.

Larry 41:14
So, but Well, that’s one of the confusing things about that. When you look at the list of compliant states and a smaller than list of non compliant, you automatically say, well, this, they’ve rejected it. No, they haven’t rejected, they have been unable to comply, because they’ve been trying to go through the legislative process to do like Maryland and Pennsylvania. And all these states that have put forth a comprehensive bill and got it enacted. And they’ve not been able to because there’s been pushback, particularly from the juvenile justice advocates, and they’ve not they’ve not been able to achieve substantial compliance because it’s complicated stuff, tried to put the package together, go down the smart offices, checklist of things you need to do. You and you end up not not achieving key component and at the But the states have not renounced it. They are trying to comply. They’re wishing that they were compliant. They’re hoping to be compliant. And that’s what makes that gives people the fact that more states are non compliant gives people this false sense of security that will says my state has rejected it. I don’t have to worry about anything. Your state hasn’t rejected it. There’s only a couple states who have just said, we have no interest in Texas that may be California. So we have no interest. But the majority of the states are doing everything they can and even Texas, although they said they didn’t want to comply. The funny thing is Texas is already more extreme than what the AWS would be, it would actually be an improvement if Texas did comply. If they if they actually appealed back the requirements to be there. Yes,

Andy 42:41
yes. I’m with you. I’m with it. Yeah. So So what do just what’s required not not go the extra mile and the situation overall would be improved?

Larry 42:50
Well, it’s like they in California. They had lifetime for everybody. This is the AWS doesn’t require a lifetime for everybody. Wouldn’t it be an improved But for the people who no overhead lifetime obligations, I mean, can you can you honestly say it would be an improvement for those people?

Andy 43:09
It probably would be.

Larry 43:11
Well, I don’t know anybody who wants to stay on for life of all the people I’ve met. I’ve never had anybody say, Well, I kind of like it so much. I’d like to be registered for life. If you when you meet that person, you let me know.

Andy 43:21
Everyone in chats hands have raised. And, you know, since we’re catching up to Joe Rogan, as far as the number of listeners that we have is what can they do? What can the average person a spouse, family member, the pfrs themselves? What do you think that they should do?

Larry 43:40
I think, going back to what I just said, we need to find true believers in the concept of federalism and a limited federal government and we need to press the point that this is a federalisation and we’re going to be funding these long term either either state or local level, we’re gonna be having to pay the bill for this. And we didn’t we’re not our citizens are not getting to vote on this through our elected officials because it’s the big old federal government this jamming this down our throat and remind them that you said what you campaign that you believe in limited government, and I’m holding you to it. That’s the best thing that I can think of that I’ve come up with so far as to call these people out of their hypocrisy.

Andy 44:27
Oh, hypocrisy. Hopper, like I really like that. Uh, I really like that. You know if i if i can get here fast enough. Lester, that’s it right? less less dramatic.

Larry 44:39
Yes.

Unknown Speaker 44:41
For you to come back and call Vegas mind Mars is a farce. It’s an act of hypocrisy is a terrible way to treat a guest on your show. And you know,

Andy 44:52
how about that I was able to pull that up with almost no cue.

Larry 44:58
He was he was quite a character for us. Those of you who don’t know who he was he was elected in 1966 to be the governor of Georgia in a lecture that was tossed into the House of Representatives because there, there was no clear majority. And the democratic controlled house elected him of the three candidates to be governor. And that’s, and he was an avowed racist. And he ended up being governor of Georgia that he was proud of the day Cavett Show how much he had done for black people. And that’s where that came from. Because he said, Well, as you’re doing so much for black people, what how does that impact your admirers?

Andy 45:37
Even I don’t even have anything to bat around after that one. Is there any thing else and I had I had a question and then it just sort of like was like a butterfly and flapped its little wings and went away? I don’t have anything else. I don’t think for the rest of that. Is there anything else that we should touch on that AWS segment before we galavan Tom on?

Larry 45:56
Well, we’re hoping the there’s a collaboration underway. With the multi organ, it’s multiple organizations. And we’re hoping that there’ll be a court case of responsible comment put in. The first draft has surfaced already a couple days ago, yesterday, the day before, and I haven’t had a chance to go through it. But I know Brenda has read it with a fine tooth comb. And but but we’re hoping that, that we can say something, but remember, folks, the the regulations are barely a reflection of the law. They it would be like the, the Environmental Protection Agency if you if you pass the clean air or the clean water or the clean drinking water act or anything, you’re trying to stop the pollution of underground water. And the Congress says do this. That’s what the EPA is going to do. They’re going to put forth proposed regulations if it’s if it’s aimed at the At the frackers oil industry or the binding or whatever it is that those are even the farmers that have those huge capital forms that you know all this stuff, they get contaminates the drinking water that calsters charge it. It’s the will of the people as expressed through Congress that they do this. So the bureaucrats who are doing what they’re doing, they didn’t decide on the policy Congress did. They’re merely putting forth the framework. Now, it can go both ways. Like if you had, if you were to ever have a really liberal progressive Congress and a really conservative president, you could have where you could have regulatory intervention you could have, you could have the executive branch trying to undermine what Congress passed. So therefore, you could have a proposed regulatory framework to clean up the groundwater that would do absolutely nothing because the people in the executive branch that they’ve appointed, they would say, gee, we don’t care for this. And they can put forth a very weak set of proposals. And then you could have the environmentalist come and scraping say, no, this is not what this was intended to do. It doesn’t address these. And they were clearly intended to address these points in the law. It can go both ways. But we need to be showing where this has gone beyond what Congress mandated because whether we agree with what Congress mandate or not, it’s not up for debate. Right now. It’s up for debate is how to achieve compliance.

Andy 48:30
Teresa and Chad asked who are the collaborating orgs? Is that is that public information? Who?

Larry 48:38
Well, I got, I don’t know if it is, but I know that working with guy Hamilton Smith and with Tyrone and a couple people and I know we had a meeting with about 12 organizations. So that showed up and I don’t remember all but Marshall was representative and I don’t

Andy 48:55
want to call anybody out that wants to remain behind the scenes but I was just that was just a question was posed. And I do have one final question. Hopefully you can answer it quickly. So we don’t drag this on for another 45 minutes. Are you ready for that question? Sure. Do you still have the same level of consternation over this? Are you still as worried about it as you were four episodes ago?

Larry 49:14
Oh, I’m I’m extremely worried about it. Because I know exactly. In my mind, I shouldn’t say exactly. I believe strongly that this is a result of 14 years of failed attempts to achieve substantial compliance. And I believe that this is the collective wisdom of the states working with the Department of Justice, who have said, this is the best way to go about it. Because we can, we can, we can do it through the backdoor through administrative process. And I think that that’s inevitable that that’s going to happen. And of course, I would love to be wrong. But I think that that’s that’s that’s my fear is that we’re going to have the states start handing out forms that were created by the SMART Office telling people that they that they’re required to do this And they if they do pass legislation, they’re going to pass some very vague, over inclusive legislation saying that it’s the policy of our state to substantially comply with the sort of as defined by by by federal SORNA, that our registration comply substantially with SORNA. And they’ll come up with some vague language like that. And then when you when you go back to that state, and you say, I want to petition for removal, they’re going to say we can’t remove you because our state’s policy is to be compliant with federal SORNA. And your your offense is a tier two, therefore you can’t be removed. That’s what my fear is. All right.

Andy 50:35
Ready to be a part of registry matters. Get links at registry matters.co. If you need to be discreet about it, contact them by email registry matters. cast@gmail.com you can call or text a ransom message to 7472 to 74477. Want to support registry matters on a Monday. To play basis head to patreon.com slash registry matters not ready to become a patron give a five star review at Apple podcasts or 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 Off we go um you know I know that someone emailed you and me with this bill that came from not very reputable media outlet that in this was a fact check Calif California’s SB SB so that we’ve sent it the 145 eliminates an inequality and sex offender registration that the something I don’t remember how it was worded exactly, but it was that you know, here Here is lifti California legalize it and homosexual relationships or something like that.

Larry 51:56
Yeah, that was that was that was a smear campaign on the on the on the Liberal Democrat legislature in California

Andy 52:06
but what is actually going on here

Larry 52:09
well they’re they didn’t do anything to change the law they just merely added the discretion for heterosexual sex to be excluded from mandatory registration resonant being just vaginal sex with with with heterosexual couples, that’s all they did. They gave the same discretion that is already in California law.

Andy 52:28
And somehow that turned into it’s being something about being a pro pedophilia legislation.

Larry 52:33
Yes. Well, that’s typically what happens when when when when you try to do reforms. That’s the vilification and if you take a look at a person vilification and this is not me saying that that’s what’s happening. It they’re being vilified for, for for doing something and they really didn’t change the law. They just gave it to the discretion. So there was it was no longer there was no longer the discrimination against it. If it was a person Over, under under 80, having sex with the same sex partner who’s over 80, which would be against the law, but but it would be a mandatory registration for the heterosexual me for the homosexual and it would be a discretion or registration for the heterosexual. That’s all it did is it made it equal.

Andy 53:16
Okay. There’s a article that I have is from USA today and there’s a bunch of different like blocks and this is the title of it is really you know, it’s about fact checking the the claims of it being a pro pedophilia legislation. I don’t know that we need to stick around there for very long I just it was kind of funny because when the person emailed it, and you were like, I don’t read this to be that way at all. But that’s Yeah, the media level saying,

Unknown Speaker 53:40
yep, it.

Larry 53:42
I don’t understand why people bought do understand it because it gets votes. The only reason people do things is because it works. And when when the populace becomes smart enough to understand when they’re being played like a Stradivarius, they’ll stop doing it

Andy 53:59
this way ticular media outlet when you go look up, the first of all, they’re super duper biased and they don’t rank very high as being a factual kind of place to go get your news.

Larry 54:08
Really.

Andy 54:10
Does that shock you?

Larry 54:14
I’m shocked.

Andy 54:15
I know. And then I guess we could hop on over to this Huffington Post article. This this thing someone emailed me, like, said, Hey, here’s this article, and the title of it was about 39. The government just found 39 traffic children and a double wide trailer. How is this not the biggest news story in America? And this Huffington Post article, which I know is about as far left as you could get on anything that goes through and breaks this whole thing down step by step by step and they did research with miscellaneous different experts on the subject of there’s several hundred thousand kids that are abducted not not, they go missing they have reported missing every year, but like 10 of them are actually danger if something you know it’s a disgruntled spouse situation they pick up the kids at the school wrong then they get reported anyway. This goes through with a whole bunch of different talking points as far as how this article is completely misleading.

Larry 55:15
Yes, I I’ve said the same thing. You know, we we have roughly something over 100 stranger abductions in the country each year, and it’s been at that level for a long time. Now. 100 is very significant if it’s one of yours,

Andy 55:29
of course,

Larry 55:30
you know, if you’re, if your son or daughter is abducted by

Andy 55:34
aliens in the United States, if we were actually like 400,000 kids were just vanishing off the planet. And like, Where’s my like, we would have some sort of we wouldn’t have any population growth because that would that would seriously curtail any sort of statistics like that. And people would be losing their minds if 400,000 Kids per year were vanishing.

Larry 55:54
Well, and as thousands do vanish, but like you say they vanish because Because of their own volition, or because of a noncustodial parent, or they vanished because of simply a mistake that someone thinks they’re supposed to be someplace that they’re not they call the police because they can’t find them. And but but in terms of actually going missing, where they’ve been abducted, it’s a very small number. And I can appreciate that if it’s your child, although don’t have any children, I could appreciate that. But I’m just wondering why we don’t make the same comparison. What were the things that take far more children’s lives than that abducted children? I mean, that the tragedy of of Adam mulches is incomprehensible. Can you imagine having a beautiful son and big having them to capitated like that after an abduction, I mean, but it would be pretty

Andy 56:45
traumatizing it absolutely would be but

Larry 56:47
but that there again, that’s the saber tooth tiger. It’s not like we don’t have things that we have more kids dying from any number of causes that that that we don’t panic about from God. drownings. Two you name it. Probably, probably I shouldn’t say this because I know it’s not true, but probably just just on Halloween, but if you counted all the kids that get hit on a typical Halloween, you know, there’s some serious injuries because of Halloween. And the the PFR say they should they should be spending the time on traffic enforcement rather than on going door to door checking up on the registrants.

Andy 57:25
Absolutely. There is a interesting section in there talking about what the definition I guess more like the clinical or the legal definition of trafficking means where if so you got a girl that runs away, she’s got a really crappy situation at home. And so she runs away and she ends up on the street and she needs a place to stay. So she ends up having sex with someone to end up with a place to stay. That could be construed as sex trafficking because she used sex to to get food, place to stay, whatever. That’s when I think of sex trafficking I think of some hidden wall on ice. My trailer, and they’re being shuttled over to the Middle East or something like that for some rich dude on a boat. That’s what I imagined as sex trafficking.

Larry 58:07
That would be that would be the extreme definition of it. But that’d be something probably in between where people were would there to some extent, I think pimping when the when you look at traditional prostitution with a pimp there’s there’s there’s a certain element of trafficking there but they’ve expanded this definition to a practical includes everything that was already a crime except they’ve made it a more serious crime because they’ve been trapped. They’ve been trafficked. And it’s to the point where, if a college girl wants to sell her nude pictures, they want to call that trafficking because it’s for profit. It’s as a sexual thing for profit.

Andy 58:47
But then isn’t a centerfold model from playboy penthouse. Isn’t that trafficking to what?

Larry 58:53
Well, it did it one step below because it’s not nude. I don’t think they go completely nude in the search. They will I’m thinking of Sports Illustrated, which is on my dresser right now of the Swimsuit Issue. Well, I mean, the Swimsuit Issue so that’s what you look forward to.

Andy 59:11
This guy is not judging you. Not not judging. But on the on the

Larry 59:15
Playboy centerfold. Do they still publish that rag anyway?

Andy 59:21
I think so. But there are other regs where there are people in the buff in them wouldn’t then be trafficking?

Larry 59:28
Well, it might not be. Because it’s, we have this thing in this country where if it’s for a commercial entity, we looked the other way. But if it if it’s for someone who’s doing it further for their own purpose, it’s different. You know, it’s kind of

Andy 59:44
like 100% no sense.

Larry 59:46
Yeah, no, but that is the reality of what we do you know that. You

Andy 59:51
did it that way. Okay.

Larry 59:52
Well, you let you let you let a storm come along and let someone raise their prices, because they happen to have something Their price their price gouging so that you let you but you let someone raise their prices because OPEC raise their prices and it’s not price gouging and they didn’t pay any more for that for that for that fuel that’s in the distribution channel so if OPEC raise their prices by 20% overnight, all that all that fuel that’s been produced as a pipeline that that why not gouging?

Andy 1:00:23
The eye? Isn’t there some sort of like limit that they’ll put in place? I mean, if you raise your price by some pennies, no one’s going to notice but if you raise it if you double it now everyone’s got their panties in a wad.

Larry 1:00:34
Well, yeah, but but I’m just saying but depending on who does it we tend to we tend to turn a blind eye depending on who does it. It seems to be from US media so

Andy 1:00:43
so when a big porn studio puts out movies and they pay their their performers, that’s not sex trafficking, but if I go around the corner and pay for something now I’m sex trafficking.

Larry 1:00:54
Yes, because you’re just a piano you you you you’ve took advantage of the poor college girl or college. Got whatever you’re trying to try to pay for for the porn and and and Hefner’s operation is all legit base taxes they’re regulated, overseen and they pay taxes on this

Andy 1:01:14
just this this makes this actually makes no sense to me. I’ve never understood I’ve never understood this and believe it well, adults should be able to enter in an arrangement however they want to enter that arrangement.

Larry 1:01:25
Oh, I don’t make the rules. I just tell you what I think I perceived them to be and I’ve perceived that the big people are cut loose like on things that they could do that little people can’t do.

Andy 1:01:36
I do understand and this is in here that caught your eye.

Larry 1:01:40
This story was from your state if I’m not mistaken.

Andy 1:01:43
It what well, partially that’s another part of the story that is a bogus is how many states did it happen and it happened in like three or four states. surrounding states you know, Kentucky I guess, trying to remember which other states it was Kentucky so it was a South Carolina, Tennessee, Oklahoma, Florida, Kentucky and Michigan. Against not anywhere close to a southern state. And it wasn’t just one law enforcement outfit. It like, the way that it’s reported is there’s almost nothing true about it once you peel back all the layers, well, it also

Larry 1:02:13
speaks to what we need to do for for troubled teens in the way of comprehensive services we really need. We need places for them to return to that have adequate funding, so that they don’t end up out on the street. And there’s a number of that was another piece

Andy 1:02:27
of this.

Larry 1:02:28
There’s a number of people who actually would like services, and there’s always the saber toothed tiger and someone will bring out they’ll say, well, we all heard that person services, and they said, No. And I get that, but that’s the anomaly. That’s not the norm. But they’ll come out and say, Well, you know, I went by and I talked to this homeless person. And I, he didn’t want to help you out. Well, I’ve tried this same experiment, and I think I’ve talked about maybe to you about was in the last year that I’ve that I’ve tried to give jobs to people around the office building here and they did Take me up on it but that you cannot conclude from one or two, the data representation of everybody

Andy 1:03:06
correct? Correct. Correct. Okay. I think we can move over to some listener questions. Oh, wait, no, before we do that we got to we got to do the new patrons later we had three this week which is pretty frickin outstanding fantasy new patrons

Larry 1:03:22
fantastic and we also got some subscribers to our to our transcript service.

Andy 1:03:29
You didn’t you haven’t shared those with me so I’m going to say who the patrons are. We got a new one named Nick. And we have a returning one and named Dave and then a very generous monthly support from Katie thank all of you so very much and thank you to all of our listeners and especially our patrons that help support the podcast and make it less onerous Is that the right word onerous onerous on owners anyway, arduous, arduous that’s the word I’m looking for, to do the podcast.

Larry 1:03:55
Well, it is so much fun that we would do this and pay to get to Do it ourselves.

Unknown Speaker 1:04:02
Sure.

Andy 1:04:05
How many how many people have subscribed to just like the transcription side of things?

Larry 1:04:10
Well, when I say subscribe we we have, there’s two mechanisms to subscribe. The patrons that are supporting at 15 a month can designate a recipient. And we’ve got we’ve got a few of those and I don’t have the exact count and then we’ve got like three that have subscribed directly as a result of us reaching out. In addition to the subscribers, what I’ve been doing is sending out additional invites to people with a transcript, a sample app with a subscription form. It says if you would like to receive this regularly, you can subscribe directly and we’ve had some subscribed directly, two or three subscribed directly, and they’re paying with postage stamps, which are acceptable. I’ve mentioned this last week, but please send us shade Send us a sheet or a book. We don’t want the loose stamps that have been torn apart. And they’ve got frayed around the edges and we can’t get the backing the peel off. And what I end up doing with those as tossing them because the effort and time it takes to peel the backing off is more than the stamp is worth. But if you want to pay by stamps as a different cost of distributing, this is postage, so therefore it would just save us the postage so we welcome the stamps, but please send the stamps that we want, which is good clean sheet for good clean books.

Andy 1:05:34
And don’t suitcase them. What is so suitcases that we’re not going to go into that it’s a family oriented program and we get taken off the air. Anybody that has been in this community would know what suitcases Yes, and we don’t go into that.

Larry 1:05:47
Well, well, but but yes, we’ve we’ve, I feel like by the end of the year, we’re gonna have dozens more because the comments are good. We’ve got we’ve gotten some letters, and they’re usually too long to read on the podcast. jogged up. And Dan Barry, thank you for the very kind letter that we just got yesterday from you, Eric and Virginia, same thing, thank you for your kind, kind words. And we’re looking forward to having correspondence from people. We are not able to respond to everybody personally. But everything that sent to us if it’s legible, we do read it.

Andy 1:06:27
Excellent. And I would also like to point out that we have like a whole menagerie of people in the live stream and the patrons are the ones that can join the live stream. I appreciate all them showing up and supporting. It’s kind of fun to have people hanging around tossing questions that mean keeping me occupied.

Larry 1:06:43
Alrighty, well, we’re Where are we going next?

Andy 1:06:45
We are going to go over the question from Gregory about Facebook and SCOTUS and you hate it when I say SCOTUS, don’t you? I do. Yes, you say it’s disrespectful. So I will say the Supreme Court of the United States That’s better and what you highlighted as a there was a case in 2017 18, where a person challenged North Carolina law regarding sex offenders first amendment rights, and Facebook. It was a favorable outcome, but my Facebook was deleted by some terms and use clause blah, blah, blah. I had that page since 2010 and several irreplaceable pictures. I wrote Facebook in 2020, but received no response. And asking if you’ve heard of this. North Carolina has a 10 year petition law that allows you to get off the registry. Let’s cover those in a minute. We’ll do the Facebook part of this first 10 Facebook block our people from being on their platform?

Larry 1:07:43
Well, the case he’s talking about is the packing ham case. And the the the issue in packing ham was that the state of North Carolina had passed a complete and total ban of anyone required to register for Being able to access social media, not just Facebook. And it was so broad that it eliminated so many legitimate resources that the Supreme Court the United States reversed the North Carolina High Court, which North Carolina High Court had said it was okay. And it was taken the US Supreme Court and they reversed that. But people confuse that. That was not I case against Facebook. That was a case against the state of North Carolina. The state had said, You shall not access this. And that’s where the First Amendment comes in. We don’t have a complete right to speech on somebody else’s platform. You have the right to not be impeded by the government. And that was the government interfering, but you cannot command to take control of somebody else’s platforms. Try that on Sunday morning, show up at your local synagogue or church or, or whatever they you worship. I tell them that you have an alternate message you I’d like to deliver it and see if they’ll turn the microphone over to you. Tell them you have

Andy 1:09:04
someone coming in here right now saying the same thing. Hey, look, I want to talk on your podcast. Can you unmute me? No, I cannot.

Larry 1:09:11
Thank you very much. You have you have no such right now we actually do invite people that don’t necessarily see things our way. But this is our distribution channel for what we’re trying to message and Facebook as a private company. And until it’s either defined as the public utility by statute, or by that evolving case law, which some people don’t believe in, that the lawyer evolves. But until that happens, Facebook can delist your account. And they did. And they’ve been encouraged to do that by the government when they when they passed, I believe in 2008. I think it was the protect act may have that wrong, but they passed the database for social media companies to have access to and They collect all the the usernames and screen names and all this stuff from people required to register. And then those who, who companies who who provide social media, they can, they can compare what they have against that federal database. And they list those accounts. That’s one way that people just flat out report them. They say that this person is on the sex offender registry. And Facebook can do that.

Andy 1:10:26
And I will address the little final point in there says I had a page since 2010 and several irreplaceable pictures. Listen, anybody who puts their only copy of a picture, somewhere at one of these places, whether that’s Google or Facebook, you are just asking for trouble if you know if the only copy of your pictures on your phone and your phone gets run over by a truck like I, what are you supposed to do, you need to have multiple copies you need to have backups and so forth. Do not trust any of these places to store your pictures. It’s fine. It makes it easy to share it. But don’t make that your own only copy well

Larry 1:11:00
To a naive person like me, tell me how that can be your only copy for it to be uploaded to Facebook, it would have to exist somewhere, right?

Andy 1:11:08
If it’s at Facebook and they delete your account, I would be willing to bet like in this particular person’s case, the picture is still there. They didn’t they like they just turned off your account, I don’t know that they would have necessarily deleted it because nothing really gets deleted at this point. But for someone like you, you, you have an Android phone, I know this. So use Google Photos, and all of your photos would then just get uploaded to Google. There’s at least two copies now. Now there’s one on Google and there’s one install on your phone, but you’re going to eventually run out of space on your phone. Now what do you do? You need to find another way to move those pictures somewhere else as well.

Larry 1:11:42
So while I was getting it, if you take a photo if you’re at the grocery store and you take a photo before you get upload it to Facebook, it has to be somewhere so what you when you upload to Facebook, what do you still have it?

Andy 1:11:55
You would but eventually you’re going to run out of space. It’s it is less common now but phones in our past I’ve had very, very limited storage, you know, four gigs, eight gigs of storage, and maybe you couldn’t even put an external storage card in it. So he’ll run it, you’ll run out of space fast. And now cameras on phones or they take gigantic, very, very, very, very large pictures, and you will just run out of space fast if you’re not careful.

Larry 1:12:21
So, all right, well, let’s go to the second part about the tenure audition.

Andy 1:12:25
Yeah, so then he says North Carolina has a 10 year petition law that allows you off the registry sooner, but I don’t know how I don’t know much about it. Do you? Do you assist people with innocence claims? I’m not requesting that assistance, but I may be able to refer you guys if you do.

Larry 1:12:41
They ask for the last part is no we do not. don’t have the resources or mechanisms to pursue innocence claim. But there is a petition process currently in North Carolina. It does work I know of people who have gotten off and it is it is still available that could change. If the regulations are adopted, it could be that North Carolina would decide that they’re going to honor the federal terms of registration. Therefore, they would come in at object to any petition that would say this would violate federal law. And they would encourage the legislature to change the law that would say that no one can be removed if it would, if it would, if that person would have a longer period of registration required by federal law. So it’s a danger for people in terms of whether they’ll that process will continue to exist and if so, in what form

Andy 1:13:33
Hmm, okay. Um, do you assist people as I would you, I guess it’s all it’s in? Yeah, I guess that’s all that goes on in there.

Larry 1:13:43
Alright, so now we got another one.

Andy 1:13:47
Yes, we do. And you actually helped me out because the other one is an incredibly long letter. If anybody wants to see it over on the, the screenshare part that I have them it’s a it’s a long, long letter with a lot of compliments in it. But we have a condensed version of it.

Larry 1:14:02
Yes. I was told I was told that I pulled out the questions. Okay. It’s from

Andy 1:14:07
this from Ben.

Larry 1:14:09
Yes. And thank you, Ben for the subscription. He subscribed once and he said how wonderful the transcripts are that he’s gotten so far.

Andy 1:14:17
All right, and he says, I would like to start a new life without too much aggravation. I do not see that happening in Wisconsin. Thus, upon my release, I hope to leave Wisconsin and complete my 10 year parole period elsewhere. In Wisconsin State law requires that anyone convicted of a sexual offense be released to their county of conviction, like so many others. I have no connection to that location any longer. What does one do?

Larry 1:14:43
Well, and he raises a good point, because what happened in Wisconsin was that that the, as the locals said about trying to outdo themselves, you ended up with more and more places that were off limits and you had people that were at the Department of correction. was paroling. And remember that if you have no post prison supervision, you can live anywhere you want to, you would only be bound by whatever restrictions are in place. By law, if it was a 2000 foot restriction in a particular place, or 1000 foot or 500, you could live there as long as you ordered that. But in this case, the the corrections department actually provides transitional assistance. And they they were putting people they were placing people, and we ended up having concentrations of people because of the hopscotch of play or places where they could live. And that caused exactly what I used at our state to make sure there were no residency restrictions because you end up you end up with you end up with a battle. In Wisconsin, they passed a law that a person who’s paroled under the supervision of Corrections Department, they will they will have to go back to the county they were convicted. That is so ridiculous, because you may not have any connections. At that point. By the time you are you’re paroled but In terms of his issue, it won’t apply to him if he wants to move out of Wisconsin. They can’t force him to, I shouldn’t say can’t. They shouldn’t. They shouldn’t. And I don’t believe they will force him to bake parole to a Wisconsin address if he has a non Wisconsin address. So he could apply as he gets within the zone of parole to another state, and he listed some states and the letter that he was interested in, but thank you,

Andy 1:16:27
which leads to question number two says my mother and brother lives 70 miles from that county, as do any, any other relatives. I do have aunts and uncles and other states including Kentucky, Minnesota, Missouri and Tennessee. I’ve written several organizations in those states to no avail. Can I live in another state?

Larry 1:16:45
You absolutely can. And you don’t have a right to but there is a process that will allow you to you can apply for transfer of your supervision through the interstate compact for adult offender supervision and that would be done through Your prison case worker, you can’t have a relative do it for you on the outside. The state of Wisconsin is the beginning of the process. And the corrections people have to do it. They will they, I would, I would hope that they would not want to impede you leave in Wisconsin, if you have Bible addresses. So what you would do is make the application through through your resource at the prison, however they have they handle reentry, make that application. Unfortunately, I did some research on the fee. And Wisconsin is one of those states that charges a hefty fee. So if you were to want to apply to go to another state, it’s $150. And I don’t know if that if they have a waiver process for that in Wisconsin, but that would be for their for their duties of putting forth the paperwork to one of those states. So Wisconsin would be the sending state they would send an application to Minnesota and you would discuss You would describe your dress your connections to Minnesota, and Minnesota would have 45 days from receipt of that to go out, investigate and determine if there would be anything that would preclude them from being able to effectively supervise you there. It could be something like what he described in a letter like residency restrictions, they could find that as a wonderful home. But it’s too close to something that they don’t allow supervised offenders to live close to. And then they would they would turn that application down. Or it could be something like, when they collect the data on the people living there, they may find that they have felony conviction. So they don’t they wouldn’t feel that would be a positive environment. It could be that the family has children, biters, it could be any number of things. You need to do your best to eliminate all the things that could exclude you. Because at $150, a whack, your commissary accounts going to get very low, very fast and out there. And the sad thing is there’s nobody to call. You don’t have he’s already pointed out that he didn’t receive any answer from the States. If he just said if he said That question here, we wouldn’t have answered it either. A we don’t have the resources. And B, it would be fantastic for advocacy efforts, efforts if we if if letters were produced, showing that we were trying to help import people with other out of state convictions to our state. I mean, the lawmakers in Santa Fe would just be totally enamored by that. So therefore, we wouldn’t have sent an answer either. So I’m telling you, in defense of the state, she wrote to a they don’t have they’re just volunteers and be they wouldn’t write you that anyway. Because the last time they have walked with me for a copy of that to show up. I mean, it just wouldn’t, it wouldn’t serve well, but I’m telling you what you need to do, which is to apply. Do everything you can to ascertain what would preclude them from approval. You know, who you’re applied to live with, make sure they haven’t been convicted of something in recent years. I mean, they may have a 30 or conviction but make sure they don’t have any recent felony convictions. Make sure they don’t have any minors. Make sure they don’t live close to them. Consent would give the supervising officials consternation before before you do the application. And you might very well find that you leave Wisconsin, because if I were Wisconsin, I would want to get rid of as many as I can. Because if they’re gonna be offending I’d rather than be offending in another state, wouldn’t you?

Unknown Speaker 1:20:18
Totally.

Andy 1:20:21
All right. And then this is this is a subject that I think every time I hear the answer to this one, I feel like I have had to relearn what was said before because it gets confusing to me. So the person then asked, I do not know about other state registry restrictions, but not many can be worse than Wisconsin. What would I be facing in those states in terms of my registration requirements,

Larry 1:20:43
you will be facing exactly what those states require no more. And so if you were to, if you were to luckily be accepted for Vermont, Vermont has no interest in what Wisconsin requires in terms of registration. So silverbolt would tell you just like if you took a car to Vermont, Vermont would tell you how much to pay for it, how often you would, you would pay that bill, how you’d go about paying that bill. And when you would be exempt from paying that bill, the same thing will happen when you go to register in a new state. That state will tell you what your obligations are. And it will not have anything to do with a few exceptions was the state that you were convicted, and if you’re registered there, because you’re no longer there. The nuance about Wisconsin is that they continue to tell you that you need to pay the hundred dollar fee.

Andy 1:21:32
for that person that asked a question a few episodes back that he’s still paying for something even after he’s left

Larry 1:21:37
it I always get confused as to 50 $100 fee, but they tell the people they send them a form and they tell the return in the form that they need to comply. Well, that that is as silly as if you left Georgia and you registered your car in California. And Georgia said you have billed said go ahead and send your money on in. Would you send your money in?

Andy 1:21:58
I don’t think I would I would at least go Question at though?

Larry 1:22:00
Well, what that’s the whole thing. I don’t think jurisdictionally I don’t think they have a leg to stand on because you’re no longer subject to Wisconsin’s regulatory scheme. But so your registry obligations. Now, let’s be clear, we’re talking about your registry obligations, not your supervision obligations, but your registration obligations. They will be whatever the state determines that they are by that state standards. Your supervision is completely controlled by the sending state in terms of all that stuff follows you. If they give you 10 years of supervision, you’ve got 10 years when you get to Vermont, even if Vermont would have only given you two years.

Andy 1:22:42
If they tell you that your mind has what if Vermont has longer doesn’t make any difference

Larry 1:22:47
you in terms of your supervision it is the supervision is determined by the state that placed you under supervision. So how long you’re under supervision is totally controlled by the state. Place you’re under supervision. Wouldn’t it be great if one state could unravel another state sentence?

Andy 1:23:06
Certainly, I’ve just there always seems to be this to me it’s a it’s complicated and confusing to me because a you have state felony conviction rules, you also have then your probation supervision things. And those two could be completely in concert with each other, but they could be like, have nothing to do with each other. And now you move to a different state. And you’re still under supervision. So now you almost have like four sets of rules, you have probation and then your state stuff and then and from the two states, so you have four different things that you have to try and mingle together to figure out what you got to do.

Larry 1:23:37
It seems, well, it’s not that complicated. The state it put you on under supervision, they have the only power to relieve you of that supervision. to terminate it early. If they give you 10 years. You’ve got 10 years wherever you go. of supervision. But don’t confuse it with registration. It’s always supervision. Always The conditions they placed on you as a part of your punishment that follows you. If you’ve got to pay $100 monthly find when you go to the robot, you still owe that hundred dollar monthly fine, because that’s the part of your punishment. Right? If you were told to get counseling that goes with you even if Vermont doesn’t require counseling, Vermont has to look at your conditions, they have to say, well, you’re required to get counseling until we have determined at the discretion of the probation office. So we’re gonna have you be evaluated to see if you need counseling, and they if it’s worded in such a way that they can relieve you of that. It tells the district but if it says until the till the termination of the court, then you would have you would have counseling until the court relieved you don’t want the court in the state that imposed it could relieve you I don’t understand what’s confusing.

Andy 1:24:49
Larry you live in this stuff let’s let’s talk about my world for a while and see how long it’s not but

Larry 1:24:53
but this but this is this is this is so simple, the state imposes the punishment on you determines to punish But you cannot escape your would be a fantastic system. If you could go to another state and escape your punishment by simply saying, well, they wouldn’t have punished me that severely here. So therefore, I get to be by your your punishment. I got a 20 year citizen bombing, but you would only give me three years out three, would that be a great system? What would happen if it worked that way?

Andy 1:25:21
I, okay, then then shelve that for just a second. Georgia has 1000 foot living restrictions go move to a state that doesn’t have them. Do you have to follow those living restrictions?

Larry 1:25:31
Well, if they’re in the Georgia law, no, because the Georgia law doesn’t follow you. So if the if the registration law in Georgia says you’ve got 1000 feet, we don’t give a damn about that when you get to Wyoming if we don’t have that. Sure. If If your conditions of supervision says You shall not live within 1000 feet of a school, and that’s an order of the court that makes it a little bit different because that’s a part of your punishment. So that’s probation condition. That’s an exciting answer. But so what the receiving state would do in a case like that they would they would, they would notify the sending state and say, we don’t have that here. We can enforce that here. And then sending state would get the option to remove a condition that they can’t enforce. there be a state like Texas uses that word. Well, I think the Court has said that residence restrictions can’t be imposed. If if someone had a restriction that they could live with 1000 feet because of the nature of their crime. The court may have said we don’t want you within 1500 feet of word where children congregate and go to school. If that got to Massachusetts, they would say No, we won’t be able to enforce that. And they would notify the state you need to remove that condition or we can’t accept this offender. But But your punishment goes with you. And and on top of that the state that you go to, if they would have had an additional special condition that they routinely impose on a Fender of of your nature that has an offense similar to yours, they could add on special condition that can’t change your, your the duration of your punishment, but they can they can add a special condition if it’s consistent while they supervise their offenders. Okay. So do you

Andy 1:27:16
have an extra question that we were going to answer real quick?

Larry 1:27:18
Real quickly? Yes, the person. Eric, as a matter of fact was mentioned that he had filed a cert petition and that, that the state didn’t answer. They didn’t file anything in response. And that’s typical. They don’t file anything response when you file a cert petition, because the overwhelming odds are that the court is not going to do anything other than a one line order saying cert petition has been denied. So therefore, to say we’d be spending gobs of money falling response to something that the court has no interest in. So you cannot conclude anything from the fact that the state didn’t follow responsive pleading, in fact, is strategically probably wise that they don’t because the worst thing you could do, would be to be coy or cute or say something they could pick The court clerk, the law clerks interested read sets or petition, and you just wouldn’t do that. So there’s nothing to make an effect that the state doesn’t follow response you’ll hear when the courts interested in something, they’ll direct the state to follow responses, and that’s what the state will file their response.

Andy 1:28:16
Okay. I think that about wraps it up, Larry.

Larry 1:28:20
I hope so. Thank you hope so. I don’t know

Andy 1:28:23
where to check out.

Larry 1:28:24
We’re on overtime now.

Andy 1:28:26
Almost not quite where at 127 is what I have for time. But you could find the show over at registry matters that CEO Larry what’s the phone number?

Larry 1:28:37
I forgot 74772274477

Andy 1:28:43
and email is registry matters. cast@gmail.com and we love all of our listeners. But our patrons are especially special to us. How do people reach us through Patreon?

Larry 1:28:56
Very carefully on the internet you you surf around to find us

Andy 1:29:00
patreon.com slash registry matters hundred 44 episodes so you don’t have this I should be like beat you up at two o’clock in the morning Larry. What’s the Patreon address? patreon.com slash register

Larry 1:29:12
look at like there’s there’s nearly 100 people in the chat.

Andy 1:29:16
You need to get your glasses check because it’s not quite that many. It’s close but not quite that many. Larry I appreciate it as always, and I think I’m supposed to do something else before I do all that, aren’t I?

Larry 1:29:30
I always glad to be here.

Andy 1:29:34
And I can I can I can I find it really quick.

Larry 1:29:36
Nope, you don’t have it.

Andy 1:29:39
I can find it and then I’ll have to clip out things. There it is. I found it.

Unknown Speaker 1:29:44
That is why I am here.

Andy 1:29:49
Thank you very Have a great night.

Larry 1:29:51
Good night, everybody.

Unknown Speaker 1:29:54
You’ve been listening to F YP

Listen to RM143: Will Willman Undo Does v. Snyder feat Josh Hoe

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 143 of Registry Matters. Larry, how are you tonight? I have a question for you. How are you?

Larry 00:29
Fantastic.

Andy 00:31
Alright. I was I was at the beach yesterday with a friend and a woman came up to the she was the waitress and she came up and we asked how she was doing and she said, I have the devil on my face. And she was wearing a mask and I know I’m gonna get hate mail for this. But I don’t understand how a person can have a mask on their face, and they’re going to blame Coronavirus. And if Trump is reelected, that it would then go away, that he would fix it. But he’s the one in office now and she’s wearing a mask now why that person is office? I’m really so confused by that.

Larry 01:08
I’m really confused. I didn’t follow it.

Andy 01:12
Well, anyway, alright, Josh, you are a guest this evening. You’ve been on with us before you, you host a podcast called Decarceration Nation. And I think it’s a fabulous program. You you do a crap ton of research for your program. And I’m always amazed at how well you do I know that you you run it very different than how we run it here where you are very much like you script kind of sort of the whole thing and you have all the questions prepared in advance and all that stuff. So welcome, again, as usual.

Josh 01:42
Thanks. Yeah, I do pre script a lot of the podcast but and do a lot of research. Yes.

Andy 01:48
It makes it easy to to edit it. And so that hey, look, hey, you can have a hard break and just like can you ask that question again? Oh, hey, let’s let’s ask that question again. What are, are you in your summer break? What are you doing? You’re not you’re not releasing episodes for a little while?

Josh 02:07
Yeah, I’ve got a couple more episodes before the whatever I’ve called the season is finally over. But it’s mostly done for the year until November when we’ll have our… usually I start new seasons on Martin Luther King Day. But I do have a couple more episodes this season.

Andy 02:24
Excellent, excellent. And you tagged me on Twitter or tagged the podcast on Twitter about a whole bunch of different policies. Can you can you dig into that real quick? Do you remember what your, what I’m talking about?

Josh 02:40
I think was just that, I think it was earlier today and I was just talking about something about failure to register, probably, but I don’t really remember.

Andy 02:52
But it was like six tweets long a thread and talking about that there’s no evidence that any of the registry stuff has any improvement on public safety, and so on and so on. Anyway, we don’t have to dig into it without a lot of detail.

Josh 03:06
Okay, well, that’s definitely something I might say for sure.

Andy 03:10
Oh, yeah, yeah. But you tagged you tagged the podcast and a couple other people. And that’s how I ended up seeing it.

Josh 03:16
Yeah, yeah. It’s just, you know, here it is. So basically there was an article in The Washington Free Beacon about how Kamala Harris or Kamala Harris had said, had it when she was the Attorney General of California had rolled back residence residency restrictions for people on the registry, which isn’t entirely correct, but they were basically just trying to make a political attack against her. But then, you know, by saying that if you roll back registry, like the residency restrictions, that you must be pro, basically pro sex offender. So, but they didn’t put any of it in context, and they didn’t do any of the research that’s necessary to kind of like understand the residency restriction question, they just asked one kind of proponent of residency restrictions, to make a bunch of kind of pejorative comments about Kamala Harris doing that. And so basically, all I did was link most of the the different major articles that have claimed through, you know, based on the research that there’s really no public safety basis for residency restrictions based in and none of the research supports that. And so I just thought it would be something that would be interesting to your Twitter folks. And so that’s why I tagged you.

Andy 04:40
I got it and here we are. See, that works out.

Josh 04:44
It does work out. I didn’t think it was going to literally become part of the podcast, but now that we’re here, all right, you know.

Andy 04:52
Larry, we had someone phoned in and actually then also left a comment on the website that we are going, that the person wanted to describe something about some partisanship. And am I I don’t think I’m getting ahead of where we are. The person said that, that Joe Biden created the AWA or maybe he sponsored the AWA and you you immediately tagged me back and sent me an article whatever like us.gov whatever like the congressional document listing out how it all came about. What happened?

Larry 05:28
well, I took a little issue I was actually not very nice when I saw that. When I heard that because we go out of our way not to be partisan, and I want to define, use Webster’s dictionary what partisan is. Definition number one: a firm adherent to a party, faction, cause or person especially. One exhibiting blind prejudice and unreasoning allegiance. Political partisans who only see one part of the problem. Another definition of feeling or showing or deriving from strong and sometimes blind adherence to a particular party, faction or cause. This is not Registry Matters. We do not have a blind allegiance to any party. We have a blind allegiance to good public policy. And we have opposition to bad public policy. And whichever party happens to be the architect of that policy that’s good, they will get our accolades. The party that’s the architect of bad public policy, they will get our criticism. And it’s just that simple. If you promote good public policy, now you can differ on what you think good public policy is, that’s fine. But I’m not loyal to a particular party because I’m loyal to that party. I’m loyal to that party on what I agree with that party on and and if I if I don’t agree with something, I say that and I’ve said it over and over on the podcast, things I don’t agree with, regardless of the party. So in my mind, we’re not partisan. If we can’t discuss the issues, if we can’t criticize bad public policy, I really don’t even know what the point of being here would would accomplish because what we’re trying to do is alter public thinking and promote good public policy. And we have to at least be able to identify where the problem is before we can work towards a solution. But anyway, that kind of that kind of got my attention? (Andy: I can definitely tell your feathers are ruffled there.) We’re not partisan. Now, unfortunately for our cause, the, one party gets more of our wrath than the other, but that that’s only because of the policies that they’re promoting. It’s not because of the party that their name is. That’s all it is. If they, if they, if they promote good things, they magically get all sorts of accolades. They’ve gotten credit, credit for the for the, the campus assault, the changes they’ve made in terms of investigation of those accused of sexual assaults on campus. I’ve given I’ve given this administration huge accolades for that. (Andy: Right.) But but but other things have been not so favorable to our cause. And I’ve not been so complimentary of the administration. But on the other hand, what’s going on here was that that, that that was just factually wrong, and the person who submitted that, they are actually the partisan themselves. They have a blind allegiance to their party, and they don’t really take the time to know what’s going on here. First of all, we need to take a look at who controlled Congress in 2006. Because a president cannot sign anything, unless it makes it through both houses of Congress, the same piece of legislation. Either it’s identical or it goes through a conference process, though a conference committee and reconciled, but it can’t get to a president without going through Congress. And for those who want to want to look at the numbers we’re going to make it available for, for for the for the viewing audience and for the listening audience of what Congress looked like in 2006, when the Adam Walsh Act was passed. The Republicans had about a 10 seat majority of the in the in the Senate, which is a significant majority of it’s not, it’s not it’s not what it takes to overcome a cloture vote where you need 60 but it was a solid, solid majority. And in the House of Representatives, they had a comfortable majority, not not by the same ratio, but they had a comfortable majority. And for those of you who’ve been around for a long time on this podcast, when you when you when you’re the majority party, that means you control the committees. Every Chair of every committee is a member of the majority party. The committees decide, the chairs decide what they’re going to hear when they’re going to hear it. The majority decides what goes to the floor for a vote. And what order it goes to the floor once it makes it through the committee process. When you have the majority being Republicans in 2006, the Democrat Party didn’t have anything that they could do that could have stopped the Adam Walsh Act, but they actually did try it, believe it or not, if, if if I could find the archives from 2006 on the Bill O’Reilly show. Bill O’Reilly, who did the famous O’Reilly Factor on Fox, he vilified the late senator Edward Kennedy for holding up the Adam Walsh Act. And Kennedy was actually blocking the Adam Walsh Act using parliamentary maneuvers that a minority senator can do to keep it from coming to a vote because he was wanting the republicans to agree to hate crimes legislation in exchange. Now I’m not saying he was pro sex offender so don’t misinterpret that. But he was trying to slow the train down. And O’Reilly vilified Kennedy for days on end until he relaxed and let go and stopped his opposition to the Adam Walsh Act. The Republicans authored it, Representative Sensenbrenner, Sensenbrenner from Wisconsin, the republicans managed the process to get it through the house. The Republicans managed the process to get it to the Senate and through the Senate, and the republican occupant of the White House, signed it. And now, I’m not criticizing President Bush, either. President Bush would have made no difference. If it had been President Nixon, had been President Carter. If it’d been President Reagan, any president would have signed this because it would have been suicidal not to sign it because this was protecting children. And, and so I’m not I’m not putting the fault on Bush. Bush signed it because it was presented to him as something good for public safety. But if you really want to stop it, you’ve got to look at how it got to President Bush. And it got to President Bush, not because of Senator Biden, it got to President Bush because of the Republicans who were running the show in 2006. That’s not partisan. That’s simply the way it happened.

Andy 12:00
So but what about so help educate me when I look at this, and I don’t know who controlled Congress at this time in 2005, and six, and I look at who co-sponsored the bill, and they have 32 republicans and six Democrats, that show as being co-sponsors of the bill. How significant is that information in determining where the problem lies I guess is the question?

Larry 12:29
You shouldn’t read a whole lot into that. This is the type of thing where I think before it made it through the final process, there was a whole lot more. Those were just initial co-sponsors. The people who served in Congress got on board because it was it was gonna pass and they couldn’t be on the wrong side of the issue. But again, you have to understand this was was a Republican item, not partisan. Simply fact. It was not democrat proposal. And and there were some democratic co-sponsors initially. That number grew as the thing moved through the process. But I wouldn’t read a whole lot into that in terms of of the co-sponsors, because it’s easy to get co-sponsors for something like this. It’s hard to say no. when you’re, when you’re seeking co-sponsors for something that’s going to save children. It’s very difficult to say, Well, no, I’m not interested in saving kids. But But you had a 55-44 majority in the Senate. That’s a very solid, one independent who was actually, who would have voted with the with the Democrats. But still you had a 55-45 a majority. So that’s how it got through the Senate. It wasn’t Mr. Biden, I know that that would make you feel really good to think that Biden did this, but Biden didn’t do it. If you can have some evidence rather than just your partisanship, to submit to us to show what Biden did particularly that made this happen, we’ll cover it next week on the podcast, but right now, all I hear is I’m angry at Biden. I don’t like Biden. And I’m going to create in my mind that Biden did something that Biden didn’t do.

Andy 14:09
Will in chat has said the Act was introduced by John Walsh in a closed session. How does one man get a closed session to push his legislative ideas? There was no public discussion or debate on the bill.

Larry 14:20
That’s silliness. John Walsh didn’t introduce a damn thing. He wasn’t a member of Congress. He can’t introduce anything. (Andy: Okay.) And there was nothing closed about this. Look at that link I sent you of all the congressional actions that took place on this. This again is buying into conspiratorial theories. This went through the regular legislative process. As legislation moves, if you look down that list of all of the actions that occurred in the bill, it was not done in the middle of the night. So, it was done through the process that we have.

Andy 14:57
Josh before we kick this out, do you want to talk about anything. There?

Josh 15:03
Oh, no, I think that I don’t have much to say on any of that. I that was a bad moment for sure when that passed.

Andy 15:11
Yeah, no doubt. No doubt. I was just just I didn’t want to leave you without the opportunity to speak about it.

Josh 15:19
No, that’s okay. Larry got that one fine.

Andy 15:23
Yep, yep, yep, yep.

Larry 15:26
I don’t I don’t mean to diminish John Walsh’s influence. He did have a significant influence. This was named after his son. And John Walsh was was was masquerading around. But John Walsh didn’t introduce this. This was this was something that he encouraged. And it was, I think, signed on his what would have been his son’s birthday, if I remember right in 2006, August 2006. But but it was, it was it was something that had been pushed by the Republicans. I’m sorry to have to burst your bubble. But that’s the reality of what happened, so.

Andy 16:03
and then we have this article from the Washington Post that I’m going to, you know, let me let me take a quick little detour. So like two hours before we were going to record I decided, hey, it’s probably a good idea for me to reboot my computer. Oh, gosh, then all the troubles ensued. So I’m running on a backup computer and things are very slow over here. But so from the Washington Post is three years ago, an officer was filmed beating up a handcuffed black man. Now he’s the police chief. Larry, is this something that probably happens on a somewhat regular basis?

Larry 16:39
Let’s hope not. I stuck that in there just for kind of this. The irony of it. If you look at the, you compare it with the Minneapolis, the officer that had, how many complaints did he have? the one that did the neck?

Andy 16:58
it was in the dozens, maybe in the 20s.

Josh 17:02
Yeah, I don’t know the number. I definitely there are certainly a lot of people who continue to get hired in in police departments despite a lot of complaints against them.

Andy 17:15
There’s a clip in here, it’s one sentence that says I got beat stomped, kicked into my groin. That’s uh, that sounds like a really nice way to be handled.

Larry 17:27
I don’t see a problem with it Andy. I don’t know what you liberals are always griping about.

Andy 17:32
I mean, I get mean, a police officer is going to do what they have to do to get to get you to comply. I was having lunch with someone who said, Look, if you get pulled over by the police if you have some sort of police interaction, and things escalate and the police officer gives you some sort of order to do a thing that you should just comply. And while I don’t disagree with the notion that life will be easier if you do comply. I don’t know that you should just blindly comply.

Josh 18:05
There’s also a lot of evidence, there’s a lot of evidence of people who have fully complied and still gotten the beat down so.

Andy 18:11
That’s true. I don’t think George Floyd was resisting and it didn’t go well for him.

Larry 18:19
Well, and I was going to add, Josh that there’s, it sounds simple, but what what that doesn’t take into account are so many variables. We, believe it or not, there are people in this country who do not speak or understand English because it may not be the first language. There are people in this country who have learning disabilities who have have various mental conditions that cause them not to comprehend the directions they’re getting. I myself, I was I was, had had officers draw guns on me. And I was having trouble following their instructions because they’re barking this stuff out at you. You’re scared. You don’t know what you’ve done. I know I didn’t know what I done. I was trying to help at the time trying to hail down an officer and the officer got scared and decided to pull his gun on me and told me to get down on the ground. In an ideal world, yes, you would comply, assuming that you understood, comprehended and you and you were able to comply, but there are people who have medical conditions where they can’t do all that twisting and stuff that the officer tell them to do. How would you like to see your 80 year old? How would you like to see that person trying to comply? When they say get out of the car, get on all fours, crawl backwards to me, would you like to see your 80 year old doing that? 80-year-old grandmother? (Andy: I don’t think I could do it now.) That’s my whole point. That yes, you should ideally you should comply. And and it would certainly go better for you if you if you comply. There are people who willfully disobey. They do understand it and they have their reasons logical to us or illogical to us for not complying. The biggest reason why people don’t comply is they want to be arrested. And so when they bolt on an officer and decide to run, it’s usually because they think or know they have warrants out for them. And they think they’re going to outrun and get a little bit more freedom. Yes, you should have stopped, you should have, you should have stopped. If they tase you, and they do things to you because you ran, you brought that on yourself. But once they get you in a submissive state in a controlled state, that’s where most of us begin to object when they continue when they’re in total domination where they continue to administer a beat down when it’s not necessary. The beat down of Rodney King, I’m not sure it was necessary. But now the police said it was they said that every time they beat him, he kept trying to get up. Well, of course, he would try to get up if you’re being beat up, you’re gonna try to escape the beating Right?

Andy 20:40
Josh, you write about this stuff all the time on your on Twitter and other places?

Josh 20:46
Yeah, you know, I mean, there’s a lot of issues involved here. But you know, the truth is, is that the, you know, people don’t like to hear it this way. But if you look at the statistics, and the thing that people miss about statistics is this notion of per capita. And, you know, African American people are between 13 and 14% of the population, and police violence affects them at a much higher rate than 13 or 14%. Oh, there’s a lot of reasons for that. Not all, most of them are not good reasons. And, you know, I’ve often suggested that, you know, in most all these instances where we see these things happen, and there’s almost always video, the officers are rarely if ever, in direct threat, risk or threat to their lives, and yet they do these things that, you know, more or less push deadly force on to people who are either complying or mostly complying. And that should be deeply problem problematic to everybody. You know, I mean, and, you know, people talk about the need for Law and Order, but what we’re really facing here is a crisis of legitimacy, neighborhoods that have been discriminated against and over policed for decades, and sometimes for centuries, or at least a centur. have, you know that have a lot of people that have lost faith in the rule of law and lost faith in the objectivity of law enforcement and they don’t believe in it in the same way anymore. And so the idea that you fix a crisis of legitimacy by cracking down more seems fanciful to me and and really counterproductive, and that seems to be what people’s answer is. It’s either, literally, you know, take the calls to defund the police literally, which to some extent is true, but mostly not. Or to say that you want to return to really harsh law and order kind of command and control Police crackdowns, and neither of those have any chance of fixing the problem. The only thing that’s going to fix the problem is if police officers stopped disproportionately shooting people who are black and brown, I mean, and it doesn’t seem like it’s necessarily that complicated. You know, I mean, even this most one of the latest incidents, they talked about how he might have had a knife in his car, but he wasn’t, it wasn’t in his hand and they had the drop on him. So the idea that, you know, because he was, you know, at his car window means that they were at risk for their life is is pretty, you know, pretty crazy to me, the whole thing is just gotten so out of control and people don’t put it in context, but you know, all you have to do is watch and and use your eyes and you see what the truth is.

Andy 23:26
But, uh, but depending on what you watch and how you use your eyes, you may come out with a different, different narrative.

Josh 23:34
I mean, there is no way you could watch that and, and, and, and regardless of what your preconceived narrative is, you can’t say that those officers were at risk of their life. They had both had weapons drawn. He was out the window. At that point, there was nothing in his hand shooting him in the back eight times, seven times isn’t you know, isn’t proportional. It’s not a proportionate response.

Andy 24:02
My person that I had lunch with, he was adamant that it was a proportional response. And if you don’t comply, you deserve what you get, and I can’t get there. I cannot figure out how you know, 8, 7 shots.

Josh 24:13
But the use of the use of deadly force does not… noncompliance does not justify the use of deadly force. That’s not there’s no police rule that says when someone doesn’t comply, in fact, you can’t even necessarily shoot someone when they’re a fleeing felon. So the notion that you can simply shoot someone because they don’t comply and if you haven’t complied, that you deserve to die makes no sense to me. And it’s and it’s anti-democratic and and in way over sells what power the police have. The whole notion of the rule of law is an ancient concept that says that government is constrained by law as much as the people are constrained by law. And so there are rules for how the government can exercise force. That’s what sets our democracy apart from say a dictatorship or, you know, some kind of fascist regime is that the government is limited by law, not just the people. And so, you know, in my mind, that’s just crazy talk.

Larry 25:15
I can’t I can’t really find anything to disagree with Josh on there. I think he’s been very eloquent. I don’t, I don’t have anything that I can can enhance what he said with this. I see this these police killings, and I’ve seen them here in my city and I’ve seen him all over the country and even the ones that have not resulted in death, where they’ve been horrendously disproportional to any justification. Yes, you do want compliance. At some point, you do want compliance but it’s got to be proportional to the situation as to a threat or as to the surroundings. If a person if the person has done something minimal, yes, theoretically, they could be a wanted fugitive in all 50 states, but we don’t, someone who has a broken tail light and they’re not having a good interaction with the officer with the cop, it you should not escalate that that’s what I was talking recently about having more women on the police department because a woman officer is not going to escalate that if if they don’t get the immediate compliance, that testosterone of a male officers is I have to have compliance, you’re going to follow my instructions. And they tend to escalate things. Where a female officer is much more likely to achieve compliance using negotiation and, and better training tactics and just the whole persona of how they interact with people. But but a male officers’ got to escalate things because they can and that’s what that’s what that’s what they’re wired do by their by their DNA.

Josh 26:42
I mean, that’s one of the talking points that people came back with was that this individual had warrants. The same person we’re talking about that got shot in the back. And, you know, last I checked, having a warrant is not a license, it doesn’t come with a death sentence generally. Neither does getting you know, you know, even resisting arrest doesn’t necessarily come with a death, with a death penalty. You know, I mean, I, I and if anytime a police officer thinks you’ve done something wrong, they have the right to shoot you, then you know, I mean, I don’t know I just this the people just go I mean that the the ways people twist themselves into pretzels to justify these things is just I mean, I just I don’t even get it. It’s depressing to me.

Andy 27:40
I would understand the depressing comment for sure. Larry can like why don’t we go into this feature segment of why we have Josh even here to begin with? I believe you told me that there was, I believe Josh maybe had emailed you with a disagreement about what we covered last week I think?

Larry 27:58
I didn’t intend it as a disagreement but was more of a question that he asked. And I figured that I would try to answer it with his participation. That way we can have some back and forth dialogue on on how I think the question, as best I could remember was how do you feel, How do you see that this undoes Does, has the potential to undo Does versus Snyder? Wasn’t that the question, Josh?

Josh 28:19
That was the question. And I, and since we had that discussion, I’ve done some more research. And so I think I can I think we could have a good discussion on this. Yes.

Andy 28:28
Please go at it. Ding ding ding in the left corner.

Josh 28:33
Well, answer the question first, and then we’ll see where we go from there.

Larry 28:38
Well, what what I would see if the if the, if the decision that we talked about the Willman decision is is becomes final, meaning that no reconsideration or en banc Supreme Court review ensued, then what you will have potentially in Michigan is if, if I would, if I would be representing the state of Michigan in the class action suit that is currently pending. And I can’t know the name, I don’t recall, recall the name of it, but the class action suit, I would argue…

Josh 29:13
We call it Does II.

Larry 29:17
okay, if I were if I were representing the state Does II, I would argue that since there was an independent federal duty to register based on the Willman decision, that it would be that district judge you cannot force us to turn the lights out on the registry on the dissemination. Now realize that that the principle two things and that caused the Does versus Snyder decision to go the way did was the 2006 and 2011 amendments. But, but but even even if you don’t enforce the 2006 and ‘11 amendments, then you’ve run into we can’t just turn the lights out on these people. So if I were the state, I would say, Judge, you can’t order us to turn the lights out on the registry because there’s an independent federal duty to register and we have to keep these people illuminated until their terms have expired. That’s what I would argue. I’m not saying it’s a winning hand, but I’m telling you, that’s what I would do if I were tasked with representing the state of Michigan. That’s what I would attempt.

Josh 30:21
Yeah, so you know, I’ve thought about this a little bit. And so, you know, I want to first you know, obviously preface this by saying I’m not an attorney, and I certainly nothing I say is dispositive. This is just thinking that I’ve done after reading. Let’s see so far, I’ve read the the Adam Walsh Act again, AG Barr’s recent memo, the Solicitor General’s response to Does versus Snyder and the Willman decision. I did that all this afternoon, which was let me tell you thrilling, but the first thing I’d say is that both Willman and the AG Report I mean, the AG memo suggested that regulations can mean someone has to federally register or have to federally Register, but they can’t force someone to register in unconstitutional ways. The Solicitor General one was when he was he was asked about Does verses Snyder responded by saying it wasn’t in conflict with SORNA. Now you’re right that that didn’t presume that no registry existed. So I’m not entirely sure that you’re wrong, that it couldn’t get rolled totally back. But I don’t think, I don’t think it rolls Does back in the sense that if there were requirements of Does that the court found unconstitutional, the court still might not enforce those, those even if there’s a federal requirement to register, because that would make the federal requirement to register in those instances unconstitutional. The second thing I’d say is that in the AG’s guidelines, and it’s actually the AG’s who has to enforce the federal requirement to some extent, even though there is no federal registry. The AG’s guidelines have an exception suggesting that if your state does not allow you to register in the manner required under his new guidelines, you have an affirmative defense against failure to register charges. So I get that states may, you know, there was another issue that we’ll talk about maybe in a second about states kind of choosing to simply agree to comply with federal requirements, which is a different nuance to this thing. But they would also have to ensure that those requirements are implemented and enforced. And when federal requirements came, they be they could still be unconstitutional. So I still think you’d have an affirmative defense there. If the state didn’t force you to meet those federal requirements. I don’t know if that answers. I mean, I think to some extent, you’re right that it might mean that you couldn’t invalidate the registry. Although if the reason you invalidate the registry was unconstitutional. It’s because its application was unconstitutional. I still think that gets into the teeth, of why the judge would still have jurisdiction to do so.

Larry 33:00
Well, I agree with with a lot of what you’ve said, the the affirmative defense is there. If If your state will not register you then the feds can’t successfully prosecute you. And they acknowledge that all throughout the 93 pages. But But here’s the here’s the nuance. the 2000s, this is why it was so critical that that that that a determination be made by the Michigan Supreme Court, if there were if there were severability of that, of those 2006 and 2011 add ons. if if if those were, in fact severable then the registry arguably had always been had always been constitutional in Michigan up until those things tipped the balance, then what you would do would be you would not enforce those provisions. The federal judge based on Does versus Snyder would say yes, I’m going to continue my ban that you can’t enforce exclusion zones and you can’t enforce the provisions that that that were added in 2006 and 2011. But I, you really don’t have a circuit conflict within the circuit, which is what what what ideally would be the best argument to undo this, this thing would be a circuit conflict. But if I’m the state of Michigan, I’m gonna say there is no circuit in there’s no conflict within the circuit because the Does versus Snyder was decided based on those 2006 and ‘11 add ons, which are not in federal SORNA. There’s no requirement that you do, particularly the residence restrictions. Now, increasing the terms, those actually were requirements of the Adam Walsh Act. But I would argue that there’s no conflict or minimal conflict, therefore, there’s no need for further review. But if if if the federal judge tries to say that I’m not gonna allow anyone to register, because the legislature hasn’t Come up with a fix. If I’m the state of Michigan, and I can assure you they can think of this, if I can think of it, I’m going to say, Judge, you can’t do that, because your own Circuit Court of Appeals has said there’s an independent federal duty to register. So we’re going to have to keep these people on the public website, or we would be in violation of the Sixth Circuit decision that just came down, which is binding on you, Your Honor. That’s what I would argue.

Josh 35:26
Yeah, the question then gets to the constitutionality of that. I mean, I do understand what you’re saying, I don’t think you’re entirely wrong, which is why I said, I don’t think you can. I’m not I don’t disagree that it might mean you can’t invalidate the entire registry. At the same time, I do think that if those two cases are in conflict as to what constitutionality means, the court still has the ability to determine that that is the that the requirement for pre-2011 people to register is, because I believe it was severability, not constitutional or can’t be severed constitutionally or whatever the hell the way they explained it. I’m not 100% on that, because I’m not a lawyer. And this is, you know, I mean, while I read an awful lot of this stuff, you know, I’m not going to pretend that that I’m a constitutional expert of any kind, so.

Larry 36:25
Well, well, I wish that the Federal Court had certified the question and I understand why the federal court didn’t, because the state had dragged it’s seat for so long. And they just saw this as an additional delay. But at this juncture, we find ourselves at now, with the two decisions that we have. If if the state Supreme Court had told us whether or not the law was severable, then that would be a stronger position to be in for for everybody because if the if the law is severable, then then the people could clearly have those provisions removed from them and they could they could have lesser restrictions on them, rather than continue to wait for the for the legislature to act. If the law is not if the law is not severable, uf the state Supreme Court said that, then you’ve got leverage to force the state to do something. And even though the federal court says that it’s not severable, the federal court doesn’t get to make the final determination on that.

Josh 37:27
I guess the question for me is, does the court get to say that there are elements of… Yes, here’s what I’m trying to get at. In the Willman case, it may be true that under those facts, federal registration is a requirement and constitutional but that wasn’t what was being challenged in Does vs. Snyder, if I remember correctly, and it seems to be that if it gets to a different question, that it’s still possible that the judge could hold that the requirements are unconstitutional for people before 2011, or whatever the actual date was April of 2011, or whatever the heck it was. Now, again, I could be totally wrong about that. I don’t think what you’re saying is irrational, I agree that most likely it means you can’t get rid of the registry, but probably does mean that the state can choose, any court could choose not to enforce unconstitutional parts of that registry, which the Solicitor General already said, parts of the Michigan registry went beyond SORNA. So you might not be able to go below the floor of SORNA. But you probably could say, we don’t go to the ceiling of Does, if that makes sense.

Larry 38:46
well, I agree that that that is, first of all, I disagree with the Sixth Circuit, with the Willman decision. There is no federal registry, and there’s lack of jurisdiction further to be one, four people who have convicted within a state remained within that state. There’s just not that jurisdictional hook in my opinion. Unfortunately for us, the Sixth Circuit didn’t see it that way. And so I’m actually in the process of reviewing all the circuit decisions, because they’re not the first circuit that said this. But as I recalled, the other circuits have found that there was a federal jurisdictional connection based on the type of conviction the person had, it originated in another jurisdiction. But for for this particular one, this was an entire inside Michigan situation. So I disagree on Willman. But where the problem comes in, is the federal registration requirements, that’s largely not been declared unconstitutional by the Sixth Circuit, they were really concerned more about the exclusions and the prohibitions, the disabilities and restraints. Federal SORNA doesn’t have those disabilities or restraints. So therefore, if you if you if you don’t enforce the unconstitutional portion in the Does versus Snyder decision, arguably, you’ve got a constitutional registry, and certainly that’s what I would expect the state to argue, and with Willman, they’re gonna say you cannot, federal law requires the tier twos and threes be available to the public. You could exempt the tier ones, and you can exempt the juveniles, but the tier ones if it’s a target offense against a minor, even those are supposed to be available to the public.

Josh 40:24
The Solicitor General explicitly said that the SORNA does not require public tier notification. That for sure the Solicitor General said in the response to Does that the reason that Does was consistent is because there’s nothing in SORNA that requires public notification of the tiers. Your crime, yes, has to be public, but the tiers doesn’t and that’s the reason he said it was consistent.

Larry 40:50
Well, but but the offenders that are tier two or tier three have to be on the internet as a part of the Adam Walsh Act.

Josh 40:56
Sure, but not The notification doesn’t have to include what their teir is. They just have to be on the internet.

Larry 41:04
That’s what I’m saying, though that so does the judge is going to say, the state’s gonna say, Judge, you can’t turn off the lights on this public registry, because under federal law, they have the duty to register independent of anything Michigan opposes on them. So even though even though under Michigan law, we can’t require them to register, federal law does and federal law requires that the tier twos and threes be publicly disseminated. So therefore, Judge, you can’t turn off the lights. That’s what I would argue. And if I could think of that, I promise you they can do that.

Josh 41:42
No, I don’t think that that is an unreasonable expectation. I’m not even saying you’re necessarily wrong, but I don’t think that the Willman Court is determining the constitutionality of retroactive application. It’s an odd question. If there’s a federal requirement to register that isn’t… for them to affirm that there’s a federal requirement to register without, without considering the constitutional question at issue in Does, seems to me to invalidate the notion that that federal requirement to register is inherently constitutional, which is why I’m saying it’s still theoretically possible for this court to say you weren’t considering the same question we’re considering. Hence, we can invalidate the registry because those requirements would be unconstitutional. Different grounds.

Larry 42:37
but I see the Does, the class action certified case, the state is going to come in and say, You can’t this case can’t go the way that we were planning on it going because there’s a decision now that deals with an independent federal duty to register, which means that these people cannot be cannot be discharged from us.

Josh 42:57
I mean, that’s exactly what I just said though. I said that yes, while they have affirmed that there is a federal duty to register, that federal requirement to register was not tested under these grounds. And so if that federal requirement to register is found unconstitutional, then there isn’t a federal requirement to register, per se. And the court could hold that. I’m not saying they will. I’m not saying you’re wrong, but I’m saying that is certainly a possible response.

Larry 43:23
Well, in Willman they found that there was nothing unconstitutional, they knock eddown every claim that they made in there.

Josh 43:30
Willman didn’t make the claims that were in Does, that’s my whole point. Does was a different case testing different questions, different constitutional questions. So with the facts in front of them in Willman, Yes, it may be it may be constitutional based on what was challenged, but they were not addressing the questions that were presented in Does. So in the questions that were presented by Does, the ex post facto question, if it is determined that people before 2011, that it would be impossible constitutionally to reapply the registry. I’m not saying that’s what will happen. But if they decided that, I don’t understand why Willman would override that concern given they were decided on different grounds. They’re considering different constitutional questions.

Larry 44:18
I wish I wish we had provided you the 349-bullet complaint because practically everything but the kitchen sink was thrown into the Willman case below. And and if you only were looking at the decision, you wouldn’t have known everything that they put, but they threw 349 allegations out. They asked for declarations on seven different constitutional grounds and asked for 10 orders of relief, 10 specific orders on that. So practically everything that they could throw at the registry, they did in the Willman case.

Andy 44:49
I only made it to like 124 of them and everything that I could think of was even in that batch residency restrictions, presence restrictions, curfews, like everything was in there.

Larry 45:01
Yeah, so yeah, like so. But in hindsight, we should have provided that to Josh, cuz, cuz

Josh 45:08
Yeah but in fairness, when I read the decision, there answer to everything is that essentially that the legislative intent was that everybody has to register. I’m not really sure why that answers the question of if the requirements are constitutional based on other grounds. I’m not saying you’re wrong, I’m just saying, I don’t really understand why, even if it’s an omnibus decision that that considered a ton of things, why they wouldn’t at least have to speak to the question of why the fact that the legislator intended for everyone to have to register makes that registration requirement constitutional.

Larry 45:50
Well, I didn’t read it that way. I read it that that they that they didn’t say that they didn’t see the proof that was necessary, but this is an unfolding situation, and I’m hoping I’m wrong. I’m hoping that that that it doesn’t go the way that I fear. I’m hoping the same thing. I’ll do have the proposal for the regulations. But I feel like the AWA regulations are going to just empower the states to do by administrative action, what they could not do through legislative process. All this all this worries me, but I certainly hope I’m wrong.

Josh 46:20
I’m not sure I follow how, and I understand how the legislature could pass additional requirements and simply say that people have to follow the federal regulations. I’m not sure I understand how they could implement the federal requirements without legislation though.

Larry 46:43
Well, one example would be like we talked about last week would be the the the episode what they did in West Virginia. Even though there was no requirement at the state level that people required to register give a 21-day advance notice. The West Virginia State Police wrote a letter to everybody, sent a letter to everyone on the registry and said, this is a federal requirement, you need to get to our office within 10 days and sign these and so you won’t be noncompliant. Now truthfully, without a state statute said you had to go sign that, you wouldn’t have been in noncompliance for not going in and signing it. But what you did is you handed the federal government, the notice requirement that they’ve been struggling with, of people not having noticed that they needed to give that give that 21 days advance with a travel itinerary and the things that were required for international travel. Well, they could do this, they could do the same thing. They could do the same thing on local and state level. They could start pumping out forms and stuff. Like for example, like in our state, we have 10 days between when you have to update your registration information, unless you were convicted after July 1, ‘13. Well if the registry official hands you a document that’s been created by the Department of Public Safety that says that pursuant to federal requirements there’s a three-day window, you will register you will update your stuff within three days. Arguably, you’re on notice that there’s a federal requirement, and even though the state wouldn’t be able to prosecute you, because our law says 10 days, what would preclude the US Attorney General from bringing a charge on you Because you had agreed and you had knowledge that you had three days under federal law to update what would preclude that?

Josh 48:22
Yeah, I mean, I don’t know what’s all this is all we’re getting into. I think in a lot of ways issues that have to play out still.

Larry 48:34
That’s that’s my fear though that watching what they’re doing already, they’re having people sign stuff. Like in our state we have a specific section of the law that says you cannot, a law enforcement registration official cannot demand information that saw specifically required in our SORNA, but they’re doing it. And people are willingly signing things that are… Like we don’t have any obligation to check in weekly if you’re homeless. They’ve created a form that says that you’ll check in weekly, you’re not required to do that. You’re, you’re not required to do that. And I’m afraid they’re going to start handing people the federal requirements, even if their state hasn’t adopted them. And they’re gonna say, we have an obligation to tell you this because it’s federal law. And you could be federally prosecuted if you don’t do this. So we got to make sure you know, and then what my fear is that once you sign that, then the US Attorney’s office is gonna say, well, you acknowledged there’s a federal law. So so your violation is knowing and willful. That’s my fear.

Andy 49:27
I still don’t understand how that works. I still don’t understand even though you have signed sort of under duress, that you are going to comply with something that doesn’t exist as a law, then they turn around and say we agreed to follow a law that didn’t exist when you signed it.

Larry 49:43
Well, arguably, it does exist under federal law. These things do exist. The question I have is, I argue that these are requirements on the state, not the offender. For the for the state to be substantially compliant. They need to have this three-day requirement. But if you sign say, cause right now under Willman, at least it the Sixth Circuit, there’s an independent duty to register. So, for example, if the 10th circuit were to follow suit and say we agree with Willman, there’s an independent federal duty, well if you’ve signed a form acknowledging that the three day window exists under federal law, what would stop a US Attorney for prosecuting you in the federal system for the for violating the separate federal duty, which has a tighter requirement than what the state does? What would stop that from happening?

Andy 50:29
Certainly over my head, please, Josh, help bail me out.

Josh 50:35
Well, there’s no really bailing you out. I mean, it’s a gigantic nightmare for a number of reasons. I mean, one of the most prominent reasons is that, you know, I think that the attorney general’s memo even addresses this pretty specifically, which is why they created the affirmative defense part of it is that the state has to want to enforce, in essence the state has to come up with a way or agree to enforce whatever those requirements are, and many states don’t but could, which is what Larry’s talking about. How that happens, you know, or if it can happen through different means is is that but it’s all very complicated and very tricky. And it’s unfortunate that some states will take the ball and run with it. And it’s unfortunate that some states will think this is like a boon to them and others won’t, hopefully won’t. But it’s it’s going to be tricky, because we’ve already got, I mean, one of the things that’s the most frustrating is just how many overlapping questions of jurisdiction we already deal with and then this kind of notion that you have to comply. Like So for instance, if this all if you are in a state where they decide to comply, however, they did it with federal law, or federal requirements and then you graduated from the residence registry at the state level, but not at the federal level, you still have to go and register, even though you’re no longer required to register in the state where the crime happened, it wasn’t a federal, the feds didn’t prosecute you there. It’s just it’s it’s it’s very upsetting and, and, and ridiculous and

Larry 52:17
well, Josh, I agree that’s why this decision, this decision is clearly erroneous in my view, but unfortunately, I’m not the court. But clearly, what they, what they’ve decided, goes contrary to everything about federalism. This is this is this is legally an incorrect decision. And I’m hoping we can figure out some way to overturn it.

Josh 52:37
Yeah. And it’s funny too, because in the AG memo, which I think preceded the decision, I could be wrong about that. They made a big play about how they didn’t want to enforce this over federalism. So this really seems like it in some ways. It has to be a play, for states to make a move to comply with the AWA in some way or I don’t know what the hell Barr’s up to but it’s something

Larry 53:02
Well, it’san example of the small government conservatives reaching for more power.

Larry 53:06
You had to throw that dig in there, didn’t you?

Larry 53:07
I mean, I’m not being partisan. I’m just simply stating the fact. This is an administration that’s supposed to be small government and respects the state’s rights. This is them doing what they claim they don’t believe in. That is not partisan Andy. I’m simply stating the fact

Andy 53:25
I know that I just you not saying partisan but you just always want to throw that like, just gonna always love those grenades over there.

Larry 53:32
Well, but I want people I want people, no I’m not even trying to do that. I want people to think because remember the the sticker we hand out at the conference, Don’t believe everything you think. This is an example of why you shouldn’t believe everything you think, because you hear the rhetoric, small government, state’s rights, and the people that say that, they’re the biggest expanders of government every time they’re in the levers of power. This is an example of what they do versus what they say. That’s all.

Josh 54:02
Yeah, Andy, I just saw what you said in the chat, which is can states do other than what the federal government requires? The answer is yes. But they also can do what the federal government requires, which is what we’re talking about (Andy: Oh, absolutely.) So for instance, and yeah, so I mean, for instance, they could stick with the status quo. If you’re a state that’s not in compliance, you could stick with the status quo, and that, then everybody who is registering in your state has an affirmative defense against claims by the federal government that you didn’t register. But if you ever change that, then people have to register. So you know, I mean, it just creates a lot of a lot even more responsibility on registrants to try to keep track of what the hell is going on in ways that, you know, are frankly, very confusing, and there’s a lot of overlapping jurisdictions and a lot of questions that need to be answered.

Larry 54:53
well, we’re gonna have to wrap this segment up because we’re running up against the clock.

Andy 54:56
And I’m sure people’s eyes are already rolling in the back of theirs head cuz mine are this is this is superduper propellerhead policy jurisdiction like Venn diagram kind of stuff that is really hard to process.

Josh 55:12
Unfortunately we’re all responsible for that though. And the damnable truth of it is we’re all legally responsible for understanding this stupid morass that they’ve created.

Andy 55:22
Yeah. And Georgia when you do your annual whatever pilgrimage to the Popo, that you have to sign that you acknowledge that you are responsible for keeping up with the laws, you’re like, how are you supposed to keep up with these? you need like some like, like I said, a Venn diagram. You need all these overlapping circles to know what you’re supposed to be in compliance with, where, with whom? Well, let’s let’s head over. Yeah Josh, do you wanna stick around or do you want to head out?

Josh 55:54
Well, I probably should head out because I got to fix my phone.

Andy 55:56
Okay. Josh it’s always a pleasure. You’re always welcome and Thank you for for bringing in great alternate points of view.

Josh 56:07
Alright, thanks. Nice to talk to you all. Hope you all have a good show.

Larry 56:10
Bye Josh.

Andy 56:13
And of course Larry just now some software popped up to install this, this computer I don’t use that often. And then something has popped up on my screen to install. I’m so happy about this. This is great. Thanks to Windows for being awesome. This thing comes from Colorado politics, federal judges in Colorado Grant 12% of pandemic related early release requests. I know you put this in here for a reason you’re trying to lob grenades again, I think.

Larry 56:40
just just for for disappointment of the lackadaisical response of the judiciary to exercise their powers. And it’s really, really sad that people are dying that that shouldn’t have died had we taken the pandemic and the conditions in prison a little more seriously, and look for alternatives.

Andy 57:04
Josh Josh would actually be a good person to speak on this as well. But I know that he had to run. He got a new phone and the screen was broken. So he wanted to try and get that resolved before it gets too late. But we, we knew it was coming. And we could, we knew that having people in close proximity, even just knowing about the flu, if you are in close proximity, you are more likely going to distribute it to your neighbor than if you live in the in the boonies. So having people in prison in large population, tightly packed in there kind of places, it’s going to create a well a pandemic, and create an outbreak of a virus. And they don’t treat you that well medically, and they’re now, they have some kinds of treatment on the street just to help minimize and reduce the chance of it becoming something really full blown, but they’re not going to treat you like that in prison. They’re not going to try and try and use some medicines and stuff. They’ll be like here’s Some ibuprofen and wait it out, go back to the dorm.

Larry 58:05
Well, since we went so long in that session we ought to shorten it and just do the listener questions and the patron shout out.

Andy 58:12
We can do that. Oh, we did get a new patron too and I gotta go track that down. Let’s go over to this was a letter. Let’s see the person’s first name. Can you give me the first name? It is Daniel, and the letter reads:

Listener Question
To whom it may concern: many of us have been wondering what the legal obligations are for a sex offender to travel internationally ever since international Megan’s Law was passed. It is my understanding that we have to provide a travel itinerary in advance with the angel watch center. I am currently in federal prison and I haven’t been able to find the laws that specifically dictate these requirements in our law library. However, we only have access to federal law. Could these travel requirements be specified under state laws? Which statutes dictate travel requirements? In case it’s under state law, I’m from Ohio. Thank you.

Andy 59:08
Oh, that’s a pretty neat detailed question Larry. How do you figure out how to travel? And, you know, how do you how do you actually read the law from the horse’s mouth so to speak, so that you can figure out how to be in compliance with all this?

Larry 59:22
Well, as a, as a general rule, if you’re coming out of prison, a federal system, you’re going to have supervised release. So that’s not going to be an immediate problem for you if you have lifetime supervised release. But it is, in fact, both it’s a federal and it’s a state law. And in our previous segment on the podcast, on this episode of the podcast matter of fact, we were talking about the something very tangentially related, which is what the although it is a federal law that you give this notice, if your state has not adopted it, that’s where the notices are filed with, is your state. But if you look, and we’re going to send this listener or this writer of the of the question to the actual citation, so it’d be in the United States Code, title 34. And then it would be in Section 21501. And, and, and going forward, the remaining subsections. There there would be there would be the description of that, and you have the obligation. But if your state has not incorporated that into your registration requirements, then you’re not on notice. And there’s nowhere to file this required information. So your state will have either adopted it by statute, saying in the list of things that an offender on the registry must provide. That would be one way that you would have notice, or another way would be the West Virginia model where they just simply despite the fact that it had not been adopted by statute, they notified everyone in West Virginia on the registry that they had this obligation under federal law to file this, this advanced itinerary of 21 days at least. And it’s very complicated because any emergency or last-minute travel is not provided for and but it’s definitely the law and you definitely are going to have to comply because you’d be facing federal prison if you don’t.

Andy 1:01:23
Um, so you gave the you gave the the US code of where to find it. And it’s a three-week window that you have to provide? Is that right?

Larry 1:01:36
Yes, along with itinerary as well. And then the, the your registry official agency, they turn it over to the US Marshals who transmit it internationally through some bureaucracy through Interpol, then it makes its way to the to the receiving nation where you’re going to be visiting, they’re going to be receiving you as a visitor. And it very well could end up in them rejecting your visit because once they get the information that you have been convicted of this type of offense. Many nations will decide that they would rather not have you visit, they will tell you that we’re not going to admit you, which is what the United States does. When we get information of people that we deem less desirable. We turn them around and we say, gee, we’d rather not have you here. But this is this is a federal requirement. And definitely, if you’ve been notified by your state by either statute, or by administrative action that you need to provide this, I would strongly encourage you to provide it because if you’re on boarding and you’ve gotten clear notification, that there’s that there’s this obligation and you don’t do it. The feds do clearly have jurisdiction because you have crossed jurisdictional boundaries when you travel. And they consider that the jurisdictional hook that they need for a federal prosecution.

Andy 1:02:47
just for clarity for my own personal interest. So you have to if you’re even just going to anything of you trying to leave the country, you’re going to have to put in some kind of paperwork, telling them where you’re going and then when you intend to return too?

Larry 1:03:03
that that’s the way I understand it. I never go anywhere. So it’s not it’s not an issue and I’m not on the registry anyway but but my understanding of it and there’s a Registrant Travel Action Group, RTAG, that has far more information than we do. But my understanding is that that it would be it would be required with the, with the itinerary of where you’re going to be going and and when you will return to the United States. And if you fly airplanes for a living, that would be very hard. And if you have, if you have relatives that are that are if you have dual citizenship, for example, an American and you’re also have citizenship of another nation and you have family, one of them gets sick and you want to spontaneously travel, that would make it virtually impossible for that. I think this is clearly has some constitutional issues that could be developed. Unfortunately, the cases that have been brought so far haven’t gotten any traction in the courts.

Andy 1:04:00
And my one last question related to this would only be for people that are actively registering or any like the way that the state laws read if you move in there. If you’ve ever been convicted of one of these things, so is it only people that are actively registering or anybody that has a sexual offense?

Larry 1:04:19
That’s my understanding. My understanding is if you’re if you’re if you’re registered but but but i’m not i’m not 100% certain on that.

Andy 1:04:22
All righty then I don’t I don’t even have something else to read other than you pushed this into the show notes.

Larry 1:04:30
it’s way down at the bottom. I’ll dig it out. It’s it’s it says legal corners down at the bottom. Their last name starts with G. I don’t want to give the name out over the over the podcast. It has to do with with email and CorrLinks or Trulinks or whateber they call it.

Andy 1:04:51
So I was just trying to, all i got is the the PDF and it’s Are you saying it’s at the bottom of the PDF?

Larry 1:04:57
Well, do you see one that has the has the name Christopher. Last name beginning with a G?

Andy 1:05:08
Yes, I do now. I didn’t see that before Larry.

Larry 1:05:13
Okay. Yeah, cuz it was it came in mid-July, so we’ve had it for a while.

Andy 1:05:17
How do you sit on these things for so long?

Larry 1:05:22
We just started this segment

Andy 1:05:25
I am loading it more editing post reading. People can’t see it on the screen. One more second. Loading. All right.

Listener Question
Greetings. I have been in Federal Bureau of Prisons custody since approximately may of 2017 and am a sex offender. One of the many things a sex offender does not get is email services through Trulincs. I didn’t know that. I know people that do get them Larry. A complex warden. (Larry: You can, that’s his question.) I mean, maybe this is different because he’s federal too but a complex Warden has final say on who gets email and not and that is the program statement the state to an inmate who is asking for email, and he is a sex offender. The complex I am at has been very discriminative towards sex offenders for email service. And however lately, they are giving it only to a certain few. But keep telling those remaining that because we’ve had some form of contact with the victim, that they would never give us access to it. Now that is now that is said I am subscribing to your Digest. That would be the NARSOL Digest and I would like some information if possible to give those of us so we can be rewarded with the privilege of email. Is there any group of attorneys willing to fight BOP policy and get us access to email? The problem for why denying email to sex offenders is it gives those select few haters away to see if we are a sex offender without asking for our paperwork. It also gives them a chance to extort us if they do find out. This has not happened to me. But I know at other compounds, it is bound to have happened. Since sex offenders have been on the rise. Any advice would be helpful. Thank you.

Andy 1:07:15
I don’t know that that last little part is accurate. Anyway. Wow. So if you are a registered person a PFR, well, you’re not a PFR yet. And the Federal Bureau of Prisons, I guess they could do that to anybody, Larry, they can pick and choose who is allowed to have or not have mail or email.

Larry 1:07:31
Well, this is an area of law that’s very, very interesting in terms of what privileges you can assert a right to because by the very definition of a privilege, that’s in fact what it is. But, but even within privileges, for example, privileges, if you tell a certain inmate yard time without without giving that inmate a reason. You don’t get yard time because we don’t like your kind. You could run into a problem, even though it’s a privilege. And when I say yard time, I mean wreck time. But in terms in terms of in terms of whether or not the courts are going to be sympathetic to this argument that you when you begin to assert that you’re being discriminated against, you’re going to have to prove it. Remember, the complaining party bears the burden of proving delegation, you’re gonna have to prove that the program statement that that gives the warden that power, that the warden is abusing the power. And as a general rule, you’re gonna have to go through your administrative remedies first before a court will even entertain it. So you’re gonna have to go through the internal administrative review process and exhaust that. And then you’re going to have to find an attorney or law firm that’s willing to go into an area where the courts are very hostile. This is one thing about conservative courts. They are very pro-prison administration. they’re very hostile towards prison…

Andy 1:09:04
This sounds like an ACLU thing or Southern Center for Human Rights just sounds like one of those super lefty kind of like hated kind of places looking for that basic fundamental right kind of stuff.

Larry 1:09:17
I don’t see them even touching it because the the the odds of success… When when you’re trying to do litigation that’s very expensive, the federal government is one of the most well-funded clients you can ever challenge. Would you agree with that? So so I don’t even think the ACLU would touch it. I don’t want to discourage and say you shouldn’t look and try to find because it’s wrong. It’s unequivocally wrong. It’s actually bad prison administration. You can better monitor incoming communications through electronic means than you can ever do through the mail. Very little contraband comes through email. So I think I think that if you can put the, and I’m not an expert on how you keep people from having access to folks they ought not contact, but there has to be a way in this modern modern age where you can prevent a contact with, with victims or with people that they’re on orders that they have no contact with. But in terms of trying to create a right, the courts are going to be very hostile towards because there’s a great deference to prison administration, because they have to keep order in the facility. And they have to keep the community protected. And they have to keep the staff protected. And when they judge that when a court looks at this after it’s gone through the administrative process, which is likely not going to come to a good outcome, the court is going to be exceedingly deferential to prison administration. And and also the public policy pronouncement of who, if I don’t know enough about this particular privilege to know what the intent of the public policy pronouncement is, but, but I would tell you this, it’s going to be a tough battle. And I don’t think you’re going to easily line up, lawyers are not going to want to undertake this challenge, but I wish it I wish you could. I wish it were it were something could be done because it’s fundamentally wrong.

Andy 1:11:15
Well, just as like a tangentially related I’d like this is like very similar that, you know, kids are doing a lot of remote schooling at the moment. And I heard of two kids that were going to do like a little bit of a study group and the WiFi password needed to be shared. So I just suggested Well, why don’t you email the kid the WiFi password so that they have it when they’re when they get to the place that way they don’t have to try and like type in the thing, they can just do copy paste, and an outside person like a civilian call it a you and me, we are not allowed to email the person’s school email address. Like they have obviously locked it down to being you know, this XYZschool.edu or something like that. So, I mean, you make it so that you can’t just have random phone calls. You have to do some kind of permission of what phone numbers you’re allowed to dial. You could set the thing up to only accept mail to and from specific addresses. And then you also have extreme ability to censor by keyword to look for any kinds of content. You can keep it from having any sort of anything other than text. It doesn’t sound hard at all.

Larry 1:12:24
Oh, well, I wish I wish that people with your skill could get into some of the debate because I don’t know about what I’m talking about. But all that seems plausible. It seems it seems like that we should be able to do what what you’re talking about and give the people. It’s a lot easier to type than it is to write if you if you see the crappy letters that come in here. Some of them are so, they’re so beyond decipherable. And it’s also a lot easier for the people that are monitoring for security reasons. The The consistency of, I mean you can have the algorithms and the computer looking, the way I understand it, looking for for keywords. (Andy: It’s easy as pie too.) And to me it’s just it’s just nonsensical. It’s nonsensical to do that. To me it’s it’s, it’s an extra punishment that we’re not going to give you this privilege because we do not like you and be damned if it’s in the best interest of institutional security. We don’t like your kind. That’s the way I’ve been interpreting it. And that that seems so tragic.

Andy 1:13:28
Will and Chad has a really, really bad opinion of people that work in the criminal justice system. I can tell you that. Wow. Are you are you reading what he’s putting down? Okay.

Larry 1:13:39
No, I’m looking, I’m looking at my screen that’s got other things that are exciting.

Andy 1:13:44
Well, I’m not gonna read what he says. But man, he’s got a very, very, very dismal opinion of the people in the prison system. And what else do we have to do, Larry, before we we close this whole thing out?

Larry 1:14:00
Well, let’s see. Weren’t we gonna do a shout out to the patrons and also the more explanation about the prison about the transcript service?

Andy 1:14:09
I think I’m supposed to ask you a question about do we, So we’re doing a shout. We’ve been doing the, the the transcript and sending that in, and I, and I believe you’re telling me that it’s having like an overwhelming response. But the question is, do we accept stamps?

Larry 1:14:28
And the answer is, yes, we do. Postage is a form of commerce of how commerce was conducted in prisons. And therefore, therefore, that’s one of the most readily available things people have. And we used to have that on the subscription form for the newsletter that we will take your stamps. Here’s what we don’t want you to do. When you tear those stamps up into individual ones when you separate them because owe somebody two stamps, a one stamp, and then you keep it for three years and you’ve been through 40 shakedowns, they get really dirty and gross, and you can’t find how to start the stamp, where you can pull the adhesive off and get the thing, those, those are of no use to us. So therefore, I removed that option from the from the newsletter. And the same thing applies here. We’ll be glad to take your stamps, if you’ll send us a sheet of stamps, where they’re clean and where they can actually be peeled off easily. But don’t send us a jumbled-up bunch of loose stamps that are all dirty. If you do that. I’m not going to give you credit for the for the payment because I’m the one that’s going to handle them and I’m the one that’s not gonna want to use them and I’m the one that’s gonna want to chuck them into the trash can. But other than that we’d be glad to take your stamps.

Larry 1:15:59
Well, if they If they’re if they’re frayed around the edges and I can’t find a way to peel them, and they’re dirty, no, we don’t want them and I’ve thrown stamps away that come in that condition. But yes, if you have a book, or if they sell the rolls, if you if you peel off the appropriate number, we’d be glad. Because we have to buy stamps to mail the transcripts. All this will do is save trips to the post office if they’re usable. So yes, we’ll take stamps and I’ll ask our, our graphic artists to to put that on the subscription form going forward.

Andy 1:16:27
We did get a new patron this week, Larry, so we can we can be like *cheers*. So we got a new one. And the individual is very adamant about remaining anonymous, so we will leave that individual anonymous and his name is just kidding, I’m not gonna say his name. But thank you very much for becoming a patron. And I’m super excited that we have yet another one.

Larry 1:16:57
well, I thought I thought that one came across, wasn’t the last name Trump?

Andy 1:17:02
Yes, he donated his annual salary because he’s not taking one while he’s in office.

Larry 1:17:09
You know, well, to give him credit, people say we don’t give credit. I’ve given him credit for that he donates his salary. And to my recollection, the last president that did that was Herbert Hoover who served from March of 1933, let’s see. no he got elected in ‘28. He served from ‘29 through ‘33. And then Roosevelt came in but but that’s the last president who donated his salary to charity to my recollection.

Andy 1:17:34
I’ve heard people go, who else has done like, I don’t know who else has done it. I assume that there’s a sort of cost of living increase the last number that I heard that the President makes us 400? I don’t guess that, I don’t guess that in the 20s he was making 400.

Larry 1:17:53
No, it wasn’t until 1969 that the presidential salary was increased from whatever level it was to two hundred thousand. And it remained at that level for decades before they raised it. And the only reason it went up because we hate we hate the notion of paying our officials anything. But Congress figured out, figured out how to build in an automatic raise that reflects the cost of living. So, as the congressional salaries crept up and crept up, they were inching very close to the presidential salary. And there’s something that that people find objectionable that about that if you if you look around… where are we going? We’re going off the reservation here, but if you look around at, college coaches, for example, they tend to be very well compensated well, university presidents and chancellors find that offensive and so like they will have a clause in their contract that they’ll be paid more than the head coach. You know that, I won’t be the chancellor of this university unless get paid at least $1 more than the head football coach because that’s the usually the big revenue sport that draws the largest salary.

Andy 1:19:02
I totally understand.

Larry 1:19:06
And that’s what caused it. That’s what caused the presidential salary to go up was because the congressional salaries had caught up.

Andy 1:19:10
And that’s I think one of our very early episodes was what is the 27th amendment and it has to do that Congress cannot elect themselves pay raises in their same session or something like that has to be a session or two removed. They can’t just like vote in raises for themselves.

 

Larry 1:19:28
Yeah, but they built it into a statutory, it happens automatically unless they vote no.

Andy 1:19:32
Yeah, I can’t imagine that they would do that.

Larry 1:19:36
So they created on automatic cost of living for themselves that they have to vote down and it is it’s it’s very unusual for employees to vote for lesser salaries.

Andy 1:19:45
Those knuckleheads that go and talk about restraint on federal spending and stuff, shouldn’t they be the first ones in line to vote down, well we’re going to actually take a pay cut.

Larry 1:20:00
I don’t buy into that. I think the salaries are so paltry to begin with that it’s laughable that we expect people to maintain a home in their district, and to live in a high cost District of Columbia, on the salaries that we pay. And they’re laughable compared to the private sector, if you want government to run like the private sector, which people claim that they do. Maybe we ought to pay for the talent at the level of the private sector pays, maybe.

Andy 1:20:28
Maybe, maybe maybe. anything else that we have to do? All right, well, hey, we usually record the show on Saturday nights at about seven o’clock. But if I have technical problems, things get really delayed and very ugly. You can you can join the discord by being a patron. I need to update that little script that I have. And anyway, I’ll skip all that stuff. Go to the website registrymatters.co You can phone in (747)227-4477. Like or Subscribe on your favorite podcast app. And if you can’t become a patron then please do some sort of review on the iTunes which is now Apple, Apple podcast or Google Play podcasts and all that stuff. But our favorite way for people to support the podcast is to go over to patreon.com/registrymatters Larry, I hope you have a phenomenal Labor Day weekend, and I will talk to you soon. Bye

Larry 1:21:20
Thank you, same to you.

You’ve been listening to FYP.

Listen to RM142: Willman vs US Attorney General (6th Circuit)

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.

Andy 00:13
Recording live from FYP Studios, east and west for a second time, transmitting across the internet. This is Episode 142 of Registry Matters. Larry, I am so happy that you’re here for this great podcast so that we can make another great podcast again, again.

Larry 00:30
Again, again mow, where does that come from?

Andy 00:32
Oh, there may have been a person that spoke this week that had to say something about again and again.

Larry 00:39
Ah, who would that have been? Oh it would have been at that political convention yes.

Andy 00:44
yes. The the Vice President at the end of his speech, he said we’re going to elect so and so for presidency so that we can make America great again, again, and I was just confused about if we made it great, then how do we make it great again, if it already was made great again?

Larry 01:00
Well that always confused me as a slogan because, and I don’t want to get political at the beginning of the podcast, so this is last I want to say about it but it always confused me about making America great if anybody ever suggested that America wasn’t great. Prior to 2016 they were vilified as being non patriotic because America was the greatest country on Earth. So therefore, I never understood why you would need to make America great when America was already great. And so the whole slogan kind of confused me, but nonetheless, I guess we have to make it a great again and again and again.

Andy 01:37
It is catchy. I mean, it is concise and very simple, like simple as in like, it’s a very concise message that speaks kind of everything all at once, I guess.

Larry 01:47
But yes, if America if anybody on the left said America wasn’t great, they would have been vilified, but apparently America wasn’t great and we had to make it great after 2016 and I always thought it was great and I always was taught that in school. And I always believed that America, the greatness and goodness of America and our self-governance system. And I have always accepted that we are a great nation. But apparently that had to be proven again.

Andy 02:11
Well, Larry, I sent you our numbers last month, and I don’t know what to make of the increase. Something good is happening. We got I could send you the numbers from like YouTube and from the downloads, and everything is looking awesome. Any thoughts?

Larry 02:24
Well, I’d say that more people are listening.

Andy 02:27
Oh, hmm. Well, that’s, well, that’s a pretty simple answer. All right. I’ll accept that.

Larry 02:33
Well, you said the numbers are getting better. And the translation, more people listening, right?

Andy 02:39
Yeah, I just never would have figured that out.

Larry 02:42
Well, that’s why I’m trying to help you with with, like, Oh, I guess you’re trying to get a little deeper into why more people listening. I think probably because we’re getting, we’re getting not that we weren’t good already. I think we’re doing a good job. But I think we’re getting more focused on issues that are really sharply and discernible, relate to people on the registry, in prison who are going to be on the registry, or for corrections and we we got into a rhythm recently that seems to be popular. So I think that would probably be one part of why the numbers are going up. And it may be just because social media people are doing likes and shares and, and the things that we encourage them to do, and they need to be doing more of so that people find out that we’re out here. (Andy: I think it’s my mug being on YouTube.) I wouldn’t rule that out. I think that probably could be a contributing factor as well. I mean, people do like visuals for those who are going to be watching people do like to see things so.

Andy 03:38
maybe it’s not so much my mug but having like the show notes rolling by and then the article and then of course, there’s always the picture of you.

Larry 03:46
Now that would definitely do it because only a few people have been able to figure out who I am.

Andy 03:52
Let me show you the picture of you tonight. How about that? (Larry: Let’s see, who am I?) Oh, you’re your favorite Secretary of War. That’s a picture of him like doing some desk work.

Larry 04:04
Did they have desks back then I remember most of the time we were standing?

Andy 04:08
Oh and did you have like a tablet with like the little like *bing* *bing *bing* *bing*?

Larry 04:14
So we what we did is they had they they built these shelves along walls and you stood up and you did your lessons and stuff. You didn’t you didn’t have desks back in those days.

Andy 04:24
I see. I see. I we do need to like just circle back for the patrons if you needed any information, like one of the reasons why we covered the post office. We never even touch this during the Patreon extra but we were talking about the post office. But it was because maybe people in prison might not get nearly as much mail. And so there’s a couple links in the show notes. That’ll reference back to why we chose to cover that subject or one of the reasons why we chose to cover that subject last week.

Larry 04:54
Well wasn’t that in the patron extra? I thought that’s where we did the post office.

Andy 04:58
Yeah, no, we did. I just don’t know that those articles were listed there.

Larry 05:02
They weren’t and and it occurred to me that people listen to the patron extra would say, why did we talk about the post office? The relationship is that prisons by and large are not in urban areas. Prisons, by and large are in rural areas and those who have listened long enough, we’ve we’ve we talked about why prisons are largely located in rural areas, their job providers, they’re more costly in terms of retaining hiring personnel. And, and it’s also a jobs provider for communities that are otherwise pretty devoid of economic activity. But the downside of that is that that is the post office becomes more and more challenged for revenue and larger deficits. And if we really adopt the business model that that that things are supposed to not be subsidized, then you would curtail services to the rural areas, which would include prisons, so we already have prisoners who are really being deprived of in-person visits. The, the platforms that provide for digital visits are usually come with a cost. telephone calls are very expensive and then somewhat limited because of lockdown. So the potential next shoe to drop would be if they start closing rural post offices and they start downsizing services and go to some kind of cost based pricing, which we don’t have in this country. Then, if you had to mail a letter to a faraway destination, that’s more rural, if you went strictly by the business model, to the people who say that capitalism should self-sustain and things shouldn’t be subsidized, you would charge more to deliver a letter to some faraway place in rural New Mexico than you would charge to deliver it in urban Albuquerque where where you have a concentration of population. So that was the relationship is that, although you don’t think you support subsidies to the post office because it’s against your general philosophical beliefs. We really do need to have universal service and that there’s a number of reasons why.

Andy 07:01
Definitely, definitely. Let’s start things off with an article like a full segment, an eight-minute-long segment that came out from NPR this week. And it says sex offender registries often fail those they are designed to protect. And there is some pretty egregiously erroneous information. Like they singled out a handful of the people that have fallen through the cracks. And they focused on this as being that because these people aren’t being tracked, that that’s making the community less safe. And it was we could go on and on. It got the affiliates list definitely all riled up because there were some really gross, factually incorrect things about this segment. Did you listen to it?

Larry 07:47
I did not. I did a skim read of the of the article. And then we did receive a very comprehensive response to NPR that one of our supporters had written and hopefully we’re going to have him on we weren’t able to pull it together. For this week, but, but the thing, the thing is just so disjointed because the people that are that are being found to be non-compliant, many times their non-compliant because it’s impossible to comply. They built, they built so many barriers to compliance. And then once you go slightly, it’s a it’s an exaggerated thing of the library book overdue. When you have the library book and it’s five cents a day then it doubles and first thing you know, your library fine is more than the cost of the book. And you have a minor violation, you should have reported some minor change within X number of hours and you don’t do it, then you’re afraid to go in and then it compounds because something else changes or you become, you become unstable with your residents because of all the barriers and the retaliation. So people that have a stable residence one day may not be stable the next day. They don’t take any of those things into account.

Andy 08:57
Yeah, and they interviewed someone and I didn’t catch the individual’s name but they they highlighted something along those lines of someone that had been, you know, on the lam, I don’t know what the right word would be. Absconded for a period of time. And when they did catch up with him, they said, go register. I was like, wait a minute, they didn’t like immediately slap him in cuffs and throw him in the…? Like It feels to me, Larry, that they could punch you with your expression of cake gloves if you did, like if you were 10 minutes late to the registration office. Like, do they have to immediately lock you up for a year? I realize what the segment is trying to highlight; that there are people that are falling through the cracks. But they they they interviewed someone that spoke of, “Well, hey, did you know that these people are not listed on the site, you know, and they’re supposed to be?” Like, Oh my god, I need to know. How are we supposed to keep our community safe if we don’t know that these people are there? And it’s just it’s very much like a fear mongering kind of, but they do with the NPR tone of being all like nice and uppity about it, but they just it didn’t come across very well.

Larry 10:05
Well, that was this writer’s take on it. He said he expected more out of NPR. But I’ve never claimed that NPR, I’ve never, there’s no outlet that that gets it right 100% of the time. And there’s a commercialization of NPR as well because the the government support for NPR has been weakened through the years and through the decades and as all other businesses it does require revenue to operate the Public Broadcasting System to the extent that we have one in this country, which has led them to commercialize and sell and sell themselves to the highest bidder and although they don’t run the spots through the program, they do them at the beginning, at the end of the program you know, you see this program was underwritten by… Well do you think if you offend your underwriters too much do you think they continue to underwrite because they believe in good journalistic principles?

Andy 11:02
Yeah, like, again, this was a really this this was an eight minute long segment on their afternoon program called All Things Considered.

Larry 11:08
Oh, and they said 12.5% of the Illinois is non-compliant, 7.5% of the Nevada is non-compliant and out there wandering aimlessly. (Andy: Do you think it’s that high?) I don’t, I don’t know. But even if it is that high, that doesn’t translate to their, that they’re deliberately trying to commit criminal, criminality, engage in criminal conduct undetected. It may be that that society has built something that’s impossible to comply with.

Andy 11:44
Right. And I think your argument would be, well, if they got caught doing something wrong, then we would arrest them and punish them for doing that wrong thing. Why do we have to have this almost like an entrapment measurement in place to immediately watch them for when they eff up?

Larry 12:01
That, well it’s not only just to watch them, it’s to create barriers. If you have, if you have a certain amount of hours to report something, and assume that you were able to overcome the hesitation for people to hire an employee, and you, and you have to choose between reporting to work, or go into the office, it may be a full day, the public doesn’t realize you could spend a full day trying to comply with registration, if you have to do the reporting in person.

Andy 12:34
Larry, you just don’t understand, you should have thought about that before you committed your crime.

Larry 12:38
Well, and the extent that you could think about that, but see a lot of people have this imposed on them and they didn’t get a chance to think about it because it didn’t exist, or it’s been enhanced since they committed their crime. So this is not a part of the punishment. This is a regulatory scheme. This is not a part of the punishment. And we’re gonna get into that a little bit later when we talk about the case that we’re going to focus on. How important it is to refer to something as correctly and accurately as you can. The sex offender registration is a regulatory scheme. And never lose sight of that even though it does inflict punishment. It’s on the books as a regulatory scheme. You always refer to it as a regulatory scheme.

Andy 13:20
I think that we can go right over there. We don’t have we this is going to devour the majority of the of the program tonight is covering this, this complaint by Willman. And where did this come out of? Where was this originally filed?

Larry 13:34
In the state of Michigan.

Andy 13:36
Okay, and this would come on the heels of what was the big case up there where they ruled the whole thing unconstitutional? That was like 2017?

Larry 13:44
Yeah the Does versus Snyder case that went up to the Sixth Circuit where the same case, this, the same circuit this case was decided in. The same circuit…

Andy 13:58
And as I understand it. Ok, go ahead…

Larry 14:00
The states of Michigan, Ohio, Tennessee, Kentucky, I believe there might be one more in the Sixth Circuit.

Andy 14:09
And is this being filed by one person? Or is this a collection of peoples?

Larry 14:15
Well, this this case was initiated in 2019 in the US District Court. We’ve got a complaint that we’re gonna, I’m sure you’re gonna put it in the show notes, right? The original complaint that that led to the Sixth Circuit ruling. (Andy: Yeah, yeah.) This is an example for those who say that we should attack the registry in its totality and quit making mousing and quit and quit going after parts of it. This is exactly what you want it. You wanted a full-scale attack. This is a 349-point complaint that alleges I think, eight independent causes of action, eight constitutional violations and it asks for 10 Orders of Relief by the court. And they threw everything at the wall to see if something would stick. And they were tired of waiting because the Does case was decided either in ‘16 or ‘17 when the Sixth Circuit came down, always get that confused, but they were tired of waiting because here we were at least two maybe close to three years later. And people were still having to register and the this attorney now I have not spoken, so I’m speaking for this attorney, and what I think the attorney would have been going through their head. So do not hold me to this. But I know that from the complaints I’ve received from people, why are you people not doing anything? Why don’t you people get together and do a class action and get the Does v Snyder decision to be enforced? Why are you negotiating? Well, this would be a good answer to your question. Someone, and I believe it will be a party related to the complaining, the complainant was named Willman. And the attorney of record was named Willman. And since I’ve only met no one named Willman, well I think I’ve only heard this name once on my life. I’m guessing that, that they’re probably related. But this is this is someone who decided that they had waited long enough, and that the attorneys didn’t know what they were doing. And they shouldn’t negotiate and they should just get the job done. So they filed a 349 page, 93 page, 349 point, 93-page complaint and they threw everything at the kitchen sink. And guess what, absolutely nothing stuck. Nothing. (Andy: Nothing?) Nothing. Everything in that complaint was shot down and rolled down like bowling pins.

Andy 16:47
But there would be things filed in the complaint that would mirror what was decided with the other Michigan case. So how would they not have at least sided with some of them?

Larry 17:01
Well, that’s a really great question you must have read part of this complaint.

Andy 17:05
I was meandering through, I got to about 120. I was like, uhhhh, it was really kind of mind numbing. But I mean, there were points in there of like, hey, these things make it impossible to find a place to live. And I mean, I don’t know what the the Does Snyder case actually, like asserted, I’ve just like those things are in there as a common complaint.

Larry 17:23
Well, but but what you what you focused in on was, was what’s very important. The the danger of this decision is that the Sixth Circuit, not only did not grant any relief, they specified that there’s an independent federal duty to register. And that’s what they decided and there is until there isn’t, and now in the Sixth Circuit, there is a independent federal duty to register, independent of what the state might decide that they would like you to do. And But this person lost sight of the fact that the Sixth Circuit didn’t even say what people, they did not conclude what people would like to of think they concluded. They didn’t conclude that registration of sex offenders was unconstitutional. What they concluded was that the 2006 and the 2011 amendments transformed what had been upheld many times previously as being a civil regulatory scheme that they imposed, that that those enhancements imposed such disabilities and restraints that those enhancements push, push the the regulatory scheme beyond what could be interpreted as a regulatory scheme. But since the federal requirements do not impose those obligations that Michigan had imposed in 2006 and ‘11. Then that creates another nuance because the only thing that the feds ask Michigan to do in the AWA was to change the duration of registration, but they did not ask them to impose any disabilities in terms of where anybody could work, where they could be present, where they could live, or any of those things that Michigan in their brilliance did. And therefore, what this three judge panel is saying is that we have now concluded what I have been in fear of for a long time, that when everybody refers to the federal registry, that we’re eventually going to accept that as a true adage. That there is a federal registry. There is NOT a federal registry. I don’t think there ever has been one that I can recall. And we should never use incorrect language when we’re talking about something. There is no federal registry, and we should never ever allude to a federal registry. It would be like a few weeks ago when someone said, I want to know about, If I move to another state, what does the receiving state? When you move to another state as a registered person, unless you’re under supervision, that is not a receiving state. (Andy: You’ve just moved.) You’ve just moved.

Andy 20:02
You no longer live in A, you live in B. Yeah, I’m with you.

Larry 20:04
You have the freedom of mobility. And when you were talking about the sex offender registry, never call something that it isn’t. And it’s confusing to people because there’s a federal database that’s publicly available, which links and looks into all the state registries. And that somehow or another that gets to be thought of as a federal registry. And then there’s the NCIC database where registry agencies list people that they have registered. And that is a federal registry per se, but you could only be put into it by the state. Since there’s only state registrars, only state registrars can enter you into that NCIC database. It gets a little confusing, but now we’ve got a circuit court saying that there’s an independent duty under federal law to register so now not only Mr. Willman doesn’t get off, Mr. Willman has closed the door, potentially, if this isn’t overturned, to a whole lot of people never getting off the registry in Michigan, never getting off the registry in any state in the Sixth Circuit, and possibly the entire country. Thanks, Mr. Willman, I really appreciate what you’ve done.

Andy 21:21
I just want to circle back is can you is talking about the Federal Highway money system where they say, Hey, we want speed limits to be 70 on an interstate, I don’t know what that number is, is it similar to the federal registry that we’re talking that doesn’t exist? Is it similar to those federal highway guidelines so to speak? Is that what the federal component is where we actually go into like there is no federal registry?

Larry 21:50
Absolutely. This is a federal desire that the states have registries. States could willingly, knowingly choose not to register anyone, and there would not be anything the federal government could do about it in the way of a penalty on the state other than an economic sanction. They could not come in and federalize the registry, they could come in and federalize it for people that have been convicted in the federal system, but in my opinion, and I think a lot of legal professionals agree with me, and that’s gonna be one of the arguments that that’s made to try to turn this ship around. But they could not come in and register people in the states no more than they could come into the states and issue driver’s license. Why do you think we’ve had this ongoing battle since 2005, I believe, when the REAL ID act was adopted? If they could make a federal ID in the interest of national security, they would have already done that rather than threatening states. And they threatened states with sanctions including not letting their citizens board airplanes or enter federal buildings, federal courthouses, or federal military installations or national laboratories, and in our case where we have two national laboratories here in our state, but they can’t make a federal ID card because that’s not, in my view, constitutional. We’ve delegated ID identification of citizens issued driver’s license, that’s the state responsibility and the feds could create an ID they can make it optional, kinda like your passport you can optionally have a federal ID of passport you’re not required to have one. They could create I guess a United States identification card but I don’t know how they could compel you to carry one they could they could say it would be good idea if you if you do you could access federal facilities more easily but that’s the same thing with this. The federal government would like for the states to register people. They don’t have to. They flat out don’t have to.

Andy 23:44
Gotcha. And, um, where do we go from here? You have massive fear that this is going to sink our ship to what degree as far as going forward?

Larry 23:58
Without some brilliant lawyering, which I didn’t see in this particular case, without some brilliant lawyering. This it’s it’s, it’s we could spend the entire episode because if, if Michigan now, who has not wanted to release anyone from registration as a result of Does versus Snyder, at this particular point, why would they? Because now they’ve got what they need. They have got, we can’t have it both ways. Now remember the state gets to have it both ways, but we don’t on our side. Now, we’ve been hanging our hat on how important the Sixth Circuit decision is and how wonderful it was that they found that Michigan’s registry had gone too far. And we said, Oh, everybody should really just jump on board and do what the Sixth Circuit. Now I wonder if the people have been clamoring that for all this time, will all of a sudden start clamoring about how we should jump on board, because now Michigan has been green lighted to go ahead and say we’re not removing anybody, because the same court that you just told us how wonderful It was that we should follow their lead. They said that there’s an independent duty to register people. And we really do believe that we should follow the dictates of this circuit and by golly, we’re not going to remove anybody. And what would you say then? Would you magically do a flip flop and say that you don’t believe in the Sixth Circuit any longer?

Andy 25:20
How did they not know that there isn’t a federal registry? Did I word that right? There is no federal registry. How do they write in this opinion that there is one there’s some sort of duty to register federally?

Larry 25:33
They well, as I said in preshow banter, it’s confusing because you’d have to be a student and understand federalism. And you would have to understand SORNA which very few people do when you’re dealing with all the issues that courts deal with. And this is not one when you go to law school , oh I’m going to become a SORNA expert. I can’t think of anything better to do in my life than become a SORNA expert. So so what you what you have here is If you look at the Adam Walsh Act language itself, it does say that there’s a duty of a person to register within three days and blah, blah, blah. But it all hinges on the state be willing to do the registration and have the registry. If you if you interpret it any other way, you have an absurd result. Because although for the uniformity that the federal government was seeking, they did want people to register within three days of being placed on probation or within three days of being released from prison or before being released from prison, if possible, if it was practical. And they wanted in person reporting at least once a year for tier ones twice a year for tier two, they wanted all those things. But if a state wasn’t willing, if a jurisdiction wasn’t willing to do that, those obligations cannot be imposed on the registrant because that would be creating a mandate on the state by the federal government to do something It’s not required to do it. If If you can do that, then you can federalize you can federalize anything, that this is a state responsibility. Now this should be a case where the conservatives who claim that they believe in limited government, and they believe in state control and state rights. This should be where they would line up and come out of the woodwork to jump on board and say this is wrong. Now, this will be interesting to see if the conservatives do line up and jump out of the woodwork to oppose this. But but the language is somewhat confusing. But you have to look beyond the language because what they were addressing in the comprehensive nature was when you move, they were trying to capture those people when you cross jurisdictional boundaries. And they were trying, they were trying to keep them participating in registration. And that’s where they were the language got confused. And so when you asked me, How did they not know? I think they don’t know because it’s complicated. And I don’t think anybody really understands it well enough. I think I think we have a listener in the room right now that understands that that that we have a great attorney in Maryland working on this. And it took a while for that really fantastic attorney to, but why she got herself wrapped around it she argued it very eloquently and she won. But now we’ve got, we got a whole different issue because that was before the state’s highest court. Now we’ve got a federal court saying, and I think this is not the first federal court to say it, but now we’ve got at least one or more federal courts say there’s an independent federal duty to register. And that is a real problem. And it changes everything in terms of what we do on those on those proposed regulations. Because now, now with independent duty to register, if this if this holds up, what do we do? We’re sunk potentially.

Andy 28:52
I’m a little confused that okay if a judge tells you to go, go register, this decision would be a judge telling all the people of Michigan to go register, there is no federal registry for them to go register does then Mark Rubio and all those cats then they create a registration scheme that people then have to go comply with at a federal agency?

Larry 29:15
Well, no, but what what what they’re gonna do is Michigan is gonna do what I just said, Michigan is going to say we can’t release you and we’ll be happy to register you because you have an independent duty even though our even though our SORA, which is what they call the Michigan even though SORA doesn’t cover you, the federal law does and we’ll be more than happy to register you, would you please sign up here? And that’s what’s gonna happen. And and the AG and the people that that Michigan we were oozing all over ourselves thinking that the AG was going to be on our side and we were going to crash the registry. Watch how quickly their argument changes now that they have this decision, because magically now that there’s a federal duty to register I bet all of a sudden, the AG’s office is going to be singing about different tune about we need to get these people in compliance. there’s an independent Federal duty to Register, and on all the impetus to remove people from the registry in Michigan is going to evaporate because of this. Thank you, Mr. Willman.

Andy 30:15
And to remind me where this occurred at what level of the hierarchy? So this is a federal court, is this at an appeals level or is it so this is the Sixth Circuit? This is the appeals level. This is one step below SCOTUS?

Larry 30:30
That is correct. This is was a decision by district court that was appealed to the Sixth Circuit, and like I say, it’s the same circuit that everybody was applauding, and I don’t hear much applause in the chat room now. Because now we got a decision that we don’t agree with. And all of a sudden, I bet we’re gonna say the Sixth Circuit is all washed up. And the court that we were applauding just a few weeks ago, is all of a sudden out of step and they are somewhat slightly out of step with the previous panel that decided the the the Does v. Snyder case, but not dramatically out of step because it’s a different issue. The issue here was that, that the person got tired of waiting and wanted to get off the registry. And they they said, you have, you have to remove us because of Does versus Snyder. And the US Attorney General says actually we don’t there’s a federal duty to register and the AG the federal government’s position prevailed that there’s an independent duty. So now nobody gets off the registry. And the next step is that you would ask for reconsideration. But I didn’t see a dissent in here, which of the three-judge panel I didn’t see a dissent and that makes reconsideration, if you can’t win one of the three. It’s difficult to think of how you would convince two of the three of a reconsideration which is what you would need to overturn the decision. That means…

Andy 31:56
I think I’m going to use this this word in a sentence coherently. This would be en banc.

Larry 32:02
That would be the next step. You would you would say, look, you would you would, you would, you would try to argue that two panels are completely out of step with one another. And you would try to make these cases almost identical as you can. And you could say, look, the full court must convene, and and clear up. And that’s very risky, because the full court may have never agreed with Does verses Snyder to start with, because I don’t remember if if they if they if a full court review was sought and denied, but if if the full court didn’t agree with that initially, this gives the state another bite at the apple in the original decision. This is just not good, folks. This is really not good.

Andy 32:46
Is there if we had a decision from one so I think the 10th circuit, the Colorado thing we talked about last week, is that right? Was it last week, two weeks ago?

Larry 32:55
last week, yes.

Andy 32:56
That wasn’t a good decision in our favor that we could have pitted that against this prior to this being this but the Sixth Circuit decision for Michigan, that creates controversy that creates something that maybe the Supreme Court is interested in hearing when you have two different circuits, battling it out having a differences of opinions? (Larry: That is correct.) This puts them in alignment together, correct?

Larry 33:19
That that is more or less correct if you’re looking for circuit splits, that that tantalizes the Supreme Court to look at a granting review. You don’t have really any split here you have a split within two panels potentially in the same circuit. but you don’t but you don’t have a split between the circuits. As far as the way they talk to this opinion, they’re not the first circuit to say there’s an independent duty. I haven’t been following this. I’ve been so arrogant, and so and so convinced of my right stance that there is no federal registry and I remain as convinced and arrogant as I was then. I’m just disappointed that I think that this three judge panel got it all wrong. I’m disappointed that this lawyer brought this case, I’m disappointed they weren’t collaborating with the ACLU, and with University of Michigan law school, and I’m disappointed that this happened. But I remain convinced that there is no federal registry. And just because three judges on a panel have said it, that doesn’t make it so. And I’m convinced that if we were to get the Wright decision, that we could overturn this. My fear is that even at the supreme court level, if this were to be taken up, this should be something that conservatives would chomp at the bit because they would be staunch proponents of federalism and separation of responsibilities that only letting the federal government do what clearly is defined in the constitution as a federal responsibility. This should be something that the conservatives could hang their hat on and run with it. I’m afraid that they won’t, but this actually should be something that we should be able to win at the US Supreme Court. But what happens if we don’t? We get setback for decades, if not forever.

Andy 35:00
And if that happens, we may as well just shut NARSOL, this podcast down, all of the affiliate groups like there, there would be very little for us to do because Supreme Court of the United States has said, again, that this thing is not punishment, all of these things. I mean, there’s 300, whatever, things that the person said, some of them are kind of trivial and silly, but many of them are the same claims that everyone else has made and this three-judge panel said, no, this isn’t punishment. There was like, there’s the cruel and unusual thing which you’ve brought up. Oh, this there’s there’s language in there that this just reminded me of, if it were a punishment, you could then go for the Eighth Amendment of cruel and unusual punishment. But this isn’t punishment. This is a regulatory scheme.

Larry 35:42
That is correct. You’ve got to prove something as punishment before you can go to the next level.

Andy 35:46
That’s so confusing, cause this is absolutely punishment, but it’s a civil regulatory scheme, but they went after it as if its punishment. So they’re saying it’s cruel and unusual punishment, but it’s not punishment because it’s a civil regulatory scheme.

Larry 35:58
But but but no one has held all these things are punishment, the court in Does verses Snyder said, these things you did in 2006 and ‘11 tipped the scales. And if you extrapolate from that everything you were doing prior to then, didn’t. (Andy: Yeah, sure. Sure.) Okay. So the magic answer is to peel those things off.

Andy 36:21
Yeah, yeah. To roll back to a pre whatever date. Sure.

Larry 36:25
that’s the magic solution. Now, the ACLU didn’t want that, because that would still have been a gravely flawed registry. And they believed and of course, we’re looking back in hindsight. I was looking in foresight at the time and understand I politics probably better than the average person. There was not going to be this groundswell of support to jettison thousands of people from the Michigan Sex Offender Registry. They thought that there would be. They thought that based on this decision, when I say this decision, the Does versus Snyder decision. They thought that they could go to the legislature, and that they would just be people palpitating with open arms to rollback. And that’s not the way politics works. Now you can believe it works that way. And you can create that illusion in your mind. And you can wish it worked that way. But that’s not the way it works. Because that’s not how that’s not where the people are. The people are not ready to jettison thousands of people from the registry. Therefore, the reflection of that opposition to doing that is going to be communicated through the legislature, that we’re not ready to do that. The ACLU miscalculated, but that doesn’t undermine or demean the work that they did, their lawyers. That’s their expertise. I don’t know that I can say they were as gifted in political analysis as would have been ideal. But that’s what they were hoping for. That they would that they would get a dramatic reform by legislative work, and they found out that that hasn’t happened and it isn’t likely to and if happens now, in view of this, I would be so surprised that I would almost be willing to eat something that I shouldn’t eat because I don’t know why in the world you would do a reform at this point.

Andy 38:10
Oh, everyone in chat, give me things that Larry should eat. Then help me understand if we do happen to move something like this case, they do appeal it and it gets granted cert at the Supreme Court. How do you think we fare at that level?

Larry 38:30
Well, logically, we should fare well. But too often the conservatives find a way to uphold things for law enforcement, even though they’re fundamentally against it. So that’s what scares me. But if we went purely about what they claimed that they believe in, we should win this at the Supreme Court. But I don’t trust the Supreme Court when it comes to this kind of thing. Now, I know people in chat are gonna say well, Larry you’ve already forgot about Packingham. And that was a unanimous decision. Yes, it was a unanimous decision with great trepidation expressed by the conservative block saying here’s too much dicta here. It’s going to create too much litigation for the courts, and it’s going to be interpreted too broadly. And the conservative block makes up the majority of the court now. Kennedy’s gone, who wrote that opinion, and he was in the moderate block if if you compare it with today’s and maybe even possibly liberal, but but Kennedy is gone, and, and therefore, I’m afraid, but we really have no choice. Because if the panel won’t reconsider, and they’re not going to when they’re unanimous. And if you don’t get this overturned with full court review, which would be the next thing to do. If that doesn’t happen, there’s nothing else left to do. You’re forced to do what you’re afraid to do, but you have no choice but to do it.

Andy 39:57
Just back up a step. This how, how extensive is putting together a 349 whatever point petition whatever, like challenge against the registry in the state? How, how big of a task is that for a law firm to put together?

Larry 40:16
Oh, this was a gargantuan undertaking and it was a very well-prepared complaint. (Andy: Strategic.) Right, they did an enormous amount of research and this thing has hundreds of hours’ worth of work, a lot of cut and pasting, but an awful lot of work put into this. And it’s very well drafted, very well organized. So it’s not the complaint itself is the problem. It’s the problem when you throw everything at the kitchens, everything but the kitchen sink at and you go after the they’ve challenged everything.

Andy 40:50
which I guess would be similar to the challenges that we make in reverse that we talk about, well, can they can they do this? Can they do this? Can they do this? Well, this is so broad, if you would narrowly tailor it, then yeah, you could make, hey, this person had all these images on the computer. Yeah, you could make an internet restriction of some kind for that person. But if the person was doing something or whatever, you know, so then you would nearly narrowly tailor the person’s conditions to what their crime involved. They did this in reverse. They didn’t go, we need to focus on this thing. This is the most egregious or this thing is the most egregious, but they said, hey, let’s just throw the whole bowl of spaghetti at him and see what what sticks against the wall.

Larry 41:32
That’s exactly what they did. And beyond that, they said that this for judicial economy, this should be applied to everyone even though we only have one plaintiff, we should apply this to everybody on the Michigan registry and everyone who might come on the Michigan registry. And that that was just just so bizarre. They asked for 10 separate orders. And I think there was eight individual counts within the within the complaint of what they said were unconstitutional things. I believe there was eight of them. And like I say, those of you who are out there salivating say, why don’t you go after the registry in its totality? Whis would be your answer. This is why.

Andy 42:09
And of course, hindsight being 2020, your favorite expression is to look in the rearview mirror going forward. Had they come to you or a like-you person and said, We are going to file a challenge like this? How would you have advised them to be different?

Larry 42:26
I would advise them to do exactly what the ACLU has been advising them and what the law schools been advising them. To stand down, let us work this process that we’re working. We’ve got a federal judge who’s given them a deadline to comply, it’s been extended. And then he has said the registry is going to go dark, gave them gave them but gave him a date certain. I don’t remember what that date was, but the registry was going to go dark. If you had let that process run. Now, if I’m on the state of Michigan, if I’m representing the state of Michigan, now I’m going to go right back and say, the district judge that said that the registry has to go dark, I’m going to ask that judge to lift that order, because this here from the circuit tells him that he can’t do that, because it’d be a violation of federal law. So I’m going to say, Judge, you need to reconsider, the registry can’t go dark. So my advice would have been to let the people who’ve been running this case, run the case. And if you got it advice to give them give it to them, and that’s what I’d have done, what little bit advice I’ve had, which has been very little, because these people are extremely competent litigating. What little advice I’ve given them, I’ve given it to them. And and I would never have undertaken an action like this. And even if I had been paid well, because I’ve realized the danger of what they what what they’ve done. I don’t even know if the people have done this realize what they potentially done. They may be oblivious.

Andy 43:54
Tom in chat asks an interesting question, and I provided my own input back but he goes how do we prevent this from happening again? And my answer to that is that we would need to find all 800,000 of us to get us under some kind of information umbrella of and then coordinate amongst all of our different different groups that and try and have some kind of unified-ish strategy. I know that one group might want to go after something, that’s fine. But we would need to have some kind of level of coordination.

Larry 44:24
True. And we would need to have people that have patience. That’s easy for me to say, when I’m not on the list, and there’s no projectiles coming through my windows. And I understand that. I’m not being I’m not being insensitive. I truly understand, one day, the registry could be the last day that you ever live. But when you’re winning, you don’t do reckless things. And you were winning in Michigan until this, this came down. Until, let’s see, this came out on the fifth. Not the fifth, what day? I’m looking at the wrong one.

Andy 45:00
Was added on the 26th.

Larry 45:03
So this just came down. This should be late breaking news.

Andy 45:06
Yep, totally. You called me about it two days ago, which is pretty much when it would have happened. I can’t imagine you had it 10 seconds after it occurred.

Larry 45:13
Yeah. So yeah, this this. And this, I’m I’m convinced would be a relative of someone who, of the attorney, because the same name and being in the same state. I’m betting that Willman was the attorney is representing a Willman that’s related to the attorney. I’m betting.

Andy 45:30
that is part of the reason why I asked the question about how many hours would it be to file a challenge this large to then put in kind of like the nepotism. Well I’ll do anything for my my brother, you know, or maybe it’s an uncle or somebody like that. And they did it as part of a familial relationship to put in that many hours of work to put this together.

Larry 45:49
Well, it’s brilliant work. And so I hope people understand there’s a difference in strategy and the quality of the research and the drafting. I would love to have this person drafting stuff for me. I would hate to have this person strategizing for me.

Andy 46:06
Okay, Tom, Tom has another really good to me a good question says what legal steps can we take to keep this just in Michigan? which it isn’t just in Michigan. If it’s the circuit, this is Tennessee and whatever. Right?

Larry 46:18
Yeah, Michigan, Tennessee, Kentucky, Ohio. And I think there’s one more I think there’s five states in that circuit. But yes, this is this is already this. The people that were giving great news to in Tennessee last week, two weeks ago, when we were talking about the Reed decision. If I’m the Attorney General in Tennessee, I’m going to do the exact same thing that the Michigan Attorney General’s likely do. I’m going to go back and say, well, Mister District Judge because that was a district court decision in Tennessee, it was not a it was not from Sixth Circuit. The district court was hanging his hat on the Sixth Circuit in Does vs. Snyder, if I’m the AG, I’m coming back and say judge, you’ve got to reconsider because there’s new case law here. And this is binding in this precedent, this is the great Sixth Circuit, you know that, that you hung your hat on and now they’re saying something totally different. And that is exactly what I would do. And if I can think of that, I keep assuring people if I can think of it, they are least as smart as I am. And they can think of that as well.

Andy 47:21
And just to cover this, again, there are 12 plus DC or 11 plus DC, district courts or circuit courts? (Larry: 11 plus DC) And so 11 plus DC, so they’re 12 total, and those feed the cases into the Supreme Court of the United States. So this is one step below the Supreme Court of the United States as in like that is the final arbiter that decides these big cases, same sex marriage, all that crap.

Larry 47:48
That is correct. And that’s the place where I’m afraid to go but we’ve been forced there. If the full court if the full court of the Sixth Circuit doesn’t decide to grant review. Now they did it in the Flynn case it does happen occasionally. I think since we’re doing this podcast, we’ve been able to say that one time that review en banc has been granted. They could do it this case, and my argument would be why you should do it because we appear to have split within two different panels on this circuit. So we need the full court to clarify what our statement is on the registration. But if I’m Michigan, I’m gonna argue just the opposite. I’m gonna say well, there’s no split at all. The Does versus Snyder decision was based on the state of Michigan sex offender registration act, and the fact that Michigan had piled on too many restrictions that are not in federal law. And now we’ve got clarity, there’s an independent federal duty to register and we can register those people without imposing those those requirements on them, and we’re all hunky dory. That’s what I would say for the state of Michigan. And again, if I can think of that I’m fairly confident they can think of that as well. That’s what they’re gonna say.

Andy 48:55
And if we were to get that en banc review, does NARSOL, do you get to assist in drafting those friends of the court brief, the amicus briefs?

Larry 49:07
Oh yes. We would go full bore trying to find the best writer we could. And the best strategists that we can find that actually understand strategy. And we would we would want to come in as strong as we could on this one. So this is this is definitely a high priority. I can’t think of a higher priority right now than this.

Andy 49:27
Really? Larry, it’s just thinking about us doing 141 other episodes and how much these things cost. I remember Miriam Ackerman, the Michigan ACLU attorney, the number was if it was 2 million, if it was 1.5. It was some ridiculous six, seven figure number of how much they have invested in the Michigan case that this would be some level equal to that? Or what do you think how many hours of preparation and preparing whatever for to handle the next stage of this with this coming in that kind of goes against that one to then try and put up a decent defense?

Larry 50:08
Well, are you talking about the the cost of the of the of the appeal of this particular decision of the reconsideration? (Andy: Yes) It won’t be as costly because this is a I mean, it’ll be costly, but it won’t be as costly because that that was a declaratory action where there was a significant amount of evidence had to be developed below and the state fought tooth and nail to prevent that evidence record from being built. Now they argued and opposed everything, which they typically do, and there had to be ruling after ruling after ruling, and there had to be motions to compel. And all that wouldn’t be the case. This is this is merely a legal interpretation here. And you’ve got you’ve got a panel that has taken a slight different approach to interpreting as another panel. So so you’re going to set about distinguishing your arguments when you when you argue why the full court should review it and the people wanting the full court review is going to argue that this is a renegade panel. And it completely contradicts the previous panel. And the people wanting to preserve this, they’re going to say, Nope, it’s not. It’s not the same thing. It’s completely distinguishable from what what was in Does versus Snyder. Therefore, there’s no need for a full court review. This is a separate issue. That’s what they’re gonna argue.

Andy 51:22
Wow, man, you’re painting that doom and gloom again. Larry, why can’t you just be happy and positive? We got a decision from the Sixth Circuit. Just be happy for getting a decision.

Larry 51:35
well, I don’t think it works that way.

Andy 51:41
Okay, oh boy, I’m trying to use my little pea brain here to figure out what we can do. But I’m hearing you say that we have to fire up all the guns and all that to try and mount some sort of defense against this to get the full panel to review it and does that mean the SCOTUS?

Larry 52:03
Well, if the full court rejects review, if the full court either does review, and they affirm the panel or if they if they grant review, and they overturn the panel, that’d be fantastic. But if they don’t over overturn the panel, if they affirm that’s the last step we would have would be to file a petition for cert for the Supreme Court. Well, if I’m in the state of Michigan, again, they will think of this, I’m not letting any secrets out of the bag here. If I’m the state of Michigan, I’m going to say, No, there’s no circuit split at all we’ve got in this case, this is consistent with some of our sister circuits. This just just merely affirms that there’s a federal registry, and there’s no need for the Supreme Court. And we’re gonna have to flood the supreme court with amicus briefs from everybody we can come up with that believe in federalism and limitation on the scope of federal reach. And we’re gonna have to get them to say actually, this is this is very significant because if they can federalize registration, what else can they federalize? We’re gonna have to hope the Supreme Court likes that even though they’re not going to want to grant relief to sex offenders you have to hope that they’re actually want want to stop the creep of of usurpation of state power and imposition of federal power where there is no federal authority. that’s all we can hope for if it goes to the Supreme Court.

Andy 53:17
And finally, Tom in chat says, Well, I guess we can use this as precedent in discussions with others who want to go in all guns blazing.

Larry 53:25
That’s my whole point. Yep. You, you all guns blazing people, you’ve got what you wanted.

Andy 53:32
Ready to be a part of Registry Matters? Get links at registrymatters.co If you need to be all discreet about it, contact them by email at registrymatterscast@gmail.com You can call or text a ransom message to (747)227-4477. Want to support Registry Matters on a monthly basis? Head to patreon.com/registrymatters. Not ready to become a patron? Give a five-star review at Apple podcasts or Stitcher, or tell your buddies at 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 54:23
Okay, anything else before we uh, now I’m all deflated and depressed Larry. Is there anything else that we need to cover on this before we move on to some other things?

Larry 54:31
I think we’ve beat it to death for what we can do tonight.

Andy 54:36
Yeah, we’ve got probably close to 45 minutes on that subject. So there you go. Do you want to read this question from a listener behind the walls or did you want me to read that?

Larry 54:45
Which one are we doing? (Andy: This will be the one highlighted read.) Oh, well, I suppose I can do my best I don’t think I’m as I can read as well as you do. But I will do my best. (Andy: Go ahead.) I your your your reading is better. Go ahead.

Andy 55:01
Fine, fine fine. This is a listener question from behind the walls, they are talking about the whole Tennessee law from last year that blocked persons forced to register PFRs, from living with their minor children.

Listener Question
I remember they filed an injunction against it successfully. They were talking about it and briefly included the day that Alabama actively has and enforces it. If the Tennessee law gets successfully overturned, would we in Alabama be able to use that as case law to fight it?

Larry 55:29
And that is a great question. And the answer is yes, you can use it. When you say use it, understand it’s not precedential because Alabama is in the 11th circuit, and Tennessee is in the Sixth Circuit. Therefore, anything that that would be precedential in Alabama would have to be a US Supreme Court decision or something from within the 11th circuit. But that doesn’t mean it can’t be cited as persuasive authority. But before you get too excited, this case has not played out on the merits yet. An injunction was granted. And we really, it’s time to have an update. I appreciate that because I’m going to ask the attorney, one of the attorneys on the case if we can receive an update for the newsletter, but this is merely an injunction, which is preliminary relief, saying that they made a showing sufficiently strong that they would likely prevail when the case does go to trial. But at this point, it would do you very little good to cite it because it’s not going to final District Court decision yet. And then it’s subject to appellate review by the by the Sixth Circuit, since Tennessee’s in the Sixth Circuit, and then it wouldn’t be binding in the 11th circuit or Alabama. So therefore, it’s persuasive authority. Once it becomes a circuit court decision. It can be cited as persuasive authority, but at this point, it’s a little premature to to hang your hat on it. It’s not going to give to give you a whole lot of boost to say that well they did this in Tennessee, so therefore, again, that’s my opinion. You can find people who practice law that will say, Well, yes, I will cite it, and maybe it’ll have some persuasive authority. But I would be, I would be saying it would be very weak persuasive authority being that it’s a preliminary injunction in a district court, not even in the same circuit as Alabama.

Andy 57:22
Okay. And so then another question. Oh, this, I like this one. It’s another short one just about permission to marry. Can Wisconsin impose GPS monitoring on me? Isn’t this ex post facto law? Is there more to go on that from that? Because this doesn’t have anything to do with permissions to marry?

Larry 57:44
Well, there’s two separate questions there. One is a very brief question that’s in a PDF. The guy says:

Listener Question
Can my PO deny my permission to marry?

Larry
And there are some things we don’t know the answer to, because they’re fact-specific. As a general rule, your PO can, can can limit your relationships. Period. Not just marriage, but all relationships, because that’s part of the supervising officers job is to help you make wise decisions of who you have relationships with, and who might be detrimental to you. But then you’ve come to the issue of marrying. And then you have US Supreme Court decision, precedent, going back to the 1960s, I believe Loving versus Virginia where it says a person’s free to marry whomever they choose, as long as that’s a lawful marriage and not incest or whatever the things are. But, but so what we have here is would your PO be able to preclude you from marrying? Possibly yes, if the person if they could cite a particular reason it would be detrimental. Maybe that person was your partner in crime, and they’re telling you not to associate with that person. You say, Well, I’ll teach you a lesson. I’ll just marry that person. Well, that might be more than sufficient grounds to nullify that relationship and under the right circumstances I believe that they could do it but as a blanket policy to say that that we’re going to deny anybody who all’s under supervision to get married because they might have kids then they might be subjected to committing another sex offense. Therefore, we’re gonna not let the guy get married. That would be too overly broad, but on an on a case by case basis, I believe they probably could do it. And if they could cite the reasons, it would probably be withheld, upheld, not withheld, upheld on on judicial review.

Andy 59:37
Hmm, I think we have, haven’t we talked about something in the past where someone has said, You can’t choose who you I guess marriage is different than choosing who you love. So they can’t stop you from loving a person but they can stop you from marrying a someone.

Larry 59:56
Or associating with them. You can love them all you want to.

Andy 59:58
Sure, I’m thinking that you like elope and go to Vegas and get married. And then what happens now you’re already married. What are they going to do? Make you undo it?

Larry 1:00:06
No, but you violated conditions of supervision.

Andy 1:00:09
Yeah. God, can you imagine going before the judge, like, hey, look, we eloped. We went over there we did. I got permission to go to Vegas. And we went over there we eloped. And then you come back, and hey, well, now now married and like no, we’re gonna violate your…

Larry 1:00:24
well, well, first of all, I can absolutely guarantee you would never get permission to go to Vegas, if you were under supervision, by our state authorities here. Now I know in beautiful Georgia where you can do anything you want to do while you’re under supervision and traveling where you want to go. That’s not the same case. But But here, you’d never get that permission. So so that would never be a scenario here. But if you go get married, and the conditions were explicitly clear, that relationships would have to be pre-approved. I would consider a marriage a relationship. I mean, maybe it wouldn’t meet the definition, but I would think that a marriage would qualify as a relationship right?

Andy 1:00:58
Last time, I checked they generally involve relationships.

Larry 1:01:01
Right. So I would, I would say that a PO would have a strong showing that you had violated that particular condition. But then again, it gets a little dicey because you do have the right to procreate, you do have the right to choose your mate. And if they just simply said, We don’t want you married, that would be problematic. But if they said, We don’t want you marrying this person for these reasons, I think that’s a whole different thing.

Andy 1:01:27
Oh, right. And all right, so then, so yeah, you put these in here where they were like on top of each other. I thought one was sort of like a intro, but and then I guess we do have time for a third one that says:

Listener Question
Can Wisconsin impose GPS monitor on me? Isn’t this ex post facto law?

Andy 1:01:45
And why don’t you read the answer from Adele Nicholas and, and Mark Weinberg.

Larry 1:01:49
So you’re gonna cause me to stumble over myself now. Adele Nicholas, and Mark Weinberg are attorneys who have been doing an enormous amount of litigation in Wisconsin and, and even more in Illinois. And I think they may have even filed a case in Minnesota. I think they filed I guess a residency restriction in Minnesota. So they’ve been very active. And I assumed that they would be on top of this. So I reached out a couple of weeks ago and I didn’t hear anything and I reached out again and I got this response from from Adele Nicholas, and I’ll try to read it. It says, and where does this actually start reading? Mark Weinberg and I have filed a class action lawsuit, which challenges the constitutionality of Wisconsin’s program of lifetime GPS monitoring of individuals who have been convicted of sex offenses. The case alleges it’s a violation of the Fourth Amendment to subject individuals who are no longer subject to criminal justice supervision, i.e. probation, parole or extended supervision, to GPS monitoring. We seek injunctive relief on behalf of everyone in Wisconsin, who is subject to lifetime GPS monitoring. Our request for a preliminary injunction was denied by the district court and is currently on appeal before the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. We did not pursue an ex post facto claim, not because we don’t think it’s valid, but because the theory that GPS monitoring is a punishment has already been rejected by the Wisconsin Supreme Court and the Seventh Circuit. The case is Bram et. al. vs. Carr, and then they give the citation. And then we have oral arguments before the court on 9/18 and hope to receive a decision before the end of the year. That’s what Adele Nicholas has communicated on that issue.

Andy 1:03:30
How is that different than the Supreme Court decision from the late 2000s of them just slapping a GPS on your car? Isn’t that the same thing? The Supreme Court ruled that you can’t do that.

Larry 1:03:46
Well, the Supreme Court ruled on GPS monitoring, but but they didn’t do on the ex post facto, they did it on search and seizure. I believe it was the state of North Carolina. They said that they could do it ex post facto because its civil regulatory, which is what Wisconsin is saying. And the Supreme Court said, no such, it doesn’t work that way. When you are seizing a person’s location 24 hours a day that is a search and it is a seizure. And therefore, you have to have an individualized and articulate a reason for that search and that seizure. And therefore there’s there’s ample case law on this. On this, I wouldn’t be as afraid to go the supreme court because they’ve already been pretty clear that this is a search and seizure. And therefore a person who has paid their debt to society is not subject to search and seizure like a person who is paying their debt to society would be. Therefore, this would be, the one most closely resembles this would be your case in Georgia where the guy told him after he got off supervision that they could take their GPS and put it where the sun doesn’t shine

Andy 1:04:49
Yeah he put it in the mailbox didn’t he? He cut it off and sent it to him, and said here, here’s your GPS, eff you.

Larry 1:04:54
that case is similar to this, but but to the poor people who are being, to the to the unlucky ones who are being required to be fitted for these and have their their locations tracked. Their relief isn’t coming fast enough because the the preliminary injunction was not approved, which means this case, this case has to be decided on the merits. And that’s where that’s where we are and we’ll hopefully have a decision by the end of the year.

Andy 1:05:22
I understand that as well. I want to reach out to our patron Tom who increased his Patreon and that is super fantastic and awesome. And thank you so very much. Tom has been peppering me with questions all in chat all night and it’s been really, it’s great. He’s asking questions, and I like having that interaction.

Larry 1:05:42
How many people don’t we have about 30 in there tonight?

Andy 1:05:45
There’s a whole slew there’s like half of like, there’s a half a state of Wyoming or something in there. So there’s like seven

Larry 1:05:53
I think Wyoming has got, I think there’s 112 people in Wyoming now.

Andy 1:05:57
And he wants, he upped his Patreonage. So that we’ll send a transcript Larry which is pretty awesome.

Larry 1:06:02
Well has he communicated to whom we send it?

Andy 1:06:06
he has not done that yet so we’ll get that. I guess maybe he wanted us to just get it through the vibes of the tubes of the internet. But he also then had a he had something he wanted to point out so I am throwing up a picture if you if you happen to be watching the YouTube feed, and Larry if you want to look. So there is a there’s a picture so he has a ring doorbell. He says Larry and Andy, I thought y’all would be interested to see this. This alert came across my ring app since we have a ring doorbell. This alert is not in reference to me but evidently somebody else nearby. Just goes to show you the hysteria that exists out there and the various ways it spreads. I would presume this individual is just trying to move on with their life and is living with someone in a nice neighborhood near where I live. God forbid they try to do that. The message reads: Sex offenders. Be advised a new resident has moved into the area of Westport. The significant other of said resident is on the sex offender registry. Although the address of the sex offender is not the address in Westport, where the offender does stay at the residence in Westport several days a week. If you have any young children be mindful of their whereabouts, dum dum dum. And there’s 13 thumbs up, which is like, Okay, I guess they they thought that that was useful and important information.

Larry 1:07:20
That’s unfortunately what I keep saying that that we have a rabid public opinion that’s extremely supportive of the registry. And of all this sensational going out onthese roundup sweeps and the you know, the federal marshals doing what we talked about last week. that the public supports this and when, when the Adam Walsh Act was signed in 2006, they immediately started funding this these partnerships with the states and funding local law enforcement to do this. It only stood to reason that you’re going to have more and more of these of these sensational roundups and the more funding that’s provided, the more of this we’re going to have. It feeds itself. We actually need to cut funding and you can’t even talk about cutting funding because all of a sudden that becomes defunding. You know, it’s not a reduction of funding. It’s only a reduction of funding if you’re trying to cut liberal programs. But if you’re if you’re trying to just reduce the funding for law enforcement, it’s a defunding, they you know, it’s not, you notice how they changed the way they describe it, defunding the police. But we need to reduce the funding for prosecutorial offices. We need to reduce the funding for law enforcement, since crime has dropped precipitously in this country over the last 30 years. And we need to defund, reduce, not defund, but reduce the funding of the Attorney General offices around the country because they can they can file objections to everything and appeal everything because they have the resources to do that. And and they won’t stop doing it until we do we do what George Patton had done to him when he would not obey the orders of The Supreme Commander to stop his advance and they had to they had to kill his petroleum supply because he wouldn’t stop so they had to stop him.

Andy 1:09:09
I guess so that sounds sort of circular but I’m with you. We then are you ready, Mike left, super patron Mike in in Parts Unknown in Florida he sent a very long voice memo and it sounds really good Larry. He used like his phone. He didn’t send it over the telephone because the telephone sounds like garbage. We’ve been over that a few times. But he he has some ideas and some accolades for the podcast. Are you ready for me to play this?

Larry 1:09:36
Let’s do it.

Mike 1:09:38
Hey, guys, this is Mike one of your South Central Florida, North Florida, Florida in general, long term patrons from I guess Parts Unknown as you guys would say. I wanted to call and make a comment, maybe ask a question and put a little information out there. I’ve been noticing the large amounts of statistics I’m seeing of people going into work from home who’ve been working in, you know, call centers and Salesforce things that, you know, wherever they may have worked, people are working from home. That capability has grown exponentially from everything I’ve read in the last few years. And especially since March. I’ve also seen it’s had a drastic effect on real estate and corporate commercial buildings that are empty. And a lot of those jobs aren’t going back to those buildings from what I understand. Basically, broadband is beat, you know, paying all those hundreds of thousands of dollars a year for commercial real estate. So I noticed that and with saying that I just wanted your opinion on do you think this would actually increase the chance of registrants, particularly in finding work in the near future? And I know it dramatically reduces the liability of any employer looking at, you know, employing someone I mean, if they work from home, they basically have virtually no contact with anybody. And that not that I worry about any, anything like that, but and I realize that the recidivism rate for most registrants is already very low. And we know that.

Andy 1:11:16
let’s let’s talk about that for just a minute because we already we already went back in at some point we were talking about recidivism rate . Wait did we talk about the recidivism rate in that other case? I don’t think we did.

Larry 1:11:28
We didn’t because I’m in denial about recidivism. (Andy: I know you are, that’s why I wanted to bring that up.) I usually dodge that.

Andy 1:11:36
Um, but anyway, so I, it probably would be important, even though it’s a bullshit metric that nobody cares about, but maybe an employer would be interested maybe that would be useful information to them that the recidivism rate is low, maybe that would give them some level of comfort that hiring a person would would not cause them you know, maybe not so much strife in hiring them. Well, those are working from

Larry 1:12:00
Well if they were working from home it would certainly cut down recidivism considerably.

Andy 1:12:05
Correct. So that would be so I wanted to cut that right there and have a little dialogue like, I have worked from home for quite some time. And obviously, like, the social aspect of it, like it’s nice to go to an office and interact with people sometimes if you have decent people that work there but working from home, there’s not a lot of violating anybody and patting them on the tushy or something and saying, Hey, what’s up toots. That’s probably not going to happen too much if you’re working from home.

Larry 1:12:30
Well, that that’s I mean, it’s a good point that he made that this would help us flush out. Is it flesh or flush? We got to get this straight.

Andy 1:12:38
I think flesh in this case.

Larry 1:12:40
It would help us determine if there’s sincerity about employers because I never been in my business considerations. If you’re if you’re if your insurance companies are telling you that they won’t cover your they’re gonna jack your premiums if you have certain practices, including what they would consider negligent Hiring. But if you have the person working at home or they’re completely insulated, it would seem like that, that that would not be a viable consideration for the employer to discriminate based on that. And then it would be kind of like the churches who pretend like they would like to have you worship except for this this awful law that we don’t, we don’t have any opposition to we’ve never expressed any reservation about it. But we would welcome you but for we don’t want you to get in trouble. This would be interesting to see if employers, as they’ve opened up more and more work from home and this is not going to come back these these jobs are largely, not largely, I can’t say that, lots of these jobs are not going back to the offices ever.

Andy 1:13:41
Right and I could point you in the direction of at least 2, 3, 4 podcasts that have talked about how the housing market has shifted. And he mentioned that in there, that people are moving out of the city centers and moving further and further away from the city centers where and now they’re setting up their houses in a way that like I have a delineated I have a separate place to make my office so that I can just be in my castle here by myself by my lonesome and work from home, and then I have my play area outside, whatever, but they have a dedicated office and the housing trends are pointing in that direction decidedly.

Larry 1:14:12
Absolutely, I’m concerned with the same thing. I’ve got a little tiny house It has a one car garage, and I’m thinking about putting just a shelter for the car and parking it under the shelter and taking that garage and converting it to work space and, and I could actually have a home office and then I could do a lot more from home than I do now. Not that I really want to because then you can never get away from your work but but I would have it would open up more opportunities for for doing things from home but these jobs, companies that have have decided to, to convert to home, they’re not going to go back to the expensive city centers. They’re not if they can, if they can be as productive having people work at home, why would you want to count incur the expense of an office?

Andy 1:14:57
But that would then lead you down the path if uou are if you are a subscriber of Mike Rowe and dirty jobs that there was a TV show on the Discovery Channel in the early 2000s. Really, really funny show Larry, but the guy would go around and he would interview and hang out with people that did the most disgusting jobs you can imagine like the person that climbs into a septic tank to clean it out, like you can’t do that job from home. (Larry: probably not.) Which would lead you down the path of having some kind of education behind you, where you can do a job, project management computer kind of stuff. Like you have to be able to work from home to have a job where you work from home. I realize how silly that may sound, but are people in many cases have a challenge going to college to get any kind of education and not necessarily just college but some kind of further education to where you could have credentials that you could work from home to but this also opens up that tons of colleges allow like, hey, we’ll just do everything online all of a sudden. Now you don’t have to step foot on campus. Maybe you can go get a four-year degree. I know that there, I did my degree entirely online. And this was even in 2005, six and seven when I did all that. I think I graduated in ‘05. So maybe it was ’03 and ‘04 when I did all that but Western Governors University, there’s a school, a whole slew of colleges where you could get your full four year degree online.

Larry 1:16:19
Yep. And, and there will be there will be jobs that that will never be able to convert. I’m not sure we’re going to do a lot of manufacturing at home. And I’m not sure that I’m not sure hospitality. I mean, there’ll be some support jobs in terms of scheduling conference and events of things you could probably do remotely, but I’m guessing you’re gonna have to serve the people if they come if they if conferences ever start happening again, you’re gonna have to have personnel and you’re not going to the people who receive guests and clean the rooms are not going to do that from home. But, but there was a whole lot of jobs that have shifted and I don’t think they’re ever going to shift back.

Andy 1:16:55
I gotcha. And we are going to take a couple second break because I am having technical problems here.

Larry 1:17:06
Yeah, then you got some important clips to play.

Andy 1:17:09
I do I do and I and I definitely don’t want to to lose that. crashed again. All right and then so let’s finish up this one.

Mike 1:17:19
I wanted to also bring up something in some research I found there’s a there’s something called the WOTC which is a Work Opportunity Tax Credit that the IRS has, and that allows some companies based on who they hired and how much they’re paying them. They can get anywhere from $1200 to $9,600 a year in tax credits based on whoever they hired. And this tax credit covers qualified people and it has a diverse group of different people from different things. It talks about veterans, and people who’ve been getting benefits from the state and there’s all kinds of things. There’s youth employees, but one of the things that covers is ex-felon. And as far as I can find in my research, there aren’t any limitations to that. There aren’t any caveats that I’ve been able to find. So I’d like your thoughts on that. What if these, you know, men and women who are registered, who are unemployed, go and find this information, pull it up, it’s easy to find online and take that information and arm yourself with it. And maybe, you know, you find an employer that’s on the fence, maybe you can push them over into your your line of thinking in your lane with these tax credits, and there are some really good information out there. If you’re looking to, you know, try to find work and I realize it’s not that easy. But there, you know, there’s a lot of websites out there, one of the ones I found was called jobsforfelonshub.com they have some pretty good links on there. They have some good information. And anyway, if you guys could maybe talk about this and, you know, Larry, I’d like to hear what your thoughts are. Andy, I’m pretty sure you got some information you could share about this as well. So anyway, guys, I love the show. Thank you for all you do, and we greatly appreciate it. And I just want to say big old fyp to anybody who don’t like the show, and don’t listen, you’re missing out. And anyway, guys, have a great weekend and love to hear from you.

Andy 1:19:29
Can you speak to that work tax credit? My understanding is it’s only good for a handful of months, maybe six months after you are released from incarceration?

Larry 1:19:37
I don’t know enough about it to speak intelligently. I can tell you that if you can reach the high enough person, but that has that level of concern about the business, that taxes can be a persuasive factor. Because particularly in the struggle that we’re in right now, where businesses have had their income significantly, some businesses have their income significantly impaired some have actually had their income significantly increase. But, but anything you can do that would reduce the cost of employment and shift it to someone else and shifting it to the big old bad government’s a good place to shift employment costs to i would i would think.

Andy 1:20:18
Definitely. Yes. I remember learning about it just before I was getting out, I was actually like in a teaching of reentry program to people that I was down with, and that that came up a lot. And that’s one of the things that you can bring up to potential employers is that Work Opportunity Tax Credit. I will track down the link that Mike spoke of in there and leave that in the show notes if you need a place to find it. I don’t know if we have anything else that we need to go over other than have a little bit of fun closing down the show Larry? I don’t think there is anything else?

Larry 1:20:52
I don’t have anything else. I think it’s been a productive show. I wish we could have been more positive than we were. This was not anything like the previous episodes where we conveyed a lot of hope.

Andy 1:21:03
All right, well, before we head all the way out of here, let’s uh, let’s just run down this real quick. The podcast is found at registrymatters.co. And the phone number, which sounds like crap, but it works 747-227-4477 and you can email us at registrymatterscast@gmail.com Finally, we love all of our listeners, especially all the extra ones that we’ve had lately. But the best way to support the podcast is where Larry?

Larry 1:21:34
Oh, that would be patreon.com/registrymatters

Andy 1:21:38
Fantastic. Find us on YouTube and Twitter. Oh, before we go, I wanted to mention that NARSOL has a social media website called connections. And if you would like to to sign up there, shoot me a message on Twitter or reach out to me in email or in discord or something like that. And I will help you figure out how to get in there because at some point in time in the very near future, it’s gonna get locked down to invite only. And if you would like to sign up there so it’s very similar to Facebook and you can post pictures of your cats or dogs or we can talk about politics we could maybe you find your own state organization and interact with some people there. Have you gotten on there yet, Larry?

Larry 1:22:15
I have not. (Andy: Do you plan to?) I have you considered it yes.

Andy 1:22:20
Okay. It’s uh, it’s pretty neat. I’m, I’m happy about it so far. But as always, Larry, I thank you so very much for being here. You are an amazing amount of knowledge, and I appreciate it.

Audio Clip 1:33:34
That is why I am here

Andy 1:22:36
Oh we messed that up. Let’s try that again. Thank you, Larry. So very much. I appreciate that you’re here with all the information that you have. Oh, and now you’re not going to talk this time?

Larry 1:22:46
Well, I thought that’s what you wanted me to do is not talk. I talked the last time.

Audio Clip 1:22:52
That is why I am here.

Andy 1:22:54
We can’t get that coordinated. But that is why you are here. Who is that?

Larry 1:22:57
You have to tell me what you want me to do. I talked and you said that was wrong so then I’m silent and you said that was wrong. So which am I supposed to do?

Andy 1:23:02
I waited like a half second to see if you were gonna talk. So then I played it because I didn’t think you were gonna talk and then you talked over it. So then I didn’t play it and you didn’t talk. So we’ll figure it out. We’ll figure out how to do the telepathy next time.

Larry 1:23:15
So well do you have what you need for the recording? I want that one to play. That is so cool. (Andy: I will totally play all of that.) Alright that is a that is an actor who played Franklin Delano Roosevelt in the movie McArthur 1977 for those of you who are around,

Andy 1:23:36
I watched little bits and pieces especially to get that clip that movie moves very slowly. Very slow.

Larry 1:23:44
Well, it’s a war movie.

Andy 1:23:49
Yeah, but the dialogue back and forth between the people is very slow. It’s not like modern movies where it goes at a quick pace.

Larry 1:23:55
Well, we had a slightly higher attention span in those days.

Andy 1:24:01
Alright, I’m out. Bye.
Larry. 1:24:04
Good night.

You’ve been listening to FYP

 

Listen to RM141: Millard v. Camper Dispiriting Tenth Circuit Decision

Andy 00:00
registry matters as 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 transmitir across here. This is Episode 141 of registry matters. Are we at your age yet there? Seems like we should be

Larry 00:25
getting close. You got another 30 episodes to go.

Andy 00:28
Okay, so you’re in the 170 range. Okay, I got it. Yep. So it’s not long now. We should not beat around the bush at all because there is a treasure trove of content. We got a decision to talk about we got voicemails, we got a new segment we’re introducing we got all kinds of crap going on. And also, I think this is the third week in a row we have a Patreon extra piece. Some people say they like it, they’re

Larry 00:54
my bass. What are we going to be doing on the extra today.

Andy 00:57
The extra is going to talk about the Let’s use this term again, defunding the post office,

Unknown Speaker 01:04
day finding the post office.

Andy 01:06
Yes, no. So a quick little teaser, there’s been like, has anybody like talked about the post office to any level of seriousness like ever other than when stamps go up, everyone loses their hair, their hair catches on fire, when they say stamps are going to go up by a penny or something like that. But given the current state of things that they’re like the post office all of a sudden all over the news. So we’re going to have a little 10 or 20 minute chat about that.

Larry 01:30
That just out of curiosity, what does that have to do with people but pfrs people forced to register? What does the post office have to do with that?

Andy 01:39
Ah, let’s see here. Well, you would receive your registration notification by mail. That would be one thing. But as far as like, we’ve been doing these extras and they are at best two or three degrees, tangentially removed from the registry. Maybe we’re sort of teasing a second podcast idea. Maybe

Larry 01:58
that’s kind of what we’re doing. People want to know, people who want to know we’re actually giving some political insight into issues that are a little bit beyond those forced to register. But they do tie together indirectly because politics and general philosophical beliefs tend to translate to policies that may not be beneficial to the post office as well. They’ll same the same people who believe in harshness on the registry that also believe in defunding the post office those things may run together. But anyway, we’ll get into that in that segment. If you haven’t become a patron yet. And you want to hear something, you say like the post office, better sign up

Andy 02:41
that you set it up and you walked right into it. So I’m glad you did that. I was gonna say and how do people get these Patreon extra episodes, Larry.

Larry 02:51
They become a supporter of registry matters that $1 a month or at the various levels up to 1200 dollars a month

Andy 02:58
or higher there. He doesn’t have have to be a maximum of 1200. It could be higher. It could be 12,000 12 million. Do you have we had a full house in chat too, by the way,

Larry 03:08
you have a box that says indeterminant. About monthly. I didn’t know that.

Andy 03:13
You could sign up at the $1 like that level and you can change the dollar figure to be whatever you.

Larry 03:19
I see. All right, well, that’s how you do it. patreon.com slash registry matters, sign up as little as $1. And you’ll get early distribution. Usually, Sunday and you’ll you’ll be provided the extra content that we’ve been working on.

Andy 03:37
All righty. Well, then let’s dive right on in. Oh, wait, I need to start that over. Was this like late breakings. Like over the top awesome news that we got to cover tonight.

Larry 03:54
Well, it’s late breaking because it happened within two days of recording. And since we record weekly, we consider anything with In a day or two to be breaking, or we’re not like the fox or the cnn news channel where we’re on all the time. So this is late breaking. There is a long awaited decision regarding registration in the state of Colorado. And it’s been pending for years. The appeals been pending since 2017. And the the decision was finally announced on Thursday. And we’re going to go into a fairly deep dive later in the podcast. But it did not go favorably for us. And it was very disappointing. And we had put a lot of effort into it and arsal had put a lot of effort into it. And the even the ACLU undertook the appeal after the case was was originally decided at the lower court so that that’s going to be a good unpacking, coming up shortly.

Andy 04:51
And like you said, so it’s great news for our people, and they’re going to be super excited dancing in the streets, but no, maybe not. Maybe not quite like that. Right?

Larry 05:00
I don’t think we’re going to have a lot of dancing on this one.

Andy 05:04
Already. Um, so I think my show notes are off. Did you want to go right into the conversation with Justin from Tennessee? Are we going to cover that later?

Larry 05:12
Let’s go ahead and do that. Now. Justin, Justin is a great patriot, great supporter and a really nice guy. And, and he had put out a request a little over a week ago, and I had to plant last week because I hadn’t gotten in touch with him. And at that level of support, he’s entitled to a conversation. And I decided that I better call him last night before this episode. And he brought up something that I thought would be helpful to others. And, and that those are the type of questions we really like. Because if you just have your unique problem, that doesn’t affect anybody. There’s no podcast in the world that can unpack individual problems. But if you have a generalized issue like he raised, I thought what she thought would be good. Do you mind if I talk about that on the podcast? He said no. So he was he had been talking, thinking about what state to move to which we don’t encourage state shopping. That’s something that people do on their own volition. But he he has been thinking about states and he came up with the possibility that he might want to leave Tennessee registrations pretty harsh, plus us, I think, a $200 annual fee and he thought he might want to go to Vermont. And he said, but I would be screwed under Vermont law. And I said, Why? And he said, Because Tennessee’s got be a sexually violent. I said, Well, really, I said, Did you go through an adjudicatory process where you determined that he’s like, conviction without the military? So what what that’s nice, but what my question is, have you gone through a process where you’ve gone through either an Administrative Tribunal, or have you gone through a court process where they have rendered that title to you of being a sexually violent predator he He said, Nope, not that well, that’s what Fremont is talking about. That’s what they’re referring to, when they apply different rules to people that have been adjudged to be a sexually violent predator. And I said, so you are instilling fear into yourself that you don’t need to have in terms of that component of Vermont’s registry because it won’t apply to you. They simply because a tendency declares everything to be sexually violent as far as a categorical approach, that doesn’t magically make you a sexually violent predator under the process of being declared a sexually violent predator, which is usually done by a court proceeding, but sometimes by the administrative one, but but there’s a process to do that. So I’ll put in the show notes the appropriate statute out of robot where we can actually send that to him, but it goes through the process of how that determination was made, what the burden of proof is. So, Justin, if you’re still thinking about going to Vermont, this would not be the impediment. If you have not been Found and declared to be a sexually violent predator under some process where you were a participant, and you were able to offer rebuttal evidence, and there was a conclusion at the end of that process that you weren’t.

Unknown Speaker 08:16
Larry,

Larry 08:17
I’m here waiting on you.

Andy 08:18
Okay, I heard like a loud windows bomb noise and I wasn’t sure if you evaporated. I was

Larry 08:25
I was trying to figure out how to kill that after I heard it. But But yes, that’s that’s what Justin, he doesn’t have that particular fear. Now, there’s been no analysis done of anything beyond that, because I told him we would work on figuring out if either of the two decisions that we’ve talked about recently in Tennessee, would offer him any hope of relief, the Roush decision, which we talked about some time back, and then the Reid decision, which we talked about last week, but in terms of his fear of that fear is unfounded.

Andy 08:54
And so that will also that’ll be in the show notes. If you’re looking for Justin, it’ll come out midnight on Tuesday. Unless of course I press the wrong button and release stuff early, right, Larry?

Larry 09:04
Yeah, midnight. Monday is usually when it comes out in this past episode got out Sunday night because you weren’t traveling and you got confused.

Andy 09:13
Yeah, person the wrong date. Stupid hotel. Yeah, so you can find it in the show notes on the website. Not on the YouTube YouTube came out early by accident. I just the crazy date thing like so. You know, look, just to clarify, I release it at 2359. So I’ll release it at 1159 on Monday night. So it comes out effectively. It’s there on Tuesday. And I pick the so but the YouTube thing is at 12am. So the date is different for that perspective. Anyway, it’s just what I’ve been doing for a year and a half and it’s confusing anywho Are we going to move on now?

Larry 09:47
I think we can move on. This is a this is a video, audio, whatever it is. So I put in from K Fox 14 and now Paso Texas

Andy 09:58
and I will have to find This video,

Larry 10:01
I can set it up while you’re finding what what what this is as a, as a story out of out of Fox 14 in San Antonio, where the police are in, are insisting on frightening people about because of the protests around the country that there’s been a precipitous plunge and interest in being police officers. And it was a very, very poorly done story. So I’m going to pontificate about after we play the story. But think Well, after we play the story, it’ll make more sense to people about what was wrong with the story when they hear it that I’ll go into that but yeah, this is this is something that will ran on Fox 14, just just recently.

Unknown Speaker 10:40
All right, here we go.

Unknown Speaker 10:43
Fewer people are trying to become El Paso police officers. It’s an issue that’s affecting police departments across the country. k Fox

Unknown Speaker 10:51
14 News advise Holly Bock joins us live from West El Paso to show us what our local police department is doing

Unknown Speaker 10:57
now to attract new recruits Holly

Unknown Speaker 11:01
Well, on average El Paso Police Department receives about 5000 applications per class. But their numbers further most current number of applications is actually cut in half.

Unknown Speaker 11:15
why they’re done. Police is just not a profession that people are seeking. It’s been demonized in the media. It’s been demonized throughout the country.

Unknown Speaker 11:27
The number of applications of people wanting to be a police officer in El Paso is down from the department’s normal average of about 5000 applicants

Unknown Speaker 11:36
policing in throughout the country is under a lot of scrutiny right now. And I think it could play on a person’s decision making to try to come into this profession

Unknown Speaker 11:49
numbers in the El Paso Police Department’s current class show only 2619 applications received 677 passed the written exam and 440 One past the job simulation. pd began the academy process with 34 recruits and is projected to graduate three police officers in October

Unknown Speaker 12:08
being understaffed in any capacity doesn’t just affect response times because we’re constantly having to adjust to make sure that we’re responding to the calls for service.

Unknown Speaker 12:21
Right now the police department has 1253 employees and there are 80 vacancies. Sergeant Robert Gomez says as of two weeks ago, nearly 50 people have quit or retired, talking when she fell in and this has come up before and chief is adamant that we’re not going to lower our standards just to get bodies after recent protests calling on police brutality following the death of George Floyd Sargent Gomez says it’s hard to tell if this will impact the numbers for their next class

Unknown Speaker 12:52
police officer right now is definitely difficult. These things swing like a pendulum. pendulum police are putting the positive light on Something occurs and police become negative light.

Unknown Speaker 13:06
Now, right now their current Academy classes actually the first one of the year they had their second one planned for July of this year, but it was canceled due to COVID-19 concerns. Now Sergeant Gomez tells me that they’re really not planning on having another Academy class until 2021. But that is still under the works for now. Reporting live here in West El Paso Holly buck a fox 14 News.

Unknown Speaker 13:28
Well, how about that, Larry?

Larry 13:31
Yeah, that’s what I actually heard that on TK ob a talk show here. We don’t we don’t receive TV from El Paso market. And then I went and found it because they were talking about how that had so severely restricted applications suppressed, I would be a better word. They advocate applicant flow to the police department. And I thought Gee, but just basic reporting. They took everything the police said at face value. Now first of all, let’s look at the numbers. They’re not like Have 5000 applicants per a class of 35 to 40, which doesn’t exactly sound like there, that there’s not an interest in being police officers, then it dropped, that we are in a pandemic where people are not applying for jobs that require close contact. I think if you were looking at the jobs unless they’re really low skilled jobs where people are forced to work because of economic circumstances, but if you look at jobs where people have options, applications would probably be down. And most of those jobs that would have been a good question for the fox reporter to ask as well. How does the application that you are down by 50% but in in similar jobs where there’s a lot of contact, personal contact, when you when you’re in a police academy you’re training together you live in a dorm most most of the academies and you’re you’re wrestling around and you’re doing basic one another and you’re you’re doing tasing and one another you don’t really think so but but but but the road numbers were down to 20 619 or whatever they said and then 677 Passed test number one, and then another 400. And something passed test number two, the simulation. The written test was that you’re smart enough to write a report read understand the basic English language and so forth and so on. Do you have Do you have the mental ability to be a police officer, they still have quite a quite a selection pool for a class of 30. And that Monday goes through the simulation trading, which testing is what you might do in situations that would kill you. A lot of people get dropped because they’re not fast enough of the gun. They still ended up with more than 400 for a class that’s going to be something in the 30 range.

Andy 15:36
about all the people that have retired and left the force, Larry, we need these people on the street to keep us safe.

Larry 15:43
Well, we got to get to that. But just like they had, they had 400 something to pick from for a class of 30 which doesn’t really sound all that challenging to be. I’ve never had that luxury of picking for 404 30 you know, but but but according to him that presents some challenge. But if it It presents such a challenge, it might be time, rather than describing it as lowering the standards, it might be a time to rewrite the standards to be more reflective of the community. And I’ve said it before on the podcast. I want to see more women on the police departments across the country. I believe that if you look at the totality of of police violence, you see so little of it inflicted by women. You see so few shootings I mean, we did have the one I believe it was in Dallas where the officer thought that that it was her apartment as I remember it, and then she shot the guy cuz she told him to freeze. You remember that one? Huh? But, but that’s that’s an anomaly for a female officer. women generally can de escalate things. They provide a soothing, rather than didn’t aggressive macho. I would like to see that. So maybe we should look at revamping the physical standards. The women are never going to be able to match the width of men on upper body strength. You wouldn’t be able to expect a woman to do that on average, there would be the rare one is you don’t tell me that she’s stronger than a guy. And I get that. But on average, but maybe we need to look at maybe raising the age limits. Maybe we ought to look at having officers that are just a little bit heavier. In particular, I know in my part of the country, they’re very rigid. All

Unknown Speaker 17:21
male here, they’re heavy as hell here. Yeah. drew me here.

Unknown Speaker 17:26
I thought I thought about that. When I said, I thought

Unknown Speaker 17:29
I’m in Georgia, you run into these officers that can barely waddle around.

Andy 17:35
Yes, they live at dunkin donuts.

Larry 17:38
So, but here, they’re very big on fitness and physical agility. Maybe they could relax that a little bit. And maybe they could let people that smoked a little bit of dough. You know, maybe maybe they could just be more reflective of the diversity of America. But particularly more women. I’d like to say that more women chiefs, more women writing policies or women officers on the frontlines, particular volatile situations. But this this story was so poorly done, because let’s take a look at the PowerPoint uses question to ask about the retirement, police officers given we get to retired in 20 or 25 years, well, let’s just take the 25 on the left, because since I don’t know I’ll pass a law, if you take 1200 and 50 divided by 25 years, you’re going to have a natural retirement attrition of 50 officers a year. So you’ve got to have one and a half classes to keep up with retirement. So since they’re not doing about one class this year, and they don’t even know if they’re going to be doing a class next year because of the pandemic. It stands to reason that their ranks will shrink unless they do lateral hires, which might mean by hiring from other agencies and poaching and attracting them with better salaries and benefits, but you’re going to have a shrinking El Paso Police Department anyway. But But wait,

Andy 18:50
doesn’t that help with the budget? Don’t we want a smaller government?

Larry 18:54
Well, we do except for the things that people that say they believe in smaller government support which which is usually lost. enforcement presence and military then they weren’t

Unknown Speaker 19:03
there. So I couldn’t resist.

Larry 19:05
But but but Tobias has a story. It was the point I was making just some basic fundamental reporting could have raised these things that if I can think of this, and I’m not a reporter, I’m hopeful that someone who’s gone to journalism school and as a reporter, they can think of that. Surely they could ask this question. So my question is, does Fox want to be unfair with how they report something? Do they not want legitimate questions? Ask the fox have an agenda here when they ran this? Sure. Sounds good to me.

Andy 19:35
Yeah. And I realized that this is like a local story. But there’s that whole Sinclair media outlet where they they have overlaid over on top of each other, like 20 different media outlets, and they’re all like script by script. It’s identical. saying the exact same story I realized that that’s a local market program. But so

Larry 19:51
yeah, so that was that was model point. I think that this was widely reported. And it was, it was journalism at its worst, and it scares people. people that saw this in El Paso think that they’re going to be pillaged and plundered because of the anti police movement, and that officers are not wanting to people not wanting to become police officers because of this. And nothing could be further from the truth. They still have plenty of people to pick from and their most recent class, by their own statistics that I’m assuming are accurate.

Andy 20:21
All right, I think we we can move on to an article from KSL. com says Utah Supreme Court says children don’t have to testify against abusers ahead of trial. Is this an Eighth Amendment thing? Or bobber? Larry. No.

Larry 20:37
Well, you will eventually get to confront your accuser if probable cause is established. I was talking about how probable causes a very low threshold showing and oftentimes attorneys waive it because it’s a perfunctory conclusion and Arkansas is established because the prosecutor says there’s probable cause that’s really about all there is to it. But in our state, you have the right to have a grand jury or Liberty Hearing where the court determines there’s probable cause. But in order for this to be a bad decision, they would have to extinguish your right to convert to confront your accuser record. And they haven’t done that they have said that, that at the early stage of the proceeding, that that that the person the alleged victim doesn’t have to come forward, it remember the state has to at least make that threshold showing of probable cause. And it would behoove them to call that witness if they needed to, to make that threshold show it to keep the case moving, because if probable cause is not established, the charge would be extinguished. That would be the end of it. So so the state will put on their witnesses enough sufficiently to establish probable cause. So I don’t see this as a significant It was a unanimous ruling. And I don’t see this is very significant. Now those that are who say have always sided with the victims. This is a major victory for the victims advocates. But I don’t think this does significant damage or if any damage at all to the process. So I’m not I’m not going to bash the victims advocates this week.

Andy 22:00
This week, but But Your days are numbered, it’s gone.

Larry 22:04
Well, as I’ve said, it’s a policy thing. And and this, this, this turns out to be a creeping reach if they come back, which they generally do, they’re never satisfied what they get. If they come back and want to extinguish the person’s confrontation rights at trial, then I’m gonna have a whole different reaction, but right now I’m not overly concerned. But they do. There’s one thing about victims advocates you can count on. They never feel like they have enough. And you can watch that with whatever they do. We’ve brought I’ve been in the state nearly 40 years and we brought the drunk driving rate down dramatically. And their answer to it when the rate declines is to lower the BC comp the but what I call content so that we’ll have more people to drag that because they say a wrestler down and I say, Well, isn’t that what we were striving for? Well, yes, but but you know, there’s still more people doing it. So they want they brought it down from tendo weight from point 102 point eight, which has become pretty much the national standard. But now they want to bring it down even lower because we’ve still had fewer and fewer people being arrested. And I think that would be a good thing. Right?

Unknown Speaker 23:09
Definitely.

Unknown Speaker 23:11
But not to them it isn’t. They want to still continue to have the same number of people arrested. And it also probably a certain solution in search of a problem.

Andy 23:23
Hmm, okay. Well, let’s keep rolling, rolling rolling and we will take up an article from ksl.com. Again, it says keep our children safe federal local police track down sex offenders. This was a they’re looking for people that are not in compliance. Larry, there are only 8000 registrants pfrs in the Utah and they found a very small number of them they said 20% of the peoples so I guess that is set 1000. Now that’s not 1000 to 8000. So they looked at 1000 people and they found they found 33 people now face pending charges. They They were looking for people that were living where they weren’t supposed to. They were just looking for like technical or their special condition violations. Why do the people have to go out and look for our people like trying to make a living and make things work?

Larry 24:15
Well, I’ll say this, this will annoy some people, because they have the money from the federal government to do it. This is a funded thing by the federal government since the CWA passed in 2006. There there has been funds available shortly thereafter. To do address verifications. One of the arguments made in AWS for the IWA in Congress, was that there were 100,000 missing sex offenders. And I have never contested that number because I don’t know what the number really was. And I do know that people had decided to exempt themselves by moving across state lines. But this was the solution. Congressional testimony one of the one of the supporters aren’t members of the House and Senate but I remember I was watching Hearing that he said, we do a better job tracking library books than we do sex offenders. So this is this is what the reason why this happens is because local law enforcement, state law enforcement, the people who believe in small federal government, they want the federal funding so they can go do this. And they collect a big amount of money to meet the federal criteria of what constitutes a residency check. So that’s why it happens because there’s money to make an app that’s why

Andy 25:30
so it says this is one of the people I guess like one of the officers who says this is a big deal and operation like this sends a message to the PFR is that law enforcement is watching if you don’t register and don’t pay attention to the law, world come get you more scare tactics, but legit wants to I should say.

Larry 25:53
Yes, that’s that. That’s that’s what but it’s gets down to as money. The old adage of follow the money and This is what they’re doing is following the buddy.

Andy 26:03
Oh right then I have no idea what Red Lake news is but this is from Red Lake news and it says contractor loses deal after VA discover he’s a PFR. He had his crime from some 13 years ago. And he has just like a janitorial contract he’s secured $700,000 in federal contracts provide cleaning services at a VA hospital and they did some background check and found that he’s one of our people and they said yeah, nevermind

Larry 26:34
so much for competitive bidding.

Andy 26:37
Will says that USA Today dug that up as well. Okay, so that’s that’s what that person was. I remember hearing that particular situation. They didn’t realize this one.

Larry 26:47
Yeah, that well, but so much for competitive bidding. Apparently just under the competitive bidding process was the best contract but we can’t have that. And you know what they’ll do? We talked about it, appreciate what they’ll do. It they’ll change the application process they’ll say, because they had modified the application to have a look back period that was was relatively short comparatively. But what they’ll do is they’ll leave the look back period the same for other offenses, but they’ll say, the look back period for a sexual offense as longer Have you ever been so they’ll bake it? Have you ever been convicted of a sexual offense? Or have you been convicted of any other felony within less whatever year? That’s what they’re gonna do? That’ll be their fix.

Andy 27:27
And I just I just have to bring this up as being obligatory like we have to Geez, like, could the person have a louder muffler drive by a butt. So we want people to pay their debt to society and come out and we want them to be upstanding citizens and live in a cardboard box under the bridge.

Unknown Speaker 27:46
I have not figured that out and you have really been troubled by the by inability to comprehend.

Larry 27:54
My analysis is so flawed apparently. But I want people when they come out after we’ve spent a bunch of money on them. I don’t want to spending all that money. So I don’t want as many people going in. And I don’t want them staying as long. But when they finally do come out, I want them working and paying taxes, because there are people who have their hands out for all the services that government provides. And I don’t want those people to be one of those who were the handout. I want them to be handing stuff in, so that people that have the hands out can collect. And I’ve struggled to figure out where I’ve gone wrong here. I want you to pay taxes after you’ve been in prison.

Andy 28:32
I didn’t want to hurt the argument. Have you ever heard someone say that I’m a better than average driver? And the majority of people say that they’re a better than average driver?

Unknown Speaker 28:39
I’ve heard that. Yes.

Andy 28:41
And so if everyone is a better than average driver, then that would move the average up to be well, that would be what the average is. So if more people are on the bottom end of the average of whether they earn enough to contribute to the system versus like earning over what they would I there’s some sort of median income where you are either like a person that takes from the system versus like Bill Gates earns way more, and he contributes more to the system than he’s ever going to get out of it. So we would want more people above the average putting in then on the bottom and taking out of it.

Larry 29:12
Well, let’s just bring it down. But way beyond Bill Gates, let’s bring it down. The minimum wage, it’s so low, the federal level is 725 an hour. So if you do 725, and we didn’t do this in show prep, times 40. And then you do that times 52. You’ve got an annual salary of $15,000. Let’s just take Social Security, which is widely popular with everybody. Everybody has their Paul out when they turn retirement age wanting their cut, but in order for you to get paid, someone has to pay you there has to be a collection of revenue of inflow to the system, because what you paid him is paying for the people that are collecting now so that that $15,000 that current social security taxation rates, generates a tax of $1,153 And then the employer matches that. So that’s roughly 2020 to 20 $300 a year. That doesn’t pay for one beneficiary. Now, I would much prefer you I, I don’t know that fuzzy math, but I would much prefer you’d be making 90,000 a year because if you make 90,000 a year, and you pay 7.65%, look at the difference 90,000 doubt put in too many zeros. times 7.65%, you’re going to put in $6,885 multiplied by the employer match. So all of a sudden, you’ve put enough money in Tom will support one beneficiary. Now which is better for society, the 20 $200 or the 6800 times two, which would be might as well call it 714 thousand dollars. We’re better off with you putting in $14,000 into the system that everybody widely supports, and they have their hand out for their cut. we all benefit more if you earn more money. understand why people want folks failing and not earning money, I can’t get them.

Andy 31:05
And just to double back around, I’m assuming that with a $700,000 contract that this dude would then potentially hire five ish, something employees, maybe six or seven, maybe 10 employees, and then throw in the chemicals and all the stuff that they need and equipment. So like, I mean, this guy is like, quote, unquote, like creating jobs for people. Right?

Larry 31:24
That would be the argument that conservatives would generally make is it’s a job creator, an entrepreneur, and they would want that. Yeah, I’d like to hear from Lindsey Graham, what does he feel about this? You know, he was actually moderately, not as strong as I’d like from him. But he was a moderate supporter, the first step act and made some very positive comments. I’d like to know what Lindsey Lindsey thinks. So anybody out there that has in South Carolina has his phone number, text him and find out what he thinks about this contract being terminated. And if he would register resentment on the Senate floor about it.

Andy 31:57
We will reach out to him as the podcast and see DO what He says.

Unknown Speaker 32:02
Well, when he knows we’ve got thousands and thousands of listeners and estate, he’s liable to respond to us.

Andy 32:08
It’s very possible. All right, let’s uh, let’s i think i think we’re we’re here at the feature I think. I think

Larry 32:15
I think I think we are so we’re going back to the what is the nickname for Colorado? I live there and I forgot what they are. What is the state of Colorado it is

Andy 32:24
a mile high states I have no idea dude. I don’t know any of these these this is just not my, my forte to know what the slogan of a state is. All right. So this is something that we covered some time ago. I I don’t remember. I don’t know if I was helping produce the calls at the time. But so I do remember the darstellende action with the what’s the lady’s name? Allison Chinese. Alison Ruttenberg. I remember she was superduper nice. She was she was great on the phone. She answered. 8000 people’s questions on the phone call. Everyone was super excited about this decision. At sounded like she did anything to me It sounded like she did an incredible job but you know, me being the lay person I think anybody that does this work as it does an incredible job and some interesting things anyway, so so judge he he ruled in our favor. And so here’s the decision so this was something from like 2017 that this went down and then we’ve just gotten this decision a couple days ago. Two days ago

Larry 33:26
that is that is correct it that it’s indicative of how long these cases drag on and how how expensive they can be an Allison I think was on baby twice I know for sure once but we did we did have her on on what would what used to be regular calls. And they’ve they’ve become very infrequent now because we do the podcast and then the the pandemic has, has directed our attention and energy elsewhere. But But yes, we had her on and she was a great guest and she did do a good job. A very good job with the resources she had. Remember, she stated on the call, she didn’t have any resources. Remember that? She said I broke. Didn’t I

Andy 34:05
do I do remember that and she got like, I mean, maybe even like she specifically selected people that were indigent.

Larry 34:13
Yeah, I’m not remembering that but I remember that she didn’t have any money for experts and she was a lady that judge did not want any experts.

Andy 34:20
Right that it wasn’t a required piece. And she thought that it was okay to go about it without having that that track, you know, spending 510 thousand bucks for an expert to come in and mate was okay with all that. Well,

Larry 34:33
yeah, he didn’t want to he flat out just didn’t want experts and he, he wanted to hear from the Judge Richard. He has now deceased has been for I think, almost two years. And he was a Nixon appointee. For those who who didn’t sit on that call. He was an excellent point. He and at the time he did that. My my assessment of him was that he really didn’t care about all the appeal. He wanted to do the right thing from underneath. standpoint. And he did what he thought was right. But unfortunately, when you’re when you’re declaring a statute unconstitutional, right isn’t enough. You have to have law on your side. And we’re going to get into that when we go through. We go through this decision, but but he did do the right thing. But the right thing was not supported by the law.

Andy 35:21
And you provided me with something of a cheat sheet that I have no intentions on reading on the air. Is there anything that like so then there’s also some questions that we can combat around? Is there anything before we start hitting questions that you want to highlight from the cheat sheet?

Larry 35:36
No, I think we can go straight to questions because the what I’ve what I’ve cut and pasted from the from the decision is going to be converted to a blog that we’re going to hopefully get out tomorrow or Monday on the narshall website. So that this is basically an advanced preparation for that and then figure refer back to as you were doing the questions that that I would like to be And then there’s questions that you have probably dropped in here as well.

Andy 36:05
Yes. So So this was filed in District Court, which I right off the bat have no understanding. This wasn’t. Anyway, what is District Court like to begin with?

Larry 36:16
Well, District Court is, is in this particular case, it’s referring to United States District Court. And I don’t know the precise number of district courts, but that’s what what is a trial level court for federal issues for federal criminal federal civil issues, and as a court of general jurisdiction for federal claims. And within the federal system, there are other courts also you also have the magistrate court, the magistrate judge, and you have the bankruptcy court, but the this is a general jurisdiction of general subject matter jurisdiction, and this was the United States District Judge every state in the country has as US District judges, so that’s that’s what this was in Colorado itself in New Mexico. Most of the states have Something that resembles with every state has a court of general subject matter jurisdiction. Some call of different like a Georgia vs. Superior Court Colorado. I think it’s the district court Michigan, I believe they refer to the circuit courts, Arkansas circuit courts. We have district courts. So you have state district courts also. But in this case, it’s a federal district court.

Andy 37:19
What? for the clarification, why didn’t they file it just in the state court of Colorado? Because these are just state court people’s?

Larry 37:29
Well, that’s a good question. And those are strategic decisions that are made when you’re when you’re evaluating making a case. attorneys have this crazy notion they like to get paid. And in federal court, there’s an easier route to compensation as a prevailing party under under Section 1983 42. us code 1983. So that’s one consideration. But it’s not the only consideration. You have additional considerations that you’re looking at how the case law is. So when you’re if you’re going to look at making a Claiming Colorado State court, you’d look at how the state court has ruled on registration. And you might look at and conclude that the doors closed based on a binding precedent from the state Supreme Court. And you might look at the federal court as the as the route and the different circuits that the case law is evolving. And you might conclude that the type of claim you’re going to make I would bet would have more of a chance in federal court. And then you also have the consideration of federal judges are insulated from the public in terms of the political ramifications of their decision. They do live in the communities, I do have kids and they but they do not have to worry about re election. And that gives someone additional, or under article three, they’re they’re appointed for life, and that gives them additional insulation from the fact you don’t have a Persky. There’s nothing they can do. If Mitch was still alive, there wouldn’t have been anything they could have done to him.

Andy 38:49
I’m just and this is my own question. Where do you think if he were still alive, that that would have changed the outcome at all.

Larry 38:59
It could Have a I don’t think so. It’s a long shot. The panel, the three judge panel was unanimous. And the way it could have changed it is that some judges through their service develop an enormous amount of respect. And when they go up on appeal, if they draw the right panel where there’s where there’s a respect level for that judge, they start with how do we affirm this judge? Because they’ve respect the work that they’ve done? Well, when a person’s deceased, there’s two ways to look at two ways to look at it. You can respect their work by forgiving them. Or you can say, well, gee, he’s not going to know what if I if I flipped his decision? And so it could have but I think that being that it was a unanimous panel, that that probably didn’t play much, if at all, and there’s and they’re thinking,

Unknown Speaker 39:49
all

Andy 39:50
right, um, is there anything specific about the individual challengers that that would be important as to how the challenge went about to The individuals with David malad, Eugene Knight and Arturo Vega.

Larry 40:04
That’s correct. And I don’t remember all the specifics of their individual circumstances, I think one was convicted as a juvenile. And that’s all a particular member. I think that might have been Vega. If it was could convict his his crime occurred. Is that correct? I believe you’re right.

Andy 40:19
And then, so this took place in the 10th circuit as well. And how was that specific? There are 12 circuits in the countries that 13 I always get that number. It’s either 11 plus DC or 12 plus DC.

Larry 40:32
It’s 11 plus DC and the the 11th is actually the newest that’s where you are the I don’t think we’ve created a I’m certainly haven’t created a circuit after the 11th. The 11th was a split off the the Fiesta used if you went way back, years ago, back to the 70s. If you had an appeal out of Georgia, able to go to New Orleans to the Fifth Circuit and they carved out that circuit when Jimmy Carter was President may the 11th circuit and then you have the DC Circuit So Colorado is geographically it’s an attempt, and that’s a very large these Western circuits are very large. I think the 10th, maybe the largest geographically, but the ninth is the largest in terms of population that that it serves.

Andy 41:12
Oh, okay. So 10th just in geography zoo, California is in the ninth. So that obviously has the most people. And that was just the left coast.

Larry 41:20
It covers the left coast. And I think I think Alaska and Hawaii are in there, if I remember. Right, but yeah, it’s it’s the most populous and the the effort through the years have been to try to break that circuit up because it traditionally has been more liberal. And that has begun to change because of the Presidents that named the judges, just like the district court judges were appointed for life by the President. The Court of Appeals judges are appointed for life by the President and the supreme court justices are appointed for life by the President. And when you when you elect the president, you are impacting who’s going to serve on these courts for a lifetime. And the younger the nominees are, the longer they’re going to be there. And then Right now there’s been an accelerated effort to confirm as many as they possibly can. Because there’s a chance that in this election, we may have a different president. So in the case of this administration, they kept the Republicans control the Senate, which is the confirming apparatus. They kept the lid on Obama in the, in the final couple years of his presidency, and they held up confirmations and, and then they have, so they started with a backlog, both at the circuit and district court level. And of course, they also started with the Supreme Court vacancy that they’d held for almost a year. But then they they, they did an accelerated confirmation they’ve been they’ve been on full blast and even during the pandemic, rather than looking at the heroes that passed by the House, they were busy rushing, more judicial confirmations through so that pressed at that, when you vote in November, if you like the type of decisions that you’re getting, keep voting the way you’ve been voting because that’s what you’re going to get more of

Andy 42:56
a podcast that I used to listen to the I at the time, it He had predicted that it would be like 45% of the judicial nominees would be filled by the like he like half of the total in the four years would be appointed by Trump.

Unknown Speaker 43:10
I don’t think so.

Andy 43:12
A large number quiet at a time it was only like 30%. But you know, that was only that was a year ago that that was done and they’re still still pushing them through like hot and heavy.

Larry 43:22
They are doing that, but I don’t think there’ll be that high. Now. If he were to serve eight years, he would certainly that would, that would be a realistic number. But in the in the case of the election, people need to take this seriously. They who’s appointed to these courts, and what their judicial philosophy is has a lot of impact on where we come out of these decisions. And and so take it seriously when you vote.

Andy 43:45
Now, I know that the the judges themselves are nonpartisan and they just be they go by the law and they do their interpretation. But the reality is, is that they do have their own biases of this issue that issue Where Where would you call the 10th circuit to land as far as more liberal, more conservative?

Larry 44:07
I’ve not been really following the circuits as closely as I should have. But they’ve all taken a very rightward leaning in recent years. Now this one, I think, Robin did the analysis, and he said it was a one democrat of the three judge panel, there was one democratic appointed in two republican appointments and and the, the, the democratic appointee voted the same way.

Andy 44:31
Yeah. It was unanimous.

Larry 44:33
I don’t want to inject politics into this at this point, because I didn’t I didn’t see it in the decision I really didn’t.

Andy 44:39
is how different is this from the case we discussed last week from Tennessee?

Larry 44:44
Oh, it’s a it’s a huge difference in what we talked about. First of all, that was a district court decision that was out of Tennessee they that would be the read decision. But Tennessee has a much more restrictive registry than what Colorado has. So you weren’t doing the same condition. And Tennessee and Tennessee has the wind to their sails because they have those verses Snyder on the Sixth Circuit which is binding there. The dos versus Snyder case is not binding in the tent. It’s only in Michigan. That’s the Michigan decision and that’s that is a no way binding. And it wasn’t really all that persuasive because what Michigan requires Colorado doesn’t have restrictions Michigan impose Colorado does dot

Andy 45:27
can we dig into that for a minute of like, like something in there in the reading of the of the decision was that they didn’t word it this way. But the way that I’m taking is that they don’t have for example, residency restrictions in Colorado. It did I did I catch that correctly?

Larry 45:44
That is correct. They don’t.

Andy 45:45
Okay, so to me, one of the biggest disabilities and restraints that the pfrs would have is where you can plop your head every night. Also, that would then follow that where you can or can’t work. And if Colorado doesn’t have that, and they’re trying to make The claim that this impairs their ability to get a job. But that would then move over to the private sector going well, we don’t want this kind of person working there. That’s not the government giving you the disability restraint.

Larry 46:13
That is correct. That’s what the court found

Andy 46:15
that if you went to a Michigan State or a Tennessee or Georgia State where those things are in place, that is the government saying that you can can’t do these things. That would give you some sort of ground to stand on saying that this is some kind of disability restraint.

Larry 46:30
Yes, I was the verify analysis. And that’s what what, when people when people get argumentative with me, which they frequently do, they say, Well, he must be some kind of dork. You don’t understand that elbow. Harvey. I say that is correct. I understand it. I’m saying it completely. And I say But where does it say if we’re asking that a law be stricken as unconstitutional? We’re in that law. Does it say you’re forbidden to work there? Well, Larry, it doesn’t say that. Us Okay. Well, then we can’t. We can’t hold the law as responsible for that. The company chose not to hire you. And you do believe in the rights of companies to choose who they hire and fire. I mean, you don’t want all that government intervention to you. And, and, and then, of course, I do want government intervention on this but the companies are making the decision as the court pointed out, to not hire or to hire, but it’s not a Colorado restriction. You can work wherever you want to in Colorado. As far as the registry is concerned.

Andy 47:29
I understand. Ready to be a part of registry matters, get links at registry matters.co. If you need to be discreet about it, contact them by email registry matters cast@gmail.com you can call or text or ransom message to 747-227-4477 want to support registry matters on a monthly basis, head to Patreon comm slash registry matters. Not ready to become a patron, give a five star review at Apple podcasts or Stitcher or tell your buddies at 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. Okay. But then what would be interesting? Should they then appeal this case? Does is the next step for them to go to SCOTUS?

Larry 48:30
That would not be the next step. Initially, you would file for reconsideration, which are unanimous decision. It’s hard to imagine that you could, if you didn’t convince one of three, it seems a stretch that you would be able to convince two or three. I mean, I’m just looking at simple arithmetic.

Andy 48:50
I’m with you. I’m with you. I’m with you. Um, but it’s okay. So you said they would file for some kind of review. Where would that be?

Larry 48:59
Wasn’t You would ask the panel to reconsider. Okay, I’m saying that realistically reconsider, because if you were not able to convince one of that panel to start with, it seems a far stretch that you would be so persuasive on reconsideration that you were convinced to have three. I see that means that means reconsideration probably is doomed. But that you didn’t do that. You need to find that if that’s what you want to do, but it’s not going to work. Then I would ask that you would ask for a full court review. Hearing on bonk. Oh,

Andy 49:32
okay. Okay. So then you’d ask the whole the whole judiciary panel up there on the 10th to look it over.

Larry 49:38
You would ask them and that is seldom granted, as well. We talked about it in the Flynn case where where it was granted by the DC circuit with that seldom granted. And it’s particularly unlikely today with granite when there was no dissenting opinion again, if you didn’t convince one person on a three judge panel, that’s one of the arguments you would make for unbiased review or for reconsider ratio was the, if you look at the steam the set, I mean, Judge so and so I mean all of a sudden that becomes your hero and your argument for reconsideration schambach. Review. And you you hang that up there and say this is this is really important. This judge got it right. Well, you don’t have that here. So you filed that motion, those two motions are likely to die a big C, and then you would be able to file a petition for your Supreme Court which would be which would be very unwise to do as well. But

Andy 50:35
before you get to the reason why be unwise, they’re going to get some many thousands of, of requests to grant cert, and they would then have to have four of the Supreme Court justices say that they would like to hear this particular case. So out of the I think it’s something like 9000 or some number like that, and then they only hear 1% of those. They only hear something like 90 hundred cases a year. You would need four of those judges to agree to hear it. And what would be the damage if the Supreme Court did hear it and then confirmed the reversal of the decision?

Larry 51:13
It would be devastating what set us back a generation if they did that, and that’s what they would likely do in this particular case, because this this registry is not nearly as punitive as what Michigan’s was. Now they declined review on that one. Okay. They declined review on Pennsylvania. Our best hope would be that decline review on this one as well. But if they were grant review on this one, what what the state Attorney General’s are attorneys general but argue they would argue that you would if a petition were be filed that the state’s not gonna file a petition because they won so that you would not want to risk your your victory so the state is as happy as a lark and they they the Attorney General Oklahoma, which led the the group of of ages from the The circuit has already pontificate about what a wonderful decision is. But if if if the losing party were to follow cert petition, you would probably have amicus briefs come in from around Delta from other ages around the country. They would say, Oh, yes, you definitely want to hear this because they would want to have another bite at the apple to overturn Smith versus not Smith, but those versus Snyder, because they would say there’s a circuit split here because we’ve got this here in Michigan, and you got US Supreme Court use only when they can settle the circles because we’ve got Buster get saying that it’s not punitive, but we got one saying it is and please step in. And this would not be the case you wanted to step in on because there’s a case in Alabama, that would be in the 11th circuit, the McGuire case, which the 11th hasn’t decided yet. That’s the case you’d want the Supreme Court to see because Alabama’s registry is so debilitating. That’s the way you want the cert petition to go to your Supreme Court. You do not want this one to go there.

Andy 52:57
Just you brought up Oklahoma dude and it says ruling is a major victory for public safety advocates. Attorney General hunter said sex offenders are violent. And statistically speaking, some of the most likely to reoffend online sex offender registries allow the public to know who among them is a child predator, or who has been convicted of rape. To hide this information in order to make individuals convicted of these crimes, feel more comfortable is utterly irresponsible. Anyone advocating for this position should should talk to victims and survivors of these types of crimes, who will forever remain scarred by these horrific acts to find out why the registry systems are important. I think that he has the victims advocates giving him money.

Larry 53:43
So Well, there’s a litany of more questions before we run out of time, but absolutely, there’s a the headers were binding precedent, that that this the tensor It is bound by precedent that’s already been established. And it’s in the 10th circuit regarding registration. And then there’s the argument that they made. It was banishment. And, of course, the Supreme, the Supreme Court, the 10th circuit soundly rejected the argument because it’s not banishment. And that’s because government isn’t

Andy 54:17
banishing. Yeah. So the government didn’t doesn’t say that you can’t live here, but the owner of the apartment complex or the whatever they they say you can’t live here. And that’s not the government banishing you. It’s like, I do want to say that it’s kind of splitting hairs because the government is pushing out the information that you are this and I’m not saying that that information is not factual. They’re they’re certainly creating some kind of bias. If it were race related, Larry, if they were like, Hey, we’re publishing information that this person is black. Well, I’m not writing to black people. Like, okay, I know that we’re not a protected class, but we’re like, to me, it’s just splitting hairs. I don’t

Larry 54:56
I don’t think so. They banishment by I mean, our listeners are largely textualist or so they profess to be this banishment is when, when if you look at what banishment meant in colonial times, and we don’t believe in that liberal mumbo jumbo of evolving standards of decency, banishment is when you’re told to leave town and not come back. The Colorado sex offender registration Act does not tell you to leave town. It does not tell you not to come back. You’re not banished from living in a place you’re not banished from town at all. And that if you’re a textualist, which a lot of our listeners are, you would be, you would be applauding this because it is not banishment as as the framers of the Constitution understood that word to mean at the time, and we’ve played the clip over and over again, about textualism and how it’s to be interpreted as the words what they would have meant at that time. Management is all constitutional, but this is not banished, but as banishment was understood in colonial times, So magically now we’ve got people who believe in that liberal mumbo jumbo of evolving standards of decency.

Andy 56:09
I’ve referred back to this before Paul dueling did a presentation I forget which conference it was. And he put a map up on the on the projector screen there and there were just bubbles drawn all over the place like you couldn’t you couldn’t go to the state capitol to go redress your grievances with the government because there was a daycare, maybe it was in the capital, but maybe it was like nearby at a shopping mall. But you couldn’t go there because of the bubble drawn. And you zoom out far enough and the whole map is just covered by all these red bubbles. Yes, they haven’t banished you. They haven’t said you can’t live here but they said you can’t live here, here, here, here, here, here, here here, which effectively means you can’t live kind of sort of anywhere except for that tiny little space under that bridge. Like it’s banishment by a different means are different subtle words.

Larry 56:52
Well, first of all, that wasn’t an issue. In this case. There were there were some restrictions in Colorado but but again banishment as the framers understood banishment to mean at the time did not mean what you’re trying to evolve it to mean, now, it meant that you were told to leave town and not come back. If you are textualist, who believes that we should interpret based on how the words would have been defined and what they would have meant at the time, you cannot evolve that to include what you’re trying to do. That is not textualism

Unknown Speaker 57:30
because it’s not banishment, as the framers understood that word at the time now, do you all of a sudden believe in evolving? What what works men that were written that long ago?

Andy 57:43
I personally ascribe to the idea that things probably do evolve, maybe not very rapidly, but I have I’m inclined to believe that they what they wrote in 17 and change has something different of a meeting today in 2020.

Larry 57:58
And so you’re not a textualist

Andy 58:00
I don’t I so if you say that you have the right to Well, I’d be like, I’m trying to see how we could twist the wording of you have the right to confront your accuser. Like, I don’t see how those words can be twisted, but the right to bear arms, I think, carry some differences of based on what they knew then about weapons versus what they know. Now, same thing like you don’t have an absolute right to freedom of speech, you don’t have an absolute right to bear arms. So like the word banishment of 200. And change years ago would mean something because what was the population in 17 and change like there were probably like a million or something people in the United States like it would not be hard to go find somewhere else to live. And you could just go move on to some land somewhere and now you go make your foods and whatnot, but we need. People very rarely live off the land. They don’t homestead in today’s world. They live in a society where you need grocery stores and gas stations and jobs and like if there are churches nearby and you can’t live near And I know that this isn’t the case of this but like, you know, it’s banishment by a different set of words or terms or just definition.

Larry 59:07
But But again, I’m just illustrating people who believe they’re textualist you may not actually believe what you think you are. Because this is a textual interpretation of what banishment is and what it isn’t. There’s no banishment here by the textbook by what a textualist would go, what would they what the words meant at that time. And they did not be what what what we’re trying to twist them to mean today.

Andy 59:34
All right, let’s move over to the your you are Mr. Due process, there was something in here about due process claim, and it also was struck down, shut down. What was that about?

Larry 59:46
Well, I’m actually I’m not an expert on due process. So I didn’t say

Andy 59:49
an expert. It’s just one of your favorite things though. You are all about some due process.

Larry 59:54
I am but the case law didn’t support that. So I just cut straight from the opinion That the Supreme Court has held what due process to protect fundamental rights and liberties and it cited Supreme Court decision of Washington versus glucksberg. And then they said in the decision, this is their words, not mine. The police failed to show how See, SLR a Colorado sort of violated their fundamental rights. They cite no case holding that compliance with sex offender registration law implicates a deeply rooted fundamental right. Rather, all courts that have considered the issue have concluded otherwise. So that it made and people’s opinion, you may be entitled to due process, but the courts don’t agree with you the date. They say that there’s no due process here. For for people in the registry. They say your due process occurred when you were convicted. That’s where your due process.

Andy 1:00:48
I’m like, I don’t I don’t know what their due process claim was that what did they think that was being violated? Like, was it what they say in the process rights when they go to Home Depot to get the Job and Home Depot says you can’t have the job like that. That was the violation.

Larry 1:01:04
I haven’t read the original complaint in a long time. But but I think it had more to do with getting off the registry. That was a process that they that they Oh, I’m not sure all that. So I just chose to go straight from what the court said that they had failed as a service to the court. The court was very harsh on them. And I’m glad that I’ve got the language from the court because I don’t want to criticize Allison at all. But the Court made it clear that this case suck, because there was a failure to distinguish themselves from binding precedent. That’s what the court said in here. And that’s not me saying that. That’s the court saying that the three judge panel said there was a failure to for them to distinguish. And, in fact, I’ll highlight that paragraph the panel emphasized that Supreme Court precedent and our governing case law compel us to reject the district court’s decision. Apparently, no. Review which means a brand new analysis of the application of the Mendoza Martinez factors we conclude the police have not presented the clearest approve punitive effect and therefore see Sora is not punitive, as applied to Applebee’s, according to the Eighth Amendment does not bar application in this case, that’s on page 1617 of the opinion.

Andy 1:02:21
Oh, hey, uh, let’s let’s talk about that disabilities and restraints piece. So the panel found that CSR and that’s the color palette, Colorado sex offender registration act, I assume. Yes. All right. So it did not impose any disabilities and restraints. It looked like the person at Home Depot like they like he didn’t get fired from his job. But they moved him to another place where they wouldn’t allow him to work or something like that. I thought that’s how I read it.

Unknown Speaker 1:02:52
So well,

Andy 1:02:54
maybe it is. So that so he lost his job in effect of it but not like it wasn’t the government. They said, Hey, we’re going to move you over here to this different place. Oh, damn, that’s within 1000 foot restriction zone. Well, if there was, no, no, I know. So that wasn’t the case. But so that would be so if there aren’t those kinds of things. So now you’re just your information is published on a website, which certainly as a disability in restraint on its own, then what are the disabilities and restraints that they were claiming?

Larry 1:03:25
Well, again, I don’t remember the specific complaint. But But this field is a restraint. The way you win these cases is when you have clear cut disabilities or restraints, or you’re not allowed to live places, you’re not allowed to work places you’re not allowed to be present in places you have. You have significant impairments in your daily life. And the Colorado registry does not impose that there’s I think registry, residency restrictions and Inglewood. And I don’t know if those have been struck down or if they’re still operating. But But as far as the state registry, there are no restrictions in terms of where you can live. What you can do So the disabilities that were cases have gone well have been because they were clearly disabilities the restraints things you have to do. The only thing that that tape made somewhat of a short was that you have to report into the registration office on a periodic basis but they did not find that to be sufficient as far as a disabling because you only have to do it once a year in most cases in Colorado, and they didn’t find that to be enough.

Andy 1:04:25
It’s a big statement you might have to drive really far to get to your office.

Larry 1:04:29
Well, it depends on I think they do it through the sheriff’s in Colorado so you would have to go to the county seat or where the sheriff’s office would be if that’s the way to actually do it. Okay, tickets ready

Andy 1:04:41
All right. Well, this is like a total crap decision Larry and I know that our I know particularly will is deeply upset because they vote against us even though I one thing that I want I want to really strongly emphasize is to me, I guess we should all be sad that this happened, but it happened. And you can like rationalize and logically work your way around where we could improve in the future. So I don’t want to just say, well, damn, it sucks. We should have had the ruling in our favor just because it should be in our favor. But like you’re you’re you’re describing it that they made, like I think you’re saying they made the proper decision might not be the quote unquote, like the humane right decision, but they they analyzed it, correct? I think,

Larry 1:05:26
well, I try not to be quite that strong because legal minds can disagree. what I’m telling you is that what they decided, is legally defensible. Right to come up with that conclusion. If you if you’re not an activist court, and let’s let’s just back up what you know, in a democracy such as we have, well, we allow people to impose their own rules on themselves through the elected who they elect and through self governance for a black robe. to come in and say I don’t like what you’ve done, I’m going to disallow what you’ve got is the strongest of all medicines. And I wish I would have found that Judge Richard cough from Nebraska when he actually succinctly put that in his decision when he found Nebraska registration to be constitutional. He said, simply be liking it. And me wearing a black robe doesn’t entitle me to nullify the people’s work. You’re talking about exceptionally strong medicine. When you when you say you, all you people out there collectively with a function, right? elected, have made a mistake, and I don’t like it. And that’s not how we set this country up the govern. We set it up for people to be able to decide how to govern themselves and to impose things on themselves. And bad policy doesn’t magically become unconstitutional, because you don’t like something that doesn’t magically make it unconstitutional. And registration in and of itself, just the mere act of registering someone, whether it be on a sex offender registry, whether it be On a young man’s draft registry, whether it be for the children of Flint that have been exposed to lead water, whether it be any type of registry, whether it be a voter registration registry, registries do not necessarily inflict any punishment, or any disabilities or restraints. So registries are not inherently unconstitutional. You could register, you could register sex offenders constitutionally if you chose to.

Andy 1:07:24
Yeah, and we have a pretty thorough example of that an episode or two back, will is asking the question says do the court weigh the fact that the publication of the registry allows vigilantes to use registry as a hitlist to carry out murder? And also he was telling me that one of the plaintiffs also had some sort of website where they were extorting his information like, Hey, here’s your information. They were doxxing him I guess, and if he paid them X dollars, they would take the information down. And what I wrote to him and please correct me if I’m wrong, is that I don’t think that they were in a position to introduce new arguments of Allison didn’t bring it up, then they weren’t going to introduce it on their own.

Larry 1:07:58
Well, your question Danette appellate at the appellate level you don’t get introduced new evidence that wasn’t reviewed below. appellate courts are not reviewing evidence. They’re I mean, they’re not reviewing entity taking evidence. They’re reviewing the evidence that was that was introduced. And they’re determining it based on the law. So it’s like you don’t get to bring new evidence in on a pillar review. And that that’s that’s what really confuses people. They think that all arguments is a hearing to put a new evidence it is not.

Andy 1:08:28
And you think that with the public nice use argument help win cases?

Larry 1:08:34
I think it could. I think that as as the impact of the internet becomes more apparent and has become so prevalent. I think that is a cause of action. I do not believe it was a part of this case, necessarily, but I don’t know for sure be good, good thing to have. If Alison she’s probably very, very, very sad. Sure, trying to figure out what to do next and what the right course of action is, but Be a good thing to have her come on and talk more about what the strat strategy was at the time. And those particular claims what why they were, why they were put forth the way they were. But everybody on the registry, some you may not have, you may not have the same claim here, you just because you’re in the registry, there may be multiple versions of things in Mexico, depending on when you when you finished your sentence, paid your debt to society, the disabilities are considerably less and the requirements are considerably less. It may be so you your your cause of action may be different based on your individual facts. And she she didn’t she didn’t pick what the particular facts were of those individuals that they were what they were so I don’t really know enough about it. But I think what what what we can learn about this, and that’s when you’re when you’re trying to strike down laws being unconstitutional. You never just think about the district court, you might think you’ve got the district judge in your pocket, and you may think they get it and they may very well get it right today. Get it. But you have to realize that the state is not going to stand idly by and say, Oh, well, if judge made sense, though, well, of course that makes it all right. They’re going to appeal. And you have to think about where this case is going to be. When is the appellate level review? What is going to go wrong? And I said at the time that this case was very weakly supported on evidence, there just wasn’t enough of it at the time of the punitive effects, and certainly not cruel, unusual. punishment. That is an almost impossible standard to meet when you talk about something being called unusual punishment. Let’s talk about the corner use of punishment. We put people in all sorts of of capital punishment situations, I think the electric chair might still be in use. And if it’s not, we, we’ve we’ve we’ve states who couldn’t buy the potion have resorted to alternate means of execution and alternate drug concoctions and the Supreme Court has said Oh, and over again, we’ve played Scalia saying that the death penalty is not cruel, nor is it unusual. It amused me that people if if they can put you to sleep permanently, using very painful and very I mean savage means if they can do that to you, and that is a cruel unusual, it’s hard for me to imagine that a cruel unusual signing would be upheld by an appellate review by simply having to report into a registration office periodically. That doesn’t seem nearly as cool as having an electrode put on your head and having thousands of volts of electricity put through your body and you dying

Andy 1:11:41
it sounds to me like more of your liberal standards changing decency mumbo jumbo stuff.

Larry 1:11:47
Well, but but the the it’s difficult to meet the cool and unusual punishment. That is what I saw that fighting at the top I said, Wow, we’ve had very few findings around the country that registries and inflict punishment, much less the next level of that punishment being cruel and unusual. And that made that decision very vulnerable to begin with, because it was a, it was a long reach to say it’s cruel and unusual, and particular with very thin evidence underneath where that was no experts, if you’re going to claim that the registry causes people not to be able to find housing, that nobody reads to them, where’s your evidence? This is not one of those things, where judicial notice can be taken what judicial notices when something is so accepted as to be a fact of life that you can ask the court to take judicial notice. And the court could do that into you don’t have to prove out a point. But we don’t have the proof that we can ask the judge to say, the judge asked for judicial notice that simply the person being on the registry, that all landworks denied them, and they accept other felons. You’re going to have to have evidence that other felons get through because if I’m the state, I’m going to argue, well, it’s the felony record this apartment complex, I look at their application and it says, Have you been convicted of a felony? just so happens that offense is a felony. So therefore, he got denied because he’s a felon now because he’s on the sex offender registry. Now you and I know that that’s not the case. We know that people get denied simply because on the registry and other fellows will get through, but you have to prove it.

Andy 1:13:21
There. Let me throw this at you, Charles and Chet, just slightly off topic. But related, he says that a up in New Jersey, there was a judge’s son who was killed a few weeks ago, by a vigilante now the judge is calling for judges addresses and personal information and not be available to the public online. It’s an identical situation, just obviously, like the judge isn’t a convicted felon of any sort and all that, but it’s the same thing just sort of inverted over so if we could make the logical step that, oh, my god, these public officials, maybe we should keep their information private, then Wouldn’t that go to say that pfrs information should add a minimum Be Leo only?

Larry 1:14:02
How would we be able to narshall has written about that, and we published it. But being that visual impairment, he wouldn’t have been able necessarily to read that, but we just released. Was it yesterday, the day before? We just wrote something about that. And we did a comparison about what the judge in sex offenders have in common. And so is there a way that that can be provided to to Charles where he can hear what we wrote?

Andy 1:14:29
I have no idea how to answer that one. I’ve

Larry 1:14:33
read anything that converts text to war to talk, because

Andy 1:14:37
that’s short. He’s got all kinds. He’s he’s got all kinds of applications that do that he even has a service where he can well, that guy, be my house. Maybe

Larry 1:14:45
I’ll provide the the article from the narshall website and he can convert it but Yes, there is. There is some there’s some argument there and there was a little disagreement. I wouldn’t call it a significant disagreement, but there was discussion even before we really At least that about adverse impact and consequences of people criticizes for saying that, but we did draw a comparison that that that here we have an innocent the judges sawn was killed, the husband was seriously wounded. And it’s easier to find a person on most state Sex Offender Registry that has a federal judge who you have to you have to go through a lot more work to find out where they live.

Andy 1:15:25
I bet you they go into it knowing that their information would be restricted to some degree.

Larry 1:15:30
Well, you do everything you can to not make it obvious where you live and they have security precautions at the courthouses for judges, but, but that was an innocent family that that suffered a serious criminal behavior. Yep, it was. And but we’ve had the same thing with people on the registry where family members had been been in the crossfire and South Carolina comes to mind and even others and if if we value human life Then, even though nobody cares about the person forced to register, what about the innocent people that are harmed by by these public registries? That was the point we tried to make in the blog is that if you care about people that are innocent being harmed, well, my goodness, what about the hundreds of thousands of people who have their address there are subject to all sorts of retaliation or family members and harassment and the victims the how they’re being victimized? That doesn’t seem to bother anybody.

Andy 1:16:27
Yeah. Kid at a school etc.

Larry 1:16:30
The family didn’t do anything wrong. I mean, if if you want to look at it intellectually honest that this is a very close comparison in my mind.

Andy 1:16:39
I agree. Anything else? I we’ve been doing this one for, I don’t know. 45 minutes?

Larry 1:16:45
Yeah, I think we’ve we’ve beat this dead horse and it’s time to start wrapping up anyway.

Andy 1:16:49
Yes, it is. We can move right over to that. We got two new patrons this week, Larry. I think that’s pretty much all thanks to you. So we got a Bradley and Brian and Brian came in at at a much more generous level and so thank you very much to both of you. mucho mucho mucho mucho.

Larry 1:17:05
And in fact, it gives me a chance to pontificate. Brian’s level is supporting someone who’s wants to, he wants us to provide a transcript to. And he said he didn’t have anybody that came to mind. But he said, If you receive an image or request, fill it, and we have, and we will, we’ve received a number of image of requests, like all the transcripts, I found them to be fabulous, but I can’t afford it. And those of you that are reading the transcripts in prison, we realize that, that 10 bucks a month is expensive. That’s why there’s the option of having a patron supporter on the outside that has greater access to funds or consider pooling your resources within the transcript would probably be good for more than one person. I don’t think it’s going to disintegrate after one reads it. So pull your resources and have four of you go in together or whatever number and and subscribe. We’re not going to know how many people were reading it, the more the better as far as we’re concerned. So so

Unknown Speaker 1:17:58
so that’s another way to do it. Absolutely, I would like everybody in every dorm in every institution to read about it.

Andy 1:18:06
Let’s, let’s play a voicemail message from one of our like forever. One of our original patrons, Larry, this is from Jeff. It will play eventually. Why can’t I hear like trying to find out? I got

Unknown Speaker 1:18:20
to start this over then.

Andy 1:18:22
Of course, of course I didn’t have it set right there. Why can’t you get like hire the right kind of help?

Unknown Speaker 1:18:29
Can’t find them.

Captain Crazy 1:18:31
Good evening. Why are you an AMD I hope you’re both doing very well. I don’t have a question tonight. actually had a comment. Oh, and by the way, this is a Jeff from Kentucky crazy on Twitter. But anyway, a girl posted a picture of a gas mug shot with a link to his sex crime on Facebook and said where he worked and urged people not to shop there because of him. I was afraid she may cussed me out and call me a pedophile sympathizer but reluctantly sent her a message on Facebook and explained to her that the guy may have kids that he’s trying to support. And he probably has bills he needs to pay. And if we take away everything in his life that is positive, he is more likely to reoffend. And by the end of the conversation, she was anti registry. We talked a lot, but that was the gist of it. But the point of this message is, guys, you can’t be afraid

Captain Crazy 1:19:44
to talk to people about this. I know it’s frightening.

Captain Crazy 1:19:48
But no one’s gonna do it for us. And yes, this girl that I talked to was not a lawmaker, but she was a member of the public and that’s whose opinion we have To change, and I guarantee you, she will talk to other people about what I said to her, and maybe more miles will change because I messaged her. But anyway, that’s all I wanted to tell you guys. And as always fyp Take care. Goodbye.

Andy 1:20:17
Thank you for that, Jeff. Really appreciate that was a I like that message a lot.

Larry 1:20:22
What a fabulous way to end the podcast. I mean, that is really indicative of what we’re trying to get people to do. As one on one education. And, and that’s just such a positive outcome to have someone completely turn around. And of course, have a conversation. I mean, fantastic, Jeff.

Andy 1:20:42
You know, like, I think you brought it up that someone said, um, what does fyp stand for? You want to do you want to go over that again?

Larry 1:20:52
friendly, young people?

Andy 1:20:54
Oh, no, that’s Will’s interpretation of it. So here’s the scenario, Larry. Um, I am a let’s see. I’m a local shoe salesman. All right, let’s see I’m a fuller brushes at the right, fuller brush salesman and I come, I come to your door and I go. Good afternoon, I would demand to know who lives in this house, and I met your front door, and I’ve stuck my foot in the door. I’m not gonna let you close it. And I say I demand to know who lives here. What is your response?

Larry 1:21:22
Well, it would not be very kind because I don’t think you have any right to know who lives in the house. And I would say something that starts with F and ends with a K.

Unknown Speaker 1:21:30
Frank,

Larry 1:21:34
I don’t think we should we would say already programmed, but I would say the whole thing is you have no right to know. And the pfrs have have have acquiesced and said yes, every time they ask that question, you have a right to know and the answer, rather than they have the right to know the answer is no, they don’t and fyp.

Andy 1:21:53
And there’s a podcast that I listen to that’s very funny, and it’s a science fiction one and they would use the word Chuck. So you could probably figure it out from there. Which which letter Do you want to use? I forgot which one you said we were going to use. We have a an email question, excuse me a mail question from someone in prison. This is a new new segment that we’re going to do.

Larry 1:22:14
Yeah, it’s it’s a, it’s the one from Rackspace. And we don’t have time for both. So we’ll just do the Rick’s big question. And you want me to read it, or do you want to read it?

Andy 1:22:24
I got it. So it says I’m an inmate at the Illinois DLC who currently has approximately 11 years left to do. I am a former resident of NM, New Mexico, a graduate of New Mexico State University and both my sons were born in New Mexico and they both still live there. Through throw the through Wait, though the years? I don’t understand what that says. I’m curious as to the situation for sex offenders there. First does the State of New Mexico except interstate compacts if I wanted to parole MSR there, what is MSR

Larry 1:22:55
and a sort of supervised release, release?

Andy 1:22:58
All right, secondly, are there Presence residency restrictions. Thirdly, I work in the wastewater treatment, could I still be certified in New Mexico with a felony or PFR offense? Finally, I see internet based selling as maybe the only way to make it with the way employers will be looking at me. Does New Mexico restrict internet use? I just want to live and work and be productive citizen again, do you think I can do well in Mexico thank you in advance for all whatever help you can provide sincere.

Larry 1:23:26
This segment is coming about through our outreach to prisons now, at Marshall, we got a ton of letters for the legal court, it started out slow and then through the years has built and we just select one a month or two per issue, generally speaking, and this is going to provide us an outlet to answer more questions because these I hate to throw away good questions. But if if I can answer something that would again apply to more than just the person and he’s got a lot of good questions buried in here. He says though, years away, Guess what he means there? I’m curious. So he’s planning it bounced. So he’s released his years away. And and so his first question, Does the State of New Mexico itself the interstate context? Yes, all states do. Absolutely. You can apply to come to this state. When you get within a zone of release, you can make that application in prison in Illinois. Our state will do everything they can to deny your interstate compact request. And it doesn’t matter if you’re able to weigh or whatever state you’re in, they’re going to find if they have to measure or invent something, in terms of, of finding a way to deny you. Now, the second the second question, are there presence restrictions? No, not imposed by registration. But while you under supervision, the corrections department does have residence and presence restrictions and they will be imposed on you. And that’s how they deny a lot of the people they will say that your your proposed residences whether the 997 feet and 1000 they’re looking for They’ll figure out a way to measure it because they’re they’re there. Their specificity is vague. They don’t say if it’s if it’s from, from structure or structure, or from property line to property lab, but they’ll they’ll come back after the 45 days to investigate. They’ll wait to the 44th date, and it will send back to Illinois and say that, that it doesn’t qualify and they deny that. So even though we don’t have any residents, residence restrictions imposed by the registry, supervising authorities will impose those restrictions, and they will do everything they can to keep you from coming here. And then, in terms of the last question, I do not know the answer to that. We don’t have any restrictions as far as the registry imposes on where you can work, you can work anywhere that will hire you. But the corrections department may decide that your job is inappropriate, they may not feel like they can supervise you adequately. You may have too much freedom. You may be doing door to door sales, you may be doing something that they say gee, that Job’s not appropriate. And then on the final one about internet based selling They’re gonna do everything they can, particularly if they can come up with a shred of evidence in your file to severely restrict your access to there. And again, it’s not the registry as the supervising authorities that will do that. And the if you want to be self employed, which, again, that generally would be a good thing, because if you’re paying taxes that’s efficient to society, but they will tell you to go out and find a regular job which you can’t find, which means you don’t work and they will, they will try to prevent you from having an internet based job. That’s just the way it is. That’s not the answer he’s looking for. But so whether he’d be a productive member citizen in this state, I would hope so. But I would be dubious based on what I know about how they treat people here.

Andy 1:26:42
And you are pretty well informed on how people are treated in that particular

Larry 1:26:46
state. I am indeed and and I would encourage them to to look at that as an option but be aware that it’s not going to be it we’ve talked about interstate compact before it’s not going to be it’s not gonna be a piece of cake to get here. And if you do Get here. Everything that that has MSR conditions are imposed by Illinois come with him, plus whatever our authorities imposed on him while they’re supervising him, as long as they’re reasonably similar to what they impose on people convicted of that type of offense here. So you don’t get laxity. You get what your state imposed, plus what the receiving state imposes, and it could be it could be horrendous when you combine those two.

Andy 1:27:28
I think that totally wraps up everything that we have time to do.

Unknown Speaker 1:27:34
Thank you.

Andy 1:27:35
All right. So here’s like the quick info registry. matters.co is the website voicemail. 747274477 email is registry matters. cast@gmail.com and we love all of our listeners, but we especially love the people that support us that make all this possible and fun. patreon.com slash registry matters. Find us on YouTube, Twitter, all that stuff. Search for us on your podcast app and you can search for registry matters everywhere. Larry, you are an amazing amount of knowledge. And I appreciate all the time that we spend doing this and I will see you on the other side for the Patreon extra.

Larry 1:28:13
Thanks a lot and Good night everyone and good day, whatever time you’re listening to it. Thanks for listening and supporting us. Bye